A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court
" ... just another political body"
In another 5-4 vote Monday, and without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely tossed out a longstanding Montana law that barred corporations from making campaign contributions in state elections. States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.
Or as Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock noted afterward, “It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body.”
Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate. The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.
The absurd notions that have now forced its demise — corporations are people and speech is money — are novel law that has been imposed upon Montana and the rest of the country by an increasingly activist, inventive and yes, partisan Supreme Court.
Let’s be honest about this: The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals. The same sort of rigid ideological tests that the party has imposed on candidates for elective office have also been imposed on those it supports for nomination to the federal judiciary. Over a generation, that campaign has succeeded in creating a court that is far more friendly to the powerful than to the individual citizen.
The “smoking gun” in that evolution is of course the court’s “Citizens United” decision, in which the conservative majority decided that bans or limits on corporate expenditures are unconstitutional because “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
That finding is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. It contradicts common sense, it contradicts history, it contradicts what we can see taking place in plain sight at this very moment and it contradicts the elected politicians who passed campaign-finance laws in the first place. Unlike the unelected justices, those politicians know the system intimately; they know firsthand what power can be wielded by unlimited money spent anonymously.
The people of Montana know it as well. I would strongly advise those interested in the issue to read last year’s 5-2 decision of the Montana Supreme Court (available here) as it attempted to uphold and defend their state’s law against the conservative judicial majority in Washington. The decision lays out in clear language that state’s difficult history in trying to fend off outside corporate control.
It’s also important to note that neither of the two dissenters on the Montana court embraced the logic of the Citizens’ United decision. Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.
One of those dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, used the opportunity to express his clear and eloquent disgust with the decision of his federal counterparts. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Here’s part of what he had to say:
“For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.
In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.
Furthermore, it defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads — put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate….
I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of “independent expenditures” expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the “quid pro quo” of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.
I cannot agree with the holding that the prevention of corruption in the form of independent expenditures is not a compelling state interest. There is no plausible reason why a state would not want to protect the integrity of its election process against corruption and undue influence; to do otherwise would render the fundamental right to vote a meaningless exercise….
Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.” While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers — not constitutional rights, but legislatively conferred powers — that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business.
Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
President Obama, name that man to the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,368 comments Add your comment
PJ
June 26th, 2012
4:02 pm
Steve – USA (”None of the Above”) @4:00 pm
Who is everyone?
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
4:02 pm
Ben, Ben! BEN!!!!
I posted facts about these companies. I cannot help it if you cannot handle the facts.
In fact, corporations contribute about 9 percent of all federal revenues now as opposed to 35 percent after WWII. Yet the conned think they still pay too much in taxes.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:02 pm
SfD — “And above all, do not ask about guaranteed annuities that beat the deal you get with Social Security.”
Yeah, that discussion *was* pretty funny.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
4:03 pm
PJ: “I wish I could get away with only paying sales tax. Must be nice.”
I agree. Being a freeloading mega-corporation benefiting from corporate welfare and real tax rates approaching zero, like GE, I’m sure it’s quite nice indeed.
DBCOOPER
June 26th, 2012
4:04 pm
Lets keep it real Jay. Okay
When you peek under the Robe of Dem appointee’s, what do you see?
Paul
June 26th, 2012
4:05 pm
John Birch
Another big difference between the UK and US health care systems is, in the UK, nearly everyone pays a significant portion of their income for health insurance.
Over here, people may get it for free. Or at rates subsidized by their companies. Or they may have a little business, get themselves health insurance and write it off as an expense and have the government reduce their taxes.
Then a significant number can’t get it or choose not to. Republicans recognize this as their God-given right, defend their right to avoid personal responsibility and even step up to pay their medical bills for them!
Yep, there are some big differences between their socialized system and ours.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:05 pm
Taxpayer
Obama president. Union membership declining. Obviously Obama is anti-union. Whatever dude.
You’re random stats are irrelevant and like the jerks of a 6 month old. Uncontrolled and of no purpose or intelligence.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
4:05 pm
“ebay
CEO compensation: $12.4 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $131 million refund
Tax avoidance has always been a key motivator behind the development of e-commerce. So it’s hardly
a surprise that eBay, the world’s largest online marketplace, also turns out to be a major tax dodger.
