Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The Politics of Desperation

I've been kind of sitting back for the recent election, mainly because it's become less about ideas I an many others have fleshed out and more a referendum on the first two years of Obama.  And I'm not going to go into what the GOP is saying, because that's expected.  It's what the Democrats and democrat candidates are saying that really matters.

And there are a few things they aren't saying.  With the exception of the perpetually safe true believers, they're not talking about the virtues of Obamacare, the effectiveness of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the genius of the cap-and trade legislation that the leadership is pushing, and an avoidance of anything related to jobs, the size of government, etc.  In other words, anything subject that gets the Tea Party movement pissed is being avoided by swing Democrats.

Here's a perfect example of a Democrat running in 2010 who wants to win:



Let's enumerate the points in the ad:
  • NRA and the Second Amendment.
  • Fight Washington and the Obama administration.
  • Get the Fed off our backs and Out of our pockets
  • Cut federal spending
  • Repeal (the bad parts of) Obamacare
  • I Sued the EPA
  • And taking dead aim at the cap and trade legislation (as he puts a round through it).
Hm.  I had to double check to see he was a Democrat. Really.

So with no issues that their candidates can run in favor of and no convenient scandal to de-nut the GOP, the Dems are relegated to Bush-bashing?

That's so damned 2008.  Here's the desperation:



This, of course, is more fallout from the landmark Citizens United v FEC decision, which said corporations do have free speech rights, and spending money in an election is free speech.

Never mind there is no evidence that the US Chamber has done anything improper, or that Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove are behind it all, or anything involving "Steeeeeeaaaaaallllllinggggg Deeemoooocracy!"   Ooooooooooh!!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!

If the POTUS repeats a lie, does it make it the truth?  Let's break out the Ouija board and and ask Nixon.  Or even see liberal-leaning reporters like CBS's Bob Scheiffer get incredulous at the audacity of this:
CBS’ Schieffer, Oct. 10: But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?
Axelrod: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?
It's on par with asking me if I have evidence that I didn't molest my daughter.  As in, no, but our system sure as fuck doesn't assume guilty until proven innocent.  Although if someone did ask me that question, they'd be getting punched in the mouth.

In short, the evidence (and yes, what I cite above is evidence, for those of you who slavishly nod and salivate at the idiotic "stealing democracy" ad) shows some obvious thing.  That the DNC is continuing to push the unsubstantiated claims in this ad is simply an attempt to start a witch hunt where there are probably not witches.  It's an attempt to sidestep the intellectual argument by attacking the messenger.  It's yet another attempt to limit free speech through an uninformed public opinion.

And it smacks of desperation.

21 comments:

soapster said...

Such a great charade they perpetrate. As if it fucking matters whether their party or the "opposition" party wins. Tell me who's not a CFR/IMF/World Bank/Federal Reserve member/supporter and that's who I'll support.

Toad734 said...

Limit free speech?? Huh? Anyone who works for an American corporation, whether in the mailroom, the CEO or as a member of the board of directors, already has free speech and can vote for and contribute to anyone they desire and no one has a problem with that. What we do have a problem with is that all you have to do is start a bunch of "corporations" and you double your say and input and influence every time you add your name to another corporation. So what we don't want and where we disagree with the activist, conservative judges on the Supreme Court is that we don't think corporations are people and the people who run corporations should get more influence that someone who does not...even though we all know they already do. What's next, does every corporation get to vote too?? IF no, why not?? What's the difference?? ANd if so, does that mean they have to sign up for selective service and be called for jury duty or be eligible for a draft?? Those duties I get in exchange for a political voice and the right to vote; now corporations and technically even foreign corporations, get their input with no strings attached. And yes, it is very simple and very easy for Saudi oil men to set up fake corporations in the US and allow them to contribute directly to Republicans.

For a bunch of people who think that if we allow two men to marry, the next thing that will happen is that people will want to marry a goat, or that if we let a gay guy in a fox hole with you , he will end up in your corn hole, I would say the logic behind the foreign money isn't that big of a leap.

Toad734 said...

And by the way, that ad isn't even remotely as extreme as Faux News is when it jumps to conclusions of terrorist doctors sneaking into the US because of Obamacare or what ever stupid shit some blonde bimbo on that channel comes up with.

Patrick M said...

Soapster: I sense you've given up on fixing the GOP. The battle today is really about getting the Dems out of absolute control (which we're winning). Our real work then begins to clean the big government people out.

Because when the government is limited, then the rantings Toad unleashes below don't really matter.

Toad: You're still obsessed with the man-ass sex thing, aren't you? I can't discuss anything without you bringing it up at some point.

(BTW, I can give you a free site or two if you need one. With hot bareback action and shit!)

Now the point here is the government getting into the business of limiting free speech and not limiting government.

Now I have no argument with your idea that "BIIIIIIG Business" is buying elections, because we've allowed the government to grow to the point that they can, with no check on that power. But the solution is not to ban groups/organizations/corporations (i.e. any non-individual entity) from exercising free speech rights. Transparency alone will temper that.

Take the Target example. After a record of being pretty gay-ok, they donate to a candidate who's anti-gay marriage, and Moveon.org goes ape shit, organizes a boycott, and kills any further funding of conservative political candidates. Now if I were Target, I'd be pulling all my pro-gay funding at this point to run ads about this, thus hurting people to fight political thugs.

It comes down to a simple issue. Businesses invest in candidates because they see a positive return for themselves in doing so. So rather than trying to stop that, then the goal should be to not let the government have the ability to give them money (corporate welfare) or punish them (through increasing taxes/regulations) except on limited constitutional grounds (violating the rights of other individuals/groups/etc).

Limiting government, not speech, is the way to fix most of this.

Ooh, and a limited government will address all the gay shit too. By getting rid of stupid laws.)

Also, have you even watched Fox news in the last few years (or the last decade), other than the selective clips from the Media Matters Morons? You're such a broken fucking record sometimes.

soapster said...

The path Target ought to have taken, had they any sense at all, would have been to point out that all the progressive liberal fucktards that voted for Obama/Biden should be reminded that neither one of those guys supports gay marriage either.

And yeah, the GOP is not a means to prosperity save for maybe 5 of them but truth be told, they're not republicans in so much as the are libertarians.

Patrick M said...

Soapmatic: I've been following the Libertarian party's activities. And if we could get them to ascend from perpetual third party status and replace the GOP, it would be awesomeness.

But I'll settle for good tea party fiscal conservatives with some social baggage, as long as it slows down (and maybe even stops) the growth of government.

soapster said...

I gotcha but ya know, slowing the growth of the United States Federal Government, while lovely indeed, isn't worth all that much if the fundamental premise of globalism and global interests continues. The whole concedpt of globalism by the world elite is perfectly content with a slow incremental approach. And so I don't really care all that much about slowling the growth of the federal government if the very people purporting to do just that are still going to bow to collective/global interests (UN, IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, etc.)

dmarks said...

Toad: Your desire to prevent doubling of say is nothing more than a desire to censor.

If you don't like what someone says, ignore it.

This sort of speech is exactly what is protected by the Constitution.

"disagree with the activist, conservative judges on the Supreme Court"

They weren't activist at all. They were upholding one of the basic and most important parts of the Bill of Rights. The extremists and activists are the ones on the left who support criminalizing the criticism of those in power. That is what is at question.

I don't agree with the people of Target on homosexuality. But I defend their right to express their opinion.

If you don't like it, ignore it. Don't go all 1930s Germany and demand that the government crush them for dissent.

Patrick: The Left has made Target into a victim by focusing on an effort to censor the people of that company.

dmarks said...

Some stubborn facts that show that Toad is way off base.

The text of the First Amendment:

"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is no mention of any clause allowing the government to censor those who criticize the government, or allowing government to censor those who are subjectively and ignorantly perceived to have "double" the speech of others.

In fact, such censorship is prohibited by this part of the Constitution.

Toad734 said...

"businesses invest in candidates because they see a positive return for themselves in doing so."

Exactly, this government is for the people and by the people, not for the corporation by the corporation...I mean, it is, but that isn't what was intended.

DMARKS:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What about that makes you think they were talking about anything other than people / private citizens?

How about here:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Anything here about corporations or are they talking about people?

Toad734 said...

Dmarks:

How about those Bill of Rights:

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; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No PERSON shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

So in the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights you referenced, 6 of them are specifically regulated to the PEOPLE, not to Target, not to Exxon or any other corporation.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution because all these rights are already extended to every member of every corporation as is the right to vote and the right to contribute to the candidate of your choosing.

Why don't I get to contribute twice? I am the one who has to serve in juries and can be drafted to war.

dmarks said...

Toad said:

"What about that makes you think they were talking about anything other than people / private citizens?"

Target, etc is made of people. You are gutting the First Amendment when you strip people of free speech rights due to their association with organizations.

Toad then said:

"How about those Bill of Rights:"

Yes, how about it? You even quoted an Amendment you want us to ignore.

"egulated to the PEOPLE, not to Target, not to Exxon or any other corporation."

The Constitution actually does not recognize such organizations or speak about them, so the people of Target and Exxon end up having abridged speech rights. Sorry, your attempts to justify censorship fall apart on the cold hard ground of facts and logic.

Why instead, if someone says something you do not like, just ignore it?

"Why don't I get to contribute twice? I am the one who has to serve in juries and can be drafted to war."

Actually, in an environment where "campaign finance reform" is seen by its backers as a means of censoring unwanted views, you have a First Amendment right to contribute as many times as you want.

By the way, the twisted logic you are trying to use to censor organizations of people can easily be used to shut down the New York Times as well. After all, it is an organization.

Grow up. Stop trying to censor people.

dmarks said...

Also Toad said

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So, when did you join the NRA?

Toad734 said...

I didn't join the NRA, I agree with the 2nd amendment, the people do have a right to own a single shot musket, which is what arms were at the time.

I also agree that since we already have limits on the freedom of religion (mormons can't practice polygamy, rastafarians can't smoke weed) and limits to freedom of speech (can't slander or yell fire in a crowded theater) and freedom of the press (can't make shit up about people and limits to top secret info), the 2nd amendment also comes with limits and restrictions such as a waiting period.

"Target, etc is made of people. You are gutting the First Amendment when you strip people of free speech rights due to their association with organizations"

Exactly, Target is made of people who have already exercised their rights to free speech by contributing $2000 to the candidate of their choosing and voting for the candidate of their choosing. What's next, are you saying they should be able to vote too? Does Target ever serve on a Jury? Was Target drafted during the Vietnam war? No, why?? Because Target isn't a person. So does the constitution now apply to dogs and buildings and other inanimate objects??

Toad734 said...

Shut down the NY Times???? What does that even mean? I never said anything about shutting down Target. And by the way, the NY Times is part of the "press", which is clearly protected under the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment specifically addresses both the people and the press, not Target.

dmarks said...

Toad said: "I didn't join the NRA, I agree with the 2nd amendment, the people do have a right to own a single shot musket, which is what arms were at the time. "

Actually, the amendment refers to "arms". You are willfully misintpreting things in order to take away people's rights.

But this might explain your deep multi-faceted contempt for freedom of the press and free speech. It is indeed as if you think that the only protected speech is that of the town cryer, or the polemecist of 1776 armed with a quill and parchment only.

"Shut down the NY Times???? What does that even mean?"

The New York Times, like Target, is a corporation. A group of individuals acting together. Censor one, why not censor the other?

"Exactly, Target is made of people who have already exercised their rights to free speech"

Someone needs a Civics 101 lesson, and it is not me. The freedoms in the Bill of Rights are do not have a "each person gets to use it only once" clause. These inalienable rights can be exercised again and again. Even if you have already exercised them. You have a knack for imagining escape clauses into the First Amendment, that simply never exist.

"What's next, are you saying they should be able to vote too?"

Good question. It opens up a trap which you readily fall into. A trap of your own making.

Of course the people in Target and the New York Times can vote. More than once! (before you jump in and claim that the Constitution only allows people to vote once in their life).

"And by the way, the NY Times is part of the "press""

The Constitution has no limiting definition of "press". But again you fall into a trap of your own making. This means that all your attempt to deny the people of Target any rights would vanish if Target were to say publish a newspaper or journal. I bet they have one. Most major chain stores do.

"The 1st Amendment specifically addresses both the people and the press, not Target."

Exactly. And people in Target can choose to donate to candidates, express views, and vote as many times as anyone else.

Stop trying to look for excuses to take people's rights away. You simply aren't very good at it, and you are painting yourself as some sort of jackbooted thug desparately trying to curtail the power of the people.

dmarks said...

Back to the topic:

"..the idiotic "stealing democracy" ad..."

And what are the people who are supposedly "stealing democracy" doing that offends the ugly little fascists who made the ad? Speaking out against those in power. Not tampering with voting, not doing anything at all democracy-related. But daring to criticize the politicians in power.

Everyone needs to know that Obama's party thinks that being allowed to speak out is a threat to democracy.

dmarks said...

And Soapster said:

"Tell me who's not a CFR/IMF/World Bank/Federal Reserve member/supporter and that's who I'll support."

So, you will support anyone who is not a member of your mythical cabal which only exists in the minds of paranoid gibberers? Yeah, makes sense. We should have them also do a blood test to make sure they are not elves too.

Toad734 said...

Dmarks:

Because the Constitution specifically gives the Press the right to free speech as it does individuals.

You mean power to the corporations.

dmarks said...

"ou mean power to the corporations."

No. I mean power to the people. Including those who belong to organizations. The censorship law you favored that was overturned, by the way, also gagged people who were in other organizations.

"Because the Constitution specifically gives the Press the right to free speech as it does individuals."

It gives it to everyone, whether or not they are in organizations. And that's a fact. If you want to properly get the censorship you desire, you will need to eliminate the First Amendment.

How about instead trying some maturity? If someone says something you don't like, ignore it?

(By the way, I did do some checking and found out that Target does indeed publish its own newsletter. So much for your censorship loophole: they are press too.)

dmarks said...

More facts to quell the jackbooted thuggery of an artificial limitation of the definition of "the press" (in order to justify censorship).

From the legal dictionary:

"most justices believe that the Freedom of the Press Clause has no significance independent of the Freedom of Speech Clause."

"Burger concluded that the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment adequately ensure freedom of the press, and that there is no need to distinguish between the two rights"