tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post985011458580903548..comments2023-07-20T10:30:43.820-05:00Comments on Musings of a Minor Mennonite: Supreme Court's Blow to DemocracyDan Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-88964070713972138712010-01-31T16:21:08.551-06:002010-01-31T16:21:08.551-06:00It depends on the power Bob. We are allowed to own...It depends on the power Bob. We are allowed to own knives. We are not allowed to own nuclear weapons. Because some people would not abuse nuclear weapons is not a good reasont to allow everyone to own nuclear weapons.<br /><br />The power for corporations to spend unlimited money in support of a candidate is more like a nuclear weapon than a knife.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-7066475165300007902010-01-31T15:32:32.125-06:002010-01-31T15:32:32.125-06:00Robert, You are not being sincere. You are being s...Robert, You are not being sincere. You are being sarcastic and I don't understand why or what you are trying to protect or defend. To backtrack to your comment about Michael Moore not being allowed to make movies... well, that has no bearing on this decision. Moore made movies within the marketplace and people paid to watch them. Rightists like yourself have tried to copy him (or mock him) with their own movies, but they don't have the skill or the ideas to get anybody interested enough to buy tickets. Moore didn't pay to have his movies shown on TV. Advertising that is paid for can have all kinds of impact. Personally, I don't trust advertising any further than it can be thrown. And if your Rails to Trails buddies wanted to support a political candidate, why couldn't they do so on their own? I don't claim to understand this decision fully, but it seems to be granting even more power to the already wealthy and powerful and giving the status of individual personhood to corporations. I think there is something about that in Revelations, if I'm not mistaken, about the Antichrist. I must go now and make potato soup. There are four cardinals sitting just outside my window. Ciao...PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-70757549801161862042010-01-31T15:08:56.648-06:002010-01-31T15:08:56.648-06:00Dan,
I think I see what you are saying. Your pos...Dan,<br /><br />I think I see what you are saying. Your position is that if some might misuse a power or right, that power or right should be banned for everyone?<br /><br />Am I correct?Robert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-42853314024977882262010-01-31T15:01:05.636-06:002010-01-31T15:01:05.636-06:00And where judges are elected, the impact for corpo...And where judges are elected, the impact for corporate influence will be devastating.PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-23244120280109689412010-01-31T14:51:17.137-06:002010-01-31T14:51:17.137-06:00Bob, you are exasperating.
No corporations shoul...Bob, you are exasperating. <br /><br />No corporations should be allowed to buy ads for candidates, because some corporations can control elections that way. That some corporations can't control elections via ads is not sufficient reason to allow others to do so.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-22349103514533725512010-01-30T16:27:05.284-06:002010-01-30T16:27:05.284-06:00Oh, I thought the discussion was about corperation...Oh, I thought the discussion was about corperations buying ads to support candidates. <br /><br />I didn't know the conversation has now moved to which groups should be able to, and which groups should not. <br /><br />By all means, state your criteria.Robert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-10655409355430489182010-01-30T13:07:05.292-06:002010-01-30T13:07:05.292-06:00Bob, we are not talking about the corruption that ...Bob, we are not talking about the corruption that would happen if "Rails to Trails" were to produce an ad to endorse a candidate. We are talking about the corruption of Exxon buying up all the airtime 2 months prior to an election to spam the media and install candidates that will enact policies favorable to them. They could remove taxes for oil and add taxes for every other kind of energy. They could remove pollution laws and make it cheaper for them to produce oil, increasing their profit.<br /><br />You obviously don't see a problem with that. It's "free speech" to you.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-29348299126088889492010-01-30T09:17:15.646-06:002010-01-30T09:17:15.646-06:00Try this on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opi...Try this on:<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30sat4.htmlPGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-62168365642744588162010-01-29T14:00:54.576-06:002010-01-29T14:00:54.576-06:00I don't know, Robert. I worked as a copywrite...I don't know, Robert. I worked as a copywriter for several ad agencies over the years. I would have a hard time being convinced that advertising of any kind is truthful enough to qualify as free speech.<br /><br />But I do hope you watched Obama speak to the House Republicans just minutes ago. If you missed it, track it down and watch carefully.