Last year the firm received a $131 million tax refund, despite U.S. pre-tax profits of $848 million.”
Only paid $12.4 million on profits of $848 million + a tax refund of $131 million? That CEO needs a raise.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:06 pm
“Thanks for attempting to answer. What did I want you to say? To respond to the question.”
I think I did.
“From you answer I gather you are not in favor of the Supreme Court decision or denial of reconsideration.”
I am an “originalist” of a sort, so I don’t like any ruling that makes speech anything other than speech.
“But what I asked was for those on the Right who supported the Court decision to state why. So far, none know why they like it, nor are they able to cogently express themselves.”
Let me likewise ask you a question: is pornography in your view a legitimate form of protected speech. If so, please cogently express why you think so and why it is different from the ruling you object to.
Which is not at all surprising
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:06 pm
Towncrier — “I was expressing an opinion (again, based on human nature and assuming most people would not admit as much), not trying to prove that opinion was true. But I may decide to oblige you on that count. If one has publicly admitted it, perhaps a few others have as well.”
That’s certainly possible, but IMO it’s rather disingenuous, given that no one *here* has expressed that view. That’s why I asked for posters here who had done so.
If no one here supports that view, then why would someone who is *presumably* debating in good faith bring it up in the first place? If no one here supports that view, then who here would *defend* that view? IMO, 0311 wasn’t looking for honest discussion, but was instead trying to hamhandedly play Gotcha with other posters.
skipper
June 26th, 2012
4:07 pm
Why is the court “partisan” when liberals do not get their way, and progressive when they do?????????
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
4:07 pm
“Who is everyone?”
The freeloaders not paying any Federal Income Tax.
bman
June 26th, 2012
4:07 pm
If corporations aren’t people, why should any have to pay taxes?
Adam
June 26th, 2012
4:07 pm
Towncrier: Sorry, Adam, but that video (all 13 seconds of it) proves no such thing. Would you mind providing the full context for that man’s statement for us here (or is that disagreeable to you)?
I would if I had it to show. Of course, I don’t see how any context added could take away from how he believes that voter ID laws will help Romney win.
And if you want anyway to claim that Republican politicians are deliberately trying (colluding) to disenfranchise voters, then you will likewise have to concede the possibility that Democratic politicians are trying (colluding) to enfranchise voters who should not vote – unless you want to make the absurd claim that Democratic politicians are morally better than their Republican counterparts (which I will be happy to falsify with a great number of documented instances to the contrary).
uh, no. See the problem here is an assumption that there is a necessarily existing equivalence of some kind. The Republicans, in control of a few states, have pushed these laws. The Democrats are on the side of pointing out the flaws, not opposing it for reasons of allowing people to vote who shouldn’t.
That kind of an argument (that Democrats are somehow wanting people to vote who shouldn’t) is only presented as a way to deflect from the nefariousness of the Republican intent by asserting a nefarious Democratic intent, though there is no evidence that any exists on the Democrat side. There was plenty of “coincidental” evidence that if you put it all together, either all the Republicans pushing the laws in all these states are mind-numbingly stupid to the consequences of doing so, EVEN AFTER having those flaws pointed out, OR they’re doing it on purpose with different goals than they are stating in mind, quite possibly the goal of making it easier for Republicans to win elections.
In short, my assertion that the Republicans have a goal of making it easier for Republicans to win come from the very obvious consequences of implementing these laws quickly, excluding certain types of ID and including others, and not giving people a fair shot at getting the IDs necessary before implementation, etc. There is no evidence of dead people voting, of undocumented people voting or any of the other supposed reasons for having these voter IDs RIGHT NOW.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:07 pm
Romney is bush 2.0.
Absolutely.
He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Like George of the Bungle, Flip has proposed making Medicare into a “premium support” system in which seniors get a voucher and then choose either traditional Medicare or a private-insurance plan.
In essence the Inveterate liar from Massachusetts wants bigger tax cuts for the 1%, budget cuts in education and other essential programs, and deregulation to give banks and insurance companies even more power to do as they please.
