Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 21st, 2010, 03:41 PM   #1
howell_jeep
Last Free Man
 
howell_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-09-06
Location: Howell Twp, MI 48836
Posts: 10,848
iTrader: (69)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default Supreme Court strikes down McCain-Feingold campaign finance law

1st amendment wins!!!

http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/...1st-amendment/

Fans of the First Amendment can rejoice. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
__________________
I SHOOT RAW!
---

Exercise your rights! Open Carry!
howell_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2010, 10:22 AM   #2
upchuck
Senior Member
 
upchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-16-07
Location: grand rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

the merger of corporate interests and the state. Fascism pure and simple.
All bow to "patriotic" multi-nationals with offshore hq's with no allegiance to this or any other country in this globalist age.
upchuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2010, 11:00 AM   #3
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by upchuck View Post
the merger of corporate interests and the state. Fascism pure and simple.
All bow to "patriotic" multi-nationals with offshore hq's with no allegiance to this or any other country in this globalist age.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Fascism is state control of private industry. It is not private industry having a voice in the political process.

There are many examples of Fascism in these United States today, but this is not one of them.


Read and learn....

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2010, 09:40 PM   #4
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,755
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Hooray, Politicians will continue to have a reason to be corporate shills! Hooray!
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2010, 09:45 PM   #5
jimhri
Senior Member
 
jimhri's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-17-07
Location: north of a bankrupt city
Posts: 3,249
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

i detest the idea that every time i buy something from a national brand corporation some of my purchase value goes into their political action committee fund. i also detest how union dues end up doing the same. both should be prohibited.

>>>>>>>>>>the founding fathers said "government of the people, for the people and by the people" they didn't say 'government by the corporation or union'<<<<<<<<<<
jimhri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2010, 10:54 PM   #6
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhri View Post
i detest the idea that every time i buy something from a national brand corporation some of my purchase value goes into their political action committee fund. i also detest how union dues end up doing the same. both should be prohibited.

>>>>>>>>>>the founding fathers said "government of the people, for the people and by the people" they didn't say 'government by the corporation or union'<<<<<<<<<<
Abe Linclon said "government of the people, for..." I didn't know he was a founding father. I thought he was a little after the Revolutionary war.
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2010, 10:56 PM   #7
jimhri
Senior Member
 
jimhri's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-17-07
Location: north of a bankrupt city
Posts: 3,249
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by traveller View Post
Abe Linclon said "government of the people, for..." I didn't know he was a founding father. I thought he was a little after the Revolutionary war.
i stand corrected
jimhri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2010, 07:58 AM   #8
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhri View Post
i detest the idea that every time i buy something from a national brand corporation some of my purchase value goes into their political action committee fund. i also detest how union dues end up doing the same. both should be prohibited.

>>>>>>>>>>the founding fathers said "government of the people, for the people and by the people" they didn't say 'government by the corporation or union'<<<<<<<<<<
If you detest these companies so much, then don't spend your money there. Your spending ability is one of your strongest voting powers. Use it.

Are corporations not owned by and union's not filled with citizens of this country? Does their right to free speech change at a certain income level or because they group together?

There are only three powers in this country, the people, the federal govt, and the states. Corporations and unions are part of the people.

You are playing the political game of class warfare. It's designed to keep the citizens fighting with each other while your liberty is suppressed by gov't.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2010, 07:59 AM   #9
JeepInABox
Jeep yard art collector.
 
JeepInABox's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-25-07
Location: Fenton
Posts: 2,309
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

America---- Fuck yea!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's my first amendmant.
JeepInABox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2010, 08:00 AM   #10
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Hooray, Politicians will continue to have a reason to be corporate shills! Hooray!
Looks to me like you think free speech is only a right for the people you agree with.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2010, 08:47 AM   #11
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,755
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Looks to me like you think free speech is only a right for the people you agree with.
no I think that free speech is a right for living breathing people not artificial entities like corporations. If the entire corporation (all employees) felt the way that the corporation felt, then they can donate their money to the candidate with whom they feel deserves it. This isn't how it works, though. Politicians are going to work for who they get the most money from. So unless you're the C.E.O. of something, they aren't working for you, even if they say they are.
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2010, 06:20 PM   #12
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I find it funny that everyone s focusing on how this will effect corporations, but seem to be looking past how it will effect other organizations. This will also effect unions, such as the UAW, not to mention organizations like the Sierra club, NRA and Brady bunch. Lets not forget to look at the whole picture.
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2010, 07:01 PM   #13
bodien
Senior Member
 
bodien's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-24-09
Location: Clare,Mi
Posts: 146
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by traveller View Post
I find it funny that everyone s focusing on how this will effect corporations, but seem to be looking past how it will effect other organizations. This will also effect unions, such as the UAW, not to mention organizations like the Sierra club, NRA and Brady bunch. Lets not forget to look at the whole picture.
If you read the bill this would not have affected Unions or other groups. It would only limit how Corps sent their money. Them spending on Political issues is no differen't than the unions who spend millions of our dollars on crap bills and campains we dont support! Whats the difference??? They deserve their voice too! Not just the Unions.
bodien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 11:03 AM   #14
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
no I think that free speech is a right for living breathing people not artificial entities like corporations. If the entire corporation (all employees) felt the way that the corporation felt, then they can donate their money to the candidate with whom they feel deserves it. This isn't how it works, though. Politicians are going to work for who they get the most money from. So unless you're the C.E.O. of something, they aren't working for you, even if they say they are.
First, corporations are not artifical they are simply a legal definition for the people who own them, nothing more.

