Censorship, Inc.

[Little-Acorn]

Taranto nails it again.

The leftists have been screaming over the Supreme Court's decision to strike down limits on campaign spending, wailing that it would give corporations a voice.

Lost in the din, is the fact that certain corporations have always had a voice, carefully granted to them by the laws the court just broadened: The media. Most of whom flood us with articles having an extreme leftist bias. They have been the only corporations allowed to run advocacy ads in the last few months (the most critical ones) of an election. Sometimes they call them "news stories", though calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

Now, with the Supremes' decision, the rest of the corporations... as well as nonprofits such as the ACLU and the NRA... finally have the same "privilege" the media has has to itself until now.

No wonder the leftists are screaming.

---------------------------------------------------

http://opinionjournal.com

Censorship Inc.

A division of the New York Times Co. wants free speech all to itself.

from "Best of the Web Today"
by JAMES TARANTO
January 22, 2010 -- 4:11 p.m. EST

"The majority is deeply wrong on the law," according to a critic of yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC . "Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money."

Whose opinion is this? We don't know exactly, because it is not attributed to any individual. It is an unsigned editorial in the New York Times. That is to say, it reflects the collective opinion of the Times editorial board, a division of the New York Times Co., a corporation that exists to make money.

It's lucky for the New York Times Co. that the Supreme Court upheld its First Amendment rights. Otherwise, it could not have exercised its First Amendment right to denounce the court for upholding its First Amendment rights. Right?

Not quite. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in his opinion, the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance" law--which until yesterday's ruling made it a felony for corporations to engage in certain political speech--exempted "media companies" like the New York Times Co. (and News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site) from this restriction.

McCain-Feingold, in other words, granted a small group of companies, including the New York Times Co., the privilege to speak freely about politics, while denying it to all other corporations--not only "companies . . . that exist to make money," but also taxable nonprofits that exist to represent a point of view, including the advocacy arms of the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.

The editorial published by the New York Times Co. includes no mention of the special privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold--a privilege that creates at least the appearance of a journalistic conflict of interest. Is not the failure to disclose the New York Times Co.'s interest in McCain-Feingold a serious violation of journalistic ethics?

The Times's opinion is wrongheaded as well. Under the paper's cramped view of the First Amendment, the privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold was just that: a privilege, not a right. The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of media corporations." If the Constitution doesn't protect corporations, it doesn't protect the New York Times Co. And if Congress had the power to grant an exemption to media companies, it also had the power to take it away.

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in McConnell v. FEC (2003), such reasoning would permit "outright regulation of the press." Some on the far left, complaining about "corporate domination" of the media, would like to see just that.

In past generations, the New York Times Co. had a proud tradition as a defender of free expression. It was the prevailing litigant in two landmark Supreme Court cases expanding and vindicating First Amendment rights, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971). The former case, by the way, involved a political advertisement.

What a shame it is to see a once-great media corporation become a fair-weather friend of free expression.

[bullypulpit]

So you'll be alright with a foreign owned corp dumping millions into a a political campaign in order to get candidates elected who will support their agenda? Why do you hate America?

[red states rule]

So you'll be alright with a foreign owned corp dumping millions into a a political campaign in order to get candidates elected who will support their agenda? Why do you hate America?

and were you upset when it was Obama and the Dems raising the record amounts of money?

Once again, libs show how they want to suppress free speech, and prevent people from putting out their dissenting views

[crin63]

So you'll be alright with a foreign owned corp dumping millions into a a political campaign in order to get candidates elected who will support their agenda? Why do you hate America?

But its okay for George Soros to dump millions if billions into Liberals campaigns and Liberal agendas? Why do you hate America?

[red states rule]

But its okay for George Soros to dump millions if billions into Liberals campaigns and Liberal agendas? Why do you hate America?