Screw that. And him…
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
4:09 pm
Nobody, I mean nobody, freeloads like a mega-corporation. They’re big sponging people ya know …
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
4:09 pm
Jm,
Practice your one-handed typing skills at someone else’s expense. Your lame efforts do not get a rise from me.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
4:09 pm
Paul – I’ll take that as valid criticism and skip the hyperbole going forward. Guess I should quit the ‘leeches’ descriptions too. I just strongly believe that those who don’t work shouldn’t eat unless they can’t work. I’m not opposed to more taxes on those who can afford to pay, because they benefit disproportionately from what those taxes provide; educated employees, infrastructure, etc. But I also think taxing corporations is counter productive, it makes Amercian goods less competitive and encourages offshoring and outsourcing. And we could also use some needs testing for our entitlements, lots of scamming going on. This country became the strongest nation on earth because we outproduced and outworked the rest of the world.
Send the immigrants back home, make the unemployed mow the lawns and pick the grapes three days a week to earn their unemployment checks and look for better work the other two days. Instead of billions going to other countries it would stay here and unemployment would drop significantly, win-win.
If those beliefs make me evil or stupid, I’m guilty as charged.
Whahema
June 26th, 2012
4:09 pm
More partisan polemic nonsense from Joy who is acting on his orders to emphasize partisanship in the court. Bookman is an embarassment to his professiion and to Atlanta. The first sentence of his talking points is so loaded with false and manifestly silly thoughts that it’s hard to read the rest of his slavish obedience to his progressive masters.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:10 pm
“The voter ID laws were well thought out. They were designed to accomplish the goal of requiring ID of specific forms, and pushing voters out of the process who would not have these things or have easy enough access to them. The whole purpose, from the beginning, was to give Republicans an advantage. ”
That is quite a charge, Adam. If such widespread collusion is truly at the heart of voter ID laws, the responsible politicians must be pretty bad. If your charge is not true, then what does that make you? Also, please explain why if it is true, why Democratic politicians are not likewise capable of colluding to accomplish nefarious ends.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
4:10 pm
JamVet
“The Tea Party in Las Cruces, NM met with Representative Steve Pearce’s office urging him to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the disgraceful Citizen’s United ruling.”
They gotta be the sane 1% of the detached from reality 1%.
Good news.
Ben Shockley
“Hussein, I really get under your skin, don’t I? Let’s me know I’m scoring points…thanks”
Ticks get under one’s skin,but the only points they score are for being irritating.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:12 pm
Adam — “In short, my assertion that the Republicans have a goal of making it easier for Republicans to win come from the very obvious consequences of implementing these laws quickly, excluding certain types of ID and including others, and not giving people a fair shot at getting the IDs necessary before implementation, etc. There is no evidence of dead people voting, of undocumented people voting or any of the other supposed reasons for having these voter IDs RIGHT NOW.”
If scrubbing the voter rolls was so important to Republicans, why didn’t they start pushing for it right after the 2008 election? Why are they waiting until after the 2012 primaries are over to get started with it?
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
4:12 pm
Romney is bush 2.0.
Absolutely.
Nope… Not even remotely. Whether you liked Bush or not, he had backbone. If he made a decision, he stuck with it until the end. Romney can’t even come close to mirroring that. He changes his positions more than porno actors and actresses filming a gang bang.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
4:14 pm
By the way, is there a con on the blog that can share with us the impact of the Romney/Ryan budget proposal on the national debt by year. (Hint, it’s positive but in a bad way.) Perhaps Jm can show he actually has something of value to contribute. Okay, I made a funny.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:14 pm
“The difference is that nudity, flag-burning, arm band wearing, and other forms of “symbolic” speech convey a message in and of themselves, that is they speak to us about a specific topic on some level.”
Sorry, once you get away from speech being literally speech (as I am fairly sure was meant by our founding fathers), you open the door for almost anything being speech (like expressing your views by the way you donate money).
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
4:14 pm
This country became the strongest nation on earth because we outproduced and outworked the rest of the world.
It’s kind of hard to do that nowadays when production has been moved abroad. We might have became strong by doing that, but we’re not going to remain strong by simply trying to consume ourselves to prosperity.
bman
June 26th, 2012
4:14 pm
Bro .. .. lol
PJ
June 26th, 2012
4:15 pm
Steve – USA (”None of the Above”) @4:07 pm
Oh, corporations. Thanks for clearing that up.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
4:16 pm
JV – Did you see the Zimmerman news? I think your conviction prior to his trial might be a bit premature. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/george-zimmerman-passed-first-lie-detector-test-after-shooting/1
John Ellison
June 26th, 2012
4:16 pm
Jay, do you think the Supreme Court should limit the AJC’s political speech?
