WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[rdean]

Push your twisted agenda on someone else. I'm not giving you the platform.

Couldn't name any "absolutes"? It's OK. It sounded good, but so does the wind.

Not worth anything else.

Awww, poor baby. Did I make baby kwy?

 

[cawacko]

Wow, your insight is so deep, so keen. Perhaps you could clarify a few points. So, the unions would benefit because they could also put in unlimited money. Considering unions only cover like 12 or 13% of all workers in the US, how much do they have to put in?

Then of course, they would be competing with, oh, say, Exton Mobile, or Royal Dutch Shell, or Toyota. Companies that have the best interest of Americans in mind. In fact, they love us so much, they will move jobs overseas so we don't have to work as hard.

I just don't understand. Republicans hate foreigners so much, and then to open our political process to foreigners? Not getting a good feeling about this. What do Republicans know that the rest of us are missing? After all, they were right on Iraq, Bin Laden, Health Care, Katrina, Afghanistan. Are they right about this too?

Out of curiousity (sp) how was one 'right' or 'wrong' on bin Laden or Katrina or Afghanistan?

Oh, that's an easy one. Letting Bin Laden go and then ignoring him was "right". Turning away from Afghanistan and putting our troops in Iraq was obviously the "right" thing to do. Ignoring Katrina victims, then putting survivors in toxic trailers, sitting on the complaints and then refusing to rebuild the city saved us lots of money, otherwise, what's the point. Whatever else you say about Republicans, they always have a "strategy".

oh, as I figured a bunch of partisan b.s. Lovely how both Republicans and Democrats can't do sh*t right but they sure are good at pointing their finger at each other.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Now..."DA BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSH!!!!!" Later.

 

[Big Fitz]

Rdean, you have some funny baby pictures. ROFL

 

[skookerasbil]

Please with this as an issue............and Olbermann almost had a nervous breakdown on TV the other night as he was going off the aire.........gave a 10 minute sermon which at the end of I said to myself, "Nobody cares s0n!!!". And as usual..........Skooks is bullseye spot on correct.................

On the court decision, the public has spoken = WIN !!!!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

 

[Vast LWC]

To explain my viewpoint a little more clearly, without reposting the same thing in several threads at once, I'd like to refer you all to this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102862-i-dont-think-corporations-are-inherently-evil.html

 

[Liability]

To explain my viewpoint a little more clearly, without reposting the same thing in several threads at once, I'd like to refer you all to this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/102862-i-dont-think-corporations-are-inherently-evil.html

Good. Because the claim of many libs that corporations are evil (often said in other ways, because subtext is such a useful tool for liberal propagandists) is a damn stupid thing to say.

I don't believe that liberals (by which I mean modern American liberals) are "evil," either. But many of their fundamental precepts are pretty damn ignorant. And the effect of implementing the modern American liberal agenda would qualify as the victory of stupidity over common sense and a triumph of bad over good.

 

[Gunny]

Here's some 'nuance' for you to chew on...

The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.

“We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.
More...

-------------------------------------------------

A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States." It was also reported that, "Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying." In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971."
More...
===========================

So another 'nuance' of this radical activist ruling is that foreigners now have a 'vote' in who represents We, the people...

AGAIN...WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

The Supreme Court supported the law. Don't like it? Change the law. Hint: Whining on a message board does not do anything to change the law.

 

[American Horse]

Here's some 'nuance' for you to chew on...
<SNIP - SNIP>
It was also reported that, "Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying." In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971."
More...

First you are implying that since foreign countries will own US corporations, that under this constitutional court decision, they will be able to influence our politicians. Is that really true? Can't they, specifically as foreigners or foreign owned entities, be denied that ability allowing contributions only from US owned corporations? Certain foreign corps got around that under Clinton.

And second, the bolded headline above is not accurate. US toll-roads are not being "sold off" they are being "leased" for limited periods of years. I know in one specific case inside the link, as a citizen of the state whose governor was mocked on left wing (so called) comedy shows, that our toll road is being LEASED and not sole for an up front sum of $3.8 billion. For that up-front sum we give up a toll road which year after year has cost more to operate than its earned revenues. The leasers will do all upgrading now and subsequent maintenance, and collect the tolls during their lease period. The 3.8 billion is going to build transportation system infrastructure through-out the state, which will benefit all citizens of the state.

All arguments aside which only obscure the reality that this decision only affirms the constitution, you can not take money out of the political process, unless 'The State' sponsors all political debates and denies citizens the right to &#8220;free speech.&#8221;

The best solution is to make sure that all donations to politicians are transparent by real time reporting on the internet. Then voters can take into account right up to an election what those contributions might mean.

We should make transparent the amounts, who from, but also the number of donors at any given moment so that citizens can judge the average size of contributions to the nominees.