Second, the employees of a corporation aren't the corporation, the owners are the corporation. The employees work for the corporation. It's not a collective. A union is a different story.

We agree that politicians shouldn't be working for the highest bidder but they do. However we differ on the solution. You want to punish sucessful people for taking advantage of the situation by taking away their freedom of speech.

I want to remove the power of the government to rule over anything that isn't one of the 18 enumerated powers spelled out in Article I section 8 of the constitution. Having their power limited, as intended, would de-centralize the power structure and make it impossible for anyone to buy it. There would be no power to buy. A weak central government is a good thing. This is how it was before the 1930's when the progressive movement started under FDR and expanded the role of the federal government. Since then all parties have been guilty of increasing and centralizing power in DC. It is now completely corrupted to the point that it will fail within our lifetime if it is not reversed.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 12:44 PM   #15
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodien View Post
If you read the bill this would not have affected Unions or other groups. It would only limit how Corps sent their money. Them spending on Political issues is no differen't than the unions who spend millions of our dollars on crap bills and campains we dont support! Whats the difference??? They deserve their voice too! Not just the Unions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2002/overby_reform.html

The 2002 campaign "has been a nasty, snarling affair" replete with viciously negative attacks on TV, Overby says. "But tonight at 12:01, those kinds of stink bombs are supposed to get as scarce as Cinderella's carriage." That's because their funding is supposed to be cut off. The party committees pay for those ads with what's called soft money -- unregulated checks from corporations, well-off individuals, interest groups and labor unions.

Though McCain-Feingold takes effect tonight, critics say the law won't drive big money out of politics -- it will just unravel the political system as we know it. Attorney Cleta Mitchell, who is working on a lawsuit that challenges the law, says all that really will happen is that "political parties will be really chopped up, dismembered, and the money will flow to organizations that are essentially private political parties, private interest groups, splinter groups."
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/25/politics/purehorserace/main2975955.shtml


(CBS) Today the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on ads funded by corporations and unions running within two months of an election. The decision should have little partisan impact: Many corporations would favor Republicans and most unions would favor Democrats.
Both will be affected. But all the attention is on corporations.
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 04:34 PM   #16
smasheromalley
Senior Member
 
smasheromalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,037
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
First, corporations are not artifical they are simply a legal definition for the people who own them, nothing more.

Second, the employees of a corporation aren't the corporation, the owners are the corporation. The employees work for the corporation. It's not a collective. A union is a different story.

We agree that politicians shouldn't be working for the highest bidder but they do. However we differ on the solution. You want to punish sucessful people for taking advantage of the situation by taking away their freedom of speech.

I want to remove the power of the government to rule over anything that isn't one of the 18 enumerated powers spelled out in Article I section 8 of the constitution. Having their power limited, as intended, would de-centralize the power structure and make it impossible for anyone to buy it. There would be no power to buy. A weak central government is a good thing. This is how it was before the 1930's when the progressive movement started under FDR and expanded the role of the federal government. Since then all parties have been guilty of increasing and centralizing power in DC. It is now completely corrupted to the point that it will fail within our lifetime if it is not reversed.
Funny you should say that

http://detnews.com/article/20100125/...r-middle-class
smasheromalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2010, 10:56 AM   #17
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smasheromalley View Post

His populist posturing isn't going to save the republic and I doubt it will effect his poll numbers much in the long term although clearly that is his goal.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2010, 01:08 PM   #18
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
..................................You want to punish sucessful people for taking advantage of the situation by taking away their freedom of speech..............................



I have no problem with successful people (individuals) expressing their interests through donations to a political entity. I have no desire to punish successful people.

I just do not see a corporation as having the same rights as individuals.

One may be made up of the other, but they are still not the same.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2010, 06:09 PM   #19
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I have no problem with successful people (individuals) expressing their interests through donations to a political entity. I have no desire to punish successful people.

I just do not see a corporation as having the same rights as individuals.

One may be made up of the other, but they are still not the same.
Government has no right to tell anybody corporation or not, how they can spend their money.
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2010, 06:14 PM   #20
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
I have no problem with successful people (individuals) expressing their interests through donations to a political entity. I have no desire to punish successful people.

I just do not see a corporation as having the same rights as individuals.

One may be made up of the other, but they are still not the same.
Would you hold that same standard to unions, and other politically active groups?. Remember corporations need a voice in Washington to counter unions, environmentally groups, animal rights, ect.. which also spend millions on campaigns. Unless your idea of free speech only effect politically correct speech. If so then you fail to understand the principle of free speech.
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright ©2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.55447 seconds with 52 queries