Thank you in advance for your congratulations!


HERE

Read the last line of my post from October 2008:

Prophetic ain't it?

Right on....

The only worse thing for Dems than not getting Coakley elected, would be getting her elected. A couple more years of their corrupted ways to ram their socialist agenda and they'd have a revolt on their hands like this country haven't seen.

Hopefully this will ring some bells before they can inflict even more damage upon all of us.

Absolutely disgusting.

Damage indeed.

Fucking morons.

Thanks for your congrats, Nick.

I guess they were not listening to Rahmbo "dead fish" Emanuel – when he said : "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Yeah, Coakley sucks.
The nude guy sucks too.
So what?

The dems had the power for a year and were unable to screw in a lightbulb.
The pubs had it for 8 years and screwed everybody.
I think the pubs have better screwdrivers. They did a great job.

Now we founder even more as a nation....
So far no hope, no change.

I'm totally disgusted by both parties.
I think it doesn't even matter anymore.

Nick, you're taking this personal and need to chill or you might just go "Postal" in November when Santa Clause comes a month & a half early. I really hate to see you like this.

We now resume the broadcast of our regular scheduled program "descent into ignorance".

I think its funny how all the news is now on point that the Dems are all re thinking their plans.. SO THEY CAN STAY IN OFFICE. Is there not one person who does the right thing even if it costs them their position?

IT really is unbelievable if its true... but totally par for the course.

Incumbent parties lose when the economy sucks. It goes no deeper than that.

This is a total disaster, though. As Bill Maher says, do we really need the Senate?

Yeah funny how the 3 branches of the Government are suppose to work.. Makes it so one side of culture cannot fully run rough shod over the other side..

I didn't say we should get rid of the House of Representatives, which is based on population, just the Senate in which a handful of imbeciles in central Massachusetts get a chance to ruin life for all of us. Worse, we just saw two individual fartheads - Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson - weaken the healthcare bill drastically, one because he's an anti-abortion freak and the other because he has a personal vendetta. That's hardly a balance of power.

And that's what the purpose of the three branches of government is - a balance of power to prevent anyone from gaining too much power. It's not what you say about "one side of culture."

By the way, calling conservatism "culture" is a heinous abuse of the English language. It's not true that their side deserves an equal voice, because everything they believe is wrong.

I wasn't entirely serious about getting rid of the Senate either, by the way.

Just the Republican party.

Haha... well at least you are predictable.. If you can get rid of them then at least you can be angry with only one party. Will make your work load lighter.. :-)

But the government is made up of people that represent our differing cultures. And when one side gets too much power, the other side reels it back in. Correct?


Of course conservatives have culture .. Its just not yours. I really hope that you are not this cynical and grumpy in real life. I hope you have some fun once in a while.

So, let me get this straight... you think that all conservatives (any one right of your way of thinking) are "FARTHEADS" and that "everything they believe is wrong?"

Seriously?? Everything??

If that is the case, and it seems that it is, What in your world view should be done to those with such views to prevent their influence on the rest of society?

Obviously you feel that they are unworthy of a voice...

I wish for anyone who opposed health care reform to have need to buy it on the open market one day and awaken from your lovely cacoons.

Ironic that a state with health care reform law killed it for the rest of the country.
Thanks MA!

I didn't say they don't. What I said is that conservatism isn't a culture, it's the opposite of culture.



Nope. I have no fun, and I really am this cynical and grumpy.




It's not just my opinion, it's fact. All conservatives suck whale dingus.

80% of us don't give a flying banana about any particular party. We care about the country first. Unfortunately 10% on each side are the loud ideological asses who drive wedges into our society.

Dan, Mass Health is an experiment turning into a massive disaster. The state is rising taxes left and right and this stupid thing is still 85% over budget!

There must be a better way! So let's find it. Personally I think we should take baby steps towards the reform – start with issues that everyone can agree upon and are within our budget – and then move forward to the next step. Reps and Independents offered their ideas, but the Dem leaders just want to have it their way or noway. Too bad ... 'coz I think our health care needs a serious improvement.

Before the August recess Obama was shouting that he will sit down with anyone having any questions about his plan – and go over the bill "line-by-line" ..... there were many attempts made from physicians and congressmen to take him up on the offer, and the WH didn't even acknowledged their mail. What a sad state of governing. What a joke.

Maher ... what a great thinker. Self-indulgent prig.

Yeah ... and the other imbecile Danny Glover, claims that the Haiti earthquake happened because of the man-made global warming.

Dan,
I do buy my own insurance and it just went up 40% this month. Totally sucks and there is nothing we can do about it. And Medicare for my wife went up 20% as well. I have to have insurance for my wife. So, Why on earth would they want to do that in the face of the Government wanting to get involved? I was told because they know that the Fed will make them lower it back so they are getting their $4 now. 40%. Why isnt there any one I can talk to about this now?? California even has an Insurance czar.

I do want health care reform. But not like this - No Back room deals and Union favors.

Yeah it would be great to have it all taken care of but life isnt like that.

Where is the government regulation that is ALREADY suppose to be there now?

Im with Joseph on this. Lets reform things bu why does it have to be the guys in DC that do it? DO we really think that THEY can honestly come up with the BEST ideas? I'm not saying that to put them down, but really, are they really the best minds we have?

Maybe there should be another Beer Summit and get some real work done..

Does anyone REALLY think the INSURANCE companies are going to reform themselves? What power does any consumer really have - take what they shove up our asses, or go without and drop dead. Not much of a choice.

Why should any insurance company be allowed to constantly raise premiums by double digits, despite massive profits, while at the same time systematically eliminating anyone that they think they may have to pay out on?

I don't care WHO solves it, but all I see from the republicans is "cut malpractice suits" - nothing to help PEOPLE, just the insurance companies again.

Socialist! The people have spoken against you and Obama's evil agenda.

"Maher ... what a great thinker. Self-indulgent prig."

He's pretty good. And at least he doesn't vote for conservatives, which means he's intelligent.

Totally agree.. 100%

Since when are they deregulated?
When did that happen? and why are there only certain insurance companies in some states and not in others?

What do you think about self insured companies? What about companies that hire their own Docs?

I ask a family friend who is a doctor about working on the side with families who cant afford (kind of like Doctors with out boarders) but in the US and his hands were tied because of insurance contracts. He had to be in the system in the US. Whats up with that?

>>>>80% of us don't give a flying banana about any particular party. We care about the country first. Unfortunately 10% on each side are the loud ideological asses who drive wedges into our society.<<<<<<

JK, given the history of USA health care reform attempts in the recent past one can only assume that the republican party has no real interest in making it happen. Just the opposite really. They nuked Clinton's attempt, pretended that there was no problem for 8 years while holding the white house, now they nuked it again without providing any viable option.

In my opinion we need a single payer system in this country. Take the power away from insurers completely. That's not going to happen, so a public option (along with other reforms) was the next best option to force down medical costs. Republicans and conservative democrats made sure that wasn't going to happen.
I'm sorry, history tells me that there are some issues that republicans have a vested interest in squelching. If you don't care about your drinking water, vote republican.

