Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2010, 09:00 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,003,427 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

It is quite the coincidence that after recently making a thread to find out how Tea Party members felt about the SCOTUS ruling that I happened to stumble across this gem of an article.

I was curious because the Tea Partiers were fuming over the continued Wall Street bailouts under Big O while he left Main Street to fend for themselves.

Perfectly understandable grievance. Yet I have yet to hear a peep from the Tea Party members on the SCOTUS ruling that basically equates corporate political campaign ads to the 1st Amendment Right Of Free Speech. Thus freeing corporations to spend as much money as they deem fit to support (or attack) a candidate of their choosing.

If they thought government favored Wall Street before, now the SCOTUS ruling has allowed corporate money to quite literally OWN the government.
Yet, where is the outrage from the Tea Party? Why are they not out protesting and marching? Perhaps because it was the majority right wing of the SCOTUS that made the ruling? I find it so strange, how silent they seem to be on this issue and apparently I'm not the only one.

"Not much has been heard on this alarming topic so far from the "tea party patriots" or any of the other usual right-wing suspects, however. Their flag-flapping ire tends to be directed against Democrats and liberals only."

This is not the only glaring examples of hypocrisy.
Remember the Dubya years, the years where if "You were not with US, you were against us." They were the True Blue American Patriots led by the GOP and Fox News, while the unAmericans were anyone who disagreed with them. They were protecting our sovereignty from the dreaded foreign Axis Of Evil. They also protect us from the folly of socialism, the threat of communism, the fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. Those must never be allowed foothold on our soil. That was the line they gave us.

But wait, surely the right wing judges would always look to protect the sovereignty of our political system from foreign influence. We surely can not expect the bleeding heart liberals on the SCOTUS to care.

"Actually, the Republican attorneys and the justices themselves reviewed this issue, at least glancingly, during the course of argument in the landmark case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, who happen to have been appointed by Democrats, asked whether foreign corporate interests would be able to funnel money into American elections through their U.S. subsidiaries if the court struck down law and precedent to allow unlimited corporate political spending. The reply came from Theodore Olson, who first gained notoriety as the lawyer for the secretive anti-Clinton Arkansas Project and has lately distinguished himself as a libertarian advocate for gay marriage. "I would not rule that out," he admitted."

"Unsurprisingly, the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy simply failed to address the problem. Why draw attention to the bad news when you're overturning a century of precedent."

WTF, . Okay, calm down, take a breath. I mean c'mon, corporations are people too right. And these are American corporations, so it can't be all that bad right?

"Justice Samuel Alito noted during the September arguments that foreign-owned media corporations have the same First Amendment rights that American companies do."

Oookaay. Well you know, maybe its my leftie bias coming up. I mean c'mon, how did O raise all that money when he campaigned. I mean he HAD to have gotten paid by a lot of foreign dough too, right?

Wrong.

Well, okay its a little far fetched to think any high ranking politician would ever deliberately allow foreign money to influence politics, (oh please be) right?

"Haley Barbour, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, hatched a complicated loan scheme that laundered $2 million from a Hong Kong businessman through a GOP "think tank" and into his party’s congressional campaigns.
Barbour clearly knew that the money came from foreign sources and appeared to have lied to the committee about the matter. When the Senate hearings began, John Glenn, then a Democratic senator from Ohio, offered a pithy summary of Barbour’s behavior: "As far as I know, [this] is the only [case] where the head of a national political party knowingly and successfully solicited foreign money, infused it into the election process, and intentionally tried to cover it up." The Young scheme used a Florida subsidiary of his company -- which boasted Gerald Ford as a director! -- to conceal its foreign origin.
Today he is governor of Mississippi, where his penchant for influence peddling has served him well – and he is now a widely touted prospect for the Republican ticket in 2012.
"

Okay, no more rationalizations, no more weaving and dodging. Enough of the smokescreens, enough of the theatrics. Its reality check time.

Where is the Right Populist outrage? Where are the angry party members now? Where are the Patriots?

The right wing majority of the SCOTUS has just put America up for sale to the highest bidder. Are Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News blasting the SCOTUS ruling?

Well at least the threat of an attack on US soil has finally been neutralized.

Communist China, socialist Europe, oil rich Venezuelan & Sharia, fundamentalists Islamic regimes can now all legally buy their own piece of the American pie.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bin laden and the rest of Qaeda willingly turn themselves in. With his rich Saudi oil connections, he would not only be pardoned (after a substantial brib,..,er,.. contribution to Presidential candidates of course), I bet the court would reward HIM with the ransom money for turning himself in.

God Bless America, the best pasture totalitarians and dictators can buy.

 
Old 01-27-2010, 10:28 AM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,003,427 times
Reputation: 1916
Okay party goers, if this doesn't raise your ire, your anti-Wall Street/corporate claims will seriously be put into question. Click here.