I donlt know if BP would support that anymore

George is like alot of other Obama supporters, and is publicly expressing his doubts about Obama's policies

So BP may not have a problem with shutting him up

[bullypulpit]

The bulk of Obama's campaign contributions came in the form of small individual contributions...Not corporate donations. But since all y'all RWN's aren't big picture people, I'll spell it out for ya.

Neither corporations nor labor unions are people. They are artificial entities created <b>by the government</b> in order to acquire the massive amounts of money needed to operate efficiently in the markets and economy in general. They were not established with the intent that they over-run the political process. Neither corporations nor labor unions are <i>people</i>. Indeed, in many other ways, they do not receive the same constitutional rights as people. For example, they have neither the right to vote nor hold elected office. But that's neither here nor there. McCain-Feingold was a freakin' sieve that let all sorts of corporate money into the political process. We need look no further than the political contributions to both Democrats and Republicans made by the health-insurance industry and Pharma in order to kill any real or meaningful health-care reform.

Again, that's the least of our worries at this point. Consider...What if ARAMCO, or "New Order" fashions...owned by the People's Liberation Army and producing clothes for Wally World...or The Bin Laden Construction Company...Flood US politics with the billions of dollars at their disposal. China alone OWNS some $2 trillion in US debt...largely run up by the Bush administration...It would be just a drop in the bucket for one of their state owned companies or a US based shell corporation, to dump a billion or so dollars into the campaign coffers of anyone running for office who would support THEIR interests.

Before the ruling in <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>, Corporations could give tons of loot to PAC's, but you could go online and find who who gave what to whom. Oh, and every contributor MUST be a U.S. citizen. Now, however corporations can give as much money as they want to to support candidates for office here in the US. This means that some Burmese junta owned shell corporation can buy a US congressman with the money they've made off of the slave labor of their people. Or perhaps UBS, which is facing criminal prosecution and a billion, or so, in fines for for fraud might find it cheaper to buy a couple of congressmen than to face the costs of a trial and possible fines. In the face of this pool of money, all the PAYPAL political donations every American could make would dwindle to irrelevance.

That's just a little glimpse of the big picture kids. Now maybe you can polish this turd a little by saying the SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republicans of the U.S.) were trying to force Congress to deal with the matter of political campaigns by passing a constitutional amendment mandating public financing of political campaigns. I somehow doubt it though. More likely, Chief Justice Roberts, always a friend to corporate America, simply wanted to secure their strangle hold on US politics. He, and the rest of the RWN's on the bench obviously failed to take into account the door now opened to unlimited foreign capital now being allowed to openly flow into the campaign coffers of US political candidates.

Left unchecked...this decision will be the death of democracy in the US, as well as the Republic, in a relatively short time. You can count on it. Sieg Heil y'all.

[bullypulpit]

But its okay for George Soros to dump millions if billions into Liberals campaigns and Liberal agendas? Why do you hate America?

Like Richard Mellon Scaife, Rupert Murdoch and the rest of their right wing billionaire buddies didn't dump millions, if not billions, of dollars into Right wing campaigns and Right wing agendas? Please...your attempt at argument strains not only credulity, but the very definition of argument.

[red states rule]

BP you have more spin settings then a Magtag washer

So you give Obama a pass for breaking his promise on public financing?




Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election

By Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 20, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain.

Obama will become the first major-party presidential nominee to reject the public funds, passing up nearly $85 million in taxpayer money and instead looking to the 1.5 million donors who contributed to his primary campaign. Given his groundbreaking success in raising money in the Democratic primaries, estimates of how much he could collect for the general-election run to $300 million or more, a sum that would allow the senator from Illinois to compete even in traditionally Republican states.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated yesterday morning by his campaign. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

The announcement came as Obama's national finance committee was preparing to meet in Chicago, and on the same day he launched his first television ad of the general election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900914.html




and as usual, you look for any ways to silence those who disagree with you. How is is constiutuional to tell people, and groups of people, they can't voice their opinions prior to an election?