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
4:16 pm
bman
I probably didn’t need to put that out there like that, but that’s just the way I see it.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:16 pm
“I’d disagree with Obama more often if the Republicans offered me a sane alternative.”
Care to provide us with one or more people who would, in your view, be a “sane alternative”, Jay?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:17 pm
Bro
Don’t watch porn at work –
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:19 pm
Romney is doing what is necessary to win
Call him flip all u want
Obama does the same
Lessee, when a con doesn’t change his mind he’s a stubborn fool
When he does, he’s flip
Got it
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
4:19 pm
Corporations put strains on infastructure, they have to be audited to make sure they are not stealing, lying, and cheating so to speak, many reasons for them to be taxed. They are just throwing out legal bribes is all they are doing under the guise of “speech”.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:21 pm
Nobody, I mean nobody, freeloads like a mega-corporation.
The results of forty years of relentless perverted, mainly Republican, polices. Beginning with the disgusting Powell Memorandum.
The Corporate Kings of Welfare.
He changes his positions more than porno actors and actresses filming a gang bang.
Hysterical.
The man has become a near total buffoon in order to suckup to the lunatic fringe that runs the GOP.
Sad to watch, really…
bman
June 26th, 2012
4:21 pm
Bro…haha. It was good just as you said it! I liked it and…I am for Romney.
But really…Romney is no different than any other politician. He’s going to say whatever he and his advisors believe is most effective to get as many votes as possible.
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
4:22 pm
bman @ 4:07
If corporations aren’t people why should they have to pay taxes?
You are kidding me, right? You think that only living human beings should be subject to taxation? Please explain yourself.
Corporations and other business forms are given legal status, i.e. recognition as a legal entity only at our pleasure. They are legal fictions that exist because we choose to recognize them.
That recognition brings with it tremendous benefits. Most business forms offer limited liability protections to investors and owners. Businesses benefit from access to an educated labor force (obviously this varies by state, city, etc.), access to public roads and other infrastructure. They benefit from being able to conduct business in our market economy. They benefit from protection under our laws to enforce contracts with suppliers, customers, etc., protect their intellectual property rights, etc.
All of these benefits are given to these legal entitie because of the laws made by the various states and, as applicable, the federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires it be so. As a result, society can subject businesses to regulation, taxation, etc.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
4:22 pm
jm
That’s a different agency.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
4:22 pm
John Birch
“. I just strongly believe that those who don’t work shouldn’t eat unless they can’t work.”
I think that was one of the ideas behind Clinton’s welfare reform. There will always be those who abuse or game the system. Welfare benefit cheating is no different, say, than those who exploit Medicare or Medicaid for gain, except it’s a lot cheaper.
BTW, were you aware one of the reasons some low-income working families don’t pay taxes and get additional funds is because of a tax program called “making work pay?” It rewards people for working, even at lousy pay, and encourages them to keep working.
Think it might discourage some of them if that were cut?
The trouble I have with means testing for, say, SS or Medicare is pretty much what you described with welfare. It penalized those who lived below their means and saved for their retirement. It would reward those who spent every dime they earned.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
4:24 pm
Romney is no different than any other politician. He’s going to say whatever he and his advisors believe is most effective to get as many votes as possible.
So very true regardless of the party. That’s one of the things I least like about our political system. We don’t even make a ruse of expecting honesty anymore. Then, we have the gall to wonder why things are so corrupt and effed up…
Jay
June 26th, 2012
4:24 pm
Crier, a Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie or Jeb Bush — if freed from the ideological straitjackets demanded by their party — would probably be a viable alternative. But that condition is unlikely to be met, which is probably why Mitch Daniels has chosen to leave politics to become president of Purdue and why Bush refused to throw his hat into the ring. Bush all but acknowledged that fact in recent comments.
Even a Mitt Romney, freed from the ideological straitjackets demanded y his party, might have been acceptable. But Romney doesn’t want to be freed; he likes the servitude and obeisance he must pay as long as it gets him what he wants.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:24 pm
J. Ellison — “Jay, do you think the Supreme Court should limit the AJC’s political speech?”
Historically, there are *very few* restrictions on newspaper-based political speech, and in fact SCOTUS has struck down restrictions on such speech in the past.
