Top Senate Dem: Koch brothers are un-American.....

[Rainman05]

Control speech, control who can say it, and what they say - that's what you mean! Screw the first amendment if its not used to say what I want to hear.

Money isn't speech. Look below.

The free flow of money in politics is our only defense against state-rationed political speech.eace

So wrong. People shouldn't be able to speak louder or more because they have more money when running for public office. Everyone should be able to speak evenly and equally.

 

[CalGun]

You know who agrees with you - the Mulluhs in Iran.

Money isn't speech. Look below.



So wrong. People shouldn't be able to speak louder or more because they have more money when running for public office. Everyone should be able to speak evenly and equally.

 

[Rainman05]

You know who agrees with you - the Mulluhs in Iran.

Ok. Enjoy your cleptocracy where voting doesn't matter and money buys you the government.

 

[MMC]

The free flow of money in politics is our only defense against state-rationed political speech.eace

That's Right Jack.....as I am hearing it. :2wave: Then the Constitution would have to be changed.



Judge Michael McConnell On Hobby Lobby And The Free Exercise Rights Of Corporations.....


HH: Now much of the reaction, do you think, is because of Citizens United, about which there has been considerable propaganda and debate as to how awful it is that corporations have 1st Amendment rights in the area of speech? Do you think that is the precipitating event here? Or is it just offending Obamacare that makes people so vigorous on the other side?

MM: Actually, I think Citizens United has a great deal to do with it. Even though you would think that anyone would see that for profit corporations like the New York Times Corporation have always exercised freedom of speech and press, it just, it seems just ludicrous to say that because you’re a for profit corporation, you can be silenced or censored. It’s particularly ludicrous that the New York Times Corporation itself purports in its editorial page to think that corporations like itself do not exercise free speech rights. But as you say, there was a great deal of agitation in the wake of that, and I think that that has generated a lot of this controversy. Let me give you a concrete example of that.

HH: Judge McConnell, going back to where we were before the break, we were talking about the impact of the fallout from Citizens United, the controversial case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the free speech rights of corporations, for profit corporations. And you were about to expand on why that impacts this conversation so much about Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods.

MM: Yes, I think that the agitation over Citizens United actually created this false view that the 1st Amendment, for some reason, does not apply to people who organize their affairs in corporate form. It wasn’t long ago that that was essentially uncontested. I was going to give a specific example involving a piece of longstanding litigation in the 9th Circuit, that’s probably our most liberal circuit out in California. The case comes out of Washington State involving a pharmacy which was challenging some Washington State regulations requiring them to prescribe abortifacient drugs. And the state fought this case tooth and nail, and the 9th Circuit has decided against the pharmacy. But in the course of that, in a single footnote, said well of course the pharmacy has the right to raise these claims either in its own name or as a representative of the owner, and that that was unquestioned. It was a one sentence footnote stating what I think the court, even a hostile court, thought was completely obvious. Maybe they had been reading the Supreme Court, because in a case in the 1970s, let me just read one sentence from this. This is Monell V. Department of Social Services. “By 1871, it was well understood that corporations should be treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of Constitutional and statutory analysis.”

HH: And the Dictionary Act, it goes on and on. But I think part of it is if they lose this, they lose Citizens United, even the attempt to reverse it rhetorically. And if the left loses this, Obamacare, and this is a separate subject, Judge McConnell, if Obamacare as written creates all of these exceptions for religious churches, and creates all sorts of exemptions for favored secular organizations, can it, ought it to be understood as a rule, a law a general applicability such that it would benefit from the holding in Employment Division V. Smith? Or does it become obviously and fatally flawed?

MM: Well, the Court is not even going to need to reach that, because under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, federal laws have to meet a higher standard, which is the compelling interest test. And these cases were brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And then so again, assuming that the Court will not find that they are excluded on behalf, or because of being for profit corporations, that is the standard. And it is, I think, a very difficult argument for the government to make that there is a compelling interesting in doing something that constantly gets delayed, where there are thousands of exception, I think even besides the repeated delays by administrative fiat of the employer mandate altogether, about a third of the population of the United States comes within one exception or another. When you have a genuinely compelling interest like protecting health or safety, you don’t have a third of the population excluded, you don’t have arbitrary one year delays. Genuinely compelling interests are important enough that they, that the protection is applied from the beginning. I think the most you could say for this is that Congress thought, or actually, that the administration thought it was a good idea. This is not even something that’s in the act itself. It was not, the contraceptive mandate was not voted upon by Congress. It’s just, it was imposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under delegated authority in the statute. I think it’s going to be pretty hard.....snip~
The Hugh Hewitt Show - Opinion and Information with a Unique Twist

 

[Jack Hays]

So wrong. People shouldn't be able to speak louder or more because they have more money when running for public office. Everyone should be able to speak evenly and equally.

I could not disagree more. Private money is our strongest defense against government rationing of political speech.eace

 

[Rainman05]

I could not disagree more. Private money is our strongest defense against government rationing of political speech.eace

You said the same thing. And you're wrong. Repeating it without any further arguments does not make it true. It just makes it wrong, again. Money is not free speech.

