[Hoot Gibson]

I favor unions but they are over stepping their bounds when they are getting into political campaigns.

If Corporations are going to be banned from getting involved politically, so should unions, imo both parties should be banned from politics. both parties do have legal rights, but they dont have the individual constitutional rights of political freedom.

It is not a corporation/business/unions place to be involved in politics. It is the right of the individuals of those entities, but not of those groupings.

A corporation is a free association of people for the purpose of conducting business. Americans have a constitutional right to the freedom of association, so why should the federal government be able to restrict the free speech of unions and corporations, provided their members consent through their membership to those associations?

[thecavemaster]

A corporation is a free association of people for the purpose of conducting business. Americans have a constitutional right to the freedom of association, so why should the federal government be able to restrict the free speech of unions and corporations, provided their members consent through their membership to those associations?

I do not now nor will I ever agree with the equation of a corporation with an individual human being. One guy saying, "Hey, cigarettes aren't addicting" is one thing; the ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to MISLEAD the public is another. IF you can't parse that, the swath of Homerism that controls your brain is worse than I thought.

[Hoot Gibson]

I do not now nor will I ever agree with the equation of a corporation with an individual human being. One guy saying, "Hey, cigarettes aren't addicting" is one thing; the ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to MISLEAD the public is another. IF you can't parse that, the swath of Homerism that controls your brain is worse than I thought.

Where did I say that a corporation is equivalent to a single human being? If you want to respond to my posts, so so, but stop deliberately mischaracterizing them. If you cannot engage in honest debate, then do not engage at all.

Thanks.

[Truth]

I do not now nor will I ever agree with the equation of a corporation with an individual human being. One guy saying, "Hey, cigarettes aren't addicting" is one thing; the ability to spend millions upon millions of dollars to MISLEAD the public is another. IF you can't parse that, the swath of Homerism that controls your brain is worse than I thought.

Although I wouldn't expect you to understand the concept, under the law both humans and corporations are legal beings. In these matters, the "human" status is of no consequence. Both have rights and responsibilities as legal beings.

By the way, your cigarette example is silly as are your continual personal attacks on other posters. You are without any intellectual credibility. And, sadly, you vote.

[thecavemaster]

Although I wouldn't expect you to understand the concept, under the law both humans and corporations are legal beings. In these matters, the "human" status is of no consequence. Both have rights and responsibilities as legal beings.

By the way, your cigarette example is silly as are your continual personal attacks on other posters. You are without any intellectual credibility. And, sadly, you vote.

"Under the law both people and corporations are legal beings." You would disagree that the potential harm a corporation might do might, and most often does, multiplicatively exceed that of any individual "being"? Thus, granting equal status to these "beings" under the law is presumptively unwise? I don't think the history of corporate travesties quite renders this line of reasoning as silly as you portray. As for "other posters," do you mean Kimball? Why, we're old friends lobbing bombs back and forth... no harm done, no hurt feelings.

[thecavemaster]

For any who care to think about it, Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) begain to set the dangerous precedent of corporate entitities being granted the status of legal beings.

[Hoot Gibson]

For any who care to think about it, Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) begain to set the dangerous precedent of corporate entitities being granted the status of legal beings.

The court did not even hear arguments about whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad because the justices unanimously agreed that it did. That "dangerous precedent" has worked pretty well in this country for more than a century. Individuals should not lose constitutional rights because they freely choose to associate with other individuals.

In the case of corporations, if they choose to spend money supporting or opposing the election of a particular candidate or party, their shareholders have the right to opt out by selling their shares in the company. Most union members have no such rights. Union bosses may spend their members' dues to participate in the political process and the members have no right to withdraw from the union without forfeiting their jobs.

Personally, I am looking forward to having full transparency for political donations with everybody free to contribute to the candidates of their choice. We still have no idea where more than $200 million of small contributions to Obama's campaign originated and we never will.

[Truth]

The court did not even hear arguments about whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad because the justices unanimously agreed that it did. That "dangerous precedent" has worked pretty well in this country for more than a century. Individuals should not lose constitutional rights because they freely choose to associate with other individuals.

In the case of corporations, if they choose to spend money supporting or opposing the election of a particular candidate or party, their shareholders have the right to opt out by selling their shares in the company. Most union members have no such rights. Union bosses may spend their members' dues to participate in the political process and the members have no right to withdraw from the union without forfeiting their jobs.

Personally, I am looking forward to having full transparency for political donations with everybody free to contribute to the candidates of their choice. We still have no idea where more than $200 million of small contributions to Obama's campaign originated and we never will.

I agree with Hoot Gibson. And, it is great to see the references to historic SC decisions such as Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad. Such references can only heighten understanding of posters. Maybe sometime someone will explore Roe v Wade and point out that the popular belief that it, in and of itself, "legalized" abortion in this country is a bit of a misinterpretation of the decision. Actually, abortion was legal and operated as a thriving business in some states pre-Roe. But, then, that is for another thread.