What issues do we or can we agree on regarding health care? Tell me, really. The only thing we agree on is that the system is broken, but nobody wants to step on a corporation's toes in this country and I find that infuriating. We're literally being held hostage by the medical industry. Baby steps sound like a great idea if you're currently covered by a great insurance plan. Sweeping reforms sound a lot better to many others.

Jeff, 40%. That is brutal. Criminal in fact. What gov't regulations do currently exist? Are there any? And who's going to fix this thing if not legislators? Nothing stops corporate greed except regulations.

After saying to the republicans, you guys stay out here in the hallway, we're running the country now! The closed door negotiations on healthcare is just like the kind of things that were and still are complained about in the last administration. The country is split about 50/50 on many things, so the way to handle issues is to exclude the other half of the country and ram your agenda down their throats? That is arrogant and undemocratic. What happened to the openness, what happened to the promise of transparency, what happened to all the promises of a open all inclusive government? All campaign lies to stay in power.

Now that they got their butts handed to them after being inconsiderate and un-inclusive, in typical weasel Democrat fashion now they are going to suck up to the republicans to get their pork and taxation agenda through. The most disgusting lie about healthcare is that it will be free, what a lie.

You see, we the people don't want an oligarchy or one group with ultimate power that won't listen to the people. The people don't want government run healthcare. I believe the people would like to see a stop to the pillaging of the people by the greedy families that own the hospitals and report losses while they line their pockets with cash, the trial lawyers and the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and equipment manufactures with their outrageous profits, etc. People want to see a stop to the gouging, not huge taxes, wasteful spending and another complicated bureaucracy that cant find it's butt with both hands and a road map.

The people spoke yesterday, it's time the politicians listen instead of telling the people how it is going to be.

Right on.

Left off.

What a total steaming mound of bullshit.

And you suppose now - the magical #41 is going to come in and force "discussion"? All that will happen is a continuous filibuster until november. That's why they were excluded in the FIRST place. The party of NO is not offering any options other than blocking anything.

MSNBC

Hello, hello....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/20/2180316.aspx

Read what Cantor said.

Fuck Cantor and fuck the whole Republican party.

This is the correct analysis:

http://robertreich.org/post/344459321/what-scott-browns-victory-really-means

Nick, it's a steaming mound of reality. By the way, where is Z-man? Lol!

Now that article is a bit of a pile, although, it would be interesting to see the dems turn on their golden boy, but I doubt it.

There was a rag tag bunch that took on the establishment here in America over tyranny and taxation, the establishment were known as the Red Coats. The tea party has people from both parties, I think under estimating them is a mistake.

I think Obama will need something major to stay in office, like a war or a major attack. I guess we'll see.

That sounds like a Bush/Cheney move to me. I doubt anyone sane would want to stay in office if it meant having the country attacked to do it.

"The only sure-fire way to get jobs back is for them to do more deficit spending.
Brown’s victory has given more muscle to the tea-partiers — the rag-tag group of angry no-nothings..."

Nick, are you sure about that?

He doesn't seem to worry about hyperinflation ...




Btw, just ordered Reich's "Supercapitalism". Have you read it? The first pages sound interesting. Scary, but interesting nevertheless.

I just read ExcelAV's virulent post.
It solidifies my opinion that we're doomed.

I too am afraid we are doomed – just for different reasons. I respect your opinion, though.

And exactly how does this apply to you, Josef? Your repeated pattern of praising anything the GOP does, while insulting those horrible "liberals", clearly shows that you do not fall within the 80%.

I've said it here before, and I'll say it again. ALL politicians are lying scumbags. It's enough to make you want to move to a small island out in the middle of the ocean to get away from the insanity. You guys can argue this idiocy until you're all blue in the face... I'll be at the beach.

How does it apply to me? Let's start with marrying a stanch Kennedy Lib.

But seriously ... on many issues I'm a lot closer to Libs than to Cons. And on others (often discussed here) you can say I'm in a different "box". And that's the problem I have with a lot of people who need to fit into one particular box no matter what.

BTW, tell me what the above video has to do with GOP. It has everything to do with all Americans... including those in Hawaii.

But your talk about beach really pisses me off. 30F right here.

No disrespect meant but I'd love to see some examples.
Every policy stance I've seen you post on this board has been Fox party line all the way.

Ahh, like the current governator of Bozofornia? That explains everything.

I could start with religion (I'm an atheist). And many others....

FOX? you don't have to believe me, but I listen, watch and read all as much as I can. Come here... I'll show you my library. And make you the best coffee you ever had.

BTW, on Jan.19 I had the MSNBC on almost all night. On the other hand I strongly suggest that you watch Glenn Beck's "Live Free or Die" documentary this Friday.

Hey, maybe you should try it too! You might get a better perspective on things. The only one non-Dem she ever voted for was McCain. She even voted for corrupted and stupid Coakley. Unfortunately. But I totally respect that.

How unfortunate. I spent Tuesday night helping my neighbor plant banana trees in his backyard.

If I spend more than about 26 seconds listening to Beck's nonsense, my ears start to bleed. But thanks for the heads up! I'll be absolutely certain to avoid it completely.

Hmmm.... not everything

Josef, no, hyperinflation is not a worry. The worry is deflation.

Too bad. You could actually learn something useful. Although, I admit – having a beach near by and banana trees in the back yard isn't all that bad deal either. It's all good. BTW, how is the beer down there? Any good?

I feel about 2% better now.

The only thing anybody can learn from Beck is how to manipulate people's emotions through fear and intimidation. Looks like he's got you right where he wants you, Josef.

Again, you confuse me for somebody who gives a shit about politics.

I'm well trained to differentiate truth from propaganda.



Maybe. But the number of banana trees one can afford from one paycheck now as compared to 5 years in the future, has to do with "politics" as well.

Well, taking into account your voluminous posts here to the contrary, quoted verbatim from known extremist blogs... I'm gonna call shenanigans on this statement.

I'm more than happy to leave the entire mess for you and the rest of the "best and brightest" to deal with. Great Maker help us all.

As all of you know, I live in Massachusetts and voted for Scott Brown.

I will tell you why.

In Massachusetts we have universal health care. 97% of MA residents are covered. The other 3% are people who choose not to purchase it. If you are single and make over 50k a year and choose not to purchase health care you get a penalty on your State taxes.

In fact, you have to put your ins number in to file taxes without the penalty.

If you do not have employer based care and can not afford health care there are subsidies available. Some people get free health care. If you're self employed and make 50k you can still get a subsidy so it's affordable.

In Massachusetts most people I talked to felt that national health care would punish MA for doing the right thing.

If national health care passed, we would pay for it in federal tax, as well as State tax. We are already providing it for MA residents. As if paying twice was not bad enough, LA and NE would pay nothing and get the full benefit, plus Union members would not pay the tax. That's not fair.

The plan was worked out in a bi-partisan bill by Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney.

It works and it has not really caused our taxes to go up so much.

I believe in strong State government and don't want the Federal Gov messing with my care.

I would urge everyone to contact their State legislators and ask them to take a look at MA's program.

It works very well, has reduced the number of uninsured and quality of care has not been hurt. Plus, those of us who work still have our employer based choices.

