Thanks. Been out swimming all day and not paying attention to politics. Had to clear some space for the debates in my head.Matt said:9 eastern.
Thanks. Been out swimming all day and not paying attention to politics. Had to clear some space for the debates in my head.Matt said:9 eastern.
ToxicAdam said:
XMonkey said:
No it's not. This decision has been "upheld" through political corruption of writing the headnote where a railroad baron connected to the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad court case wrote it implying that the 14th amendment applied to corporations. Every court case since has hinged on this spin on what actually happened, which was that the California taxes were in conflict with Federal taxes. Nothing to do at all with corporate personhood.Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:The courts have upheld this for many years.
But how did you know that Scalia is a hero of mine?
It's just another piece of evidence to support the argument that the Citizens United ruling is an exercise in judicial activism.demon said:Yeah I'm not sure how that works, as I'm not exactly what you'd call a legal expert. Does that original ruling act as precedence in any case involving corporate personhood?
polyh3dron said:It's just another piece of evidence to support the argument that the Citizens United ruling is an exercise in judicial activism.
EDIT: wait wait wait a GOP primary debate tonight? who's participating?
popcorn.gif
5% sounds like a very bad idea, no?EricM85 said:Yep, that's part of it. I actually think I remember discussing that article here back in March.
I'm curious if they did this because they had too much time on their hands, or if they legitimately think Romney's the biggest threat they face.Matt said:
AlteredBeast said:EVERYONE
Watch the full version for context.AlteredBeast said:Did he mean the BS Supreme Court version of "Corporations are People" or the sense that everyone who works for, owns, and has stake in the business are the corporation. I would like to believe the latter and he didn't explain himself, due to the outburst of the dude in the audience (why did that guy scream at that part, btw, dont understand it).
He seemed to handle it well, in my opinion.
If meant the other way, than that is pretty sad.
People IN the corporations sure as hell have that right since they're citizens. Corporations, since they're not actually people, don't get to say anything. They do not have their own will and thus cannot be a "person". It does not think, therefore it is not.Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:You don't think corporations have the right to free speech? Nothing more anti-American than that.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:Watch the full version for context.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ8w4ZBXUbo&sns=em
PhoenixDark said:This is why I was confused why anyone thought this was a gaffe. Romney is correct, and law has ruled on his side here. A corporation has first amendment rights and is a person legally. We can make snide comments are repeat the WH talking points about him being "weird" or we can face reality.
The crowd wasn't pleased, but if he's the nominee they'll vote for him anyway.
Towards the beginning of the original Terminator film, Kyle Reese, who has come back to the past to save Sarah Connor - whose spawn will save mankind - lets her know what she's facing in her new cybernetic stalker. "Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
Substitute "Tea Party" for "Terminator" and "U.S. Government" for "you," and with the exception of "fear" (which I'd argue is what drives them), this pretty much sums up the story of the 60-odd birdbrain Birchers who have rebranded themselves Tea Partiers and brought more crazy than Kanye West to the House of Representatives.
The recent war over the federal budget and debt ceiling were simply the latest in a long line of skirmishes where Democrats - the self-described practitioners of "good faith" and seekers of compromise - found themselves in a pitched policy battle with recalcitrant Republicans. Right wingers so high on radical, Randian, Tea-Party-brewed, Kool Aid, that anything short of dismantling the Federal Government and requiring universal tattooing of Milton Friedman where-the-sun-don't-shine was treason.
ToxicAdam said:You're trying to talk sense to a Poligaf in campaign mode. I'm sure someone will post Gallup poll results from consecutive weeks to prove that Romney's gaffe cost him 2 points approval.
:lol :lol :lolToxicAdam said:
Yeah, that 'gaffe' wasn't really a big deal.ToxicAdam said:You're trying to talk sense to a Poligaf in campaign mode. I'm sure someone will post Gallup poll results from consecutive weeks to prove that Romney's gaffe cost him 2 points approval.
XMonkey said:5% sounds like a very bad idea, no?
A Human Becoming said:Even Thaddeus McCotter?
http://live.foxnews.com/EskimoJoe said:Where can I stream the debate online? Anyone know?
http://live.foxnews.com/EskimoJoe said:Where can I stream the debate online? Anyone know?
speculawyer said:
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
If he touts that he will not win the Republican Nomination and that is his problem...AlteredBeast said:Still think Romney is a lock if he plays his cards right. IMO, to everyone other than far-right idiots, his universal healthcare in MASS was a success and he should be touting that, plus his ability to fix the massive budget shortfalls of Massachusetts without the boom of the 90's. If it is budget and deficits that the country will still be buzzing about, he should make note of that.
speculawyer said:And she starts out with the crazy . . . "Let's not pay our bills."
(Raising the debt ceiling is merely done to pay for the spending that Congress itself . . . her . . . already authorized.)
PhoenixDark said:Say what you will about Ron Paul, but the man is honest.