Freedom of Speech

[Matt Christianson]

I found it very unnerving to read the ridiculous claims made by Dan Conner in the Free Press that a certain pastor does not have a right to speak when it comes to anything slightly involving politics. Is this a defensable stance?

[Bob Jentges]

I found it very unnerving to read the ridiculous claims made by Dan Conner in the Free Press that a certain pastor does not have a right to speak when it comes to anything slightly involving politics. Is this a defensable stance?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences." (My emphasis)

Note the amendment does not include the words seperation of church and state, and I saw no evidence that the pastor was establishing a religion.

Moreover, the way I see it preventing the pastor from expressing his personal opinion (verbally or in writing in the editorial page of a newspaper or by carrying a sign in a peaceful protest march) would be a violation of his First Amendment rights. If one were to carry that to the extreme might it mean he could not vote in federal elections, or discuss politics and/or religion with friends at the coffee shop?

I do a lot of reading, and whenever I read something I always read it considering the source. Although it seems like it in these times, the U.S. Constitution is not invisible. It is transparent for all to see and understand for it is open honest and direct. Probably it's most important characteristic is that it was crafted to protect even idiots from tyrany---if they only undetstood!

[Matt Christianson]

Yes Bob, you're absolutley right. That is a logical assumption to make. Those who vehomently endorse the seperation of church and state fail to recognize the fact that that precedent exists to ensure the state doesn't endorse a specific religion. It does not mean that peoplle of religious faith or their leaders cannot endorse a political view or politician. But, of course, the issue at hand isn't a political issue for those who defend life, it's a moral one.

[Bob Jentges]

Matt, I am by no means a religious zealot but I do consider myself a spiritual person. I do not want to drift too far from the title of this thread i.e. "Freedom of speech" and the founding documents into morality. But I think there is a link to be made between the founding documents and morality that might add to the final sentance in your above post i.e. abortion is an individual moral issue. It certainly is, but it might be more than that.

The Declaration of Independence, Preamble, and U.S. Constitution include words and phrases like "Natures God", "Creator", "unalienable rights", "Life", "Blessings", and others which to me suggest that the founders intended to base our Republic, at least to some extent, on morality i.e. God's positive law. Since I accept that and also beleive that man can not change God's law, I think the main reason we are in the predicament we are in now is because for far too long some men and women have tried to obfuscate God's law (often hiding behind the cloak of good intentions and compassion) and seperate it from our founding documents, in an attempt to destroy our Constitution.

[Bob Jentges]

I read that President Obama gave a speach in a D.C. church Sunday. Apparrently it dealt mostly with politics i.e. Obamacare, not religion. Maybe that is "free speach". If it is, it's OK with me because you do not have to listen if you choose not to.

But I wonder if those who take the what I consider a radical position on so-called "seperation of church and state", and that a pastor is in violation of same because he wrote a personal letter to the editor of a newspaper critical of a politicians position on abortion, would have chose not to listen to the President's speech and got up and walked out, or if they might have stayed to listen because they think "Obamacare" is a religion!

It would also be interesting what some would have said if former President Geo. W. Bush would have went to a church and gave a speech on partial privitization of Social Security a few years ago.

Before some get carried away with my thoughts on the issue let me add that I would prefer that pastors, ministers, priests, etc., not give political speeches in their respective churches, just like I would prefer politicians not give political speeches in church.

[Dan Conner]

I read that President Obama gave a speach in a D.C. church Sunday. Apparrently it dealt mostly with politics i.e. Obamacare, not religion. Maybe that is "free speach". If it is, it's OK with me because you do not have to listen if you choose not to.

But I wonder if those who take the what I consider a radical position on so-called "seperation of church and state", and that a pastor is in violation of same because he wrote a personal letter to the editor of a newspaper critical of a politicians position on abortion, would have chose not to listen to the President's speech and got up and walked out, or if they might have stayed to listen because they think "Obamacare" is a religion!

It would also be interesting what some would have said if former President Geo. W. Bush would have went to a church and gave a speech on partial privitization of Social Security a few years ago.

Before some get carried away with my thoughts on the issue let me add that I would prefer that pastors, ministers, priests, etc., not give political speeches in their respective churches, just like I would prefer politicians not give political speeches in church.Well, it sure sounds like you are "fishing" for a comment from me, and I'm not about to disappoint you. However, like most of your posts I see you are still equivocating. You start out with a jab at an Obama speech at a church and allege he talked politics in a religious setting, which you said was "OK by me." Then you conclude your post by saying you "prefer" that clergy not give political speeches in church and prefer politicians not give political speeches in church. So what is it? Do you prefer it or not? One, you say it's OK and then you say you prefer it not happen. You seem to be a person without a position, and certainly without conviction. Maybe you're just trying to have things both ways...as many times before. I realize it is hard to have an opinion with conviction, because you then you might need to defend it, but having no conviction is far worse. So go ahead and have it both ways...again.

I think separation of church and state is very very important. People attending a religious function don't need to be manipulated into a political action. That should be determined by the individual, not the church. However, if you are getting after the President for speaking politics in a church, that is the church's fault, not his. The church undoubtedly invited him to speak and they had the authority to limit political remarks. The church is grossly naive to invite the political leader of our country and expect that politics not be discussed. So, again the church was complicit in mixing up religion and politics.

MOst important, I think a reasonable person would conclude that the President would be talking politics in any setting...that's his job! However, I don't think most reasonable people assume their religious leaders would be discussing politics at a religious event. That is not their job nor the expectation. If it is, then those speeches should occur in a political setting, not a religious one. In addition, the clergy's expertise is more limited to religion than politics. That would require a political venue where the clergy can participate as a peer to everyone else, instead of the leader.