In a democracy, if you want fair elections, you give everyone the right to speak, not give people the ability to speak depending on how much money they throw at the campaign.

Also, how can you trust people who will spend 1billion $ on elections during a time of crisis? That just shows bad management. It's insane from any perspective.

 

[Jack Hays]

You said the same thing. And you're wrong. Repeating it without any further arguments does not make it true. It just makes it wrong, again. Money is not free speech.

In a democracy, if you want fair elections, you give everyone the right to speak, not give people the ability to speak depending on how much money they throw at the campaign.

Also, how can you trust people who will spend 1billion $ on elections during a time of crisis? That just shows bad management. It's insane from any perspective.

People are free to devote to public debate any resources they wish. Anything else is censorship, and undermines freedom. The answer to big money on one side is not censorship, but rather big money on the other side. In any case, that's the only remedy the Constitution permits.eace

 

[Rainman05]

People are free to devote to public debate any resources they wish. Anything else is censorship, and undermines freedom. The answer to big money on one side is not censorship, but rather big money on the other side. In any case, that's the only remedy the Constitution permits.eace

No, it's not. And again, you're dribbling. I don't have time for this nonsense really.

You look around and you don't see the fault in your logic.
Your elected officials don't work for you, proof is everywhere. When they have to pass laws to open the airlines so they can go on holiday even though the country is in crisis, they do. When they have to pass the NDAA to limit your rights, they do. When they have to make a tax code that is so convoluted and offers tons of loopholes for big business. they do.

But when it comes to getting together to pass a deal so taht the country doesn't go into a debt limit crisis, they wait till the very last minute until THEIR interests are satisfied, not yours. When ti comes to passing a budget so the people get paid... they shut down the govt. Again, it's always your interests, as the citizen, that get pissed on. Why? Because they don't work for you. They work for the people who pay them and the people who pay them are billionaires and millionaires and big business.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, it's not. And again, you're dribbling. I don't have time for this nonsense really.

You look around and you don't see the fault in your logic.
Your elected officials don't work for you, proof is everywhere. When they have to pass laws to open the airlines so they can go on holiday even though the country is in crisis, they do. When they have to pass the NDAA to limit your rights, they do. When they have to make a tax code that is so convoluted and offers tons of loopholes for big business. they do.

But when it comes to getting together to pass a deal so taht the country doesn't go into a debt limit crisis, they wait till the very last minute until THEIR interests are satisfied, not yours. When ti comes to passing a budget so the people get paid... they shut down the govt. Again, it's always your interests, as the citizen, that get pissed on. Why? Because they don't work for you. They work for the people who pay them and the people who pay them are billionaires and millionaires and big business.

This is where we differ. I believe that not only were my interests represented in the matters you listed, but my interests prevailed.eace

 

[Rainman05]

This is where we differ. I believe that not only were my interests represented in the matters you listed, but my interests prevailed.eace

Then again, you have a somewhat shiny reputation in some parts of this forum that I'm not explicitly allowed to talk about here for being a partisan hack.

 

[JayDubya]

The Senate's top Democrat criticized a pair of billionaire brothers in unusually harsh terms Wednesday, accusing the conservative duo of being "un-American," spreading lies about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and lacking a conscience.

In a pair of appearances on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., became the latest Democrat this election year to denunciate Charles and David Koch — pronounced "Coke."

The brothers' representatives said Reid's attack was "disgraceful" and accused him of attacking people hurt by the 2010 health care law.

Reid's focus was on television ads that are being used against Democratic congressional candidates, commercials that he said misleadingly criticize the health care law.

"When you make billions of dollars a year you can be as immoral and dishonest as your money will allow you to be," Reid said. "It's too bad that they're trying to buy America, and it's time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."

Hours earlier, Reid said the ads were misleadingly lambasting the health care law. "It's easy to do if you have no conscience and are willing to lie," he said.....snip~

Top Senate Dem: Koch brothers are un-American



Awww. Whats the matter Harry? Getting worried about those Obama's lies now? Think Harry here will call the CBO and others liars too?

What did Harry forget about forcing people to buy the O'care?

Supporting that garbage of a bill and pretending Congress has any authority over healthcare, pissing all over the Constitution and the human rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence...?

Yeah, Harry, THAT'S "un-American" you stupid &^@%^$&!%!.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then again, you have a somewhat shiny reputation in some parts of this forum that I'm not explicitly allowed to talk about here for being a partisan hack.

Odd, since I belong to no party. Which position of mine is partisan hackery? Favoring same sex marriage, legalized recreational drugs, right to choice, smaller defense budgets, simplified tax code, or something else?eace

 

[Rainman05]

Odd, since I belong to no party. Which position of mine is partisan hackery? Favoring same sex marriage, legalized recreational drugs, right to choice, smaller defense budgets, simplified tax code, or something else?eace

Don't ask me, I don't think you're a hack. I think you're something more than that. You're just completely unreasonable.