[Beetle01]

A corporation is a free association of people for the purpose of conducting business. Americans have a constitutional right to the freedom of association, so why should the federal government be able to restrict the free speech of unions and corporations, provided their members consent through their membership to those associations?

Americans do have that right, as individuals. The corporation has a right to free speech. donating to a political campaign is not an exercise of free speech.

Half of what is wrong with America today is the fact that corporations and unions have had free reign to put tons of money into DC and affect the policy of our govt even though they represent a minute portion of our govt. Im a conservative and a republican(but I hate the current group of republicans in office), but if you can't realize we need to keep big business, unions, and lobbysists out of DC, then I have little hope for you.

[Hoot Gibson]

Americans do have that right, as individuals. The corporation has a right to free speech. donating to a political campaign is not an exercise of free speech.

Half of what is wrong with America today is the fact that corporations and unions have had free reign to put tons of money into DC and affect the policy of our govt even though they represent a minute portion of our govt. Im a conservative and a republican(but I hate the current group of republicans in office), but if you can't realize we need to keep big business, unions, and lobbysists out of DC, then I have little hope for you.

No need to give up hope on me Beetle so quickly, Beetle. I am a conservative but I no longer consider myself a Republican - although I almost always vote for Republicans, often as the lesser of two evils. Let me challenge you to follow my logic and then tell me where I am wrong.

1. Make a list of the five people you consider the greatest presidents in history.

2. Now put a checkmark beside the name of each of those presidents who were nominated through primary elections.

3. Now put a star beside each the name of each of these great presidents who was elected after the McCain-Feingold bill was signed into law.

Now ask yourself did this country elect better or worse presidents before or after so-called campaign finance laws were enacted and before or after parties stopped selecting their nominees in smoke filled rooms away from public view?

If your list is anything like mine, you may have one name on your list who was elected either through the primary process or after McCain-Feingold.

In other words, we did better before McCain-Feingold and we did better when the parties simply chose who they believed was most electable.

Can this country do worse than the system that produced Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as presidents? (I am tempted to include W in that list for signing TARP but he did wage an effective war on terror for seven years.)

Ronald Reagan is the only name on my list of five that beat the odds and became a great president in spite of campaign finance laws and primary elections.

[thecavemaster]

To suggest that corporations did not spend countless millions in countless lawyers to ensure that the 14th Amendment "covered" them... how absurd. Research how Enron used it to keep the Feds at bay long enough to wash the books clean. The Flirt Party contintues to label as uninformed anything that happens to disagree with their rigid worldview. Also, Hoot Gibson's view of who is and who isn't a good president somewhat, if not totally, renders his playful musings fanciful. "I'm not a Republican, but I never vote for Democrats." What?

[thecavemaster]

The court did not even hear arguments about whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad because the justices unanimously agreed that it did. That "dangerous precedent" has worked pretty well in this country for more than a century. Individuals should not lose constitutional rights because they freely choose to associate with other individuals.

In the case of corporations, if they choose to spend money supporting or opposing the election of a particular candidate or party, their shareholders have the right to opt out by selling their shares in the company. Most union members have no such rights. Union bosses may spend their members' dues to participate in the political process and the members have no right to withdraw from the union without forfeiting their jobs.

Personally, I am looking forward to having full transparency for political donations with everybody free to contribute to the candidates of their choice. We still have no idea where more than $200 million of small contributions to Obama's campaign originated and we never will.

A Court Reporter's overreach notwithstanding, precedent is precedent... and this is a dangerous one and has proven so.

[Hoot Gibson]

A Court Reporter's overreach notwithstanding, precedent is precedent... and this is a dangerous one and has proven so.

The decision was made less than a week ago, so how has this precedent been proven dangerous? Specifics please.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is the Cato Institute's take on why campaign finance laws should be scrapped. (Cato is a libertarian think tank that champions free speech and other constitutional rights - not to be confused with liberal think tanks that support restrictions on those rights.)

[YOUTUBE="Cato Discussion on the Evils of Campaign Finance Laws"]<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PeGlzEavpTM&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PeGlzEavpTM&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>"]<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PeGlzEavpTM&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PeGlzEavpTM&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[thecavemaster]

The decision was made less than a week ago, so how has this precedent been proven dangerous? Specifics please.

Yes, yes, Hoot, let us always assume that Phillip Morris et al. has the very best interest of us all at heart. The fact that the 14th Amendment was ever extended to cover corporate entitities is that of which I speak, which I figure you plainly know. Keep building houses of straw and saying it's your opponents argument, then knock it down. You'll fool a lot of people. But we'll know, won't we, Hoot?

