mike from saline

Sat, Feb 20, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

picabia, I may very well have miss-judged you. If so I apollogize.

picabia

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 11:14 p.m.

"The fact is that the influence of money will be there either way." Yeah, but there's no need to pour gasoline on a fire.

Hot Sam

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 9:59 p.m.

"""Many of us simply believe that the political process works best when the potentially corrupting influence of money is lessened, not increased.""" To think that the "corrupting influence of money" would go away with the unconstitutional law that was recently overturned is simply naive. The fact is that the influence of money will be there either way. If you want to reduce the influence of money, then you need to eliminate career politicians and the tax code...

Hot Sam

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 9:48 p.m.

"""stating that one is better than the other doesn't make much sense.""" My point exactly...

picabia

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 9 p.m.

"...the foolishness of those who constantly rail against big business, while thinking big government is somehow better." Speaking for myself, I wouldn't put it that way. Government is not better than big business -- stating that one is better than the other doesn't make much sense. Many of us simply believe that the political process works best when the potentially corrupting influence of money is lessened, not increased. This hardly makes us "neo-Marxist," another term that doesn't make much sense with respect to this issue.

mike from saline

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.

Thanks, I kind of suspected as much. You Rascal. I was having a great day, and it just got better.

Hot Sam

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 3:28 p.m.

My comments are meant to show the foolishness of those who constantly rail against big business, while thinking big government is somehow better. Mike...your on the right track...

mike from saline

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.

@Hot Sam. I'm realy not sure what to make of your comments. At times I get the feeling that you might realy be on my side, and you're posting with tongue planted firmly in cheek. If so, they are brillant, and hysterically funny. If not, they are perhaps the........Hold on! I need to stop myself, right now. The Blogger police are watching me like a Hawk! Have a great Day! You Betcha!

mike from saline

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 11:50 a.m.

Well, looks like it's official! The subject has been changed from, the potentialy "catostophic effects" of the latest SCOTUS decisision, to, who's more culpable, the bribed, or the briber. Hot Sam, you and David just go ahead and talk among yourselves. I wouldn't want my "long winded, boring, semi-literate, Tea Party, angry white guy, Republican talking points", to confuse, or upset you. I'm new at this blogging buisness, so I have not perfected the ability to reduce every satement [post], on even the most complicated issues, to somethig that fits on a bumper sticker. For that I appoligize. I'll continue to work on these [obviously] valuable skills. Attack!! Atack!! Ignore!! Ignore!!..... And then.....Change the subject! I rest my case. Have a great day!

Hot Sam

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

"""I believe they are equal under the law""" In that case it would be good to spread the blame around equally...and keep in mind, one took an oath...

mike from saline

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 2:44 p.m.

"8 posts [actualy it was only 6] to say nothing! nothing"? I guess it all depends on your interpretation of nothing. I put alot on the table. Some of it opinion, but the bulk of it fact. You'd like to dismiss it all as "Republican talking points". You'd like to be able to use that quick dismisle like a "get out of jail free card" so you can avoid dealing with those facts. You pulled this stunt with me a couple of weeks ago, and I call- you on it then, but I see you're not ready to give it up Quite yet. You use it so often, you probably don't even remember me. Now you're upping the ante, by adding words, and phrases, like "Tea Party" and [the blatently racist] "angry white men". Your tactics are predictable, and transparent. When you feel cornered in a battle of ideas, your first reaction is to come out with "guns a blazin". Attack, attack, ignor, ignor, and then change the subject. I guess it would be easier for me to buy into all this "end of the world as we know it", paranoia fueled hysteria, about this SCOTUS decision, If I hadn't been listening to this "neo-marxist drivel for the last 40yrs. Have a great day!!

David Briegel

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.

I believe they are equal under the law. I hope so! If not, they certainly should be. I think it is called conspiracy with the bribe an element of the conspiracy. Quid pro quo? Free legal opinion?

Hot Sam

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.

"""Mike and his "good company of friends" want bribery to be legal!""" What is more despicable? The briber or the the one taking the bribe???

David Briegel

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 8:16 p.m.

And Mike, It took you 8 posts to say nothing! Nothing! Except of course, Republican/Tea Party talking points. You Betcha!!

mike from saline

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.

@picabia, What the heck does "screed" mean. I have 2 Dictionary's [Websters New World, and The American Heritage] and I couldn't find it in either one. As for you being unmoved by my screed, It appears you were unmoved by the "screeds" of "longfellow", "diag enes", "John Galt", "voiceofreason", and "Clara", who all contrib- uted, inteligent, well-thought out posts on subjects ranging from Corparations, ability to infuence, The different News Mediums, Congress, The entertainment Industry, Advocacy groups, money, power, The Constitution,and The 1st Amendment..........I'm feeling like I'm in excelent company.

picabia

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.

@mike from saline I won't go into most of your post, as you attempt to refute points that I have not made and attribute views to me that I do not hold. I do believe that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was wrong-headed, as I believe that the political process is best served by less corporate money, not more. You may see it otherwise, but I am unmoved by your screed.

AAresident

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 4:52 a.m.

Corporations have too much influence on government. The country doesn't need to increase that. If corporations are to be given the rights of persons, let them also accept the responsibilities. What happens when a corporation breaks the law? Very little.

mike from saline

Wed, Feb 17, 2010 : 12:28 a.m.

picabia, where is all the other speech going to go? should we expect jack booted thugs from exon mobile, chevron, wal-mart and conoco, led by the supreme court justice's in there corparate em- blomized robes [like the one's in that political cartoon, that so tickled dave], kicking down the doors of the of the ny times, the washington post, boston globe, abc, nbc, cbs, msmbc, cnn, pbs,the unions, and public university's? Is that realy what you're sugest- ing? I'm having a little trouble takeing this to it's logical conclusion. perhaps because it's not logical! free speech is alive and well. neo-marxist's like yourself talk a good game when it comes to 1st Amendment, Free speech rights, but when you talk about free speech, you're talking about your speech not ours. every assault on free speech in at least the last 30yrs has come from the left, and you don't have to look far to find them. first it was the speech codes, and Codes of conduct, by public universities [the UofM had theirs] which attempted to silence conservative's and libertarian's speech, by branding it hate speech. Students and teacher's [white, hetrosexual males in part- icular] were forbidden to say anything that might make a women, or member of a protected minority, feel un-comfortable. The UofM, along with dozens of other universities were scolded, and told to straighten up, by every Federal court in the country. In another case, close to home, a public high school student in A2 was denied her free speech rights during some sort of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, pride day [I think her name was Betsy Hanson, and I believe the school was Pioneer]. Fortunantly for Betsy, the ACLU [that "bastion of free speech"] came rideing in to..........hold on! Forget what I just said. The ACLU didn't do anything. They ig- nored the whole thing. Anyway, the courts found in Betsy's favor, and editorials in news papers all across the state [and a bunch outside the state], slapped around the Ann Arbor Public Schools for weeks. The latest assualt on free speech [talk Radio] came in the form of a law that would require radio stations to present both positions, on any political subject. Democrats dangled this nugget, [euphemistically called [like afirmitive action] the Fairnes Doctrin] in front of there base, before the 06 and 08 elections, only to get cold feet, even with their man in office and a filibuster proof majority in the Senant, the "Fainess Doc- trin" went the way of "Card Check". So relax, speech is good, and more speech is better! Americans will be able to sort it all out, like they've been doing for over 2 century's. And please, stop the fear-mongering! It's getting realy stale!

clara

Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 7:10 p.m.

Instead of just UAW, SEIU, G. Soros, ACORN, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC

picabia

Tue, Feb 16, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.

'Free speech is good.' Free speech is fine, unless the only free speech you're hearing is the gospel according to Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Wal-mart, and Conoco.

mike from saline

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 3:09 p.m.

"prohibition on corporat independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech". Note the word speech. It meens speech, just like it does in the First amendment. Free speech is good. I say let it flow. I think I'll be able to sort it all out. there's nothing to be afraid of.

voiceofreason

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 11:20 p.m.

Margaret, Apply this same logic to Roe v. Wade. Do you still feel the same way?

picabia

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 9:14 p.m.

'This is about "freedom of speech, not money.' You clearly haven't read the ruling. This is ALL about money. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court wrote (in part) that "...prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech." Note the words "corporate independent expenditures" -- in other words, money. Justice Stevens took the common sense view, observing in his dissenting opinion that "Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

mike from saline

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 4:51 p.m.

Lord Action? never heard of him. This is about "freedom of speech, not money. Changing the subject? Not on my watch! Now, one more time. "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech". That's what the Constitution say's, and that is what this decision was based on.

picabia

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 3:09 p.m.

As Lord Action observed, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There was no shortage of money in politics before this decision, but now it'll be a deluge. It's gonna be like New Orleans when the levees broke.

John Galt

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 12:48 p.m.

The Supreme Court ruling was correct. Corporations, Unions, "special interest groups" (i.e. the NRA, Sierra Club, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) are simply a way for the little guy to pool his limited resources to get his voice heard during elections. I don't know about you, but I cannot afford to run political or issue ads in print and television as a lone individual. I CAN join groups that advocate the causes I support and through that means, get my voice heard. The politicans don't want us to be heard. They want to control the airwaves and have the liberal slanted media "report" on the issues. As for the corporations....they are the source of virtually ALL taxes in this country (aside from the self employed). That's right ALL. Because they pay all salaries/wages to the employees (from which personal income tax is withheld). And corporate taxes. (And indirectly-- sales taxes---after people earn a salary). And it pays for the wonderful "Peolpe's State" that allows welfare, SS, medicare and everything else to be funded.

stunhsif

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.

Don't you just love living in the Ann Arbor area? Thank goodness this type of thinking is not representative of the rest of the country. Evil evil corporate America!!

mike from saline

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.

Corporations are group's of people [human beings] who laugh, cry, feel, and die. They join together [completely voluntary] with others of a like mind to invest in a buisness, or promote a set of ideas or principles. Are you telling us Margaret that Congress needs to pass a law, abridging the free speech right's of of these groups of people [human beings, who laugh, cry, feel, and die]?

mike from saline

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's what the constitution says about freedom of speech. THAT'S ALL THAT IT SAY'S! With this decision, it's pretty clear that Congress had gone and done a bad thing by passing a law, abridging free speech. The SCOTUS, [recognizing this] struck down that law. See how simple that was, Margaret? What's not to like, if you believe in the Constitution?

Diagenes

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.

The New York Times is a corporation and they have the right to publish almost anything they want about anything or anyone. Why not give that same right to every person or corporation? The Times endorses political candidates and criticize public officials. Shouldn't McDonalds or Walmart have the same right? The funny thing about freedom is that it should apply to everyone equally not just those we agree with. Media companies use their resources to promote their agenda through subtle channels like movies and TV shows and overtly through news/opinion shows. As people say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. As long as there is full disclosure I support all corporations right to free speech.

Bill Wilson

Sun, Feb 14, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.

I don't get it Margaret. You may not like them, but there's nothing inheirently evil about making money. The poor cannot offer employment to you: jobs are created by those willing to take risks.