Screw the states.

Thanks to you and Josef, Noah, all the other good things that Obama was trying to do won't happen now that the f-ing Republicans can filibuster. Forget about reforming the financial industry - they're going to continue doing what they did to get us into this mess, and it's going to happen again. Unemployment is going to remain at 10% for a long time since there won't be a jobs program or economic stimulus. Nothing will be done to try and reverse global warming, since Republicans don't believe in doing anything.

In other words, you may well have just voted to hasten the end of the world.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Not to the end of the world... just the end of the spending orgy. Btw, there will be plenty more elections .... so stay positive!

Noah... thank you for your vote.

The following is from our lib. newspaper – the Boston Globe (not the more accurate Herald):

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
By Susanne L. King | March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

The state's plan flunks on all counts.

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.

No! Don't screw the states... ITS A STATE ISSUE. Thats the point. STOP making everything a federal issue.

Nick,

I believe in a strong State government with limited interference from the Feds.

IMHO some issues are better solved on the local level. Health care has been fixed here in Massachusetts.

Scott Brown voted for health care here in MA. Like many people in Massachusetts he does not feel that the Federal bill is good for us.

Coakley has a very bad record as a DA. She let a police officer who molested a 23 month old child with a hot curling iron off because of his political connections.

Nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that he be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

Coakley also alienated Massachusetts' Catholic population when she said that Catholics should not be allowed to work in emergency rooms due to sep of church and State.

"You can have religous freedom but you shouldn't work in an emergency room." - Martha Coakley

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don't want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (......uh, eh...um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

Coakley ran a very bad campaign, but the most impressive thing is that Scott Brown never went negative. Coakley did a lot of bad things as AG and none were brought up by Brown.

When the attack ads (which were running constantly) were running you would get a negative Coakley ad then you would get a Brown ad talking about issues.

The fact that Brown won in Massachusetts shows that the people of the State do not want national health care.

Obama and Clinton both came to MA and it didn't help.

Scott Brown is also a vet which to me means a lot.

I think Obama needs to move more to center if he wants to get anything done. I think many people are for health care reform, but we're not for the special deals and I think people are sick of Obama's closed door poliics - he did promise debate on CSPAN and was supposed to be the opposite of Bush, yet he is exactly the same on many issues.

Hopefully, he will take a lesson from Clinton and move to center.

I honestly think this is the end of the Democratic congress come November. I also think this may mean we get Obama for another 4 because he is going to have to move to center.

Hopefully, we can see bipartisan solutions and work together.

I don't like to see either party have a majority. I prefer checks and balances.

The MA election came down to healthcare. That was it. I know a lot of liberals who voted for Brown. I know no independents who didn't vote for Brown.

We do live in a democracy and the people have spoken and they do not want healthcare and they do not want special deals for LA or NE.

What we saw on Tuesday was proof of that.

Let's hope Obama starts listening to what the majority wants.

Noah, the truth is, that there were so many problems with Coakley. I was perplexed why would Dems wanted to serve the seat to Reps on a silver platter.

I agree. I have never in all the years I have lived in Massachusetts seen the excitement of the people I talked to.

The one surprising thing was that a lot of the folks keyed up to vote for Obama were voting for Brown.

I think the one thing this shows is that the Kennedy legacy is alive in Scott Brown.

Lowering taxes and a strong national defense were keystones of JFK's philosophy and Scott is in step with that.

Hopefully he will do a good job. I have already heard a lot of people say he could beat Obama in 2012. In many ways, he will be as qualified - first term sen, 30 year military vet, charismatic, good looking, etc....

I know he is now talking about tax credits for families instead of programs and spending. The best thing is he will be able to vote to not approve the 1.5 billion dollar increase in the budget coming up.

I agree with Brown on most issues and it's a great feeling to have someone in DC representing my views for the state.

I think the fact that he campaigned on issues and really, really stuck to solutions and what his views were instead of attacking Coakley (and there was a lot of ammo for that) shows he is a good guy. Nice to see a genuine, clean campaign.

Noah: I'm glad you're happy with your healthcare and that others in your state feel that they are the only ones that should have any health reform. It's interesting you said that it did not create any of the 'end of the world' scenarios that are being used to discredit any reform.

The problem with doing it at state level is your subject to the current political views of the local administration. We have an idiot governer that has been dismantalling our health care for years. Any possible low-income programs have been cut to almost non-existance. We have been able to publicly fund a few sports stadiums of course. I'm guessing this is why Medicare and social security are not "state" programs.

I know the IDIOT they put up to run on the democratic ticket should never have been elected - everything I see shows she was an idiot. The problem is this will now put washington in a dead stop until November.

Joe,

I think you're misunderstanding. I want everyone to have affordable health care.

What works for Massachusetts may not work for some other State. All of the States have the chance to elect their leaders.

Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy have very different views, but they are both good men with the best interest of the people at heart.

I think one thing that gets lost is that there are smart, caring, good people on both sides.

Kennedy and Romeny solved the problem for us. We can not afford to pay for our program and also pay for Nebraska's care because they have a special deal.

We also don't want to lose our product that works for some experiment.

I can not vote in MN elections - you can. It's up to you to get involved and vote for the person who will give you what you need.

It can happen.

Sam you wrote,>>I just read ExcelAV's virulent post.<<, which post do you consider virulent, care to elaborate?

Actually, with the new supreme court ruling today, I doubt ANYONE has any more voting ability. The stupid masses always out-vote those that actually know what's going on - and now that special interests can spend as much $$$ as they want, what's the point of even donating to any candidate as an individual.

Today was a sad day for "democracy" in this country.

.. do you really think 50 different health care bills is the solution?! Seriously!

Man what was the Supreme court thinking??? WTF....

That was a bizarre ruling indeed... a step backward.

DUET: Ayla Brown, daughter of U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown, performs with James Montgomery Tuesday night at her father’s victory party. Montgomery, who founded the Devi Blue Foundation to help struggling musicians obtain health care, supported Brown



HERE

The Supreme court ruling is very damaging to a democracy that is suppose to be for we the people. Ross Perot wanted to get rid of the corporate and foreign lobbyists, people dismissed him and wrote him off as a kook. That's a guy that could have gotten the country moving back in the right direction. So I ask you, how many Democrats and Republicans stood up today and publicly denounced the ruling? I didn't check, but I would bet that Ron Paul is not happy about it, and everybody thinks he is a kook too. Maybe we should all contact our representatives about speaking up about this. If the whole country was screaming about this, something would eventually get done, even if it were only bigger limits, it would help. Our voices need to be heard on these kinds of issues.

One of the issues is understanding that the United States of America is not a democracy. We are a republic. There is a big difference and a reason we have both Senators and Representatives.

The supreme court ruling is very strange.

As game changing as this ruling is it's surprising it's barely getting coverage.
Or maybe not given our media is controlled by advertising dollars.

It is perhaps hopeful that at least a few republicans are openly opposed to the decision. Maybe will finally see a true bi-partisan reaction.

The whole concept that corporations should have any rights or involvement with government (outside of regulation)in any way is not in a citizen's best interest.
Perhaps it's good for stockholders, but not the general populace.