This case is a good example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
4:24 pm
SS is an obligation for the gov’t, they took the money.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
4:25 pm
Bro – Amen to that. But outsourcing is for cheaper labor, offshoring is for lower corporate taxes. That’s why I say eliminate corporate taxes, they just pass them on to the consumers and cause job loss. Tax the corporate earnings at a healthy rate when they pass them on to people, either stockholders or executive bonuses. Want to give Jamie $150M bonus for losing $2B in bad investments but giving a great presentation to congress? Just tax about 40% of it to feed the needy that BOA made unemployed and homeless!
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:25 pm
“Corporations put strains on infastructure, they have to be audited to make sure they are not stealing, lying, and cheating so to speak, many reasons for them to be taxed. They are just throwing out legal bribes is all they are doing under the guise of “speech”.”
So do people. We should probably ban them from making political contributions too. Politicians will then just go door to door across America to run for office.
It should take them about 2,850 years to then reach 150 million households
Brilliant
Jay
June 26th, 2012
4:27 pm
“Jay, do you think the Supreme Court should limit the AJC’s political speech?”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
4:27 pm
So what’s wrong with banning political contributions, it don’t befront me.
bman
June 26th, 2012
4:29 pm
Dekalb … .. I never said that I “think” that corporations should not be taxed. I simply asked a question which, by the way, no one really jumped on.
I think corporations (especially the GE’s) should be taxed. When the best of the best are not taxed, I believe it destroys competition. Like people, I don’t believe they should be taxed more. But, they should be taxed fairly, or the same %.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:30 pm
Jefferson — “So what’s wrong with banning political contributions, it don’t befront me.”
NICE meta-comment!
Paulo977
June 26th, 2012
4:31 pm
Steve
will take Americans awhile to figure this out, and hopefully we’ll reverse the course and damage, but it will take time. Americans, in general, are pretty clueless
______________________________
We are just lazy and seem to be driven by the notion that we are ‘well off’ ( even though we are not and keep voting against our own self interests) and need to preserve what we have from those who want to ‘take ‘ from us !!!
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:33 pm
“Crier, a Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie or Jeb Bush — if freed from the ideological straitjackets demanded by their party — would probably be a viable alternative…”
Wow, Jay. I would not have imagined you saying that. Thanks for your candor. I agree with you that none of the candidates that ran this year have really impressed me. When GWB was first nominated, having lived in Florida, I wondered why him and not Jeb (a A student and married to a Hispanic)? So I have always liked him – a reasonable, pragmatic conservative. And Christie is impressive. He would have been tough to beat, I think. Daniels I like as well. And Jindal.
But I am still going to vote for Romney for a few reasons (which I have already articulated here).
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
4:34 pm
But Romney doesn’t want to be freed; he likes the servitude and obeisance he must pay as long as it gets him what he wants.
He has a resume that’s just dying to get puffed up with the biggest resume-puffing line item known to man. And a father’s unfulfilled aspirations to chase after.
Beware of people who are trying to settle Oedipal accounts through the presidential aspirations, and grand ambitions as president once elected. And that, by the way, goes for Mr. Dreams From My Father, just like the rest of them.
Rightwing Troll
June 26th, 2012
4:35 pm
“Let me likewise ask you a question: is pornography in your view a legitimate form of protected speech. If so, please cogently express why you think so and why it is different from the ruling you object to.”
Porn is entertainment, much like watching Faux news… you’re free to indulge yourself in either of those activities, and other than having to mindless blatherings, it has no effect on the rest of us. Political donations help to form a government that affects us ALL.
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
4:35 pm
Jm
As much corporate behind as you seem to kiss, it is evident you knew they were “people” before Romney ever said it
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
4:35 pm
If elected, Romney has promised to treat the federal government just like the businesses he bought up at Bain. He will load US up with debt and take a fee for providing US with new found capital and then charge an annual consulting fee for his continued service until we declare bankruptcy at which time he will break US up and sell US off for pennies on the dollar, for another fee.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:36 pm
Bro
Jay “But Romney doesn’t want to be freed; he likes the servitude and obeisance he must pay as long as it gets him what he wants.”
Um, do you realize how stupid that sounds? Wow, is about all I can say. So jay subscribes to the plantation con philosophy? I thought only cons were stupid enough to bark about the “plantation” mindset….
