(09-19-2024 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2024 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-19-2024 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2024 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-19-2024 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I see. You don't have the chops to discuss this, so you pettifog the issue with actual lobbying groups which are not under corporate privilege and use the loss of their rights to lobby as a blanket excuse for the Davos and Jackson's Hole crowd. Get out of my space!

Most interest groups exist under a corporate existence. It expands their reach. No matter how much you dismiss the issue put of hand, or invoke Davos, or attempt to belittle the issue presented.

When you make equivalent the money necessary to control Political PAC contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties to the ability raise money for veterans, or fallen law officer's families, or breast cancer it is a disingenuous argument and a true adherent of liberalism or conservatism would not do that. An attorney only interested in the direct benefit of corporations to them, or the indirect benefits of endless lawsuits against their hegemony offer, or the hope to get a big office to line pockets with some of that PAC money becomes a motive. It is true that attorneys are pro big government in unprecedented numbers and why would that be so? Lawyers are passing laws that benefit their corporate benefactors and also will benefit and drive the demand for legal services. It's no small wonder that in the United States we have more attorneys per capita than any other nation. And it's a curse.

So, your position does not surprise me, it is in keeping with what you are, and I might add several others which post here, but you are neither conservative nor liberal, nor a true Democrat in the old sense of the word, nor a Republican in the old sense of the word, and not really a libertarian by that which you support. Politically speaking that would tend to make you an apparatchik, or for those with a limited understanding of early 20th century terms associated with communism, a parasite, or perhaps more eloquently labeled a legal remora. What I applaud you for is knowing yourself and having been honest in your description of your position relative to the discussion of this board. In that you have both known yourself and illustrated an integrity which the average poster here simply misunderstands because theirs is only a dualistic view of the world.

At its core, my position is rooted in the right of people with similar mindsets to assemble with one another, and pursue similar goals.

As an actual on point example -- consider the *actual* issue in the Citizen's United case.

At the time of the suit, this was literally 6 guys that wanted to make a movie with a political subject.

Kind of difficult to make a movie between 6 dudes without a corporate existence. The law at the time said releasing the movie in a certain time frame was prohibited by any corporate entity. But not individuals.

Why shouldn’t the 6 dudes be able to make that movie as a corporate entity?

In the manner I support Citizen's United, it is entirely in the realm of promoting free choice.

Individual people have free choice in the manner that they present political views, including a free choice to expend on how to expend their own efforts, and their own money.

Seems utterly stupid to allow that freedom to individuals, and bar groups from the very same activity.

In addition to the problems in the last sentence, it seems to be a massive bar based in the concept of rather important issue of freedom -- the right to assemble with people whom they choose to assemble. And the right to pursue joint goals with people whom they agree with.

My position is highly libertarian, notwithstanding your attempt at painting it otherwise. People should have an absolute right to assemble with others, and to pursue political goals with others. Even when enveloped by a corporate structure.

Again, in the actual Citizen's United case, why should their joint endeavor literally be criminalized with a corporate structure, and highly protected if done individually? Seems absolutely stupid in the limelight of what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect -- multiple portions of the 1st Amendment in fact.

And you will note I am not making comments on you, or aspersions on your stance as you seemingly wish to do to me.

As long as Citizens United is money laundering much large corporate gifts and serving as shill front for the manipulation of a larger corporate entity. But then when it comes to politics there are so many shell organizations on both sides as to render the matter of any one of them inane to the larger reality, but you know that.

What is nefarious is that it poses as objectives for the citizens and people but in reality is merely one head of a hydra organization with its own hidden objectives.

Case in point a church based organizing group that thought it was marching for safer neighborhoods but the organizing group they used to assist them was merely using them to move one cartel out so another cartel which funded their activities in Venezuela and Southern Mexico could operate with funding from church folks in the United States who thought they were assisting better neighborhoods for children.

You can talk a blue streak because that's what lawyers do, but what is done in the name of any of these so-called citizen's lobby groups is seldom really known to the true believers who participate in them. The people that think they are helping are unknowingly serving the aims of a larger and often much more destructive organization than the street problems they are fighting. And that sir, I despise with every fiber of my being.