What's truly bizarre is that the case the court was ruling on originally had nothing to do with campaign financing. That was brought into the case by members of the court. Political activism at the highest level.
While working on another case they called the litigants back into court and asked them questions about corporate financing thus making it part of the case.

Two days ago I thought I couldn't be any more disappointed in the U.S.
Boy, was I wrong.

It's on the front page of the LA Times, Hopi.



Exactly.

Hopi, don't know what cable channel you watch but it is all over the news here. Forget it man, this "country" is over.

Jeremy, I don't watch TV much at all.

Nick,
Glad to hear someones covering it.
The "conservative"Seattle Times does have it in small print below such important lead stories as:

"Clinton Internet speech harms ties with US"

and

"Obama's pushback on banks send stocks lower again"


The large banner headline on the "liberal" Seattle P.I. is:

"Amanda Knox prosecutor convicted of abuse of office"

and here's the 4 lead articles in the national section as listed:


· Police say Georgia mom forced son to kill hamster

· Hiring Mr. Right: Country's first legal gigolo starts work in Nevada

· Did black magic decide Romanian election?

· Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

Well f#%k me, it is getting press.

Actually the hamster article was entertaining in a sick disturbing way.

I want to read their opinions, but can't get the Supreme Court link to work... all I get is a blank PDF page. WTF?
HERE

LA Times headline:

Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
The justices overturn a century of U.S. electoral law by a 5-4 vote. Millions of extra dollars are expected to start flowing from big business to this fall's races, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.


F-ing assholes.

Hundreds of thousands of requests have probably brought the server to it's knees.
I can't believe some people are hailing this as a victory for free speech. This is out of control.

Support the Shareholder Protection Act - write your Reps and Sens

http://robertreich.org/post/347547700/its-time-for-a-shareholder-protection-act

It's Time for a Shareholder Protection Act
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010
Five members of the Supreme Court have defied logic by assuming that corporations are people. They are not. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements. They are owned by their shareholders.

So what do we do now, other than wait for another Supreme Court opening, and for the President to appoint another Justice who understands this?

Push Congress to enact the “Shareholder Protection Act.”

For many years, anti-union lobbyists have pushed what they call “pay-check protection” laws, supposedly designed to protect union members from being forced, through their dues, to support union political activities they oppose. Under such laws — already in effect in several states — no union dues can be spent for any political purpose unless union members agree.

The same principle should protect shareholders from being forced to spend their share of corporate earnings in favor of or against a particular candidate. Surely a First Amendment that protects corporate free speech protects individuals no less.

Under a shareholder protection law, shareholders would not have to spend their share of corporate earnings on candidates who they personally oppose. If a company dedicates, say, $100,000 to a particular campaign in a given year — directly, or indirectly through a front organization — shareholders who don’t want their money used this way would get a special dividend or additional shares representing their pro rata share of that campaign expenditure. (Mutual funds and pension plans would have to notify their shareholders of any such political activity among the companies they’ve invested on their shareholders’ behalf, and seek their shareholders’ permission.) This way, corporate money for or against a particular candidate would be paid for only by shareholders who wanted to spend their portion of company earnings on it.

The Shareholder Protection Act is something even Scott Brown should be able to get behind. As should a Supreme Court supremely sensitive to First Amendment rights.

That's what I couldn't understand about this, how is a corporation, a group of people, that make up that group, individual people?

Does that mean that everyone who works for that group, of the same mind as those who decide to donate money to a particular candidate?

No, it means upper management can back people who they believe will increase their bottom line and look out for their corporate interests rather than the interests of the electorate. They can do so regardless of whether or not their employees or stock holders agree with the politics.

Money wins elections and corporations have most of it. They can now play king-maker out in the open.

This is a fitting way to run elections since we exist only to serve the economy, and our worth is defined by our level of consumption. Capitalism at it's finest.

A very bad week for the country.

This is another perspective.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/congress-shall-make-no-law/print/

They seem to be arguing this from the point of free speech.
As they say,
"There can be honest disagreements about the role of money in politics. But I would hope that, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that any attempt by the government to silence a citizen should be met with a stern rebuke"

The key word here is citizen.

Corporations should not be viewed as or receive the same protection as citizens. I think that is the fundamental problem brought to light by this ridiculous ruling.

On a side note while I support freedom of speech and opinions, everyone should be held accountable for distortion of facts and fabrication of lies.
Much of the decisiveness of our citizenry can be laid at the feet of grossly distorted analysis and rhetoric.

All the fears regarding political parties George Washington expressed in his final presidential speech have come to fruition.

Ufff... just finished reading the whole damn thing.... so the bottom line is that they were trying to level the playing field. Taking away the unfair advantage from politicians supported by corporations who own media and by other entities.

But still..... instead of taking money out of the process – they will now allow / encourage a lot more of it in.

It's like fixing the problem of steroids in sports by legalizing doping – instead of getting rid of a few cheaters.

http://robertreich.org/post/347547700/its-time-for-a-shareholder-protection-act

Support the Shareholder Protection Act.

Of course. I've noticed you're on the wrong side of every issue.

The only answer is to take all the money out of elections. Public financing only.

well now we can have 24/7 political commercials.. hmmm maybe the FCC should give them their own channel and they can call it SPIN_TV paid for my every one but the politician.. By Lobbyist, for lobbyist... blah, blah. blah..

There are a few examples of rich people running for office , spending millions of their own money who did not get elected. So in that sense money does not guarantee being elected. But can they still give someone already elected money to buy a vote?

I'm on the side of the people. I'm for we the people, and when I say we the people, I mean the citizens of the United States. The politicians should put the interests of the people before the corporations and the unions. Ross Perot and Ron Paul have both advocated taking the money out of elections, I would like to see that as well. I would also like to see the candidates get equal air time, in prime time. It's not fair when the network talking heads give certain politicians speaking time and cut others off and cut them out. I would prefer that the media not be picking for us.

If you were on the side of the people you wouldn't have voted for 30 million people not to have health coverage, for tens of thousands of people to die every year because they aren't covered, for tens of thousands more people to go bankrupt because they don't have coverage...and that's just the health insurance issue. Republicans suck even harder when it comes to saving human civilization.

hahahahahahahahahahahah Oh man.. hahahahahahahahahahah

The joke's on you, Jeff. That's reality. You're not usually a jerk, so I'm surprised you'd be one now.

Here's one of millions of links about the bill the Senate passed, but I deliberately chose CNN's so it would have some credibility. The bill covers 30 million more Americans and makes it so insurance companies can't refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions (which is what causes people to go bankrupt):

http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html

18,000 annual deaths because people don't have health insurance (this was 2004 - it's much worse now with people having lost their coverage along with their jobs in the recession):

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Insuring-Americas-Health-Principles-and-Recommendations.aspx

As far as saving human civilization, we've had lots of debates about global warming, but you'll see that the Democrats won't be able to do anything about it now. Cap and trade is no cure-all, but it's one step. No way will it pass now, nor will anything else now that the f-ing Republicans have a 41% "majority" (yes, the rules are bizarre).