<br /><br />It shows the difference between being a true advocate for important issues for the betterment of all people and the bickering of partisan politicians.PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-75078354148304688982010-01-29T11:00:50.188-06:002010-01-29T11:00:50.188-06:00Ok, let's try this the other way. One of the ...Ok, let's try this the other way. One of the groups I like to support is "Rails to Trails". They help turn outdated railroad right of ways into bikepaths. <br /><br />Explain to me why they should not be allowed to put an ad out telling me which candidates in my area support their agenda.Robert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-85583191050408058562010-01-27T08:44:48.375-06:002010-01-27T08:44:48.375-06:00Robert, I literally spent hours thinking about you...Robert, I literally spent hours thinking about your response as I drove my delivery route this morning. Of all the issues that have been batted back and forth, all the positions and posturing, all my own knee-jerk sarcasm and stupidity, and I find myself nonplussed and dumbfounded. My first inclination was to believe you are being disingenuous or are merely, like so many, deluded (out of the calculated and manipulated fear sold by politicians and religions). But I do believe you truly believe what you believe, and find this so disheartening I can only throw my hands in the air. With all the ills in the world, from war lies to the unmet needs of the wretched because of greed of the privileged, I just don't know how to accept that you are pinning your positions upon a threat to free speech. Are you saying we should tax the churches? OK, then. That's a great idea. I'm for it.PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-41661026188805295322010-01-27T08:41:04.635-06:002010-01-27T08:41:04.635-06:00I don't understand the slippery-slope argument...I don't understand the slippery-slope argument, since this ruling is what is new. What existing free-speech rights don't exist that you are worried about? Churches can endorse candidates all they want as long as they give up their tax-exempt status, since political advocacy is not tax-exempt.<br /><br /><br />And simple math should convince you that unions are no competition for corporations. I would bet Exxon made more in profit in 2008(45 billion) than probably all of the dues of all unions combined. And union dues are mostly for union members -- very little of it goes to political advocacy.<br /><br />Corporations may or may not spread the wealth equally (they aren't right now - Republicans get the lion's share and that's not likely to change). But as a person who usually votes Democratic, I don't want it to be bought and beholden by corporations. It's bad for the country and the common good. <br /><br />Your "free speech" is not free unless everyone has the same opportunity to "speak." In the media age, that means equalizing access to media by not allowing the wealthiest to bombard the media message. Your version of free speech is one dollar=one vote, which is neither free speech nor democracy.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-88015521566468822512010-01-26T21:42:17.766-06:002010-01-26T21:42:17.766-06:00pg, I am pretty sure I bring in significantly less...pg, I am pretty sure I bring in significantly less money per month than anyone else who regularly leads this blog, so this isn't about money. <br /><br />Actually, Dan, I am not sure this helps either party more than the other. Unions get a lot of money, and not all corporations will throw 100% behind republicans. <br /><br />I really feel this is a slippery slope of taking away freedom of speech. Have you considered that the without this ruling, the government could decide your church can't print fliers for events that are deemed "in favor" of a political event or candidate, because your church is not a person? You laugh, but I think freedom of speech is a really big deal, and should be guarded at all costs. We can disagree about that, because after all, we each have the right to say what we think, for now.Robert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-65080102730312314412010-01-26T19:45:16.043-06:002010-01-26T19:45:16.043-06:00Bob, if you are concerned that the "more the ...Bob, if you are concerned that the "more the government tries to infringe on society, the more options the rich and powerful have to game the system", how can you possibly support a decision that allows the rich and powerful to very easily game the system?<br /><br />I think you are looking at this in political terms, not structural terms. "This will help Republicans in the short run, therefore it is good." But long term, this is incredibly corrosive and will lead to increased concentration of wealth and power.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-27814289072321546652010-01-26T15:13:10.723-06:002010-01-26T15:13:10.723-06:00So, Robert, tell me again. What is it you hope to...So, Robert, tell me again. What is it you hope to achieve in the position you take? Social justice? And what is it you fear from those you oppose?<br /><br />Am I wrong to conclude it is invariably related to the money you feel you are entitled to claim as your own?<br /><br />I should just stay out of this.PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-31332406238685862532010-01-26T14:59:35.060-06:002010-01-26T14:59:35.060-06:00Dan,
I know that one of our core disagreement ste...Dan,<br /><br />I know that one of our core disagreement stems from whom we feel currently has more power. You feel it's corporations, and I feel it's the government. It occurs to me that the rise of government intrusion actually may be having the reverse effect of what you want, and correspondingly what alarms me so much. The more the government tries to infringe on society, the more options the rich and powerful have to game the system. <br /><br />For example, if we had a flat tax, lobbyists would disappear, because they couldn't bribe lawmakers into giving tax breaks. It's easy for some corporation to hire me for $2M/year and make it my job to personally buy $1.9M in ads. It's always possible to game the system. The fact that you are scared of corporations running amuck, just as I am of the unions, is perhaps more of an indictment of our political system as a whole.Robert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-76740131115491540562010-01-26T14:31:15.169-06:002010-01-26T14:31:15.169-06:00Bob, this isn't about the right to free speech...Bob, this isn't about the right to free speech so much as the right of the rich and powerful to influence government policy without constraint. In bringing up irrelevant issues, like the chief or that some corporations are non-profit, you are just changing the subject. <br /><br />We are quickly becoming a one dollar = one vote "democracy," which is not constitutional free speech.