Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Mitch McConnell: The free speech of rights of the super rich are being threatened because they cannot give millions of dollars to Super PACs and remain anonymous. Please, won't someone think of the plight of the billionaires   (npr.org) divider line 153
    More: Asinine, Mitch McConnell, consultations, free speeches, Norman Ornstein, Amway  
•       •       •

1571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 11:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-20 11:54:30 AM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: lolwut?

Let's pretend the sitting president is somebody whose politics I disagree with. Also the president is somebody Nixonian, paranoid, spiteful. I know this is some way out there stuff.

Let's say my company does a lot of business with the government.

Could you now see why I wouldn't want my name linked to being a big advertiser against the sitting president?

Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.

I prefer to have the powers of government limited so that if somebody who's a real ass gets into power, they can do the least amount of harm.


That is some of the most strained logic I have ever seen. Your argument is (correct me if I am wrong): Corporations acting in the shadows will protect your interests against government officials that you elect?

The Government is "we the people". If you fear your countrymen, you have already failed and corporations will not save you because they don't give a fark about you.
 
2012-06-20 11:56:32 AM  

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


There is.

However, money is not speech. Money is money, and in the name of preventing foreign powers such as China, Syria, and North Korea from having the "right" to influence our elections anonymously, money should never be considered speech.
 
2012-06-20 11:57:18 AM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: I've highlighted the actual operative dictatorial part, which isn't public disclosure of campaign donations.

How so?

If there was a real bastard in power, would you want your name on a list of donors to the opposition party?


The dictatorial part doesn't come from reading a list of opposition names...
 
2012-06-20 11:57:34 AM  

nmrsnr: We are currently in the process of condemning private individuals for attempting to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system and policy. In our nations history, we hold as icons and founding fathers who were private individuals who acted to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system.

Why is one acceptable (or was it? Should Thomas Payne and Alexander Hamliton been forced by law to publish under their real names?) while the other has a large push back (by myself included) to make such practices illegal?


Are you sure the Federalist papers were written anonymously? I know they were written under pseudonyms, but was it a mystery who it was, or did they do so simply to sound unified, and everyone at the time knew who the authors were?
 
2012-06-20 11:58:23 AM  

Esc7: This isn't about speech, if you support Mitt Romney, make your own damn commercial. But the fact that these wealthy donors and corporations fear being exposed for supporting their "speech" because of public backlash shows how nefarious they even view themselves.


I think they know, very well, that having an opinion is an expensive thing. If I own a store, and I hang a sign in my window that says " I support Obama," I stand to lose a lot more than I stand to gain. The same thing would happen if the sign said "I support Romney". Because I don't think people would go out of their way to shop in my store because they agreed with me, especially if they felt that my support for that candidate was simply a matter of course, and every sane person should hold that opinion. But if they disagree with me, I would probably lose a customer for life.

Is that fair? Who cares. If somebody wants to have an opinion but doesn't want to deal with the consequences of that opinion they can go screw. Companies should just stick to selling stuff. If they want to have opinions then they should be in the business of having opinions. If they want to sell stuff they should be in the business of selling stuff. If your opinion having business is detrimental to your selling stuff business, then you should get out of the business of having opinions.
 
2012-06-20 11:58:28 AM  
Google 'melaleuca' to learn about intimidation and litigiousness that makes the Church of Scientology seem like the Amish by comparison.
 
2012-06-20 12:00:08 PM  
So now, all of a sudden, the GOP is unconcerned with knowing who the players are in our elections?

Think about it - the GOP wants voters to ID themselves at polling places, while casting actual votes in actual elections. The GOP does not want the supporters of campaigns, who influence the entire mood and direction of the elections (not to mention the candidates), to ID themselves.
 
2012-06-20 12:01:01 PM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: lolwut?

Let's pretend the sitting president is somebody whose politics I disagree with. Also the president is somebody Nixonian, paranoid, spiteful. I know this is some way out there stuff.

Let's say my company does a lot of business with the government.

Could you now see why I wouldn't want my name linked to being a big advertiser against the sitting president?

Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.

I prefer to have the powers of government limited so that if somebody who's a real ass gets into power, they can do the least amount of harm.


Do you think you should be able to give Mitt Romney's campaign or Barack Obama's campaign as much money as you want? Do you think anyone should be able to?

Because that is what SuperPACs and 501c4s are. The content they produce is virtually indistinguishable from their candidates campaigns.

