The Glade 4.0

See, proof by assertion works a lot better if you post it as a picture.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Shareholders typically have a lot more money than union members, so it's more acceptable to hate them.

They do? Lots of regular people own stock. My father and grandfather both own/owned stock and I don't think either of them ever made over 60,000 in a year of their lives.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Your money isn't their speech. Money that you give to them, is now their money, and can be their speech. Don't like what they say? Find somebody else to give your money to.

As for money not being speech? Fine, let's ban all campaign contributions. Period. Not $5 from an individual, not 5million from a corporation. Make the **** politicians talk to their electorate and debate each other if they want attention.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Union members are shareholders via their pension.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

He has yet to respond to anyone asking about unions or people pointing this out. Not surprising. Libs love double standards and our boy Monty is the king of them.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

There are several problems with this statement:

1. Per the metric you have often provided, the decisions of the Supreme Court are the final arbitration on Constitutionality. As such, since the Supreme Court decided this way, it must be Constitutional. At least, that's the case if you wish to remain consistent with your stated beliefs and opinions.

2. You continue to presume uninformed populism is actually a "democratic process". It is nothing more than mob-rule by a bunch of easily swayed idiots with no vested nor cognitively materialized interest in the stability of their locality, their state, or their nation.

3. Just because I'm better at making money than you does not mean I am either powerful or greedy. It simply means I possess a skill set you do not. Your hasty generalization about those in power ignores the fact that Barack Obama owns one of the 20 most expensive homes in Chicago. It ignores the fact that Al Gore stands to make trillions off cap and trade brokering. It ignores the fact that politicians at the U.S. Federal Level invariably retire multimillionaires. Consequently, if it puts power in the hands of the "most wealthy, most powerful, and most greedy" among us, one can only conclude that this decision will indefinitely perpetuate the power structure of the status quo and engender more power for the U.S. government.

4. I have listed my requirements to vote in the past: own land (or some other tangible property such as a condominium), serve 6 years in the U.S. Military (or paid government service such as the USPS), or own a business, AND pay taxes. If your net tax is negative, you don't get to vote.

5. Barack Obama made the United States a "fascist" state, Montegue. He nationalized General Motors; he oversaw the dismantling and liquidation of Chrysler. He is currently threatening fines, fees, and taxes on companies that paid back money borrowed from the U.S. government. You see, since you want to go around comparing me to Mussolin, I will point out the simple hard fact that YOUR candidate, whom you defend so earnestly at every corner, used the FORCE of his office and federal law to appropriate business entities into the government net.

6. You assume I think this decision is "good" for all these reasons have nothing to do with the reality of my position. In truth, I think this decision is "good" because it solidifies my rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment, just as it solidifies yours. If you think I have "too much" money to have a voice, well there are approximately 200 million people in this country who have less than I do. I'm sure you can round up enough to form your own lobbying group to offset whatever I choose to spend. And if you can't, then it's because you didn't want to do the work in the first place.

_________________

In some ways it's actually rather funny. I was a member of the Teamsters, and the money they spent on candidates was in general a waste as far as I was concerned, with this exception: Whoever they endorsed, I usually voted for their opponent. The thought that democracy is dead because of this ruling shows that liberals consider the electorate too stupid to make up their own minds.

Heh. This statement:



And this picture, in the same post made me chuckle.

You know, if the Fed would start accepting corporate sponsorships, maybe we could claw our way out of debt...

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The Microsoft National Guard?
Coca Cola Strategic Command Center?
Nike Air Force Base?
Staple's National Park?
Ford Focus National Cathedral?
Wal-Welfare
WB Space Center?
McFood Stamps?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Well, there was a Nike Surface to air missile already! See? Corporations are taking over our government!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It was a corporate mission far in the future, not a government mission.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

.. all of a sudden I can only think of President Camacho

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

http://townhall.com/news/business/2010/ ... rm_is_dead

Boohoo. That little piece of legislation cost you my vote and probably the vote of others in '08, Sen. McCain. Maybe you shoulda thought about it before you supported it.

I'm down with that.

You do realize that will actually allow non-establishment candidates, right?

_________________

There will always be exceptions to the rule. That does not invalidate the rule.

My understanding is that there is a lot of evidence that supports the claims that the more money a campaign has, the more likely it is to win.

I think what you mean is that the more money a campaign has relative to its opponent the more likely it is to win. Having 50 million to spend isn't an advatage if your opponent also has 50 million.

There's also A) a point of diminishing returns B) the fact that money is hardly the only factor that affects victory and C) as it relates to this case, there's liable to be more money on both sides of any election more or less evening things out across elections in general.

There seems to be an unspoken presumption that corporations in general will throw more money behind Republican candidates, and hence part of the liberal opposition, but it seems to be forgotten that Unions are generally more likely to back Democrats and thereby cancel corporate spending out, and in both cases this is a generalization, not an absolute rule.

One might argue that spending on campaigns in general isn't so hot for the economy since they produce no goods, but that doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Most corporations actually throw exactly the same amount of money to both sides to cover their bases.

Then no matter who is in office they make sure rules protect already existing companies and make it harder to enter as a competitor. Both sides bows its head and does it and then makes up reasons why doing so fit their ideology.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Necro Revival - apparently we the people are having a hard time understand this decision

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

18 mins ago

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.

However, Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

Perhaps the new poll numbers show that McCain might have been onto something.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

How many hours of continuous Republican propaganda being broadcast on TV, newspapers or the Internet do you think it would take to persuade Monty to vote against gay marriage? How about cutting taxes and benefits? How about authorizing war with Iran? Voting for Sarah Palin?

Yeah, I don't think so. There's not enough hours in a lifetime for that to happen. There's not enough hours in all the lifetimes of all of us on earth for that to happen.

Why does this bother anyone? It's SO a non-issue!

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I find it amusing that McCain is talking about a backlash against the decision when people find out how much unions are "going to [spend]" -- when his bill did nothing to prevent union contributions in the first place.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

This wouldn't be an issue if the electorate took the time to research the candidates and their positions. If you are relying on TV commercials and campaign fliers as your primary source of information for elections then you can't really blame the politicians or the system.

_________________

My understanding was that it affected both corporations and unions. Did I miss read something?