Corporate PAC money has stolen the voice of citizens regardless of the interests they think they represent. And tracking down these groups shell game corporate money to find the true agenda isn't something that political appointees over our alphabet agencies want to track down. Most people who are politically active, as they would describe themselves have no knowledge of who or what they really serve. In a society that claims to be free I find that disturbing so you bet I'm for drying it all up, criminalizing it, and letting individual citizens donate to political campaigns at set levels. It won't end corruption, but it will slow it the hell down!

Then maybe people will start figuring out that St. Jude gets its money to treating children, and the United Way manages a nickel out of every dollar to get to the needy while its structure is supported fully. But hey, the Catholic church does that and the protestant mainline denominations average 3 cents of every dollar after all of the building costs, clergy salaries, clergy influence, clergy housing, clergy retirement, missionaries salaries, housing, insurance, and retirement are paid. It's an institution of the Clergy, for the Clergy and by the Clergy where salaries are classified as mission. Show me a citizen's group which has United after its name and I'll show you a political Trojan Horse.

Sine Die.

Did you read the background of Citizens United as I noted above?

At the time of the case, it was as far from the money laundering corporate hydra that makes up much of your case above.

Lets change the name, and situation to make the point clear.

Me, and my three brothers (Larry, Daryll, and my other brother Daryll) decide to write, film, and distribute for viewing a film that has pure political tones. Lets call it -- 'Kamala the Whore Commie Robot'.

Under the law prior to CU, it would have been perfectly legal to do so as individuals. And actually criminal in nature to do it as a corporation, LLC, or partnership during the 90 days prior to an election with Kamala in it.

Why should Larry, Daryll, Daryll and myself be unable to make that movie as any corporate entity? Or face punishment, civil or criminal, for that?

Not only is that on its face a rather fundamental restriction on the right of free speech (political speech, mind you -- accorded the highest protection of all), it is a rather severe restriction on any of the participant's rights to assemble with those they choose to do so with, and further on the participant's right to pursue a lawful goal (that is making or engaging in political speech).

Why should the 'corporate entity' be that dividing line? Absent that entity, the ability to pursue that movie is made incredibly more difficult.

In that sense, that dividing line simply doesnt make sense -- when you boil it down to the simplest components of freedoms, the rubric falls apart in my view.

(09-19-2024 07:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2024 07:33 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-19-2024 05:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  from Gutfeld last night ... who'd a thunk it (beforehand ... as in, 'when announced') ... did nobody in your camp get the fk'n memo(s) ... just fk, me!

Quote:Former President Trump expressed regret for not going after ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis during last week's presidential debate.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. We’ve all been there.

But only one is running as the Republican nominee. And he really doesn’t have the luxury of too many “Oh Well” moments.

At some point all Americans need to ask themselves this question:

Why are we forced to choose between a Candidate and Party which forces all Americans to suspend law and order to accommodate what amounts to a swell of immigrants which strain our public support systems, raise crime against those the politicians are allegedly elected to protect, and which seeks to do business with our adversaries at our expense and a Candidate and Party which can't anticipate the problems raised by the first party whose policies and practices are detrimental to the nation at every level enough to challenge their failures over and over again at a debate?

The Democratic Party could not be further from what the average American believes needs to be done and are not advocates of an average working class citizen.

The Republican Party isn't competent enough to fill the void and address specifically the ills of their competition.

The public is screwed and forced to choose the lesser of two corporately connected evils.

When are we all going to stand up and say to the two parties, "Screw that, screw you! We insist on something New!" And then stand together to elect anyone but a former politician or a damned lawyer, and subsequently kick out all corporate donations so that those elected serve the People and not their own Greed!

This is the book I've been preaching from for years now. I would add that not only do we need to eliminate political parties, we need to figure out how to reduce fed gov to the barest minimum possible. Military, Justice, State, land mgmt and national parks, not much else.

Impossible? Who knows? But we've got to do it before it's too late.

https://x.com/DDayCobra/status/183695199...ge-3376%2F

(09-20-2024 05:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

lmmfao ... bwahahahahahahahahahahaha Toonces twittertwatpurrrrrrrrrrrrfect fi(l)f(th)y