This isn't about fear of reprisal from the government (covered by first amendment)
This isn't about whistle-blowing (covered by whistle-blowing laws)
This isn't even about anonymous speech on the internet (which is still alive despite Republican opposition)

This is about giving political campaigns cash in a way to sidestep campaign finance laws. That's why SuperPACs were invented. If you think we should have no campaign finance laws, great, I understand why you're for SuperPACs and the Citizen's United ruling. But if you think there should be some sort of limits on how campaigns collect cash, and who they collect it from I don't see how you can support these organizations that masquerade as something they are not.
 
2012-06-20 12:03:11 PM  

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Me neither, but Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were privately funded, anonymously published materials intended to influence the United States political system.

I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.

I dont understand this parallel.



That's because it's pants on head retarded. Both Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was adopted. Sooooo, there weren't First Amendment freedoms and any comparison is asinine on its face.
 
2012-06-20 12:05:20 PM  

MugzyBrown: Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.


So what I'm supposed to imagine is that a state of affairs that does not exist, has not existed in this country, and is mind-boggingly illegal and would result in the first criminal prosecution of a president I can think of in the history of this country, is somehow worse than the actual state of affairs we are seeing now? And I'm supposed to imagine this so that it becomes okay for people to buy our political process and players? Why am I supposed to do this?
 
2012-06-20 12:07:21 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Yep, these same anonymous super PAC donors are just like that guy who said "give me liberty or give me death," but made sure the British never found out who he was. Or maybe those super PAC donors are the same as all those guys who signed the declaration of independence with "x"s because they didn't want King George to know who they were. Or maybe more like that anonymous gentleman who warned the American militia that the British were coming.


So you don't think that Paine published anonymously? Or that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay didn't use the pseudonym Publius? They used their power, money, and influence to, anonymously, distribute propaganda to further their own political ends. Was that okay? If so, why is it not okay for modern wealthy, politically influential people to want to do the same?

Or, to put it another way, if I dislike Romney, can I, unsolicited, spend my money to buy ad saying "Romney is bad for America?" If I do so, should I have to say,"Oh, BTW, my name is nmrsnr?" Or can I just put that ad out there anonymously?

If I can do that on my own as a citizen, why can't a very rich person do that nationwide, or a collection of like-minded people pool their resources to do it?

Like I said at the top, I really dislike the effect of the Citizens United decision, but I'm having trouble coming up with a logically consistent position that allows for anonymity in some situations (I don't want to say Paine was wrong) but condemns it for allowing large corporations to hide their motives through large, anonymous donations.
 
2012-06-20 12:10:34 PM  
If money is speech, shouldn't everyone be able to hear it?
 
2012-06-20 12:12:02 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: So what I'm supposed to imagine is that a state of affairs that does not exist


You really find it inconceivable that a president could have somebody murdered or prosecuted on false charges or a company shut down? Seriously? Do you think it's never happened?

You don't even have to convict somebody to ruin their reputation. Just make them a person of interest in a major investigation.. make sure their name is put out there for a week on the news.

Esc7: Do you think you should be able to give Mitt Romney's campaign or Barack Obama's campaign as much money as you want? Do you think anyone should be able to?


Yes
 
2012-06-20 12:13:06 PM  

Huggermugger: Google 'melaleuca' to learn about intimidation and litigiousness that makes the Church of Scientology seem like the Amish by comparison.


I found an article about tea tree oil.
 
2012-06-20 12:17:13 PM  

DamnYankees: Are you sure the Federalist papers were written anonymously?


According to Wiki: "A 1792 French edition ended the collective anonymity of Publius, announcing that the work had been written by 'MM Hamilton, Maddisson E Gay'" 4 years after they were published.

bglove25: That's because it's pants on head retarded. Both Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were written before the Constitution was adopted. Sooooo, there weren't First Amendment freedoms and any comparison is asinine on its face.


Huh? If anything, that would mean that Paine would have less of a right to publish anonymously than corporations today, but I'm not arguing about legality. The Supreme Court has said that the unlimited, anonymous contributions for uncoordinated political expenditure is entirely legal. The question I'm asking is: is it right or wrong? And if I call it wrong, is there any way I can claim that similar actions taken by our country's founders are somehow right?
 
2012-06-20 12:19:38 PM  

Esc7: Do you think you should be able to give Mitt Romney's campaign or Barack Obama's campaign as much money as you want? Do you think anyone should be able to?


Let me ask you some questions now

Do you think Coca Cola corp has the right to buy every available Super Bowl ad to advertise their product?