Naaaa Nick, Its been a long day and i was more laughing about that you said that reps suck when it comes to saving Human Civilization. I guess its all in how you define it. Especially when the Reps classify themselves "pro-Life". Again, I guess its how you define human civilization right?
Were you aware that a conservative organization was on the ground in Katrina giving care before any government agency? They didn't want any press either.. just under the radar being good to people and giving care.
Nick, Can a person who disagrees with you not be a jerk? I mean really. Just because I don't think the federal Government is out of line in what they are doing, does that make me a bad person? Especially since I think that the states need to make the decision not the federal government.

Yeah .. pro-life .. right.

All they care about is telling people what to do. You ever notice once the kid is born they could care less what happens to it?

No Insurance - no problem
No Education - no problem
Want to marry who they want - no way
Commit a crime - kill them
They get old? - screw them
They drop dead - have a $250 "death benefit"

On some issues, yes, but the reason I took offense is that I thought you were laughing at what I was saying as if it were totally stupid. If that's not what you meant, my bad - sorry about that.

Also, re: Katrina - one of the things I simply don't get is how some totally well-meaning, warm, caring people can be conservative. It's just bizarre how they can be so nice personally and at the same time so inhuman when it comes to their politics.

What Joe says is sort of true! That's why I don't understand how people who aren't monsters can vote Republican.

Ok, Can i ask this philosophically? Just trying to get at an answer, or rather discover it together. Because I think that this is a very good question. So, Please dont flame on this, but rather speak as to what you think drives it.
I too think that Republicans and conservatives can come across as heartless in many ways as can Dems/liberals in many other ways.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what drives each side of the equation.

Just as a for instance. Abortion. How can a liberal be into saving the whales, the environment and the dolphins and yet not care about an unborn child? And on the other hand how can a conservative be the opposite - so concerned about an unborn baby and yet not care about other living things???
It is inconsistent on both sides - at least it appears on the surface to be. Can we please not make this about sex in the bed room? I think that this has evolved way past that - at least for this discussion, but perhaps you disagree. I am just using this as a point of showing the inconsistencies.

I think that there is a sense of inner drive for conservatives that says "I did it myself, I don't need any help, and you don't want any help either." So, any one needing help is looking for a hand out or a freebie?" Its like they are afraid to help any one else in some ways. Does that make sense?
This sense of Self also bring along with it a certain amount of independence and self reliance. They really do not want any any outside help either or any laws that smell of that. As in most things, a strength becomes a weakness.
So, as Joe pointed out, they always seem to say no to those things. But why do they say no??
I don't think it comes from a sense of evil or being a moron, but it is they way they think and there are reasons behind them.

By way of contrast, the thinking of a liberal is much different. It seems to want to help others and help them improve their way of life - especially if those that need the help can't help them selves. We can see this in how they approach the environment and nature. They want to bring everyone along. Again the strength can become a weakness as well.

I think the down side to the conservative way of thinking can be that no one gets help - even those that desperately need it. The Survival of the fittest comes into effect.

I think the down side of the liberal way of thinking is that it becomes enabling to allow people to not have to strive and make life happen.

Im curious as to what you think drives both sides in their thinking. Nick, I know you think they are morons, but there is something that drives their way of thinking. Is it worth gaining understanding?

Jeff, you just make way too much sense for people who are intrenched in their ideology. The 10% on the left and the right just can't handle common sense. They both argue their points of view and are totally incapable to tolerate views of others.

The reality is, that there is a lot of good and bad on all sides. Our nature is that we don't like to be criticized for our believes so we tend to gravitate to people with similar views and practices. And before we know it we belong to some kind of herd. Alien ideas can evoke chaos in our minds.

IMHO, for one to minimize falling into this trap, one needs to look for the good in others no matter how much one might think there is none there.

If bad is the first thing you see in others, you'll find yourself surrounded by bad.

Reps love their kids and grandparents less than Dems do - and Libs will rot in hell because they don't pray hard enough.....

If we just searched a bit harder for the true "God" within ourselves – we might find there is a lot less "devil" in others.

1) Abortion. I have known several people in my life that have had abortions. I know of no one that has decided to "use abortion as an easy method of birth control". I have known no one that has not agonized over the decision. I know of no one that has not made the only correct decision for THEMSELVES at the time, but doesn't still look back on it and question themselves. It is not a frivolous action and to live with that AS WELL as people telling them how they "murdered" their baby is just uncalled for. Hopefully we can all agree to write off the extremists in this movement that think killing doctors and blowing up clinics is justified.

2) While I have never taken a penny of government money, I grew up in NYC and certainly saw poverty first hand. I see the cycle, lack of hope and opportunity. I do not think that it is fair for someone really trying to be held down. Everyone has a contribution. With that said, I don't think that someone should be able to sit at home, do nothing but produce more kids, just to keep getting free government money. Any able bodied person on government assistance should be required to work. There are PLENTY of things that people could be doing. I don't even care what it is, so long as society benefits. It could be cleaning highways, working in the shelters, cleaning at the VA, helping out at a retirement home. It could be internships where they can learn hands-on skills that will get them employed. No free ride, but a free guiding hand to getting into the work force.

And even though I am not currently supporting the party that has claimed God as their exclusive property, I am confident and assured of my salvation by my Lord and Savior.

Statements like this perfectly illustrate the core problem with the whole political debate in this country.

Of course "liberals" care about unborn children. What are we, monsters? What we object to, is legislating away a woman's right to choose whether they can legally have termination as an option, specifically in cases of rape or incest. But by criminalizing the entire concept, forcing those unfortunate women who find themselves in the position of having no choice but to carry their attacker's baby to term is, in MY mind, morally unjust.

Your objection to my opinion is based on mindless religious dogma, and my objection of your opinion is based on compassion.

But that's the problem, on a couple of levels. (I'll come back and comment on Jeff's post later.)

First, the Republican party isn't 10%, it's 85% right-wing freaks! The country went through a destructive rebellion with Reagan era, to the point that Obama is perceived as being liberal when he's actually center-right. You'll notice that every politician has to go on about how much he likes the free market, for example, and of course an optional socialized health insurance plan is branded as Cold War Communism - by people like you, Josef, who claim not to be ideological when in fact you're totally so! Everyone thinks they're centrist, but you're not, you're a right-wing freak even if you can live with a Democrat. (In the same way that bisexual men are probably gay men who can sleep with women?)

And that's the second problem. We've gone so far to the right that someone like me is accused by you bubbas here of being closed-minded when I refuse to entertain the most blatantly idiotic, dangerous, selfish ideological points of view - the ones that define the political right in this country! Nixon would be considered center-left by today's standards!

You're right ... I'm right-wing freak and political gay.

That fact has been firmly established. For you to continuously deny it is disingenuous.

Quick reply: how can a conservative be into saving the life of an unborn child and yet really like the death penalty?

Quick answer to reply: because these are moral issues, meaning that reasonable people can disagree. They're very different from liberal/conservative issues, which are ones in which conservatives are unreasonable across the board.

Above pretty much all of the unreasonable, baseless and totally myopic crap Nick often spews on this Board, like: "They're very different from liberal/conservative issues, which are ones in which conservatives are unreasonable across the board."