Rightwing Troll
June 26th, 2012
4:36 pm
Sorry this:
“and other than having to mindless blatherings,”
should read:
“and other than having to endure mindless blatherings,”
godless heathen
June 26th, 2012
4:37 pm
Headline: Man Says TSA Spilled Grandpa’s Ashes
Don’t you hate it when that happens.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:38 pm
Btw
The straight jackets Christie et al despise the most are primarily liberal ones
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:38 pm
Another eery Flip & George comparison.
Both are about one tenth the men that their fathers were…
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:39 pm
“Porn is entertainment, much like watching Faux news… you’re free to indulge yourself in either of those activities, and other than having to mindless blatherings, it has no effect on the rest of us. Political donations help to form a government that affects us ALL.”
You should probably think through you claim that pornography has no effect on the rest of us, as it doesn’t hold water.
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
4:39 pm
Bro
Off topic: Kenseth leaving Roush
Guess his price was too high, especially when they have a young buck they can bring up at a lower salary
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
4:41 pm
Jm
Portman, Ryan or whom?
I doubt Rubio.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:41 pm
The straight jackets Christie et al despise the most are primarily liberal ones.
Per the esteemed intellectual Frank S, “Your argument would be stronger, if you were more specific.”
Rightwing Troll
June 26th, 2012
4:41 pm
how does porn negatively affect you?
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:42 pm
Yes!
Lets bring back the demented Ronnie and Eddie Meese Show!
What we need in this country is another good old fashioned War on Pornography!
PJ
June 26th, 2012
4:42 pm
“Dan Quayle joined Cerberus Capital Management, a multi-billion dollar private equity firm, in 1999 and is chairman of the company’s Global Investments division.”
I guess only the best and the brightest do get these corporate jobs. I wonder what his bonues look like.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
4:43 pm
Why is Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie or Jeb Bush one iota better than anyone else in this vicious, worker-attacking, ALEC-loving, corporatist Republican party?
Is stabbing the people in the back any less extreme when those who do it deliver it in a nice mild-mannered brogue?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:44 pm
Tbs 4:35
yeah yeah
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
4:44 pm
“Headline: Man Says TSA Spilled Grandpa’s Ashes”
Orlando has been giving preliminary approval to convert to private screeners so you can expect some more professional workers at that airport in the future.
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
4:45 pm
Jm
After a few of your responses, it was way too easy not to pass up
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
4:45 pm
I wonder if Barack Obama could have been a better president had he been able to free himself from the straightjackets of his party. Ummm, probably not as he’s among the far-left inventors of his party’s straightjackets. Now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should both be in straightjackets literally speaking.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:46 pm
Creepin’ geebus, look at the giant douchey Tea Party post on the previous thread.
That guy must not understand that the thread’s over.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:47 pm
Tbs I doubt Rubio too
I’d guess portman or pawlenty, but it’s only an educated guess
Veepstakes are tough, could be someone no one is thinking of
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:47 pm
Sound the calliope, Recon’s back!
(circus music)
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:51 pm
Steve – USA,
What we need is a return to the halcyon days of Argenbiright Security.
I’m sure you remember them.
They were the highly disgraced Atlanta based security company that had criminals in their employ, who allowed many unguarded and unlocked access points/doors around the airport and who allowed people to board aircraft with weapons.
All before, during and AFTER September 11, 2001.
And just so you Uncle Sam haters are crystal clear about them, they were the inept clowns who were working the gates at the airports in Washington DC, NYC and Boston on that fateful day.
Yet more proof that the “free market” always does everything better than the government…
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
4:52 pm
Why thank you Joe…I thought that you may have been impatiently awaiting my return.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:53 pm
Recon — “Why thank you Joe…I thought that you may have been impatiently awaiting my return.”
I’m leaving shortly, but I *was* getting kind of bored.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
4:53 pm
congress is going to move back the deadline on cuts.
One less thing to worry about.
Rightwing Troll
June 26th, 2012
4:53 pm
I’m still waiting on an explanation on how porn adversely affects us all.. It’s a legitimate business that generates billions yearly, it’s not mandatory that anyone watch or participate, what’s the downside?
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:53 pm
No matter who Flip Millionaire picks for his would-be VP, I truly doubt he can match the sheer embarrassment of McCain’s choice.