Do you think they have the right to buy every available ad and use it to talk about subsidies given to corn farmers and tarrifs/limits on sugar imports that makes it more expensive for them to swtich from HFCS to can sugar in their products?

Do I have the right to buy full page ads in every newspaper in the US to talk about the benefits of union labor?
 
2012-06-20 12:22:56 PM  
nmrsnr:
We are currently in the process of condemning private individuals for attempting to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system and policy. In our nations history, we hold as icons and founding fathers who were private individuals who acted to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system.

Why is one acceptable (or was it? Should Thomas Payne and Alexander Hamliton been forced by law to publish under their real names?) while the other has a large push back (by myself included) to make such practices illegal?


There is great value in anonymous political speech. Common Sense and the Federalist Papers are great examples of this. The ability for you or I to write books, pamphlets, or blog posts under a pseudonym are things that should be enshrined and not tampered with.

And we, as a country, have historically recognized these things and have created many vehicles for creating political groups to comment on our political process. These operatively separately from individual politician's campaigns.

We have had Political Action Committees, or PACs that were limited in individual donations (like regular campaigns) and we also had community non-profits or 501c4s that weren't required to disclose donors because they were classified as "Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees"

Both of these organizations are now allowed to collect unlimited money due to citizen's united.

Now, instead of being a Civic League or Social Welfare Organization, 501c4s are simply another branch of a candidate's campaign, collected unlimited amounts of tax-exempt anonymous money not to advocate causes or promote social welfare, but to simply get one guy elected in one election. It is criminal and a perversion of the system we have created, and no rational person should be able to tell me with a straight face it is identical to publishing pamphlets under a pseudonym for fear of reprisal.

It is bribery of political candidates. Giving them massive amounts of money via spending it on things they need. Giving them material advantage. These corporations and wealthy donors don't have any input on the message or the content of these commercials. All they care about is buying the favor of these politicians.

We've tried to guard against this in our modern political era, and now we're welcoming it with open arms under the canard of "free speech."
 
2012-06-20 12:23:46 PM  

MugzyBrown: You really find it inconceivable that a president could have somebody murdered or prosecuted on false charges or a company shut down? Seriously? Do you think it's never happened?


...
So I'm supposed to be more afraid of the object of your paranoia than I am of the things that are actually happening right now as we speak? If you and I are in a room with a lion, I'm going to be more worried about the lion than I am the nefarious group of evil martians you keep assuring me are in the other corner. Believe that. Seek help.
 
2012-06-20 12:24:28 PM  
If you can't stand behind what you've said, you need to reconsider what you're saying.
If you can't stamp your name on something you build, you need to reconsider how you build it.
If you can't truthfully admit to what you've done, you need to reconsider the deeds you engage in.

Anyone who fights against people finding out they are behind a certain action or message is almost certainly doing something reprehensible.
 
2012-06-20 12:27:49 PM  

SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?


You know why, and it's scary.
 
2012-06-20 12:30:03 PM  
i512.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-20 12:30:19 PM  
Anyone who fights against people finding out they are behind a certain action or message is almost certainly doing something reprehensible.

So a whistleblower is reprehensible. Otto Frank... reprehensible
 
2012-06-20 12:31:33 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


Just an anonymous ballot. Or is that a right? It's not spelled out.
 
2012-06-20 12:32:23 PM  
www.bartcop.com
 
2012-06-20 12:43:28 PM  

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: We are currently in the process of condemning private individuals for attempting to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system and policy. In our nations history, we hold as icons and founding fathers who were private individuals who acted to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system.

Why is one acceptable (or was it? Should Thomas Payne and Alexander Hamliton been forced by law to publish under their real names?) while the other has a large push back (by myself included) to make such practices illegal?

Are you sure the Federalist papers were written anonymously? I know they were written under pseudonyms, but was it a mystery who it was, or did they do so simply to sound unified, and everyone at the time knew who the authors were?


Who cares? Part of the list of grievances the new Republic sought to eliminate involved being arrested for speaking out against the government. Now that we have protection from government reprisals based on our speech/expression, you can't compare a multibillion dollar multinational corporation who are free to publish a "Government Sucks, and Here's Why" newsletter every day to someone who could get drawn & quartered for saying that to a British officer.
 
2012-06-20 12:43:28 PM  

MugzyBrown: Esc7: Do you think you should be able to give Mitt Romney's campaign or Barack Obama's campaign as much money as you want? Do you think anyone should be able to?

