idrankwhat

this is first decent argument I've heard from this side of the coin the Bill of Rights governs the rights of the citizens, and a corporation that represents multinational rights give speech by proxy (what an abused term) to non-citizens - thus diluting the speech of citizens - which takes from our rights as citizens - in essence, a policy that limits our right to speech much like we are not obligated to give miranda rights, gun ownership rights, voting, etc to non-citizens, speech also applies I have think on this angle thanks Posts 5, 22, 28, were the first three to address the point. But admittedly, you summarized the concept nicely.[tequila]

This is true. And that's one of the reasons many on the....well.....left of the arbitrary political line, are pissed at him. He's looking like "Republican Lite". But with regard to the deficit, it would have looked terrible regardless of who won the last Presidential election. The banks would have been bailed out regardless. The auto compaines would have been bailed out because no President would want that industry to collapse under their name (and think of the jobless figures if we had). And a massive economic stimulus package would have been passed. The difference would lie in where those special interest dollars went (not by much though). The very minor difference lies in the philosophy. The Demoblicans seem to recognize that "trickle down" and an unchecked free market philosophy was a dangerous failure. The Republicrats haven't figured that out yet.

Actually it's a plutocracy. Which is why the bigger picture that quade refers to has merit. The oligarchy that you're leaning towards is certainly relevant but it's second in command to the power of wealth.

And the problem with Cons is that they have no problem handing out free dinners and a seven figure bonus to people who do their jobs so badly that they ruin the lives of thousands of other taxpayers. Since we're throwing out blanket generalizations I thought I'd chime in.

Except where the logic is flawed. Has anyone considered that it might be difficult for the parents of a working poor family to attend the conferences? I'm a father in a working unpoor family and if my wife and I were not on flexible schedules we couldn't pull it off. On the other hand, if you're one of the very few families these days who can afford to have one parent stay at home (and maintain a middle class lifestyle) , then I could see how you might not understand.

Attaching to the harness also makes the gap that's right in front of your hackey smaller. It seems like a slightly smaller wing though.

If history is any judge, I'll wager $20 that he's "paddled the Cahulawassee I know, that's mean. But so is he.

Here's an interesting article as well. Note, this does not detract from the other poll but rather, enhances it. "When Explained, Health Overhaul Popularity Goes Up By Julie Rovner Does the public really hate the health care bills? Nope. They just don't know what's in them. That's what the results of the latest Kaiser Health Tracking poll on the overhaul legislation now stalled in Congress say. Pollsters find people like health care overhaul when they understand what's in it. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll (no affiliation with the HMO) shows that when respondents were told about the specifics of the health bills, they usually liked them more. For example, 73 percent of those polled by KFF said they were more supportive of the measure after hearing that the bill would provide tax credits to small businesses to help them offer coverage to their workers. More than two-thirds increased their support when they were told the bills included insurance "exchanges" where people could go to buy health insurance. And 63 percent said they liked overhaul more when they found out it would ban insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting health conditions. The results make for an interesting contrast from the Jan. 20 Gallup poll right after Tuesday's Massachusetts special election. That one showed that the majority of Americans (55 percent) want Congress to scrap the current bill and seek alternatives. To be sure, not every explanation of the bill drew praise. Those that lowered support for the bill included the fact that it would cost--offset by taxes and cuts to Medicare--more than $870 billion over 10 years and the fact that it would require most people to have health insurance. And despite President Obama's vow that he will not sign a bill that would "add one dime to the deficit," only 15 percent of respondents said they expected the bill to reduce the deficit, even though 56 percent said if that were the case, they would support it. Only 44 percent knew that the bill would close the notorious Medicare "doughnut hole," the quirk in Medicare's drug benefit where coverage stops but seniors still have to pay their premiums. But perhaps the most ominous finding of the Kaiser poll is that after nearly a year of debate, people appear to know so little about some of the measure's key points. Perhaps Democrats' biggest problem with the bill is not having a strategy to get it passed, but not having a strategy to explain what it does to a public that still seems to want health overhaul. KFF has been asking the public about the bill every month for more than a year now. And while support has been slipping, according to the January tally, it's far from in the tank. In fact, according to the poll conducted Jan. 7-12, supporters of the measure slightly outnumber detractors, 42 percent to 41 percent, with 16 percent undecided, although there is a margin of error or plus or minus three percentage points.

Seems to me that his quote in the first article should do him in. "Bauer was interviewed six days after the accident and told investigators he had never landed at the airstrip before and did not conduct any performance planning using the Mooney owner’s manual for his arrival or departure." 1300 ft. strip and he doesn't conduct any performance planning? I wouldn't land there in a mooney (floaty little buggers), much less try to take off. I wonder how he feels about tort reform. I'm guessing he'd answer with "Well it depends on whether you're a lowlife scumbag or a valuable person." I'll admit though, I appreciate the honesty. It lets you know who you're dealing with.

I think we're begin distracted from the main issue here. Apparently this Bauer guy is a real dick. Sorry for doubting you divot.

You mean like "if she floats, then she's guilty. If she sinks (and drowns) then she's innocent! Ahhh, the good old days. When you could get justice and health care from the same practitioners. "Fetchez le hirudinea!!!!"

