tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post2670221604749305579..comments2024-03-12T22:21:06.324-07:00Comments on Sierra Dragon's Breath : Democrats apoplectic after SCOTUS decision on McCutcheon v FECTodd Juvinallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-44473015864902908192014-04-04T16:14:54.273-07:002014-04-04T16:14:54.273-07:00MichaelA, pot meet kettle. You have denigrated al...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!<br /><br />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. Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-28687931727935951822014-04-04T15:58:15.045-07:002014-04-04T15:58:15.045-07:00Nope, it has nothing to do with free speech. It...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.<br /><br />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.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07255689052950672831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-85595089601084636132014-04-04T11:53:32.964-07:002014-04-04T11:53:32.964-07:00Well said BArry!Well said BArry!Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-61238381108598989252014-04-04T11:52:17.586-07:002014-04-04T11:52:17.586-07:00Ben Emery, are you then rejecting "Marbury v ...Ben Emery, are you then rejecting "Marbury v Madison"? Sounds like you are.<br /><br />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.Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-63633338015240149472014-04-04T11:27:06.649-07:002014-04-04T11:27:06.649-07:00COUNTDOWN TO ANOTHER PATENTED BEN EMERY "argu...COUNTDOWN TO ANOTHER PATENTED BEN EMERY <i>"argumentum ad passiones"</i>.....in 5....4....3....2fishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-54023505471268345562014-04-04T11:00:28.383-07:002014-04-04T11:00:28.383-07:00Your extrapolation of a no longer operative suprem...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. <br /><br />You were partially correct above when you acknowledged Barrys point :<br /><br /><i>Barry,<br /><br />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.</i><br /><br />You would have been on sounder footing if you would have stopped after:<br /><br /><i>Barry,<br /><br />You're correct again....</i><br /><br />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.fishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-10039264596765248442014-04-04T10:58:05.551-07:002014-04-04T10:58:05.551-07:00It is the voter's responsibilty to cherish the...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.Barry Pruetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10440164301872110498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-21669113263840976892014-04-04T10:49:31.126-07:002014-04-04T10:49:31.126-07:00Barry,
You just gave the definition of quid pro qu...Barry,<br />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. <br /><br />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%. <br /><br />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.Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-3780739688527744782014-04-04T10:38:12.217-07:002014-04-04T10:38:12.217-07:00Fish,
No that doesn't mean I botched any argu...Fish, <br />No that doesn't mean I botched any argument. Explain to me where it was botched? <br /><br />Todd,<br />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. Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-78615065720240046652014-04-04T10:21:55.091-07:002014-04-04T10:21:55.091-07:00The lack of support for the veracity of the indivi...The lack of support for the veracity of the individual voter bt Ben Emery is breathtaking. As well as that voters responsibility.Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-54608556107453628692014-04-04T10:16:06.643-07:002014-04-04T10:16:06.643-07:00Intersting argument. Should not elected officials...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.Barry Pruetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10440164301872110498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-43365467279900474602014-04-04T10:04:45.369-07:002014-04-04T10:04:45.369-07:00I can take this as acknowledgement that you "...I can take this as acknowledgement that you "botched" the argument then?fishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-57731599842883515972014-04-04T10:03:54.198-07:002014-04-04T10:03:54.198-07:00Once again Ben Emery, using your logic you would s...Once again Ben Emery, using your logic you would support repeal of Roe v Wade?Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-48985001297140039012014-04-04T10:03:12.759-07:002014-04-04T10:03:12.759-07:00Fish,
I bet there were many people and states that...Fish,<br />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. Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-56586023986739482462014-04-04T09:57:45.117-07:002014-04-04T09:57:45.117-07:00Barry,
I don't want to leave out the biggest p...Barry,<br />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. Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-81649710639391021422014-04-04T09:55:14.812-07:002014-04-04T09:55:14.812-07:00While it is abundantly clear that a sentient being...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. <br /><br />fishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-27739146970987616362014-04-04T09:53:06.448-07:002014-04-04T09:53:06.448-07:00Barry,
I agree with Thomas's logical extension...Barry,<br />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. Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-25999367550676517292014-04-04T09:46:13.269-07:002014-04-04T09:46:13.269-07:00Fish,
Where did I botch an argument? Fish,<br />Where did I botch an argument? Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-16273906811669408682014-04-04T09:46:02.192-07:002014-04-04T09:46:02.192-07:00That is where we differ Ben. Restricting the mean...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? Barry Pruetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10440164301872110498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-64354117291109469812014-04-04T09:41:37.900-07:002014-04-04T09:41:37.900-07:00SCOTUS once ruled a human being was property, so i...<i>SCOTUS once ruled a human being was property, so it is our duty to correct this injustice.</i><br /><br />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".fishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-68369139589771158592014-04-04T09:41:24.012-07:002014-04-04T09:41:24.012-07:00So you would support the overturning of Roe v Wade...So you would support the overturning of Roe v Wade?Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-85660106570614309132014-04-04T09:25:56.549-07:002014-04-04T09:25:56.549-07:00Todd,
That is correct, they have ruled money is sp...Todd,<br />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. Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-1651678503259643842014-04-04T09:23:01.085-07:002014-04-04T09:23:01.085-07:00Todd,
I rarely speak directly about corruption in ...Todd,<br />I rarely speak directly about corruption in the Republican Party. I almost always include both parties or imply in my incessant rants.<br /><br />Why am I running? February 2010<br /><br />"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...."Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-10575873109603429172014-04-04T09:15:08.820-07:002014-04-04T09:15:08.820-07:00First paragraph of my Campaign Reform issue on our...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. <br /><br />Campaign Finance Reform<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Ben Emerynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649343161125212318.post-77124662592567286262014-04-04T09:14:23.526-07:002014-04-04T09:14:23.526-07:00One mention is not the same as your treatment and ...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!Todd Juvinallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11273611043872087559noreply@blogger.com