[Mr.Kimball]

Yes, yes, Hoot, let us always assume that Phillip Morris et al. has the very best interest of us all at heart. The fact that the 14th Amendment was ever extended to cover corporate entitities is that of which I speak, which I figure you plainly know. Keep building houses of straw and saying it's your opponents argument, then knock it down. You'll fool a lot of people. But we'll know, won't we, Hoot?

Wow, and this coming from someone that was just proven to have posted false information in the other thread. :yikes:

[thecavemaster]

Wow, and this coming from someone that was just proven to have posted false information in the other thread. :yikes:

Ah, dearest Kemba, birthday party over? Uh, (1) Eileen Sullivan, Associated Press... (2) Even if it was false, it was my argument, not the distortion of someone elses. Please look up the straw man fallacy and follow along more closely.

[Hoot Gibson]

Ah, dearest Kemba, birthday party over? Uh, (1) Eileen Sullivan, Associated Press... (2) Even if it was false, it was my argument, not the distortion of someone elses. Please look up the straw man fallacy and follow along more closely.

No if about it, your statement was false and it took a long time for you to come up with a legitimate sounding source. Hopefully, now that you know the truth, you will not continue spreading Ms. Sullivan's propaganda.

[thecavemaster]

No if about it, your statement was false and it took a long time for you to come up with a legitimate sounding source. Hopefully, now that you know the truth, you will not continue spreading Ms. Sullivan's propaganda.

Your assumption does just what that does. Careful here: you are saying that Barack Obama has received, since his Inauguration, in the first weeks and months following his Inauguaration, no more death threats than his predecessor? Think about your answer.

[Hoot Gibson]

Your assumption does just what that does. Careful here: you are saying that Barack Obama has received, since his Inauguration, in the first weeks and months following his Inauguaration, no more death threats than his predecessor? Think about your answer.

Your statement said that he has received death threats at a rate of 400% the rate that Bush received them. That statement was false according to Obama's Director of the US Secret Service and his testimony was recorded nearly two months ago - long enough for a smart fella like you to have found the truth had he done a little bit of homework. Of course, it is easier to just toss that race card out there if a person simply does not look to hard for the truth.

[thecavemaster]

Your statement said that he has received death threats at a rate of 400% the rate that Bush received them. That statement was false according to Obama's Director of the US Secret Service and his testimony was recorded nearly two months ago - long enough for a smart fella like you to have found the truth had he done a little bit of homework. Of course, it is easier to just toss that race card out there if a person simply does not look to hard for the truth.

No, Kessler's book suggested that. Also, what with being taken over by Homeland Security and other changes on the horizon, Washington turf battles being the legendary stuff of nasty rises and falls, when off the record becomes on the record and "who the blank said that"... I'm sure, Hoot, a man of your political savvy and years of blog writing, well, you know that.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, Kessler's book suggested that. Also, what with being taken over by Homeland Security and other changes on the horizon, Washington turf battles being the legendary stuff of nasty rises and falls, when off the record becomes on the record and "who the blank said that"... I'm sure, Hoot, a man of your political savvy and years of blog writing, well, you know that.

You cited the Kessler book and repeated the false 400% figure. Man up and admit it. You also cited an AP writer after the fact but failed to provide a link. (You do know how to link an article, don't you?) The articles that I found dealt with Obama as president elect and contained nothing but anecdotal accounts of the alleged death threats against Obama. They contained nothing from any current Secret Service sources. Eileen wrote multiple articles about Obama death threats. Maybe I overlooked one that contained something relevant to the false information that you provided.

Would it not be easier to simply admit that your information was bad and move on to the next skirmish instead of attempting to obfuscate your error by throwing irrelevant information into the mix? You are looking pretty desperate from my vantage point.

[thecavemaster]

You cited the Kessler book and repeated the false 400% figure. Man up and admit it. You also cited an AP writer after the fact but failed to provide a link. (You do know how to link an article, don't you?) The articles that I found dealt with Obama as president elect and contained nothing but anecdotal accounts of the alleged death threats against Obama. They contained nothing from any current Secret Service sources. Eileen wrote multiple articles about Obama death threats. Maybe I overlooked one that contained something relevant to the false information that you provided.

Would it not be easier to simply admit that your information was bad and move on to the next skirmish instead of attempting to obfuscate your error by throwing irrelevant information into the mix? You are looking pretty desperate from my vantage point.

Let me repeat: Mr. Kessler reported in his book the 400% number, which was later "frauded" in a such a way as to think about this phrase "close ranks and find the leak." Now, as to the 400% snag we've hit, dear Hoot. Let us say that, as you OPINE, that is a number based on some bogus information given Kessler: does that disprove that threats went up in the days, weeks, first few months of Obama's Presidency? And, mind you, I'm not, without further research, just going to simply bow down to the Rupert Murdoch News Company.