Yah, right!

THIS, is just the most utterly fuck|ng retarded:



1) Corporations DO enjoy many of the protections that natural "people" enjoy. It's one of the things that makes having corporations possible. In not understanding that (or in claiming to not understand it) Reich shows what an a-hole he can be.

2) Here's the hot tip on how corporate shareholders can protect their political voice in a particular corporation.

I implore you to read this carefully now, as it is complex and requires deep thinking - the likes of which Robert Reich (and our very own Nick Batzdorf) may not even be capable of.

You may have to go over it, and pay special attention to the details, in order to grasp the full gamut and subtlety of the plan:








DON'T

INVEST

IN

COMPANIES

WHO'S

POLITICS/POLICIES

YOU

DISAGREE

WITH!


There's your "shareholder protection" against being aligned with a corporation who's agenda you don't agree with.

Right there.


Cripes. What a whiney, misguided moron Robert Reich can be.

Hey Knife: blow me.

Answering Jeff's questions:



No question, that part of conservative "thought" (I use the term loosely) as far as social policy is concerned comes from the pioneering spirit. The problem is that this is an outmoded way of thinking, now that the country has been settled for over a century.

And really, the divide goes farther than how much people want the government to aid people, it's the actual role of government. Conservatives think government is inherently abusive or inept, basically that we'd be better off without leadership. Liberals believe in forward thinking leadership. Conservatives believe that cutting taxes at the top will cause money to trickle down to the middle class, in the face of the reality that this has been tried and failed. Liberals on the other hand realize that a prosperous middle class causes money to flow up!

More than that, conservatives tend to be much more hawkish. They tend to favor business over consumers - in fact in such varied places as Israel and England the battle is between the labor and conservative parties. Historically conservatives have been slow to adopt change, for example the civil rights battle was a liberal movement. You don't hear very many liberals claiming that global warming isn't real. It goes on and on.

In short, conservatives are on the wrong side of every single issue.



That's the rhetoric, yes, but it's more of an argument against pure socialism. Realistic social democratic ideas such as setting a higher minimum wage (that's my solution to illegal immigration, by the way) don't enable people to get away without contributing, they just build up the middle class.

There are always going to be differences between countries, but for example Norway is an example of a prosperous country with very high taxes, socialized medicine, etc. etc. Or for example Germany. They're faring a whole lot better in this recession without the unemployment, due to their safety net.

To put it simplistically, it's the difference between "me" and "we." That's why I find it so hard to understand how nice people can be so generous personally yet still be conservative politically.

1- That's what needs to be repealed. Corporations should not be covered by the bill of rights.
It was never the intention of that document to provide rights to a business convention/entity that didn't even exist in it's present form at that time.

The Supreme court proclamation was wrong/corrupt in 1886 and it's wrong now.

Knife, you claim that those rights are "one of the things that make them (corporations)possible".
I disagree. I believe it's one of the things that allows them to exist in their current state, but I'm also convinced that the current state of a corporate economy, and the need for ever greater consumption to fuel it's growth, are nothing more than a pyramid scheme that will bankrupt us all.



2- That's a no-brainer but it's only good advice after the fact.
Until the political colors of a corporation are revealed by a track record of sponsorship there's no way to make much more than a semi-educated guess.


It seems that when America holds up a mirror it estimates it's self worth by how many dollar signs it sees in the reflection. That's perhaps why so many are willing to put a for profit business on the same plane as a human being when it comes rights. As a culture we continue to confuse material accumulation with wealth.

As Steve Earle said, "Capitalism is an OK form of commerce, it just makes a lousy religion."

So I'm lying right-wing freak and political gay.

Anybody else?


Btw, just in case you've missed my point earlier... have another go

I didn't say you were lying, Josef, just politically gay. You say you're in the center and not an ideologue, but it's hard to take that seriously when you're wearing those pink assless chaps and nipple rings.

And I for one am perfectly able to tolerate rational views of others, but ridiculous ones don't deserve entertaining. The entire Republican has only ridiculous ideas.

Corporations aren't "covered by the Bill of Rights."

As I said, corporations enjoy SOME of the protections of natural persons - and they have to, just to make them work. This is a concept and practice that has existed since WAAAY before 1886 (indeed, nothing happened in the Supreme Court in 1886, to change that).

Corporations should be able to own property (and this includes the provisions attendant to ownership, such as the right to protect that property). They should be able to be sued and held liable for their actions. They should be subject to taxation, etc., etc.

These are all rights and protections that are afforded corporations, as they are afforded individuals, that make having corporations even possible.

That having been said, corporations can't vote, can't claim things like age discrimination, can't demand to be educated, etc., etc.

These are all rights and protections under the Bill of Rights (or interpretations of it) that are afforded ONLY to natural persons - and NOT to corporations - that serve to distinguish corporations from natural persons.

I don't know why you think Corporations are "covered by the Bill of Rights." That's just not the case.

You can have your views on whether corporations are good or bad but, I think that debate - and your position on it - should come from a truly informed basis, not one that is based on the old wive's tale that "Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific applied the Bill of Rights to Corporations."



This is just a massive cop-out.

Please show me a publicly traded corporation that hasn't revealed it's track record of sponsorship of certain political candidates, causes or parties.

Let's get real. Anyone who invests in a corporation should do 3-1/2 minutes worth of homework on that corporation, to find out EXACTLY what the corporations does, what it's general philosophies and policies are, and even who and what agendas it supports. These are not secrets. It's easy to find out.


It seems that when Americans don't like the choices they've made, voluntarily, they all too often look to government to provide "protection" against their own, ill-advised and mis-informed choices or behaviors.

Took a %100 mortgage on that risky real estate because you "thought" it would all be OK when (IF?) it appreciated?

No problem. The government will "protect" you.

Can't or won't control what your kid is watching on TV or eating?

You don't actually have to be a pro-active parent. The government will set up agencies to "protect" you from having to do that job.

It goes on and on...

People who invest in corporations ought to be held accountable to actually KNOW a little something about the corporation they DECIDED to invest in. There is absolutely NO REASON to set up an after-the-fact "protection" of the people who blindly invested in some corporation that supports policies that they subsequently decide they don't agree with.

Indeed, Reich's suggestion amounts to a completely neutered version of what is SUPPOSED to happen. Corporations that support unpopular policies or agendas are SUPPOSED to have their investors simply take their ENTIRE investment out of the company.

Give me some small percentage of my dividend back that is supposed to reflect how much I disagree with the party or candidate you supported?

What?!?!

As an investor, if a company I hold does ANYTHING I don't agree with, they simply don't get to do it with ANY of my money, any more.

Those shares = "sold." Entirely.

Period.

In 1886 in the summary for the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite observed that the Court would not consider the question “whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbade a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Constitution, applied to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does”

This set precedence for the "person-hood" of corporations in the U.S. and is germane to the recent ruling which protects corporations freedom of speech under the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights.



Knife, for your edification here's the 14th amendment-
Pay close attention to the first section.
Do you honestly believe it's intent was to cover a corporate business entity?