At least there are many that are seriously starting to look at the issue of economic class in America (http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/100126_090001backbrief.MP3 - broken link).

There are those who work to actually create SOLUTIONS to societal problems rather than pretend they don't exist or exacerbate them.

There are media that are offering innovative solutions to address the societal crisis that threaten to turn this nation into a banana republic.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 12:38 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,003,427 times
Reputation: 1916
It appears even one of the judges who voted for the SCOTUS ruling last week acknowledges that unrestricted money and campaigns are not a good mix.

So why no peep out of the anti-Wall Street party going members, the impartiality of judges goes back to the very roots of our democracy.

"From our nation's beginning, the independence of judges has been a source of national concern. When the colonists separated from England, they listed King George's attempts to restrict the independence of judges as one of a long list of offenses enumerated in the Declaration of Independence." (http://www.centerjd.org/archives/news/2000/001114.php - broken link)

But just because corporations lend money to campaigns that does not necessarily mean they would receive any favors in return, does it?

"In Caperton, the court decided 5 to 4 that a West Virginia supreme court justice whose candidacy was aided by millions of dollars from a coal mining executive should have recused himself when the executive had a case before the court."

If the below is not sufficient grounds for some protests, I don't know what is.

"We actually talked to a lobbyist in Texas on record, on camera, willing to go on camera to talk about how--it's a lobbyist for the Texas Medical Association who boasted that he had succeeded in reshaping the philosophy of the Texas supreme court through an all-out political campaign and very large donations. They took [control of the court] from the trial lawyers who had been making contributions and had influenced the court to the other side of the, of the aisle. What does that say about the perception of independence?
Even at the local level some judicial candidates have to raise $250,000 to win and spend a great deal of time not only raising money but making television commercials, being coached by media advisors to walk into the room and look judicial."


Well, democracy does come at a price, as they say.
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,084 posts, read 12,011,052 times
Reputation: 4125
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was just a podium for one person to just post for their own self gratification.
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:36 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,003,427 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was just a podium for one person to just post for their own self gratification.
At last, a response!!

So let me ask you a slightly off topic question, if you don't mind.

Which kind of tea bagging do you prefer, group or auto?
 
Old 01-28-2010, 11:52 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,476,720 times
Reputation: 18300
You are mixing up the populist and repbulicans.That is what Obama is using to defect the problems he has. Popuklaist has no9thignt o do with the tea party movement either.That is a movement concentrated on Txes and rising deficits. That is whre they have been smart in limiting their focus.Its aimed directly at who passes and who authorizes spending.They suuport those that pledge to stop it ans defeat all who are doing it to include both parties.They are not going to get into any side shows that would spin.
 
Old 01-29-2010, 01:08 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,003,427 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
You are mixing up the populist and repbulicans.That is what Obama is using to defect the problems he has. Popuklaist has no9thignt o do with the tea party movement either.That is a movement concentrated on Txes and rising deficits. That is whre they have been smart in limiting their focus.Its aimed directly at who passes and who authorizes spending.They suuport those that pledge to stop it ans defeat all who are doing it to include both parties.They are not going to get into any side shows that would spin.
So there are not only Dems, Repubs,and Independents. There are also populists & Tea Partiers. And I assume the individual members of each faction ranges the full spectrum from liberal to conservative.

Man, this is so freakin' complicated. Somebody needs to write a thread, to at least, broadly define who's who and what it is they stand for?
 
Old 02-02-2010, 01:31 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,003,427 times
Reputation: 1916
The recent SCOTUS ruling would have many of our nation's great leaders fuming.

"By awarding to corporations the rights of citizens when it comes to electioneering, the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission goes against the intent and understanding of founders like Chief Justice John Marshall, who referred to the corporation as an "artificial being, invisible, intangible"; and Thomas Jefferson, who warned almost two centuries ago that America must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

The constraints on corporate campaign spending that the Court struck down were not put in place by liberal do-gooders or Democrats trying to gain election-season advantage. It was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, who was so worried about the power of the trusts that he called for public financing of elections and told Congress, "All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." Roosevelt did not get as much reform as he wanted or as was needed, but in 1907 he did sign the Tillman Act, which banned corporate donations to federal campaigns. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 5 judges have just made corruption legal.

"The truth is that the most important line in the decision was not the one overruling Austin. It was this one: "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." For many years, the Court had gradually expanded the corruption rationale to extend beyond quid pro quo corruption (donor dollars for legislative votes)."

"Ingratiation and access," in other words, were corruption as far as the Court was concerned. Justice Kennedy didn't say that the Court was overruling these cases. But that's just what it did."

"While Justice Kennedy backed off from saying anything definitive, we may find that it was the Court's discussion of corruption, not corporations, that matters most in the long run."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what's it going to be party goers?

"If you liked the bank bailouts, then there's plenty for you to love about the Citizens United decision. If you didn't, then it's time to speak up."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top