United States Supreme Court destroys individual rights...
24 postsPage 2 of 2
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Micrówave · Member since
Oh, I've known that for years!
It's just funny how you hear things on here (a few years ago) about how Bush was destroying the world and now you hear things like:
"it wouldn't be (Obama's) fault." and "The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country."
Democrats are funny.
GratefulFan · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
There has been bi-partisan legislative action over many years to insulate the American political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. It's in the interest of no democracy to allow it, and so purely speculatively what I think it means is that over a relatively short amount of time new legislation will be crafted that will plug the important holes. In the meantime, we will get to witness a debate on whether coporations have freedom of speech rights comparable to individuals, which to my mind is a facinating philosophical question. And I think the timing is good, set as it will be against a dumbed down poplulist tone coming from a chastised White House with Obama's references to 'fat cat bankers' and such.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah!!! Are you single? lol
Kidding. : ))
But that's so correct. ; -))
[/QUOTE]
I like people who think I'm right! They're so smart! :)
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
It's just funny how you hear things on here (a few years ago) about how Bush was destroying the world and now you hear things like:
"it wouldn't be (Obama's) fault." and "The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country."
Democrats are funny.
[/QUOTE]
Um... I'm not a a Democrat, nor am I American. And I've never pledged allegiance to any political party in my country.
So why hasn't Obama closed down Guantanamo Bay despite promising it to be the first thing on his agenda? Are you suggesting he is in favour of torturing people on Cuban soil without a fair trial?
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
It's just funny how you hear things on here (a few years ago) about how Bush was destroying the world and now you hear things like:
"it wouldn't be (Obama's) fault." and "The president is not the person who ultimately runs the country." [/QUOTE] I find this amusing as well. The nearest thing to an explanation I can think of is that while both could be powerless figureheads, Bush was a powerless figurehead who actually sounded like he agreed with doing insane bullshit. Obama's more like a guy in a canoe, in a raging river, with no oars. He sounds like he desperately wants to start rowing, but it ain't going to happen.
*goodco* · Member since
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
Micrówave · Member since
Oh, and Sir GH, I wasn't referring to you as a democrat. I know. I just used your comments, because they're 'spot on' to them dems.
Obama's breaking a lot of his so-called promises. He's won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, which actually is peaceful when you think about it.
Remember the comparisons of Obama to FDR after the election? They practically shoved that down our throats. Change is coming. The 21st century New Deal. Bush fatigue. The voters changed a center-right country into a center-left one.
But now health care reform is hanging by a thread. Here's Obama spending his time on health care reform at a time when millions fear for their jobs. That would be like FDR spent his first days promoting Social Security instead of emergency relief and recovery. Instead of leaving AIG and GM to fall, Obama instead extended the same cooperation the Bush Administration did that put those companies in the positions they're in.
Nothing ever changes. And limiting contributions from a certain group will only give rise to another way of funnelling in cash.
Check out this article... Obama's response is right on the money.
I don't know my US politics well, but... can't the President somehow veto this? That's all Bush ever did after the Democrats had control of the senate.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, only the Supreme Court can overturn a Supreme Court decision. So we'll just have to wait for a couple more conservatives who are on it to die, because you get appointed for life (which has resulted in a fair few senile justices in the past).
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]
Oh, and Sir GH, I wasn't referring to you as a democrat. I know. I just used your comments, because they're 'spot on' to them dems.
Obama's breaking a lot of his so-called promises. He's won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, which actually is peaceful when you think about it.
Remember the comparisons of Obama to FDR after the election? They practically shoved that down our throats. Change is coming. The 21st century New Deal. Bush fatigue. The voters changed a center-right country into a center-left one.
But now health care reform is hanging by a thread. Here's Obama spending his time on health care reform at a time when millions fear for their jobs. That would be like FDR spent his first days promoting Social Security instead of emergency relief and recovery. Instead of leaving AIG and GM to fall, Obama instead extended the same cooperation the Bush Administration did that put those companies in the positions they're in.
Nothing ever changes. And limiting contributions from a certain group will only give rise to another way of funnelling in cash. [/QUOTE]
So, in short, you think it's a *good* thing that [insert major corporation here] can just *buy* a senate- or house seat?
Micrówave · Member since
No.
In short, I say you get rid of one way of channelling money and another will soon pop up.
People have bought senate seats for years. Stopping a major corporation from doing it won't change anything.
I have a better solution. Put a tax on those contributions. A 100% tax. You donate $100, you give an extra $100 to Uncle Sam.