[Mr.Kimball]

Let me repeat: Mr. Kessler reported in his book the 400% number, which was later "frauded" in a such a way as to think about this phrase "close ranks and find the leak." Now, as to the 400% snag we've hit, dear Hoot. Let us say that, as you OPINE, that is a number based on some bogus information given Kessler: does that disprove that threats went up in the days, weeks, first few months of Obama's Presidency? And, mind you, I'm not, without further research, just going to simply bow down to the Rupert Murdoch News Company.

Then give something to prove that it did go up. Right now all you have is an opinion of high hopes that it did, and nothing more. You seem to be elated that that in fact, is the case. Why is that?

That's not the source that Hoot provided. Your trying to dodge the issue. He provided a statement from the Director of the Secret Service.

[thecavemaster]

Then give something to prove that it did go up. Right now all you have is an opinion of high hopes that it did, and nothing more. You seem to be elated that that in fact, is the case. Why is that?

That's not the source that Hoot provided. Your trying to dodge the issue. He provided a statement from the Director of the Secret Service.

To which I suggest, and a man of your political savvy knows this, "close ranks"... what with Homeland Security and the like snooping around and possible realignments... an oft repeated Washington tale. Eileen Sullivan is an AP journalist. As to posting this and that on this site and linking this and that: it was my thought that, given past abuses, we members were to be very careful, very selective in doing that.

[Hoot Gibson]

Let me repeat: Mr. Kessler reported in his book the 400% number, which was later "frauded" in a such a way as to think about this phrase "close ranks and find the leak." Now, as to the 400% snag we've hit, dear Hoot. Let us say that, as you OPINE, that is a number based on some bogus information given Kessler: does that disprove that threats went up in the days, weeks, first few months of Obama's Presidency? And, mind you, I'm not, without further research, just going to simply bow down to the Rupert Murdoch News Company.

There you go again. You are either not reading the information that I posted or you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. Politico is not owned by Rupert Murdock. Even if it was, the video link obviously originated from C-SPAN. If you are waiting for a link to the Daily Kook or the Huffington Post, then I can't help you.

[thecavemaster]

There you go again. You are either not reading the information that I posted or you are deliberately mischaracterizing it. Politico is not owned by Rupert Murdock. Even if it was, the video link obviously originated from C-SPAN. If you are waiting for a link to the Daily Kook or the Huffington Post, then I can't help you.

Again, the 400% is Kessler's reporting, not mine. "There you go again." "Hoot, I knew Ronald Reagan, and, Mr. Blog Poster, you're no Ronald Reagan." THIS IS A JOKE. I believe that reliable sources suggest that death threats rose in the first days, weeks, and months of Obama's Presidency. You do not. Is that correct?

[Hoot Gibson]

Again, the 400% is Kessler's reporting, not mine. "There you go again." "Hoot, I knew Ronald Reagan, and, Mr. Blog Poster, you're no Ronald Reagan." THIS IS A JOKE. I believe that reliable sources suggest that death threats rose in the first days, weeks, and months of Obama's Presidency. You do not. Is that correct?

You have not produced a single link to any reliable source for your "belief." All we have at this point is your word that such credible sources exist. If there are none, then just say so.

[Mr.Kimball]

To which I suggest, and a man of your political savvy knows this, "close ranks"... what with Homeland Security and the like snooping around and possible realignments... an oft repeated Washington tale. Eileen Sullivan is an AP journalist. As to posting this and that on this site and linking this and that: it was my thought that, given past abuses, we members were to be very careful, very selective in doing that.

lol. You are just plain and simply not going to answer the questions, are you?

Nobody is right on everything all the time, but even you, I thought could be man enough to admit you could possibly err.

Not that I ever had extremely high thoughts of your integrity, I just thought that even a lesser man could be willing to admit his imperfections. Even so, I did have thoughts of you not being in the lesser category.

Your credibility just went down the drain batman.

[thecavemaster]

lol. You are just plain and simply not going to answer the questions, are you?

Nobody is right on everything all the time, but even you, I thought could be man enough to admit you could possibly err.

Not that I ever had extremely high thoughts of your integrity, I just thought that even a lesser man could be willing to admit his imperfections. Even so, I did have thoughts of you not being in the lesser category.

Your credibility just went down the drain batman.

Dearest Kemba, because I care: please take off red nose and large, floppy shoes before putting on Black Robe of Credibility Gown. Again, I didn't come up with the 400%, nor report it as fact... Kessler did... I cited Kessler, and will research further into whether or not the whole Secret Service "leak" means "x" or "y." However, as I am digging, I am finding, of course, that I am not alone by a long shot in the understanding that Obama received more death threats in the first days, weeks, and months of his Presidency. Again, I am not arguing that some certain percent or number of opposition to Obama is based on race, but rather that, political differences aside, race is not irrelevant to the whole "I hate Obama; Obama is Mao" phenomenon. You dispute that?