That last item of information is not always easy to get. But when I have been able to find it and do the simple calculation of division its always clear that the R. contributions average in the low range, well under a hundred dollars, and the D's average in the high range well over a hundred dollars, sometimes 10 times larger. This has to be an indicator that large groups or wealthy donors give to Ds and ordinary people are more inclined to give to Rs. This would be useful information for voters.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And at 308 a month, the insuirance company makes at best 4% profit while employing thousands of Americans.

How do you know what their profit margin is? If they're paying a handful of executives multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, they are obviously making really great profits to have that much money left over after costs and payouts. That, and they're probably paying the rest of the peons that work for them 25K a year.

Can you afford to spend $308 a month for health insurance? I sure as hell can't.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Does your phone bill or cell phone bill, Cable Bill, Utility Bill, when studying, them tell you anything?

Yep, it makes me long for the days when our phone/power was not provided by a private company. Any time you're forced to use a private company vs. a public utility, you're going to be paying a buttload more. You should see my power bill (Con Edison) as opposed to my parents (still on TVA). It's shocking how much more I have to pay.

 

[Intense]

Does your phone bill or cell phone bill, Cable Bill, Utility Bill, when studying, them tell you anything?

Yep, it makes me long for the days when our phone/power was not provided by a private company. Any time you're forced to use a private company vs. a public utility, you're going to be paying a buttload more. You should see my power bill (Con Edison) as opposed to my parents (still on TVA). It's shocking how much more I have to pay.

So you have no clue as to Government's role in scheme, You are right where they want you... Oh My!!! The State strikes again!

 

[Intense]

Does your phone bill or cell phone bill, Cable Bill, Utility Bill, when studying, them tell you anything?

Yep, it makes me long for the days when our phone/power was not provided by a private company. Any time you're forced to use a private company vs. a public utility, you're going to be paying a buttload more. You should see my power bill (Con Edison) as opposed to my parents (still on TVA). It's shocking how much more I have to pay.

Since You play so well I ask You to define the logic behind the concept of the Unfunded Mandate. Pretty Please? Now check out that bill again.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What the hell does unfunded mandate have to do with public utilities vs. private utilities? Public utilities are not unfunded mandate, but are generally self-supporting.

 

[Intense]

What the hell does unfunded mandate have to do with public utilities vs. private utilities? Public utilities are not unfunded mandate, but are generally self-supporting.

They both share the fruit of unfunded mandates on their bills. They are in part called surcharges. Government decrees charged to the entity, and transferred to You and I. Stop thinking like a Statist and take a breath.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Sorry, but I don't listen to orders from anyone who quotes Ayn Rand. That's about a legitimate source as Ann Coulter or any other shrill right-wing pundit.

With or without surcharges, the private utilities charge far, far more for the same services than the public utilities. Please refute that or move along. And you're saying that private utilities don't pass the surcharge on to us? I have far more "surcharges" from Con Edison than my parents do from TVA. Con Edison is in business to suck out every dollar from the consumer that they can in order to make as big a profit as they can - not to deliver a necessary service. The TVA charges enough to operate and no more. Utilities should never be privatized, IMO.

ps. I worked in a municipal wastewater lab, so I know a little of which I speak.

 

[Intense]

Sorry, but I don't listen to orders from anyone who quotes Ayn Rand. That's about a legitimate source as Ann Coulter or any other shrill right-wing pundit.

With or without surcharges, the private utilities charge far, far more for the same services than the public utilities. Please refute that or move along. And you're saying that private utilities don't pass the surcharge on to us? I have far more "surcharges" from Con Edison than my parents do from TVA. Con Edison is in business to suck out every dollar from the consumer that they can in order to make as big a profit as they can - not to deliver a necessary service. The TVA charges enough to operate and no more. Utilities should never be privatized, IMO.

ps. I worked in a municipal wastewater lab, so I know a little of which I speak.

LOL!!! There is nothing so corrupted as the concept "Value for Value""! You nailed it!

What Orders are You Talking about Comrade Proletarian?

Stop thinking like a Statist and take a breath.

I apologize for implying that You should stop being told what to think, take a breath, and learn to think for Yourself, as an Individual. LOL I won't make that mistake again.

You are tripping over Yourself. I see how You would find "Atlas Shrugged" offensive.

ps. I worked in a municipal wastewater lab, so I know a little of which I speak.

That makes You an Expert Huh. LOL!

With or without surcharges, the private utilities charge far, far more for the same services than the public utilities. They are all price regulated by Government.

You are tripping over Yourself. I see how You would find "Atlas Shrugged" offensive.

Move On? Oh Really? Is that an Order?

 

[Intense]

God... I think my drinking water is killing me... must get.... filtered water.... from private source.... cannot .... trust... local Municipal.... water authority .... they are .... trying to... rub us... out....... Government workers.... sustain Themselves.... by eating our... living brains....