Thread: 2012 Presidential Race

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

For the record, the best candidate we had dropped out awhile back and that was Herman Cain.

The best candidate? Good God.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The best candidate? Good God.

Oh, come on, dude! Herman had a cool slogan and he was totally ignorant of foreign policy and the domestic economy. He was the perfect candidate for the rabid right. 999! 999! 999! That's the only answer you need for any question that you ask. He really did make Palin look qualified - see, everything in life is relative.

Say it loud and say it proud: 999!

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

And Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Corporations are people too"---that is not a conservative position it is a radical position.

It's neither a conservative position or a radical position, it's a matter of legal fact. Some corporations are people.

Companies in particular have legal personhood which means that they have the legal right to hold property, to sue and be sued, they may conduct business and appoint agents; in fact every single legal power that a natural person has except to be able to get married, a company also has. In some cases such as setting up a pension fund or a trust where property is to be held in the hands of a separate person, the veil of personhood is prudent legal planning because it means that a natural person may be sued but the assets of the pension fund or trust remain intact.

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Oh, come on, dude! Herman had a cool slogan and he was totally ignorant of foreign policy and the domestic economy. He was the perfect candidate for the rabid right.

It's great when candidates can quote pop culture references from children's television...



Though the water's great guardian shall arise to quell the fighting, alone its song will fail, and thus the earth shall turn to ash.
- Also from Pokémon the Movie 2000.

Actually Britain does have its own politician who can quote pop culture references from children's television... Nick Clegg. Nick Clegg has been doing impressions of Sooty every since Cameron became PM.

He still has not answered any questions posed to him. He is adept at getting false information and posting Republican talking points that are so full of holes that that anyone could fall through. Imagine that, a person getting medical care because Danica fan had to prove his citizenship. I suppose he would prefer to live in Darfour(sic).

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

For everyone's information...Im a real person, not a troll. I usually post in only the racing sections but this election is one of the most if not the most important election we have ever had.
For those curious, I served in the US Air Force, E-4 but I dont know what matters so much to some of you. Im proud of my country, proud of my service, and those who have served & still serving. So therefore, I really hate to see this country plummeting fast.
I am strongly opposed to Obama. You guys deny it but cant hide from the facts. His policies have FAILED ! Again, stop watching or reading that liberal, brainwashing media for awhile and search around. Do some fact-checking, please.

Now Obama wants to ban protests now with Secret Service around... Bill HR347 gives federal agents the right to arrest and bring felony charges to citizens protesting where Secret Service is around.

Now this is a clear violation of the first amendment. Once he has his foot in the door, he will try and limit more of your rights. Im telling you this guy is a threat to this country. He actually scares me with his policies. He is in it for power. He wants government to control every aspect of your life. He studied this philosophy, believes in it,and now is practicing it.

Not to mention his latest fiasco...His disrespect for the American Flag. On a new campaign logo, He gets rid of the starts, puts his "O" in thier place and has 5 red stripes. That is a slap in the face to America and sickens me as an American and military veteran and it should you too. Wake up people before its too late.

You still did not explain what YOU did to "defend the country".

And how that grants you the right to sneer at people in the country doing actual productive work to make the country move.

Just because you were in a uniform does not mean you did a thing to "defend" the country..
Who did you defend us against?

Don't bother with the what did you do while serving argument; it's just a draw to change the subject. Service is no justification for or against anything. Consider the arguments on their merits, then have a laugh.

Rollie-baby, love your stuff, you write marveluous.


I hope you have time to glance at this:

In Citizens United (2010), the Court held that private corporations, which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and are not political membership organizations, enjoy the same political free speech rights as people under the First Amendment and may draw on the wealth of their treasuries to spend unlimited sums promoting or disparaging candidates for public office. The billions of dollars thus turned loose for campaign purposes at the direction of corporate managers not only can be, but — under the terms of corporate law — must be spent to increase profits. If businesses choose to exercise their newly minted political “money speech” rights, they must work to install officials who will act as 
corporate tools. The Court, transformed by the addition of Chief Justice Roberts and Samuel Alito, who were nominated by that lucky winner in Bush v. Gore, took this giant step to the right of all prior Courts without even being asked to do so.

The petitioner, Citizens United, sought only a ruling that the electioneering provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (better known as McCain-Feingold) didn’t apply to its on-demand movie about Hillary Clinton.