<br /><br />Again, if you don't see a problem with that, there is no use arguing about it.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-47197743393228389002010-01-26T12:22:40.728-06:002010-01-26T12:22:40.728-06:00The ultimate fate of the Right, who put their fait...The ultimate fate of the Right, who put their faith in Mammon:<br /><br />http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_dont_even_want_to_be_alivePGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-48217154296996879652010-01-26T12:09:53.817-06:002010-01-26T12:09:53.817-06:00Well, on second thought, I just have to say that -...Well, on second thought, I just have to say that -- no matter who is right on what constitutes a person or a corporation or free speech rights -- the entire argument revolves around Money, as always with the right wing. It has nothing to do with helping people, or compassion, or doing the will of God. It's about clutching onto power and resisting taxes and accumulating riches that rust and corrupt.PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-83680627600864125032010-01-26T12:04:37.680-06:002010-01-26T12:04:37.680-06:00Please leave me out of this.Please leave me out of this.PGregory Springerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406082843885356999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-37750135665297824642010-01-26T11:58:01.142-06:002010-01-26T11:58:01.142-06:00Actually, for a microcosm of how those on the left...Actually, for a microcosm of how those on the left have responded to free speech issues, you can look at the latest memos filed under the freedom of information act, at how the university attempted to squelch the free speech of students for the chief.<br /><br />And yes, corporations can be individuals banded together. If pg and I created a non-for-profit group to appeal for tort reform, we would be considered a "corporation", and could therefore not be able to advertise. Technically, Hollywood studios are corporations, and therefore according to your view, any movie with political content should not be shown on television. <br /><br />Sorry, but I believe in free speech. As offensive as much of your satire is to me, I firmly believe you should have the right to proclaim it as loudly and to as many people as you want. Just because you might incorporate to keep blog finances separate from your and Jill’s grocery budget would not change my opinion on that.Robert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-74031780622380023232010-01-26T11:45:26.618-06:002010-01-26T11:45:26.618-06:00Democrats have not responded angrily to the notion...Democrats have not responded angrily to the notion that individuals have free speech rights.<br /><br />Corporations are not groups of individuals combining their financial resources. <br /><br />It seems that the only way you can justify this is to simply make stuff up.Dan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08387429717617727003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-24795201029392428442010-01-26T11:27:47.398-06:002010-01-26T11:27:47.398-06:00Washington, D.C.--Just days after the Supreme Cour...Washington, D.C.--Just days after the Supreme Court held that corporations, nonprofit corporations, and unions could not be denied their free speech rights to engage in political advocacy during federal elections, Democrats responded angrily to the notion that "groups of individuals" as well as individuals have free speech rights.<br /><br />In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced a constitutional amendment that would strike from the nation's founding charter the term "persons" and other plural references to people.<br /><br />"While it's perfectly appropriate for Members of Congress like me to be able to collect corporate contributions and use the money to air political ads in favor of our positions," said Grayson, "it's a perversion of the political process to allow individuals to combine their own financial resources and do the same."<br /><br />-From optoonsRobert Sievershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073575336019621976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-77485841891715523142010-01-25T06:37:38.492-06:002010-01-25T06:37:38.492-06:00This Supreme Court decision is yet another that ha...This Supreme Court decision is yet another that has ruined this country politically and economically. The worst Supreme court decision in American history was the December 12th, 2000 debacle of appointing Bush/Cheney to the presidency. What followed has been the worst terror attacks on our soil and the worst legislation passed, highest debt, on and on. The money that has been spent in just the last decade on politcal campaigns could have been applied to this economic crisis four times over. It is so sad that it will now only get worse, especially in this crucial time of volitility.Fingtreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09103884501838746705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22267600.post-625444189936103502010-01-25T06:30:16.150-06:002010-01-25T06:30:16.150-06:00Stereotypes and that typical sub-text of hateful, ...Stereotypes and that typical sub-text of hateful, selfish thinking is all that indolent Republicans have. The bible seems to be their security blanket to hide behind when it is needed.Fingtreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09103884501838746705noreply@blogger.com