Any topic any time. No profanity.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Democrats apoplectic after SCOTUS decision on McCutcheon v FEC

HERE is the decision.

The world will end as we know it according to the fear mongering democrats I listened to since the decision came down yesterday.  Money is only good if it is democrat money.  Republican money is bad.  Money is speech, or in my opinion, it buys free speech.  Or it buys democrat lies if you really look hard at them.  Can't have that can we?  Funny how the democrat party and all the liberal whiners complain that the Koch Brothers money is buying something for the Koch Brothers while the democrat money supplied by the hedge fund lefty, Tom Steyer is good money.

The democrat prostitutes in the US Senate did a so-called "filibuster" on their support for the hoax of man made global warming for their master Steyer a couple of weeks ago.  They were afraid Steyer would not follow through with his pledge of a $100 million dollar donation to them if they did not re-up their support for pursuing the hoax. If that is not bald faced hypocrisy and corruption by the democrats then what is? 

My position has always been in favor of free speech.  If a American wants to give a gazillion bucks to a candidate I am fine with that.  The only caveat is there must be immediate disclosure of the "giver".  Then the voters can decide if they like the whole thing.  What the democrats have had all these years is hegemony in the "messages" delivered to the voters.  What I mean is the democrats did not have to worry much about the dispersion of their message because they had the press and they got free dissemination all the time.  Until Rush Limbaugh, talk radio and FOX News, the left had a monopoly of like minded people in charge of their message.  That is now being balance out by the decision yesterday and the "Citizen's United of a few years ago.

If the arguments from the left were valid about the dangers of money in politics, they would have curtailed their own fundraising many years ago.  But of course they did not.  If they think the country will be ruined by money limits being removed, they are naive.  Money has always been important.  How does a candidate get his message to the voters?  If they self fund then a candidate is rich and the left hates that.  Of course there are more millionaire liberals in Congress than Republicans but you don't hear that from the press do you?  The press must be embarrassed. Probably not.

I like the angst I read from the lefty newspapers and other media now that they no longer have the only viable way to send mass information to the voter.  Why should the media have a monopoly?  They manipulate all the news articles to a lefty slant and of course they deny that happens.  But the Media Research Center proves they do manipulate our information all the time.  The New York Times has no monopoly now.  Of course they will take the money from the Republicans to pay for ads but that is OK.  A free speech mantra seems to only come from the right as is evident in the Wall Street Journal Video Editorial on the decision. 

All in all the left has had a huge advantage all my life in the political messaging and now that may end.  Money always seeks its own level and no matter what the politicians do to curb it's influence it will never be banned from the process.  The handcuffs of phony outrage placed on money by the system (McCain/Feingold) are now removed and in my opinion, the country is better for this decision.  This morning I watched CSPAN's Washington Journal and the host had a woman from a "neutral" non-profit that has the word "sunlight" in it's name.  What a joke.  The woman was totally in the tank against the Republicans and had not one word to say against any tactic by the left.  Yet she was touting herself and her organization as "non-partisan".  She and her organization are why you cannot trust anything these liberals say.  The SCOTUS decision puts her bias front and center and allows Americans to judge these liberal hypocrites by listening to their own words.

The press conference by Nancy Pelosi this morning also showed the American people how afraid the liberals are now that the playing field of fund raising is balancing out. (remember Oba,a's billion bucks?).  She cried the blues about money in politics yet receives huge amounts for herself and her pals.  She whines about the Republicans voting over fifty times to rid the country of the travesty of ObamaCare yet she and her democrat pals have at least that many attempts to overturn "Citizen's United"!  What is worse?  At least the SCOTUS Decision allows personal freedom while ObamaCare takes it away.  I'll go with personal freedom.