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



As to my second statement being "a massive cop out" that may be your opinion but nothing more.
The mortgage comment and what follows is at best a straw man argument.

The Issue

With all due respect, you've got a few years to go before you'll be able to teach me much about Constitutional Law.

I'm well aware of the Santa Clara decision, and what it did - and more importantly DIDN'T - say.



Point #1 - Chief Justices do NOT provide "summaries" of the Court's decisions. This is part of the "old wive's tale" I told you you've been duped into believing.



Point #2 - This did NOT set a "precedent" (not "precedence" BTW), for several reasons. a) As I already explained, the "person-hood" of a corporation was a concept and a legal application (i.e precedence) that existed LOOOONG before 1886. Both int he United States and elsewhere, and b) a note in the summary section of a U.S. Report is not, never was and never will be "law" or any type of "legal precedent."



Point #3 - Despite the fact that - again, as I've already explained - Corporations enjoy SOME of the rights and protections of natural persons, this does NOT mean they are "covered by the Bill of Rights" as you claimed, earlier.

Thanks for the attempt to "educate" me on this point but I hope it is becoming clear to you I understand it, and have studied it, far deeper than you have.



Your initial comment was that people could NOT find out what political agendas publicly traded corporations supported. That this information needed to be learned, over time and could not be known before they invested.

So, to be a bit more blunt about it (since you've decided to sidestep the issue with that rude little quip):

Your initial assertion is completely unsupported by the plain and widely-known regulations regarding corporate and political disclosures.

That's not "my opinion." That's a fact.



I'm not sure you know what a "straw man argument" is.

Is it your contention that there has not been a government subsidization of over-leveraged mortgages, that I referred to? Or, are you just trying anything you can to side-step that direct fact, as well?

OK a quick note and I'm done.

Say or believe what you'd like, for now I stand by the well documented fact that the 1886 decision was a pivotal point in legally assigning "person-hood" to corporations.
As of yet I've seen nothing to dispute that fact and you have provided nothing but your opinion to the contrary.

My straw man comment was directed at your comments about Mortgages, TV and raising children which I considered far off point and saw no need to respond to.

Sorry if you believe my opinions of your views are "rude little quips". I'm sure you'll get over it.

And how the frick are you going to avoid putting money in corporations whose politics you abhor. Where is your pension fund invested? Your mutual funds?

But that's all a side show. The real issue is that the SCROTUS just handed the disgusting right a huge victory, and that's what this is all about.

Conservatives suck.

The conservatives I know are just as concerned.. seriously... But then again they are not mainline in politics.

My 2 concerns in this issue are the influx of Union money from organizations like the teachers unions which take $$ from the teachers and give to politics that everyone in the union doesn't agree with.. and the same with corporations..

Get the $$ out of politics..

Perhaps that's because you simply WANT to believe the improper assumption that "the 1886 decision was a pivotal point in legally assigning "person-hood" to corporations."

It is far from a "well-documented fact." It's just plain not true and horribly mis-informed. The information you C&P'd earlier (which is incorrect, and I've already shown you why) doesn't support that contention, either.

I find it intriguing that while you simply assert this is a "well documented fact" - with ZERO support for it - you simultaneously call for a need to see something to "dispute this fact."

What is clear is that you just haven't done any work on your own, to investigate and educate yourself on this. Instead, just choosing to cling to this ill-advised and mis-informed aspect of your already-announced bias against corporations.

Since you've evidenced your need to have someone spoon-feed you actual facts, here's some, that are right at your fingertips, if you really cared to know:

From Wikipedia:

"A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members."

"The word "corporation" derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or a "body of people". Entities which carried on business and were the subjects of legal rights were found in ancient Rome, and the Maurya Empire in ancient India."

See, also Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

From "HowStuff Works":

"Since corporations had been viewed as artificial persons for millennia, the debate over whether they should be afforded the same rights as humans had been raging long before the 14th Amendment was adopted."

I could go on and on but, until you evidence some willingness to actually learn something you obviously do not yet know, and perhaps change your mind about the misinformation you are holding on to so tightly, I'm not sure it's worth it.


The debate is NOT about whether corporations are "covered by the Bill of Rights." And that is NOT what Santa Clara said.

As I said, corporations can't avail themselves of many things that individual citizens can, under the Bill of Rights. They can't demand education, the right to marry, they can't vote, etc.


To re-set:

There is an ongoing push and pull - as the recent SCOTUS ruling evidences - about HOW MUCH protection that is afforded to a real, natural person, can or should also be afforded to a corporation. Corporations have ALWAYS had some of the rights of a natural individual.

Decisions have held that corporations - and many other entities that aren't "people," such as newspapers - are entitled to what are seen as "basic rights" such as the 1st Amendment right to "free speech." They have held that corporations are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. But they have also held that corporations have no expectation of privacy, as a natural person does.

And the debate, and the cases, will go on to continue to address this issue - and bring more clarity to it.


And I'll say it again - because it's obvious that you've never read the Santa Clara decision, instead deciding to rely on bad, second-hand information about it - the decision NEVER ADDRESSES the application of the application of the 14th Amendment to a Corporation.

Not only does the decision NOT give a corporation that right, it never even ADDRESSES IT.

It just doesn't.

It's not in there.

Read it and you'll see for yourself.


Finally, it's a pretty untenable debating tactic to assert incorrect and unsupported "facts," refuse to listen to those who know more about it than you, and then to demand that those people provide you with citations and references to outside sources to try and change your mind.

They are going to pass this health care bill by hook or by crook, even though the majority of people are against it. It has leaked that Reid and Pelosi are going to have a signed pledge by the democrat majority that are for it, that promises that if the other democrats that are against it vote for it they will make the changes they want to the bill after it becomes law. That is how they are going to get it passed, by subverting the system.

See, they keep talking about it passing.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100127/D9DG65K80.html

Wow .. if they keep doing things like that, people are going to start think they're republicans!

The question is what is "the health care Bill".

It's pretty clear that what was being discussed just a couple of weeks ago is not longer viable. They'll likely keep working on it but, anything that does pass will certainly not be what was passed through the Senate this term or anything close to what was originally talked about.

Finally, you can't "make changes to the bill after it becomes law." That's not the way it works. If you want to change it after it is signed into law, then you have to amend the law. It's no longer a bill, at that point.

Right you are.

http://newsmax.com/Headline/pelosi-reid-...omo_code=9600-1

Links? I don't think that's true. Without knowing exactly what's in the bill, who can say? Also, why would someone be against regulating these insurance companies who just raised premiums another 40%? What is the argument for NOT passing an insurance reform bill?

Wow.
What is it with people asking others to do their homework for them? Even when it is incredibly easy?



Most recent:

NBC (pro health care reform): "Just 32 percent say it's a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it's a bad idea."

Rasmussen Poll: "58% Don't want the health care plan to go forward. 61% don't want ANY health care reform. (yet 70% think it is likely to go forward, anyway)."

Earlier, this year:

Gallup Poll:

"Benefits of Healthcare Reform a Tough Sell for Americans

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-four percent of Americans believe a new healthcare reform law would improve medical care in the U.S., contrasted with 26% who say it would improve their personal medical care."