Another campaign promise kept! Transparency! And this upsets you guys? I can see why it might though. The Obama administration and the D led Congress is just as good as giving money to the drug, insurance, and private military contractor industries as the R's. Don't worry though, I think the R's still have the record for earmarks. Not by much but a win is a win right On a more serious note, will you guys please quit with this "Lib" and "Leftist" stuff when referring to Obama. He's established himself as a centrist in a Congress consisting of Republicans and Republican Lites.

Sure could, on both sides of the issue. Wow, I'm impressed. At $2.5 million for a 30 sec spot you'll HAVE to argue both sides because I sure can't. The forum is all yours. Yes and no. Much of the billions that the pharmaceutical industry spends is on direct to consumer advertising. Political advertising is no different. Where lobbying is different however is in that it frequently boils down to bribery and or prostitution. Political ads are just a way to get your prostitute in the door. Maybe I should narrow down my argument. I do not believe that money is the free speech that the Framers wrote about.

I don't want to come across as completely anti-corporation. I'm anti-corporate abuse. Capitalism is a great thing and it has made our country strong. But if not kept under control it can be the source of ruin. Even too much water can kill. Sadly, it seems that the current business models that are lauded by the business community are destructively parasitic. You're right in that most businesses realize that destroying the basis of our consumption based economy is a lousy idea. But those businesses are getting harder and harder to spot these days. And unfortunately those businesses will be the ones which suffer because they can't afford to "speak" to their legislators effectively.

I'd like to think that you're right about the power of social media and the potential for the internet to shine some sunlight on our political decisions. I'm not optimistic however. The Iraq war is a good example of how difficult it is for accurate information to make it through the gauntlet of noise and into the national dialog. Political appointees doing last minute editing of scientific conclusions or filing the teeth out of tobacco lawsuits are examples of how industry representatives are able to thwart the effectiveness of the departments the oversee. I hope you're right and our politicians are held accountable but it's not likely to happen before some real and lasting damage is caused. Multinational corporations only have allegiance to their profits. They really don't care where they're made. And unlike human citizenry, corporate citizens live for a long time, getting wealthier and wealthier, thereby giving them the ability to secure more "access" to our government as well as the quantity and quality of our media content. Put us in a snuggie and show us something shiny and they're likely to get whatever they want.

You're ignoring the responses then. I'll use the superbowl example again. You are not denied access to the ad time. Could you take advantage of that access in order to voice an opinion or advertise a product? I have access to my Congressman and Senators. Do you think my letter complaining about the health care bill will be noticed when "my" representative's attention is being diverted by the $300 million/wk that PhARMA has been throwing at Congress? The health care industry has (I think) about 6 lobbyists PER congressman. Pharmaceutical companies spend about $13 Billion/year pushing their products. Even though opposing voices have access they will never have the actual access that the wealthiest entities do. Money controls our government, not the constituency. I mean look at Obama. He's the President of the United States and he had to cut a deal with PhARMA and the insurance industry before he could even bring his reform ideas to the table. If that doesn't show where the power lies then I just don't know what else to say.

How is Stevens wrong? And why aren't the tea partiers more vocal about this? After all, they claim that they want to take Washington back from the special interests. This decision will help solidify the special interest hold on our government. I don't care if Boss Tweed has a (D) or an (R) behind his name. I don't want him running the show.

I've got an idea. Why don't we continue this discussion by using the commercial airtime during the Superbowl!

Great. Then we'd have an ignorant populace being "represented" in Washington by corporate lobbyists. Heyyyyyy......wait a minute.....

What? The conveyance of an idea? SPAM is nothing more than the conveyance of an idea. If it were not for filters and moderators you and I would never be able to have an exchange such as this one. I would never hear lawrocket's take on this decision if I had to sift through 100,000 messages to maybe stumble across yours or especially the new jumper who just joined the forum. He could have the intellect of Thomas Jefferson and we'd never get exposed to it because Pfizer wants to sell me a drug. I like Justice Stevens' quote: "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

They could clarify the term "speech".

One question. Say "World Corp" based in "Richestontheplanetstan" was supporting candidate Commie Libbystein for President as well as half of the candidates for Congress. World Corp offers to pay premium prices to buy up all of the advertising airtime on our major networks and newspapers, leaving none available to any other candidates. Is that acceptable to you?

He's back! Sock puppets! Tequila based drinks and sriracha all around!

It's actually an idiotic point. The people of Mass voted in the Republican because Dems are out of control and pushing too fast, too hard, and too left (even for Mass). This guy is actually trying to make the position that they voted against a Dem because the agenda is moving too slow!!!! nuts That means the people of Mass want the process to accelerate and their main method of doing that is to remove the rubber stamp Senate? Boy - he really thinks the people of Mass are complete idiots, then. Just a couple of points: 1) I miss the old rehmwa. 2) The most massive taxpayer funded giveaway to private industry in our history is "leftist"? 3 Mass voted for the Republican (if you can call a marginally pro choice, historically pro-environmental, carbon trading, civil union supporting, nude model a "Republican") because the health care bill is a bad deal for Mass.

True, I didn't give your point the response it deserved. I just used it as a launching platform for my bribery point. Normally I would be more inclined to recognize the shades of gray wrt this topic. But the system has been abused to the extent that I feel that a distinct line needs to be drawn. I have to admit, I like Niki1's idea about the stickers. I'd love to see Lieberman standing up in front of the cameras with "PhRMA", "Aetna" and "AIPAC" patches all over his suit as they do a roll call vote on health care legislation.