BTW, why have you ignored the threads on MA, Sen elect Brown, the possible euthanasia of Obamacare at the hands of MA voters, and the death of Air America?

I'll tell you BP, what a week. I have not had such an enjoyable week since the Dr said the cancer was gone

[DragonStryk72]

The bulk of Obama's campaign contributions came in the form of small individual contributions...Not corporate donations. But since all y'all RWN's aren't big picture people, I'll spell it out for ya.

Neither corporations nor labor unions are people. They are artificial entities created <b>by the government</b> in order to acquire the massive amounts of money needed to operate efficiently in the markets and economy in general. They were not established with the intent that they over-run the political process. Neither corporations nor labor unions are <i>people</i>. Indeed, in many other ways, they do not receive the same constitutional rights as people. For example, they have neither the right to vote nor hold elected office. But that's neither here nor there. McCain-Feingold was a freakin' sieve that let all sorts of corporate money into the political process. We need look no further than the political contributions to both Democrats and Republicans made by the health-insurance industry and Pharma in order to kill any real or meaningful health-care reform.

Again, that's the least of our worries at this point. Consider...What if ARAMCO, or "New Order" fashions...owned by the People's Liberation Army and producing clothes for Wally World...or The Bin Laden Construction Company...Flood US politics with the billions of dollars at their disposal. China alone OWNS some $2 trillion in US debt...largely run up by the Bush administration...It would be just a drop in the bucket for one of their state owned companies or a US based shell corporation, to dump a billion or so dollars into the campaign coffers of anyone running for office who would support THEIR interests.

Before the ruling in <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>, Corporations could give tons of loot to PAC's, but you could go online and find who who gave what to whom. Oh, and every contributor MUST be a U.S. citizen. Now, however corporations can give as much money as they want to to support candidates for office here in the US. This means that some Burmese junta owned shell corporation can buy a US congressman with the money they've made off of the slave labor of their people. Or perhaps UBS, which is facing criminal prosecution and a billion, or so, in fines for for fraud might find it cheaper to buy a couple of congressmen than to face the costs of a trial and possible fines. In the face of this pool of money, all the PAYPAL political donations every American could make would dwindle to irrelevance.

That's just a little glimpse of the big picture kids. Now maybe you can polish this turd a little by saying the SCROTUS (Supreme Court Republicans of the U.S.) were trying to force Congress to deal with the matter of political campaigns by passing a constitutional amendment mandating public financing of political campaigns. I somehow doubt it though. More likely, Chief Justice Roberts, always a friend to corporate America, simply wanted to secure their strangle hold on US politics. He, and the rest of the RWN's on the bench obviously failed to take into account the door now opened to unlimited foreign capital now being allowed to openly flow into the campaign coffers of US political candidates.

Left unchecked...this decision will be the death of democracy in the US, as well as the Republic, in a relatively short time. You can count on it. Sieg Heil y'all.

Well, okay, then, that means the corporations such as ABC, CBS, and NBC are all operating illegally since they discuss politics, and often have commentators specifically pulling for them.

[bullypulpit]

BP you have more spin settings then a Magtag washer

So you give Obama a pass for breaking his promise on public financing?




and as usual, you look for any ways to silence those who disagree with you. How is is constiutuional to tell people, and groups of people, they can't voice their opinions prior to an election?

BTW, why have you ignored the threads on MA, Sen elect Brown, the possible euthanasia of Obamacare at the hands of MA voters, and the death of Air America?

I'll tell you BP, what a week. I have not had such an enjoyable week since the Dr said the cancer was gone

:dance: Nice try at changing the subject. Does this mean you're down with foreign corporations buying US congressional reps? Oh, and you're in remission.

[bullypulpit]

Well, okay, then, that means the corporations such as ABC, CBS, and NBC are all operating illegally since they discuss politics, and often have commentators specifically pulling for them.