But I wouldn’t rule it out either…
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
4:54 pm
JamVet-
According to some people on here 9/11 was staged by the Government.
Hey…you were right though, OWS turned into a massive movement just like you said. More like a bowel movement. LOL
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
4:54 pm
Jm
I think Portman is pretty good political strategy. Swing state that he would certainly help and experience.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
4:55 pm
Steve, why are you so terrified of American’s protesting, as allowed for in the United States Constitution?
Because they have a ballsack?
LOL.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
4:56 pm
Joe, it does appear to be somewhat of a boring thread. We have discovered, however, Jay’s secret fetish of peeking up the robes of court justices.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:56 pm
Jay, the AJC needs some more copy editors. I’m seeing a banner ad at the top of the page for a “New Nissan 2012 Altima 2.5 S Sprots Sedan.”
getalife
June 26th, 2012
4:56 pm
willard was the king of shipping American jobs to China and India.
That is how he will govern silly.
Are you going to vote to lose your job?
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
4:57 pm
I’m still confused. If corporations aren’t people, how can they be evil, lying, cheating, stealing no income tax paying scumbags? Take Enron, please. We wanted Enron to go to jail because the stockholders went broke but we had to settle for Fastow, and Lay, and Skilling. Arthur Andersen collapsed but he didn’t mind because he died in the 40’s. Their employees all lost their jobs because some of their employees were co-conspirators for a fee. Basically, Skilling and the accountants and the rest were just like the welfare lady in NJ who illegally draws checks from NY and NJ, just on a bigger scale. But Enron and Andersen were just legal entities, just places of employment, incapable of evil.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:57 pm
Recon — “Joe, it does appear to be somewhat of a boring thread. We have discovered, however, Jay’s secret fetish of peeking up the robes of court justices.”
Colonoscopies for all!
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
4:58 pm
Jamvet-
Who is terrified….I found them amusing in a pathetic sort of way. LOL
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
4:58 pm
Tbs I don’t know that he could get much mileage from portman in home state votes
More about competent solid pick. It wouldn’t make the base happy tho
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:59 pm
J. Birch — “I’m still confused. If corporations aren’t people, how can they be evil, lying, cheating, stealing no income tax paying scumbags?”
Because they’re *run* by evil, lying, cheating, stealing income tax dodging scumbags?
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
5:00 pm
Union Carbide/ India — Corporate heros ? BP and the oily Gulf ?
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
5:00 pm
“I’m still confused. If corporations aren’t people, how can they be evil, lying, cheating, stealing no income tax paying scumbags?”
Bingo!
Mighty Righty
June 26th, 2012
5:00 pm
An interesting conclusion from an employee of a major news “corporation” whose purpose is specificly mentioned in the constitution with defined exemptions and freedom from application of our laws not afforded other businesses. A newspaper is free to slander and libel by ommission. They deliberately distort facts to forward their political agenda. Our founders knew the benefits of having a free and honest press to keep an objective eye on government. Instead the watch dogs hide the very things they are to reveal while donating huge sums of money to the very poltical entities they were were uniquely given freedom by our founders to keep honest. But that was another time when people were far more trustworthy than they are today. Today, corporations must have the legal means to enable them to fight back against a empirical government and its print and electronic media. Without an opposing view made available by corporations the only news we would have would be the slanted by the left wing Democrat controlled media who is nothing more than an advocate of their socialist marxist policies. Please note, when left wingers complain about corporate money in campaigns they never mention the billions that are always spent by unions.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
5:00 pm
Colonoscopies for all!
LOL…can’t stop laughing. That was a good one.
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
5:00 pm
Jm @ 4:58
I think he would be a solid pick, but you are probably right. Pick probably will be someone who is or is considered more to the right
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
5:01 pm
but we had to settle for Fastow, and Lay, and Skilling.
We?
You would have held a parade in their honor!
You corporatists pretending to be conservatives love white collar crime.
You’re just miffed that you can’t get in on some of that action!
Nope, Stevie,
Making up wholesale malicious lies about tens of thousands of people indicates something much bigger than amusement.
BTW, did you work for Argenbright? You sure seem to have glossed right over that one!
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
5:02 pm
Nope Jamie…don’t work for Argenbright.
Perhaps you should actually get a job. LOL