To me the bottom line is this.  If people want change in government then they have to vote it in.  Low voter turnout is the problem.  The voters need to get off their collective asses and vote.  No excuses accepted by me for not filling out the ballot.  American have the freedom to stay home and watch "Dancing with the Stars" rather than trekking over to the polling place.  But you see what we get.  It is the voters fault for the mess in my view.  Lazy, excuse laden reasons to stay home.  Yet, even with all the easy ways to vote the voter still doesn't.  We allow voting by mail, permanent absentees, motor voter, and same day registration.  We have people that will come pick you up and take you to the polls!  We have tried to make it all really easy yet the lazy ass voter still stays home.  If you want better candidates then you run for election.  But they don't.  California voters are the worst.  Hell if every Republican voted in the off years we would own the State offices and most of the Congressional Districts!  But I digress.

As long as the message to the voters cost money there will be lots of it being spread around.  Get used to it.  I am really excited to see how this decision is utilized in this year's elections.  We Americans can be really creative.  All in all, I think McDonald's spends more in a year on advertising their products than we as a people spend on all the elections of our politicians.  So you want a better Big Mac?  Gotta spend the dough.

46 comments:

  1. Todd, it's called the "Democratic Party," not the "democrat party." Please make a note of it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. Nope, it has nothing to do with free speech. It's about manners. I wasn't asking you to use the correct name because that is what should be required by law, I was making the point that by using this stupid Rush Limbaugh-ism, you are emulating his bad manners. It's a way of denigrating your appointment without engaging in any dialogue of substance. Quite childish, actually. It's like calling the Republican Party the Turd Party. It's tacky.

      BTW, I'm a registered Republican and you all can do as you please. No skin off my nose. But I will remain unimpressed by the behavior.

      Delete
    2. MichaelA, pot meet kettle. You have denigrated almost everything Republican so you are what we call a RINO. You opinions are not taken seriously anyway based on your bad behavior here and elsewhere. We simply treat you like a tick. Too funny!

      Regarding Rush Limbaugh and his Limbaughisms. You bet we like most of his stuff because after being subjected to all your pals most of my life he is a breath of fresh air. He is funny yet he brings issues to the fore that your buddies never did. Over half the country is center right and yet all the media except a couple are lefty like you. We have someone that is fun to listen to. You can go listen to Stephy and Brian Williams and all the other yahoos. We have kicked your ass and you don't like it.

      Delete
  3. I'm enjoying Flabbius Maximus get his panties in a twist over this at his site.....and believe me, that is, to quote Shotgun Joe Biden a pretty big F&%$ing deal. As in a three masted schooner main sails worth of fabric wedged between those oh so moderate cheeks!

    Things just keep getting better!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is it free speech or government going to the highest bidder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Free speech Ben Emery. If the government can tell you how much of your private money can be spent on politics then they can tell you you have to buy "health insurance". Oops, they did. what's next? I think they ma come and tell you you must pay a "carbon tax" for exhaling CO2. Oops, they did. Darn. Oh well, I guess freedom means different things to each person.

      Delete
  5. A cut and paste just for Todd.

    An excerpt from an article from Bernie Sanders
    Democracy vs. Oligarchy
    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/democracy-vs-oligarchy

    "Since 1990, when I was first elected to Congress, I have held hundreds of town meetings in almost every community in Vermont. Just this past Sunday I held a town meeting in Middlebury, Vt., with a video connection to meetings in three other towns. At these town meetings I listen to what my constituents have to say, answer questions and give a rundown of what I'm working on and what's going on in Washington.

    This process -- an elected official meeting with ordinary citizens -- is called "democracy."

    Ironically, at the same time as I was holding town meetings in Vermont, a handful of prospective 2016 Republican presidential candidates (Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie and Scott Walker) trekked to Las Vegas to audition for the support of Sheldon Adelson, the multibillionaire casino tycoon who spent at least $93 million underwriting conservative candidates in the last election cycle. Those candidates were in Las Vegas for the sole purpose of attempting to win hundreds of millions from him for their presidential campaigns."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben Emery, I understand that the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, is your hero. I am shocked that you fall for his rhetoric about democracy when he really cannot be telling the truth. But on its face, sure, democracy can be what he says but it can also be more.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I asked what your point was but I saw it in the previous comment. I do not cafe what someone does with their money. They earned it and if they want to donate for democracy, who amI to judge and dictate what they can do with their property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is correct Barry. Money is also deemed "private property" and as we have seen the politicians on the left have done their darnedest to control that as well. Ben Emery just does not understand that it appears.

      Delete
  8. Democracy is literally "people power". "People" not "Money" power. Barry got it 100% correct, money is property. Nobody is telling Sheldon Adelson he can't speak. He personally can talk all he wants where he should be limited is in using his property to get undue representation. What you guys are describing is those with no to little money deserve the least amount of representation.

    I true investment into democracy would be public financing fund that is used for candidates who qualify. The amount that goes towards the public financing is the cap for that office in the specific election. A individual could privately fund their campaign but be constrained to the cap of spending for that election season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democracy is literally "people power".

      ...or in other language "mob rule".

      Ben Emery trying to appeal to the Jacobin voting block.

      Delete
    2. Ben Emery you are very misguided in this topic. The money put into politics buys advertising and that is about it. Now, what you overlook is the responsibility of the voter. The individual voter. Now it appears to me that you believe the voter is just some dopey ignorant person who will travel off the cliff because they money someone like Adelson or Soros says you need to do. OK, then if the voter is so irresponsible we should do what?

      Money s personal property and you should be able to spend it on whatever you want. The political system needs it to buy advertising, nothing more.

      Delete
  9. Todd,
    You obviously don't pay attention to what I write because I fully understand the left have their own cash cows that get undue representation as well. The only special interest our public representatives should have are their constituents. Sheldon Adelson is lives in Las Vegas, Nevada so he should be represented by his House and Senators of Nevada in our federal government. He should be represented by his district reps in Nevada state government and by his city council and supervisor in his districts. What you guys are saying is Sheldon Adelson should be able to buy representation from Wisconsin, Arizona, Texas, and so on. That is not democracy that is oligarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben Emery, you are too funny. All your incessant rants against money are made against Republican donors and other conservatives. You never rail against Soros or Steyer so you are transparent in your position on partisanship. Don't deny it.

      It is interesting to me that liberals attack the people in the private sector that they are going after to destroy. Why shouldn't Adelson give money to those that will fight to keep the enemy at bay? Even locally I see this. If the Board of Supervisors is looking at a law that would , say, deny people the right to grow POT, shouldn't those POT growers have the right to donate to those that favor their position? Of course they should. I am sure you could care less that Mr. Smith gives 10 thousand bucks to Mr. Jones who favors POT growers positions.

      It is all relative isn't it?

      Delete
    2. Todd,
      I didn't have to go far, a blog called Sierra Dragons Breath to find a comment directed at yourself, which you responded where I go after the lefts big donors. "Never" is a strong word.

      " All your incessant rants against money are made against Republican donors and other conservatives. You never rail against Soros or Steyer so you are transparent in your position on partisanship. Don't deny it."

      Ben EmeryMarch 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

      "Didn't read the op ed and don't care to read it. What does Buffet or Soros have in common with the common person in America? Nothing, they might have at one point but today they have no freaking clue what it means to be living paycheck to paycheck in 2014 America. So why should Buffet or Soros have more representation than the rest of us? The Democratic Party is in the pockets of Wall St/ big business as much if not more than the Republican Party...."

      Delete
    3. One mention is not the same as your treatment and constant droning against the right Ben Emery. I will withdraw the word "never" though and since you have at least one mention I begrudgingly apologize. LOL!

      Delete
    4. First paragraph of my Campaign Reform issue on our official website I mention how both parties are owned by big business and wealthy individuals. I will find one more and post it, the very first public statement as a potential candidate for public office.

      Campaign Finance Reform

      "Until we control our elections for public office we have no control over the people who are supposed to be representing our best interests. Who controls the purse strings controls the government. Right now big business and wealthy businessmen and women control the purse strings of our elections, Republican and Democratic Party leadership, and the elected legislators through lobbying efforts and campaign donations.

      I support the Fair Elections Now Act sponsored by Change Congress, a non-partisan advocacy organization whose sole purpose is to protect the independence of Congress by fighting the influence of money in politics. Learn more online at fixcongressfirst.org."

      Delete
    5. Todd,
      I rarely speak directly about corruption in the Republican Party. I almost always include both parties or imply in my incessant rants.

      Why am I running? February 2010

      "For too long we have been represented by politicians who are seeking higher office, and in the process make financial deals to advance their goals. The last 30 years have been no exception, and in fact have accelerated the process to astronomical proportions. We no longer have a government that is of the people, for the people, and by the people of the United States of America but instead we have a government that is controlled by entities that have no loyalty except to those who will increase their bottom lines. We no longer have a Democracy, but have a corporatacracy in its place. Before, we had politicians bought off by campaign donations and special treatment, but in the last decade we have allotted them a seat at the legislative table. Who writes our energy policies, the oil companies? Who writes our Health Care policies, pharmaceutical and insurance companies? Authors of our Environmental policies are industrial polluters of the air, water, and soil. Transnational corporations and their CEOs shape our Trade and Tax policies, which allow our jobs to move out of the country while providing the executives with multimillion dollar bonuses. This has to stop, and only people who are not in the pockets of these corrupters of democracy can do it. I’m someone who will serve the people, not the corporate interests. Our democracy is in the jaws of death, and we need to snatch it out before it is too late...."

      Delete
  10. I have to run, but part of speech is getting your speech out...and that requires money

    ReplyDelete
  11. Barry,
    You're correct again, money is used to amplify your speech but it is not speech. Regulating the tool/ money/ property is not restricting a persons speech. Cars are property but there are laws/ rules we have to follow when we use them in public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben Emery, it appears the SCOTUS disagrees with you. They have ruled money is speech.

      Delete
    2. Todd,
      That is correct, they have ruled money is speech. SCOTUS once ruled a human being was property, so it is our duty to correct this injustice.

      Delete
    3. So you would support the overturning of Roe v Wade?

      Delete
    4. That is where we differ Ben. Restricting the means by which one can publish their speech is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Supporting candidates is free speech. It seems pretty clear to me. Justice Thomas does bring up an interesting point. If limiting expenditures is unconstitutional, then limiting contributions would also be unconstitutional. I disagree on this point as the government has a compelling interest in limiting quid pro quo corruption. I am not seeing the possibility of quid pro quo corruption in unlimited expenditures (not capping the amount one can spend but limiting to amount to each candidiate). If one one to give $2600 to every Republican congressman...who cares. Where is the possibility for corruption?

      Delete
    5. Barry,
      I agree with Thomas's logical extension but disagree where he started. The corruption is not done through individual donations to a specific candidate it is done through dark money, money that cannot be traced back to the original contributor. Corruption is done through quid pro quo appointments to agencies for those open secret donations. Corruption is done through private lobbyists writing the legislation that our representatives put forward for public policies. It isn't only campaign money it is found in every facet in our government. Campaign money is one prong of a multiple pronged problem.

      Delete
    6. Barry,
      I don't want to leave out the biggest problem with the ruling. The biggest problem is it makes average Americans who are just getting by or just not getting by without any power in a government that its ideals were to give power to the people to govern themselves through citizen legislators.

      Delete
    7. Intersting argument. Should not elected officials appoint poeple that support them to positions to which the official has appointment power. For example, is it bad that Obama is appointing bundlers to ambassadorships? I think that he would want people in positions that are 100 percent behind him. As far as citizens that have less money than others, we are all equal. We all get one vote knowing who is donating to whom in a transparent fashion, is one peice of the puzzle voters need when educating themselves about candidates. If one guy has a lot of money and gets his message out better than someone else, isn't up to the voter to research and do the duty required of a citizen who cherishes their vote.

      Delete
    8. The lack of support for the veracity of the individual voter bt Ben Emery is breathtaking. As well as that voters responsibility.

      Delete
    9. Barry,
      You just gave the definition of quid pro quo. So where does that leave the carpenter or the bus driver or the receptionist at the dentist office for representation? What happens those with the most money get the most speech therefore get the most representation and eventually control our government. That is called an oligarchy.

      The problem is we don't who is donating to whom. A poor person has no opportunity to have their speech amplified in our current system therefore have little input of the laws they will eventually have to live by. Is it no wonder that since 1980 over 85% of economic gains have went to 1% of the population and since 2008 95% of economic gains have gone to that same 1%.

      I don't want people who 100% support executive branch appointed to anything. I want people who owe their allegiance to the general welfare of the nation and its citizens not a individual or special interests.

      Delete
    10. It is the voter's responsibilty to cherish their vote and not be unduly influenced. Voters cannot be low information. Low info voters cause money to win elections. Not the other way around. We all get one vote...money wins when voters are apathetic.

      Delete
  12. SCOTUS once ruled a human being was property, so it is our duty to correct this injustice.

    I'm going to trademark the term EMERYLOGIK™ and use it every time you botch an argument while simultaneously congratulating yourself for announcing your going to "get wit da struggle".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fish,
    Where did I botch an argument?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While it is abundantly clear that a sentient being cannot under any system of laws rightfully be considered property the "money as speech' argument is clearly a no brainer from both a legal and logical perspective. The Taney court got Dred Scott wrong just as the Roberts court got this one right.

      Delete
    2. Fish,
      I bet there were many people and states that would disagree with your assessment that the Dred Scott decision was wrong. It took a civil war and US Constitutional amendments to reverse that ruling. I am praying that the civil war can be avoided but believe it is going to take a US Constitutional Amendment to reverse the idea that money is equal to speech and corporations are equal to natural persons.

      Delete
    3. Once again Ben Emery, using your logic you would support repeal of Roe v Wade?

      Delete
    4. I can take this as acknowledgement that you "botched" the argument then?

      Delete
    5. Fish,
      No that doesn't mean I botched any argument. Explain to me where it was botched?

      Todd,
      This is where Barry and I have had a few brief discussions before and we both agree what the Constitution says but acknowledge it is has been abused for so long it is would be virtually impossible to reverse. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it give the power of judicial review to SCOTUS. Every SCOTUS decision the final court on an individual case not creating blanket laws. The one place it can be reversed is if congress exercised their Constitutional powers and started regulating SCOTUS on their ability to basically create law through judicial review.

      Delete
    6. Your extrapolation of a no longer operative supreme court ruling, from a different era, issued by a court with different legal and cultural values to the SC ruling earlier this week is a flawed attempt out of the gate.

      You were partially correct above when you acknowledged Barrys point :

      Barry,

      You're correct again, money is used to amplify your speech but it is not speech. Regulating the tool/ money/ property is not restricting a persons speech. Cars are property but there are laws/ rules we have to follow when we use them in public.


      You would have been on sounder footing if you would have stopped after:

      Barry,

      You're correct again....


      Money amplifies speech and just as music amplified is still music, the guy who can spend enough to buy a bigger microphone is entitled to use it to make his point politically. Sorry Ben that's just the way it is. There is no right to own or drive a car and Sheldon Adelson has exactly the same number of votes as you when he enters the voting booth.

      Delete
    7. COUNTDOWN TO ANOTHER PATENTED BEN EMERY "argumentum ad passiones".....in 5....4....3....2

      Delete
    8. Ben Emery, are you then rejecting "Marbury v Madison"? Sounds like you are.

      Now I don't totally disagree that the black robes have become overbearing. I think we need to have term limits on Judges at the Federal level.

      Delete

Real name thank you.