And FOX Noise...Don't forget FOX Noise.

[red states rule]

:dance: Nice try at changing the subject. Does this mean you're down with foreign corporations buying US congressional reps? Oh, and you're in remission.

Not trying to change the subject at all BP. I have not seen where you have shared your thoughts on the Dems defeat in MA, or the reason for that defeat, the failed policies of Obama

As far as foreign corporations buying US Congressional reps, at least they would be using their own money

Unlike Harry Reid using taxpayer money to buy Dem votes on Obmacare. I have never seen such blatant bribery in my life

Since Obamcare is DOA will that money be retured to the taxpayers?

Probably not

[red states rule]

And FOX Noise...Don't forget FOX Noise.

and speaking of Fox News BP - this should brighten your day






Fox Is The Most Trusted Name In News According To New Poll



CNN might call itself the most trusted name in news, but a new poll found Americans think the Fox News Channel is the organization deserving this honor.

In fact, according to Public Policy Polling, FNC is the only national television news organization that more people trust than distrust.

Kind of makes members of the Obama administration who regularly depict Fox as not being a real news organization look somewhat foolish, doesn't it?

Consider that as you read some of the poll's highlights:


A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major television news operations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News.

49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree. Predictably there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network.

CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility with them.

The major networks all have the majority trust of Democrats but less than 20% from Republicans. NBC, perhaps because of the ideological bent of MSNBC, does the best among Democrats at 62%. Overall 35% of voters trust it to 44% who do not. CBS does the worst among Republicans, with 69% distrusting it. A plurality of independents express distrust of all five outlets we tested.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/26/fox-most-trusted-name-news-according-new-poll#ixzz0dsWv5HJi

and

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_126.pdf

[SassyLady]

Like Richard Mellon Scaife, Rupert Murdoch and the rest of their right wing billionaire buddies didn't dump millions, if not billions, of dollars into Right wing campaigns and Right wing agendas? Please...your attempt at argument strains not only credulity, but the very definition of argument.

Where is your proof that Rupert Murdoch contributed to a Right Wing campaign.........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/inside-barack-obamas-secr_n_123188.html



Inside Barack Obama's Secret Meeting With Rupert Murdoch And Roger Ailes

Just before the New York Democratic primary, when I found myself undecided between Clinton and Obama, I said to Murdoch (a little flirtation, like a little gossip, softens him), "Rupert, I don't know who to vote for--so I'm going to give you my vote. You choose."

He paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: "Obama--he'll sell more papers."

[red states rule]

BTW BP, corporations are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians.

I am not surprised at your lack of knowledge on the law

[bullypulpit]

BTW BP, corporations are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians.

I am not surprised at your lack of knowledge on the law

Sorry Red, but the SCROTUS decision overturns nearly one hundred years of law and precedent with regards to direct corporate funding of political campaigns. Corporations can run ads for, or against a given candidate within 30 days of a presidential primary election , or 60 days of a general election. And with this ability to swamp the airwaves with ads funded by their capital streams they can easily influence the course of an election. You can split hairs as much as you want Red, but such spending is little different from contributing directly to a given candidates political campaigns.

[red states rule]

Sorry Red, but the SCROTUS decision overturns nearly one hundred years of law and precedent with regards to direct corporate funding of political campaigns. Corporations can run ads for, or against a given candidate within 30 days of a presidential primary election , or 60 days of a general election. And with this ability to swamp the airwaves with ads funded by their capital streams they can easily influence the course of an election. You can split hairs as much as you want Red, but such spending is little different from contributing directly to a given candidates political campaigns.

Splitting hairs to you must mean the facts and what the decision does




snip

The high court’s 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

The court decision, however does not allow unlimited contributions directly to a campaign or in coordination with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

snip

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.

In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process

snip

Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith believed the president’s comment was inappropriate.

“The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics – scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” Smith, now chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, said in a statement.