Huffington Post:

"Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), the survey finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do."

Even this NBC, pro-healthcare reform article agrees.




What you "think" is true is clearly untrue, as evidenced by the facts.

And it seems clear that many people are opposed to it largely BECAUSE they don't know what's in it. When the very Senators who have voted yes to the b Bill had to go on national television and say that they had no real idea what it was they just agreed to (despite it being the single largest piece of legislation in the last 20-30 years...), it didn't sit very well with the regular folks.




See above.

It's generally accepted logic to not blindly support a massive overhaul that you have no knowledge or clear understanding of (and that is being pushed through the system like a wheelchair-bound granny on the way to the early-bird special dinner).

I can't believe you are quoting Wikipedia, after slamming me for quoting Wikipedia on another issue, and using a news poll as evidence of anything.

1) I would never rely on Wikipedia as a sole source. Ever.

When I have to spoon-feed basic information about a sophomoric topic to someone who simply refuses to do ANY reading about it, at all however, it's fine to use it as one source.

2) Those are not "news polls" they are all independent polls, being REPORTED ON, in a few news articles.

You had asked for "links" indicating that "the majority of people are against [the pending health care reform bill]."

What ELSE did you think you'd get, in response to your request for evidence of national public opinion, other than polls?

Can you try any harder to avoid the plain fact that your "thinking" most Americans support the current health care reform legislation is just incorrect?

We all know that anybody can do 5 minutes of "research" and come up with reams of "proof" supporting any position on any topic... straight from the Institute of Rectally-Produced Statistics, from whom some of you guys apparently have received honorary degrees.

From your mouth to God's ear. I don't think it's going to happen, but that's certainly what they should be doing, those wimps.

Meanwhile Obama is all set to start channeling Reagan tonight with all his deficit bullshit. I don't know if I'm going to be able to stand it.

I just hate politics. Oh so too much BS no matter which side of the fence you're on.

OMG, it seems like I NEVER LEFT. You idiots are arguing over the same drivel you were going over when I left. Some people NEVER change, or grow up.

I'll be back in another 2 or 3 years and see how the sandbox has changed.

You're the idiot if you think it's drivel, Eric, and up yours if I'm one of the people you're talking about (never mind if you're only talking about everyone else ). These are issues that affect each and every one of us.

Same with you, Tardo. Just avoiding your responsibility to become informed about what's happening in the world by saying both sides are BS doesn't prevent these important policies from having a big impact on your life.

Don't bother coming back, Eric. A "sandbox" of "idiots"? Get a ladder and get over yourself.

I'm not the only one who feels this way. Even good ol' Jeremy asked "WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AUDIO FORUM" in thread http://www.audiotalkback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/136360/Some_Audio_Forum#Post136360

Well, while we are at it, I think we are going in the wrong direction. You can't spend your way out of debt, and countries really do go bankrupt. By the way, who in the H*ll thought it was a good idea to start borrowing from the communist Chinese??? Where do you think we'll borrow the money from, the tooth fairy??? There is a major cost to every dumb move we make.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100128/D9DGT7DG0.html

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/walmart/b1.html

Even Obama is trying to calm people, but I think it's just to pacify the people and get the sheep to go back to sleep. He is slick, he is sweet talking the people again. Now he is talking tax cuts and job programs. Tell the people what they want to hear, then do the opposite. What ever happened to the end of NAFTA, etc.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100130/D9DI9K1O4.html

Well Eric, more than one person thinks you're extremely rude and should go away if you don't have anything constructive to say. This thread is marked OT; if you're not interested, don't read it.

BTW nobody is under any obligation to compare another two of Jeremy's identical mixes. I wasn't interested, therefore I didn't. No offense, Jeremy, but you have to be prepared for that. I listened to your last ones; this time I didn't.

***

Nope, you're the one who's a sheep, Excel.

The problem is that you have read nothing about macroeconomics. That's why what you're saying about spending our way out of debt is a) barking up the wrong tree (debt is not the problem), b) totally incorrect (Keynes taught us that), and c) frustratingly simple-minded - even though in your defense you have the entire stupid Republican party and even otherwise intelligent people like Kecinzer feeding you that crap.

The part about borrowing from the Chinese is also ignorant, to be blunt. They buy dollars because they're safe and there's nowhere else for them to put their excess currency. If they sold them they'd be doing us a favor; it would hurt them more and our exports would go way up. What happens is that we buy cheap Chinese goods from them, which fuels their growth and makes our dollars stretch farther. Nobody walked into the Bank of China and borrowed money. Plus you threw in the word communist. That was the first giveaway that you've swallowed the same lies all knee-jerk conservatives swallow.

You got one thing half right by accident, though. Why did the White House leak that one seemingly small part of the SOTU address (freezing the budget, channeling Reagan)? To deflect the Senate from voting for the Legislative Statutory Commission proposed by Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad, which would have fast-tracked cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

It worked, and it's for the good of the country.

The other reason he's saying that is that we will have to worry about deficits when economy picks up and people start spending again, and he's right to show that he's not ignoring that. But right now when business has no customers, the government has to spend to keep the economy going. There are two sides to deficits: the amount of money and the percentage of the GNP. If you boost the GNP by investing, the deficits become less important. In the short term, that is.

I feel a whole lot better after the SOTU speech and after seeing him beat the shit out of those Republicans yesterday. He was really impressive!

Here Excel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01krugman.html

And this is great - it explains exactly what I'm saying above, only I'm not Robert Reich, plus he explains it without getting mad like I do:

http://robertreich.org/post/358773967/obama-needs-to-teach-the-public-how-to-get-out-of-the

Identical mixes Nick? My condolences for your hearing loss.

I didn't listen, Jeremy. Last time they were so close I couldn't tell the difference (when you swapped hard drives).

Eric,

At least one place stays the same

I must say there is some interesting banter here and when someone does ask a DA7 question people do try to answer / help out.

Hey Eric, don't be a Dick,

Come on back and join our ragged band of idiots.
Your holier than thou stuff is impressive, but I think you are missing out on some good old fashioned barn burning discourse.

I for one have great respect for your credentials and expertise.
It would be great to have your enlightened presence on this forum.

Just sayin'

I agree with you about Obama. Had I voted for him and believed his talk about "hope and change" I would be irate that he is pretty much in step with Bush on a lot of things and is now just pandering.

The guy has had a rough first year. Pretty much everything he has tried to do has failed - sitting down with Iran, healthcare, the stimulus (I don't know how he blames Bush for all the jobs we lose every month but takes credit for all the jobs we don't lose), closing GITMO, the terrorist trials in NYC, etc....

I think he has to decide if he's going to go with the 10% lunatic fringe or if he's going to move more to center.

If he moves to center I think he'll be re-elected. If he sticks with the nuts on the far left (there are just as many nuts on the far right btw) he's toast.

I don't see any transparency from Obama. All I see are special deals for big business, unions and states that go along behind closed doors.

If he were Clinton or Bush I would understand it, but this guy was supposed to be different.

The war, fear, religion, and special interest machines have been working overtime, and have spent a ton of money making sure Obama doesn't make good on his positive change promises. Then they say, "see, he can't get anything done".