 

[Jack Hays]

Don't ask me, I don't think you're a hack. I think you're something more than that. You're just completely unreasonable.

You'll have a happier life if you accept disagreement more gracefully.eace

 

[Rainman05]

You'll have a happier life if you accept disagreement more gracefully.eace

I would, if you would argue your position as to why you think it's a good idea to have private funding into politics. You know, in actual logical sentences which make one think " Hah, that makes sense" instead of dishing out cheap rhetoric, that's also false, saying things like "that's the only way that our Constitution allows it" or that its "state controlled speech". BS on a platter fit for remtards on free dinners.

Come on. Sustain your argument.

 

[Jack Hays]

I would, if you would argue your position as to why you think it's a good idea to have private funding into politics. You know, in actual logical sentences which make one think " Hah, that makes sense" instead of dishing out cheap rhetoric, that's also false, saying things like "that's the only way that our Constitution allows it" or that its "state controlled speech". BS on a platter fit for remtards on free dinners.

Come on. Sustain your argument.

The argument is easy to state and goes back centuries. I believe that contests between great private interests create an environment more conducive to freedom than does a state empowered to referee and ration political speech. I trust rich people more to pursue their own interests than I trust any government to pursue mine. In pursuing their own interests, the rich hobble the state, and that's what I want.eace

 

[Rainman05]

The argument is easy to state and goes back centuries. I believe that contests between great private interests create an environment more conducive to freedom than does a state empowered to referee and ration political speech. I trust rich people more to pursue their own interests than I trust any government to pursue mine. In pursuing their own interests, the rich hobble the state, and that's what I want.eace

Why bother being in a democracy then. Just go be in a corpotocracy. Why bother voting? Let the rich decide for you. Heck, go live in China, that's perfect, it fits exactly what you're looking for.

 

[Jack Hays]

Why bother being in a democracy then. Just go be in a corpotocracy. Why bother voting? Let the rich decide for you. Heck, go live in China, that's perfect, it fits exactly what you're looking for.

Because the actions of the rich, defending their own interests, create the space in which democracy thrives. That's what our Founders were all about.eace

 

[Rainman05]

Because the actions of the rich, defending their own interests, create the space in which democracy thrives. That's what our Founders were all about.eace

No. Dear god, you don't even know what democracy is.

 

[Jack Hays]

No. Dear god, you don't even know what democracy is.

Better than you, it would seem.eace

 

[Henrin]

Harry Reid's problem has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, but with the reality that people are out there trying to stop the acceptance of government control.

 

[Linc]

By trying to control government, especially with social engineering and anti-voting laws .

Harry Reid's problem has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, but with the reality that people are out there trying to stop the acceptance of government control.

 

[Henrin]

By trying to control government, especially with social engineering and anti-voting laws .

Again, that has nothing to do with his problem. That is all just deflection from his real complaint. He just doesn't like that people are fighting government propaganda with their own propaganda. It just turns out that the people funding the ads are the same people that fund campaigns and push their own agenda against people like Harry Reid. Anyone that believes Harry Reid on anything has no knowledge of how much of a filthy little liar he is.

 

[Rainman05]

Better than you, it would seem.eace

No, no it isn't true...
demos = people ; kratos = power.
Democracy = power of the people. Not power to the rich people or power to the poor people, but to the people. All of them. Evenly. Fairly. Correctly.

It would be desirable that those people are also informed and intelligent, but even if not, they have the right to voice their support, and that support should be even and equal among all the people of a country, both in the voting booth and before it.

Then, what you get, is the second problem of who do you work for? I don't know about you, personally, but in my life, I work for the people who pay me, basically, who pay me the most. So if you have a congressman, or a president, or anyone, getting 300k a year from the people, and someone giving them millions in their back pockets, who do you think they'll work for? Not for you. Your interests will be the least of their priorities.

Moreover. The people who are contributing most to society aren't politicians or rich people, but doctors, engineers, scientists. And they're all not rich people by the function of their job. Some end up being rich, like Bill Gates or Sergey Brin in the programming field, but they're 2 out of millions of people, millions who can't afford to buy their own congress. Or dozens of the top 100 richest who are hedge funds managers and bankers. Most of the richest people are people who work in the financial sector and they buy Congress and their own officials and public servants.

That, Jack, is China. It's worse than China because China doesn't pretend it's not an oligarchy... or at least doesn't bother that much hidding that fact, it's an open secret. You want the USA to be China from a political perspective? If not, then get the money out of politics.

 

[Linc]

Again, that has nothing to do with his problem. That is all just deflection from his real complaint. He just doesn't like that people are fighting government propaganda with their own propaganda. It just turns out that the people funding the ads are the same people that fund campaigns and push their own agenda against people like Harry Reid. Anyone that believes Harry Reid on anything has no knowledge of how much of a filthy little liar he is.

As soon as you begin to equate McConnell with Reid, we'll make progress.
Why did McConnell filibuster the Veteran's bill this week?
Why did McConnell derail his own party in the House on Chairman Cam's Tax Reform bill ?