Even a posting on the liberal blog Huffington Post by Adam Winkler, a law professor at University of California-Los Angeles, partly took Alito’s side. Winkler’s piece was entitled, “Alito was rude (but right)” and further said, “Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60660

[bullypulpit]

Do ya know what a shell corporation is Red? Foreign nationals can set one up in the US...Chartered and licensed in any state of the union. Under this decision, these corporations are legally regarded as persons...citizens of these United States. They can thus expend unlimited funds in support of which ever candidate they want to buy.

And the ruling states that the government may not ban spending by corporations in candidate elections. You might wanna ice your groin after that stretch Red.

[red states rule]

Do ya know what a shell corporation is Red? Foreign nationals can set one up in the US...Chartered and licensed in any state of the union. Under this decision, these corporations are legally regarded as persons...citizens of these United States. They can thus expend unlimited funds in support of which ever candidate they want to buy.

And the ruling states that the government may not ban spending by corporations in candidate elections. You might wanna ice your groin after that stretch Red.

I am fine BP, I smoked your ass on the law, and on the actualy ruling

Like Obama, you have no idea what the ruling does - only you are pissed another power grab by the government has been beaten down

This time it was not the voters of MA (or VA or NJ) it was the Supreme Court

The USSC doesn't choose which cases get appealed to them nor do they control the substance of the measures over which they decide. Congress is the one who writes laws. If the court reviews a case related to law Congress has enacted and ultimately says, "yes or No"

It is a smackdown of Congress overreaching. For Obama to criticize the USCS in the SOTU speech was a another example of how thin skinned and inexperienced he is

as far as his (and your) knowledge of the law




President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]


Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] 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."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk

[bullypulpit]

.
I am fine BP, I smoked your ass on the law, and on the actualy ruling

Like Obama, you have no idea what the ruling does - only you are pissed another power grab by the government has been beaten down

This time it was not the voters of MA (or VA or NJ) it was the Supreme Court

The USSC doesn't choose which cases get appealed to them nor do they control the substance of the measures over which they decide. Congress is the one who writes laws. If the court reviews a case related to law Congress has enacted and ultimately says, "yes or No"

It is a smackdown of Congress overreaching. For Obama to criticize the USCS in the SOTU speech was a another example of how thin skinned and inexperienced he is

as far as his (and your) knowledge of the law

Red, the only thing you're smoking is jimson weed. The court's ruling overturns a 63 year old ban on corporate money in federal elections and overturned a 20 year old precedent which permitted such bans on corporate electioneering.

The conservative Justices also asked that the lawyers for Citizens United broaden the scope of their argument and resubmit it, rather than confine it to the narrowly defined issues surrounding the Hillary Clinton video. In essence then, they conservative Justices of the SCOTUS over-rode congressional intent...overturned legal precedent, and wrote law from the bench. By any definition Red, this is the judicial activism that every right wing-nut screams bloody murder about when a left leaning judge does it.

Oh, and Red, the SCOTUS DOES decide which cases it hears and, as this case has shown us, they can also "control the substance" of the cases that come before them.

Put that in yer ppie and smoke it.

[avatar4321]

Ill say here what I said elsewhere:

Im amazed how many people want to abolish free speech just because they dont like what one person or group has to say

[bullypulpit]

Ill say here what I said elsewhere:

Im amazed how many people want to abolish free speech just because they dont like what one person or group has to say

Money does not equal free speech. Corporations are not people.

[red states rule]

.

Red, the only thing you're smoking is jimson weed. The court's ruling overturns a 63 year old ban on corporate money in federal elections and overturned a 20 year old precedent which permitted such bans on corporate electioneering.

The conservative Justices also asked that the lawyers for Citizens United broaden the scope of their argument and resubmit it, rather than confine it to the narrowly defined issues surrounding the Hillary Clinton video. In essence then, they conservative Justices of the SCOTUS over-rode congressional intent...overturned legal precedent, and wrote law from the bench. By any definition Red, this is the judicial activism that every right wing-nut screams bloody murder about when a left leaning judge does it.