But the conservative (Judges) sent the parties back to brief and argue the paradigm-shifting constitutional question they were so keen to decide. As dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens observed, the justices in the majority “changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”

Before Citizens United came down, corporations were already spending billions of dollars lobbying, running “issue ads,” launching political action committees and soliciting PAC contributions. Moreover, CEOs, top executives and board directors — the people whose income and wealth have soared over the past several decades in relation to the rest of America — have always contributed robustly to candidates. But there was one crucial thing that CEOs could not do before Citizens United: reach into their corporate treasuries to bankroll campaigns promoting or opposing the election of candidates for Congress or president. This prohibition essentially established a wall of separation — not especially thick or tall, but a wall nonetheless — between corporate treasury wealth and campaigns for federal office.


The Roberts Court’s 5-4 decision to demolish most of this wall also bulldozed the foundational understanding of the corporation that had governed American law for two centuries. The Court had always regarded the corporation not as a citizen with constitutional rights, but as an “artificial entity” chartered by the states and endowed with extraordinary privileges in order to serve society’s economic purposes. The great conservative Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the Dartmouth College case (1819), “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.”

The Bellotti decision cracked open the door of campaign finance law, and the Citizens United majority blew that door off its hinges.

More good reading here:
'Citizens United' on the Corporate Court | BillMoyers.com

More, an hour of some of the bst discussion in the country here;
Full Show: The One Percent Court | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

Wiki has a nice detailed analysis of the decision..
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[h=Criticisms]3[/h] [h=American politicians]4[/h] President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates".^[43] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".^[44] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law^[45] to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
Democratic senator Russ Feingold, a lead sponsor of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president."^[46] Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat, stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case, and that the court had opened the door to political bribery and corruption in elections to come.^[47] Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards, along with constitutional law professor and Maryland Democratic State Senator Jamie Raskin, have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment.^[48] Rep. Leonard Boswell introduced legislation to amend the constitution.^[49] Senator John Kerry also called for an Amendment to overrule the decision.^[50] On December 8, 2011, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would reverse the court's ruling.^[51][52]
Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the party's 2008 presidential nominee, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".^[53] McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."^[46] Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."^[54]


But that was not the radical thing, it was the

Originally Posted by Rollo

It's neither a conservative position or a radical position, it's a matter of legal fact. Some corporations are people.

Companies in particular have legal personhood ......

I would like to point out that the legal fiction of corporation as person falls apart once the comparison step over from the Civil to the Criminal... Cops arrests baddies, courts put them on trial, and if it was a criminal act---including such things as criminal conspiracy---the courts send people to jail.
"Corporations" don't seem to get locked up very often---unlike ordinary citizens as we sop amply demonstrate with our 'Prison-Industrial Complex---we lock 'em up far better than all those limp-wristed Euro Sossi countries.

Originally Posted by Gregor-y

Don't bother with the what did you do while serving argument; it's just a draw to change the subject. Service is no justification for or against anything. Consider the arguments on their merits, then have a laugh.

Yeah yeah, we know... But they don't. an inescapable conclusion when reading this type of guys crqzy stuff is they seem to have no idea that asserting something--or just blurting it out---is not dialog, or proof...

We need to help the poor miserable misguided bastids out by carefully disassembling their basic propositions, otherwise they will never learn..
So when they---absolutely having nothing to do with whatever discussion---bark "I defended the__________" we need to show them they probably did no such thing, and that that has nothing to do with anything...

I don't know why you are knocking the U.S. Navy. Everyone that I knew that joined at an impressionable age learned at least 3 things:
How to drink
How to smoke
How to swear

Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini

I don't know why you are knocking the U.S. Navy. Everyone that I knew that joined at an impressionable age learned at least 3 things:
How to drink
How to smoke
How to swear

I think you have those reversed, and I only lived submerged in the Navy, never joined---only family member in generations and as far out--like every cousin--as i could see.
Swear--by 7
Smoke by 7 1/2
Drink by 25--late developer---and it was the french who taught me that..

Now the US Air Farce----that's another story.

Are there only a bunch of liberals here ???? Where are the conservatives and Republicans at ?
I was in Intel in the Service so what I did was all Top Secret and again, what I did in the service is not the issue here or anyone's business to be honest.

Danicafan, I consider myself a conservative, but like Ronald Reagan said he never left the democratic party,the democratic party left him, I feel the same way about the republican party lately. Reagan is actually a good example. He would be considered a RINO today, what with granting amnesty to illegal aliens, cutting marginal tax rates,yes, but raising many others, no, and compromising and working with democrats to get deals done.

For me it started with the hard-line stance on immigration. I would listen to talk show hosts go on about immigration, and say to myself, "That's not right, that's not how it is." My wife is Mexican, and I know many immigrants, legal and illegal, and the characterization that conservative pundits make about illegal immigration is just flat out wrong. I also don't believe them anymore when they talk against deficits and fiscal conservancy. At one point, republicans controlled both houses and the presidency and deficits continued to get worse, so I take that rhetoric for what it is, "We want you to stop spending on your pet programs, so we can spend on ours." As an aside, I have actually come to the conclusion that deficits really don't matter (on the macro level), but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. It's taken me two years of independent reading and thinking on economics to come to this point.

Like I stated earlier, the republican party seems tone-deaf right now, insulting people about not paying income taxes, when fully 1/2 or more are the very people most likely to vote republican (i.e. the elderly and white working class w/kids(remember included in the 47% were people who paid payroll taxes but got back 100% of their withholding.)) The problem with ideological purity is that your tent keeps getting smaller and smaller, and right now I am on the outside.

Oh, I'm not voting for Obama, but I am not voting for Romney either, of course where I live it doesn't matter. Obama will win my district(Memphis), and Romney will win Tennessee regardless of what I do. I hate to sound so cavalier about it, but I don't think it matters who wins. Forces outside of politics will eventually let us emerge from this lost decade, and things will be rosy for most once again. For me they already are. I'm a salesman and I had my best year ever last year, and this year is on pace to match or even exceed it. Hopefully everyone else can join in the boom times once again very soon.

Interesting post. It does raise the question "What drives the economy? Is it government policy and decisions or is it market forces, ie bankers' decisions and opinions?". Clearly government decisions can influence the direction the economy is going, or if you like give it a steer, but do they actually control it? I think not.
I'm not sure quite where the division of powers lies in the USA. To what extent can the President take action without the sanction of Congress (both houses) and by corollary without the consent of his party? In the context of this thread, are you really voting for the man or are you voting for his party's policies?
I appreciate that these are not easy questions to answer in the USA with its federalised structure.

It's a very important point. As I understanding with my limited knowledge of American politics is that if the situation were the same in the UK, we'd have a Labour Prime Minister, yet a Tory majority in the Commons?

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Rollie-baby, love your stuff, you write marveluous.

I hope you have time to glance at this:

I did. I also happened to take note of the rather ignorant first line too:

In Citizens United (2010), the Court held that private corporations, which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and are not political membership organizations, enjoy the same political free speech rights as people under the First Amendment

Nowhere, huh? Tell me, where in the First Amendment does it define a "person" or "people".
Notwithstanding Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad 118 U.S. 394 (1886) which upheld corporations' rights of protection of personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment?

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.
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Corporations are very much citizens of the United States, subject to the laws of the land and subject to taxation and the relevant laws which they reside in.

And then there's this:
Regulation S. Section 902(k)(1)
Definition of person:
1. Any natural person resident in the United States;
2. Any partnership or corporation organized or incorporated under the laws of the United States;
- Securities Act of 1933

Corporate personhood exists in all 50 states and in Federal Law.

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

I would like to point out that the legal fiction of corporation as person falls apart once the comparison step over from the Civil to the Criminal... Cops arrests baddies, courts put them on trial, and if it was a criminal act---including such things as criminal conspiracy---the courts send people to jail.
"Corporations" don't seem to get locked up very often---unlike ordinary citizens as we sop amply demonstrate with our 'Prison-Industrial Complex---we lock 'em up far better than all those limp-wristed Euro Sossi countries.

It is rather difficult for White Picket Fences Plc to actually commit assault and battery. It is also somewhat difficult for a corporation to commit most criminal offences against physical person. That would make an interesting challenge for you I suspect.

Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini

As you can see I edited my post, Jim was a reasonably sane man after he was released from Patton (at least as sane as me); He just had some of the fight taken out of him, but was what most people would call a productive member of society (general contractor). I think our real disagreement (if you even want to call it one) is that at that time things were quite different than they are now. My actual baseball career stopped suddenly due to a very serious injury, and I became very aware of social justice as I worked the rest of my way through college. The progressive movement in the 60's was exactly that, too real, but more importantly too free (not absolutely free). As you probably know it was the onset of what could have been a socialist revolution in the USA.
But the conservative elements of our government took whatever measures necessary to discredit it, and then destroy it.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...67976283_n.jpg

Dudely , are we talking about Abby , or Jimmy ?

The point is that this stuff happened long after those tie-dyed years , when Abby came out of hiding .
I'm sure many of those who attended were expecting the bright flowing colours , but he told a rather more serious tale , and , frankly , it chilled us all .

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Dudely , are we talking about Abby , or Jimmy ?

The point is that this stuff happened long after those tie-dyed years , when Abby came out of hiding .
I'm sure many of those who attended were expecting the bright flowing colours , but he told a rather more serious tale , and , frankly , it chilled us all .

Come on dude, your harshing my mellow. That is why I said I don't have all the answers regarding those two. Their is a credible arguement that he simply commited suicide. I wasn't there or maybe I could give you something more like what you want to hear. While you are at it let me know where Jimmy is vacationing now . Reality is what he brought to the radical left. The Radical left movement was not about tie-dye and herb, that is revisionist history. However Hoffman was a very serious player, and not a garden variety radical, although he was a publicty hound, and judging by what he did at Woodstock a bit of a screwball. Whatever happened to him in the 80's does not surprise me at all. I know a woman that lives in L.A. right now that was a high up (for a woman) in A.I.M. and she is involved in an ongoing Federal kidnap, rape and murder trail perpetrated by the leadership of that Native American organization in the 70's of a close friend of hers, another woman in that circle. Nothing surprises me.


Chicago Seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chicago Seven (originally Chicago Eight, also Conspiracy Eight/Conspiracy Seven) were seven defendants—Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner—charged with conspiracy, inciting to riot, and other charges related to protests that took place in Chicago, Illinois on the occasion of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Bobby Seale, the eighth man charged, had his trial severed during the proceedings, lowering the number from eight to seven.

The 1968 Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago in late August—convened to select the party's candidates for the November 1968 Presidential election. Prior to and during the convention—which took place at the International Amphitheatre—rallies, demonstrations, marches, and attempted marches took place on the streets and in the lakefront parks, about five miles away from the convention site. These activities were primarily in protest of President Lyndon B. Johnson's policies for the Vietnam War, policies which were vigorously contested during the presidential primary campaign and inside the convention.

Can we move on to Jack and Bobby Kennedy dorking Marylyn family style, and then offing her with a poison suppository up that fine can Mr. Dunne?

Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini

Come on dude, your harshing my mellow. That is why I said I don't have all the answers regarding those two. Their is a credible arguement that he simply commited suicide. I wasn't there or maybe I could give you something more like what you want to hear. While you are at it let me know where Jimmy is vacationing now . Reality is what he brought to the radical left. The Radical left movement was not about tie-dye and herb, that is revisionist history. However Hoffman was a very serious player, and not a garden variety radical, although he was a publicty hound, and judging by what he did at Woodstock a bit of a screwball. Whatever happened to him in the 80's does not surprise me at all. I know a woman that lives in L.A. right now that was a high up (for a woman) in A.I.M. and she is involved in an ongoing Federal kidnap, rape and murder trail perpetrated by the leadership of that Native American organization in the 70's of a close friend of hers, another woman in that circle. Nothing surprises me.


Chicago Seven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Can we move on to Jack and Bobby Kennedy dorking Marylyn family style, and then offing her with a poison suppository up that fine can Mr. Dunne?

Sorry for the bummer , man , but this aint about Abby , except that it was he who related the tale .

'Tis the tale , itself , not Abby's demise that chilled us all that day .
Chills came to me and many like me , I'm sure , later when we heard he had "killed himself" .

No names of who was actually running the "over-oval office" were offered , but Jimmy did offer John Tower specifically as both covert and treasonous in his initial involvement , and , most cynically set as the man to "cover his own tracks" in "The Tower Commission" .
Conveniently , Tower , in both roles could thus easily be played as a "rogue" , and was thus unlikely to ever reveal this plot against your president . Of course , he would also be corfortable .

I believe Abby told me the truth , and that Jimmy answered his own phone .