Let me ask you some questions now

Do you think Coca Cola corp has the right to buy every available Super Bowl ad to advertise their product?

Yes. Obviously. Of course I doubt a television network would allow that. And if there was a corporation as rich as this hypothetical "ultimate-coca-cola" that it could monopolize the airwaves of the country, I think some people would rightly be examining it. But let us move on.


Do you think they have the right to buy every available ad and use it to talk about subsidies given to corn farmers and tarrifs/limits on sugar imports that makes it more expensive for them to swtich from HFCS to can sugar in their products?

Do I have the right to buy full page ads in every newspaper in the US to talk about the benefits of union labor?



These ads force me to ask the most pertinent question: are these ads political in nature?

Obviously everything is influenced by the political process, it is the ultimate power in our nation. It is because of this power we closely monitor advertisements that are highly political in nature. We want our political system to be influenced by strength of ideas not by vast sums of wealth.

We don't want a small group of wealthier people controlling the political process. One way we do this is make sure they can't drown out all opposing speech by buying out all forms of ads preventing any opposition.

Another way we do this is by cataloging and limiting the amount of money flowing through political campaigns about highly political issues. Issues that are close to the top levels of government. Issues that stand to change the livelihoods of many people in this nation.

To answer your question, I don't know if the second or third commercials should be regulated, because they can swing wildly in how actively politicized they are. One could simply inform about corn and sugar prices. Another could tell viewers to vote for a candidate because it means cheaper soda.

I'm not going to sit here and continue defend the concept of limiting campaign contributions. Just because it is hard to draw the line between things that are highly political and not doesn't mean a line shouldn't exist. We disagree about how our political process can be negatively affected via excessive amounts of money. You think it is fair. I think it is bribery.
 
2012-06-20 12:44:57 PM  

Esc7: It is criminal


That's not true, yet, but you make some good points.

After reading your post I'm thinking that maybe there is room for distinction in that Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were about political philosophy, not a political person or party. This is like the modern concept of "issue ads" versus "campaign ads" I might be okay saying that anonymous speech is acceptable for discussing political issues, but not specific candidates or elections (which, possibly uncoincidentally, was the rule before Citizens United), but I'll have to think about that more.
 
2012-06-20 12:46:18 PM  

StrangeQ: He says he's gotten negative press, received unsavory emails and lost customers.


Why does he hate the Free Market?
 
2012-06-20 12:50:14 PM  

Esc7: These ads force me to ask the most pertinent question: are these ads political in nature?


Esc7: I don't know if the second or third commercials should be regulated, because they can swing wildly in how actively politicized they are. One could simply inform about corn and sugar prices. Another could tell viewers to vote for a candidate because it means cheaper soda.

I'm not going to sit here and continue defend the concept of limiting campaign contributions. Just because it is hard to draw the line between things that are highly political and not doesn't mean a line shouldn't exist


And the framers of the Bill of Rights roll in their graves.

Political speech is exactly the type of speech the 1st amendment was written for. Do you think they wanted to protect the right to sell coke or the right to say this government is full of shiat?

You don't know where to draw the line, but you're more than willing to let a bureaucrat choose for you. How comfortable are you if the bureaucrat or judge was appointed by Richard Nixon or George W Bush? You're cool with that guy saying what can and cannot go on the air?

You see no danger in this, of course. Allowing the government be a gatekeeper as to which speech is ok and which speech can be limited cannot result in something bad.
 
2012-06-20 12:51:39 PM  

nmrsnr:

So you don't think that Paine published anonymously? Or that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay didn't use the pseudonym Publius? They used their power, money, and influence to, anonymously, distribute propaganda to further their own political ends. Was that okay? If so, why is it not okay for modern wealthy, politically influential people to want to do the same?
.


When you are comtemplating civil war or revolution, yes publishing propaganda anonymously is great.

When you trying to simply buy politicians in a 'free' election so you can get favors, it is more concerning.

Part of the reason for the revolution was the inability to hold those in political power accountable for actions. If we don't know who owns the politicians, it makes is harder to hold those people accountable or even make an informed opinion.

I pesonally notice a marked decline in the founders publishing anonymous material after the threat of death for treason was removed as an option for being found out. Losing business or getting called out for your opinion is not quite what the founders faced.
 
2012-06-20 12:57:47 PM  
Seems to me that the First Amendment only limits what government bodies can do in response to a private citizen's politics. Of course we are still to suffer the real world actual consequences of this speech when dealing with other private citizens, LIKE THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. If you're too much of a coward to put your name on that billboard don't pay for it in the first place.
 
2012-06-20 12:59:45 PM  

Diogenes: Party Boy: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Sun Tzu said it best. "If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."

This is how The Family operates.

Fun Fact: Hillary is a member. Not that many people would know that.


For hat construction do you prefer shiny side in or out? Because I'm sure out would reflect the CIA's radio waves better.
 
2012-06-20 01:00:57 PM  
If you're too much of a coward to put your name on that billboard don't pay for it in the first place.

Yeah in your face, McCarthy!
 
2012-06-20 01:05:53 PM  

nmrsnr: Esc7: It is criminal

That's not true, yet, but you make some good points.

After reading your post I'm thinking that maybe there is room for distinction in that Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were about political philosophy, not a political person or party. This is like the modern concept of "issue ads" versus "campaign ads" I might be okay saying that anonymous speech is acceptable for discussing political issues, but not specific candidates or elections (which, possibly uncoincidentally, was the rule before Citizens United), but I'll have to think about that more.


Thank you. I did mean criminal in a expressive rhetorical sense, not a legal sense.

I completely agree with you that it is a difficult subject to disentangle.

One the one side there is anonymous speech for advocating politics. This allows people to be free from reprisals not only from government (already outlawed) but also from their employer and friends and family. It allows ideas to stand on their own, without being influenced by the history of the speaker. It is of great value to our political process. We're nearly doing it right now!

And on the other end we have giving money to politicians. I don't think we should be able to just give as much money as we want to politicians. Because that's simply bribery.

And now these two concepts are colliding because donating money is considered political speech, and you can create a group of speakers that exist solely to get you elected. Giving money to this group is essentially giving money to the candidate* because they act as agents of the candidate, taking nearly the exact same actions as the candidate, producing advertising media and disseminating over the country.

If you look at it from the anonymous speech angle, you should be able to donate to this group for all the reasons stated above. But if it is anonymous with no way to track you, you can donate an unlimited amount of money and then it becomes bribing politicians.

I think removing this option for politicians, by heavily policing 501c4s for not being "issue" groups and being blatant "candidate" groups is a good solution. A myriad of ways to still publish anonymous political speech would still exist while eliminating a vehicle that is currently allowing millions of dollars to be funneled to candidates.


*there is an limit to the amount of superPAC money you can give before it stops having a 1:1 effectiveness. What I mean is there is a value that once you go over it stops being as if you are handing the candidate cash. This value is maximum value a candidate would ever want to spend on advertising. I don't think we will ever hit that, but for the sake of completeness I mention it. :)
 
2012-06-20 01:08:05 PM  
 
2012-06-20 01:15:15 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: For hat construction do you prefer shiny side in or out? Because I'm sure out would reflect the CIA's radio waves better.


Everybody knows shiny side out reflects better, DUH!

.....because of CIA PROPAGANDA! SHINY SIDE IN! before they get you!


And watch out everyone. Sometime in the future our political system will apparently completely fail, we'll elect true despots, and then they will repeal the first amendment and the only recourse we will have is our ability to give political candidates unlimited amounts of money.

I don't know how it will happen, but in preparation for it we better allow our political process to be influenced by the highest bidder!
 
2012-06-20 01:17:28 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Diogenes: Party Boy: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Sun Tzu said it best. "If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."

This is how The Family operates.

Fun Fact: Hillary is a member. Not that many people would know that.

For hat construction do you prefer shiny side in or out? Because I'm sure out would reflect the CIA's radio waves better.


Do a little research. Perhaps actually read The Family.
 
2012-06-20 01:24:26 PM  

SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?


Because they know that Republican policies hurt the majority of their customers.
 
2012-06-20 01:32:41 PM  
I'd strongly urge people in this thread debating the merits of the Founders' anonymity during the publication of the Federalist Papers to actually read Federalist #1. Your questions and concerns are more than adequately answered there.

But...in short, the identity and motives of the speaker matter not so long as their speech is truthful and meritorious.
 
2012-06-20 01:36:01 PM  

Pincy: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Because they know that Republican policies hurt the majority of their customers.


Not to mention if you are a foreigner (named Murdoch) you would not be able to donate to US elections but if there is no disclosure it is easier to hide the source.
 
2012-06-20 01:38:49 PM  

Pincy: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Because they know that Republican policies hurt the majority of their customers.


The way that VanderSloot conducts business with his pyramid-scheme company is interesting. If you merely mention the name of the business on a website or in an article, he will sue you for copyright infringement. Regardless of whether you said anything defamatory.
.
So, no wonder a guy like that goes berserk if he's outed.
/ read the Salon article about him
 
2012-06-20 01:42:19 PM  
At this countries founding a group comprising some of the most powerful and influential in the country signed the Declaration of Independence, and in doing so also signed their death warrants. If support for revolution had been lackluster or if the British had won the war then every man who signed that document would have been hunted down, brutally tortured and publically executed as a warning to others.

That is the courage upon which this nation was founded.

Today the richest and most powerful people in the country are so cowardly that even when protected by their immense wealth and facing no repercussions beyond bad publicity are trying to argue for their constitutional right to anonymously bribe politicians, rather than deal with the hassle of legally publically bribe them.
 
2012-06-20 01:42:59 PM  
Its getting so you can't tell the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe
 
2012-06-20 01:45:49 PM  
Corporations are now able to provide unlimited amounts to SuperPACs. China owns a lot of corporations. Are you sure you don't mind if they buy politicians anonymously?

Always require a paper trail.
 
2012-06-20 01:53:05 PM  
"I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT I'M PLOTTING TO DESTROY THEM!"
 
2012-06-20 01:58:08 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: At this countries founding a group comprising some of the most powerful and influential in the country signed the Declaration of Independence, and in doing so also signed their death warrants. If support for revolution had been lackluster or if the British had won the war then every man who signed that document would have been hunted down, brutally tortured and publically executed as a warning to others.

That is the courage upon which this nation was founded.

Today the richest and most powerful people in the country are so cowardly that even when protected by their immense wealth and facing no repercussions beyond bad publicity are trying to argue for their constitutional right to anonymously bribe politicians, rather than deal with the hassle of legally publically bribe them.


"John Hancock" wasn't just nice penmanship. It was a loud and clear COME AT ME, BROYA LIMEY OLD CHAP, MY NAME IS JOHN HANCOCK. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR: J-O-H-N H-A-N-C-O-C-K.
 
2012-06-20 01:58:30 PM  
"That's why it's critically important," McConnell said, "for all conservatives, and indeed all Americans, to stand up and unite in defense of the freedom to organize around the causes we believe in."

Yes, all "conservatives" should want to make sure nobody knows who is swaying elections, that is good for merica...
 
2012-06-20 01:58:53 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


In fact, in the Citizens United decision, they decided 8-1 that you do NOT have a right to anonymous speech.
 
2012-06-20 02:02:37 PM  

MugzyBrown: Esc7: These ads force me to ask the most pertinent question: are these ads political in nature?

Esc7: I don't know if the second or third commercials should be regulated, because they can swing wildly in how actively politicized they are. One could simply inform about corn and sugar prices. Another could tell viewers to vote for a candidate because it means cheaper soda.

I'm not going to sit here and continue defend the concept of limiting campaign contributions. Just because it is hard to draw the line between things that are highly political and not doesn't mean a line shouldn't exist

And the framers of the Bill of Rights roll in their graves.

Political speech is exactly the type of speech the 1st amendment was written for. Do you think they wanted to protect the right to sell coke or the right to say this government is full of shiat?

You don't know where to draw the line, but you're more than willing to let a bureaucrat choose for you. How comfortable are you if the bureaucrat or judge was appointed by Richard Nixon or George W Bush? You're cool with that guy saying what can and cannot go on the air?

You see no danger in this, of course. Allowing the government be a gatekeeper as to which speech is ok and which speech can be limited cannot result in something bad.


Funny that one of the first thing the Founding Fathers did when they came into power is to erect a system were skulking about in the shadows to express political dissatisfaction was no longer necessary. It's like they were working within the world that existed at the time to bring about a better and more functional one in the future, as if they realized that needing to be anonymous to express dissatisfaction is a retarded way to run a nation. Well, not so much "like" or "if" as "that's exactly what they did and why they did it".
/radicals and idealists don't get this, and thus their agenda doesn't get advanced
 
2012-06-20 02:03:38 PM  

Diogenes: Crotchrocket Slim: Diogenes: Party Boy: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Sun Tzu said it best. "If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."

This is how The Family operates.

Fun Fact: Hillary is a member. Not that many people would know that.

For hat construction do you prefer shiny side in or out? Because I'm sure out would reflect the CIA's radio waves better.

Do a little research. Perhaps actually read The Family.


I've done research on Bigfoot and UFOs but I don't take that woo seriously either.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report