Oh, and Red, the SCOTUS DOES decide which cases it hears and, as this case has shown us, they can also "control the substance" of the cases that come before them.

Put that in yer ppie and smoke it.

BP, this is why your party is going down the drain. Even liberal law Professors say Obama was worng - and you continue to play the role of the offended liberal

Why not admit you are pissed off people can form groups and voice their opinion - much like the left has been able to do in the last two elections

Obama (and you) are worried about the overturning of McCain-Feingold because of foreign contributions (Funny how the left did not express duch concern when Clinton and Gore got illegal foreign contributions... but I digress...).

The ruling by the Supreme Court does NOT nullify the previous laws making clear that foreign funds cannot be used for campaign contributions. In other words, it's still illegal to take foreign funding for campaign contributions.

Get over it BP, once again you have been busted posting the false liberal talking points

[bullypulpit]

BP, this is why your party is going down the drain. Even liberal law Professors say Obama was worng - and you continue to play the role of the offended liberal

Why not admit you are pissed off people can form groups and voice their opinion - much like the left has been able to do in the last two elections

Obama (and you) are worried about the overturning of McCain-Feingold because of foreign contributions (Funny how the left did not express duch concern when Clinton and Gore got illegal foreign contributions... but I digress...).

The ruling by the Supreme Court does NOT nullify the previous laws making clear that foreign funds cannot be used for campaign contributions. In other words, it's still illegal to take foreign funding for campaign contributions.

Get over it BP, once again you have been busted posting the false liberal talking points

Ahhh...Red, you are priceless. Everytime I present you with facts, you retreat into that right wing-nut fantasy land you and your fellow travelers spend so much time in. So keep it up, I can always use a good laugh. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Ahhh...Red, you are priceless. Everytime I present you with facts, you retreat into that right wing-nut fantasy land you and your fellow travelers spend so much time in. So keep it up, I can always use a good laugh. :laugh2:

Bottom line is BP, like Obama - you are wrong on the facts. Nothing new there

The people are the one laughing BP - and they are laughing all the way to the voting booths

[red states rule]

BTW BP, one the biggest defenders of free speech, Floyd Abrams. cheers the Court's decision






snip

Mr. Abrams has represented the New York Times Co. from time to time, most notably in the landmark Pentagon Papers case of 1971. But he and his erstwhile client took opposite sides in the decision we had gotten together to discuss. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which the court decided last week in a 5-4 decision, invalidated federal laws that made certain political speech a crime.

Although Citizens United wasn't Mr. Abrams's case, "I took a special pleasure . . . in this ruling," he tells me over drinks following the panel. That's because it overturned a 2003 decision in a case he lost, McConnell v. FEC, in which a 5-4 majority upheld provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, including one that criminalized corporate funding of "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Seven years later, with Justice Samuel Alito in the majority, the court reversed that holding.

The First Amendment is the lifeblood of the press. Yet most newspapers—the one you are reading is a notable exception—take an editorial position similar to that of the Times. Why? "I think that two things are at work," Mr. Abrams says. "One is that there are an awful lot of journalists that do not recognize that they work for corporations. . . .

"A second is an ideological one. I think that there is a way of viewing this decision which . . . looks not at whether the First Amendment was vindicated but whether what is simply referred to as, quote, democracy, unquote, was vindicated. My view is, we live in a world in which the word 'democracy' is debatable . . . It is not a word which should determine interpretation of a constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is at its core a legal document as well as an affirming statement of individual freedom," he says. "Justice Potter Stewart . . . warned against giving up the protections of the First Amendment in the name of its values. . . . The values matter, the values are real, but we protect the values by protecting the First Amendment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029791336276632.html

[red states rule]

Damn, BP got "bored" once again :laugh2: