A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.Now I have read the main introduction to the decision. Either I have missed the fact that this recent decision actually allows foreign corporations to influence our political campaigns, or the poll misrepresents the decision by asking certain questions in such a way as to make the polled think that the recent court's decision does allow this. In my experience, the answer is obvious.
News reports from President Obama's State of the Union address say that Justice Alito mouthed "not true" when President Obama made this exact charge. So again, assuming Alito did this, then either Obama is wrong or Alito is wrong.I'll put it this way. If I had to bet my pay check on this, I would put every penny on Alito. Perhaps someone could show me where in this decision that allows foreign corporations to influence our campaigns? Polls are nothing but a trick to advance one's agenda. And the Mainstream Media is nothing but an extension of the Democratic party.
But the story goes on to cite Conservatism's favorite Republican, Senator McCain.
McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."Oh, save us McCain. Save us from money being in politics. What a joke. The McCain/Feingold Act should have been called the "Keep the incumbents Act". It is ridiculous to think a law will keep money out of politics. The Act simply created a method of controlling how money gets in the process. Now follow the money friend. If you are an elected official, are you really going to pass a law that assists your opponents during a campaign?
McCain stood against term limits because he said it got rid of good people too. What's the difference with campaign finance reform? Did it not restrict good money too? Ahhhh, but term limits would have limited McCain. Better not vote for that!
5 comments:
Thank goodness we do not all operate on what Howard Fisher finds to be sensible instead of things like "research".
This is the problem with conservative politics. You do not seek to educate yourself in the political arena-- simply to validate what you already believe. You seek to conserve your own opinion-- and then force it on everyone else.
My 2 main points were simple.
1) Obama says one thing. Alito says that one thing is not true and is in fact the opposite. This is not rocket science, nor does one have to know much about politics. Somebody is wrong at this point.
2) The entire story is a typical tactic used by the media and has been used for a looong time. The Media uses polls as if it were news when it is really an editorial to advance an agenda.
I know Liberals do not see the Media as being biased. As one Liberal Media study found when studying the conservative charge of bias, it is not that there is a conspiracy, it just comes naturally.
"You seek to conserve your own opinion-- and then force it on everyone else."
This post-modern stuff is just arrogant while attempting to paint oneself as humble and open-minded. It is pure hypocrisy. Why can't you be open-minded and realize I am right.
I think the fact that you needed to come back to this shows that the comment bothered you. And it should.
I didn't say Obama was right. What I said was that this is indicative of your conservative mindset-- you assume that what you think is right and don't research.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
If you read only the introduction, then allow me to further bother you based solely off of that: what was the contention that allowed this case to be argued? A film. How familiar are you with film financing and distribution? Are you familiar enough to, say, "bet every penny of your pay check" on politically based media in the future not having significant foreign investors?
Conservatives see the world in black and white, and it isn't. You assume I have the same sort of positional convictions as you-- that I'm right about something that I need to force upon others who are wrong. That simply isn't the case. There are benefits to be had from finance reform. But polls are nothing but a trick to finance one's agenda? That CAN be the case, but is it always? And what is this "Mainstream Media" you refer to as the Democratic party-- and why is the most watched cable news channel not "Mainstream"? That's like claiming in the midst "Avatar" that no mainstream movies are 3D. You spout GOSPEL TRUTH in everything you say-- and you have no ability to do so. Jesus only ever really seemed "angry" at two groups of people-- Pharisees who went around condemning everyone with their absolutes and those who sought to make a cheap buck off the religious. Don't you ever worry that you're falling into this category when you make these rants?
1) "How familiar are you with film financing and distribution? Are you familiar enough to, say, "bet every penny of your pay check" on politically based media in the future not having significant foreign investors?"
I figured you would eventually say this. Sir, I have no doubt that this can and does happen. I also have no doubt that Alito would argue that a movie that is based upon foreign contributions could fall under some kind of campaign finance law. I have no problem with such a campaign finance law.
I would be curious where this decision says foreign campaigners are now allowed to influence our political process? If I am wrong, I would be glad to concede this point. I would just like to know where this decision says this.
2) "Pharisees who went around condemning everyone with their absolutes and those who sought to make a cheap buck off the religious."
This is a common trick. It is basically the same argument that says Jesus didn't believe in hell. He only used the Pharisees idea of hell against them.
To make the argument that Jesus did not condemn all sinners is to ignore what Jesus actually said. But of course, as you have seemed to advance before, you don't actually believe the Bible to be God's Word as Jesus did.
Jesus was not condemning everything the Pharisees taught. He mostly condemned them for their hypocrisy and their Traditions that trumped God's Word, binding on men rules and regulations.
I happen to agree that Christians make lots of rules that are not Biblical. I am not against smoking. I really would not like to see the price of the beer or wine I drink go up. (Isn't the Political Left just as much to blame for these things?)
3) "why is the most watched cable news channel not "Mainstream"?"
Sir, this is just getting picky. You know exactly what is meant. Perhaps different terminology should be used. Old Media verses New Media? But then you still have the problem of New Media being differentiated by conservatism verses Liberalism.
4) "You spout GOSPEL TRUTH in everything you say-- and you have no ability to do so."
Sir, you think me a self-righteous bigot I am sure. Yet, I am curious. What do you think the Gospel is?
5) "I think the fact that you needed to come back to this shows that the comment bothered you. And it should."
First, I was just trying to use some humor. I figured it would bug you, but...
Second, I believe that the Constitution trumps whatever finance laws we pass. I am for the First Amendment, no restrictions. Unless we may restrict the Freedom of the Press.
Of course, I know about the common sense things that were not intended by the Bill of Rights. So we need not revisit that again.
I also realize that not everything is black and white. This requires wisdom. The Constitution is full of wisdom and was written by wise men. If we are going to trump their wisdom without a vote, then we are going to have to give very good explanations as to why. So far, I haven't heard any.
Again, I could not care less about corporations affecting campaigns. Campaign finance is nothing more than government protecting its own interests. I grew up in one of the most corrupt states in this union, Massachusetts. The more laws that are passed, the more self-protection government officials have. The corruption breeds itself endlessly.
Try finding a non-union job that doesn't take your money and give it to Leftist politicians. Oh why are there no non-union jobs? Because unions get politicians to make laws that say...well, you know the drill.
Also, ACORN is one of the finest examples out there.
Also, I hate the politically correct speech police. That probably is the biggest reason why I am against restricting the First Amendment. If we can restrict one person's political speech, then........
Post a Comment