I believe religion and politics can not mix. I would point out the many places where they have and note the disastrous results. Look at many of the Middle East countries and their success, look at the Inquisition and Crusades. Look at the Hundred year war. Look at the religious wars in India. Look at many of the African nations... I think religion and politics are disastrous when combined. Look at the theocracy in Iran.

Our ancestors thoroughly communicated the necessity of separating religion and state. I think they were wise in doing that.

I think you need to tone down your bigotry by not referring to whatever as "Obamacare." There is no bill legislatively named as such. If you are referring to the proposed healthcare legislation as "Obamacare", then I would suggest you become better informed. The House of Representative and Senate deabated and passed legislation for healthcare, not Obama. It was of their design, not his. I can only surmise that you refer to this legislation as "Obamacare" because of some personal hatred. That's too bad and a considerable amount of baggage.

As far as Bush speaking about Social Security in church...I think he did. Just another incident of muddling the line between church and state. It's using a captive audience attending for one reason and persuading them to a point of view that was not a reason for their attendence.

[Dan Conner]

Matt, I am by no means a religious zealot but I do consider myself a spiritual person. I do not want to drift too far from the title of this thread i.e. "Freedom of speech" and the founding documents into morality. But I think there is a link to be made between the founding documents and morality that might add to the final sentance in your above post i.e. abortion is an individual moral issue. It certainly is, but it might be more than that.

The Declaration of Independence, Preamble, and U.S. Constitution include words and phrases like "Natures God", "Creator", "unalienable rights", "Life", "Blessings", and others which to me suggest that the founders intended to base our Republic, at least to some extent, on morality i.e. God's positive law. Since I accept that and also beleive that man can not change God's law, I think the main reason we are in the predicament we are in now is because for far too long some men and women have tried to obfuscate God's law (often hiding behind the cloak of good intentions and compassion) and seperate it from our founding documents, in an attempt to destroy our Constitution.I'm glad you prefaced what you said by, "I think", because I disagree. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence was written by religious and non-religious people. And it is stressed that the two not be conglomerated. I, along with millions of others, believe the destruction of our country is assured when the lines between the two become hopelessly blurred. People of religion can do their thing, but they have not right to impose their beliefs upon others in the form of restrictive laws.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, regarding your post #6 I was not "fishing" for a comment from anyone, especially you. I was simply stating my opinion which obviously anyone has a right to comment about.

Your absence from posting in the Forum did nothing to improve your ability to read and comprehend what others write. You selected a few words of what I said in an apparrant attempt to misrepresent the meaning of what I said. I said: "Maybe thats 'free speach'. If it is it's OK with me because you do not have to listen if you choose not to." I intended those remarks to mean I did not want to infringe on or be accused of infringing on what might be someones First Ammendment rights i.e. freedom of speech. I do not see that position as being in conflict with my preferring no political speaches in church by anyone.

Regarding what you say "[O]ur ancestors throughly communicated..." and elaberated on in your post #7 you might want to read my post #2 which was my response to Matt Christensen's new thread, and question, opening discussion about your December 27, 2009 Your View letter to The Free Press. I quoted verbatum the First Ammendment wherin the word "establishment" is used and wherin the word seperation is not found.

I did not coin the word "Obamacare". I would think you have seen that word in articles in many mainstream media outlets, including but not limited to AP, Reuters, McClatchy, ete., etc., etc.

Finally, I have no recollection of Geo. W. Bush giving any speaches about Social Security in church while he was President. If you know of him giving any speaches in church at all while he was president, you could have been specific as to where and when---like I was about President Obama. Please do not misconstrue that as "fishing" for a response from you!

[Matt Christianson]

However, I don't think most reasonable people assume their religious leaders would be discussing politics at a religious event. That is not their job nor the expectation. If it is, then those speeches should occur in a political setting, not a religious one. In addition, the clergy's expertise is more limited to religion than politics. That would require a political venue where the clergy can participate as a peer to everyone else, instead of the leader

I do not believe the Free Press is a religious setting so I guess you are now saying that the Reverand had every right to voice his view within the pages of said newspaper.

And you're using the word "bigotry" to describe Bob's use of the oft repeated term "Obamacare?" What's that all about?

Niether Bob or myself is advocating a theocracy. We were rightly wondering where you get off criticizing a private citizen for voicing an opinion.

[Bob Jentges]

All excellent points in your post #9. For the sake of brevity I will only comment on the following.

And you're using the word "bigotry" to describe Bob's use of the oft repeated term "Obamacare?" What's that all about?.

I think Dan might have intended to inject race into the discussion, which he has done previously and I have avoided responding to, and used the work "bigotry" in the wrong context.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, regarding your post #6 I was not "fishing" for a comment from anyone, especially you. I was simply stating my opinion which obviously anyone has a right to comment about.

Your absence from posting in the Forum did nothing to improve your ability to read and comprehend what others write. You selected a few words of what I said in an apparrant attempt to misrepresent the meaning of what I said. I said: "Maybe thats 'free speach'. If it is it's OK with me because you do not have to listen if you choose not to." I intended those remarks to mean I did not want to infringe on or be accused of infringing on what might be someones First Ammendment rights i.e. freedom of speech. I do not see that position as being in conflict with my preferring no political speaches in church by anyone.

Regarding what you say "[O]ur ancestors throughly communicated..." and elaberated on in your post #7 you might want to read my post #2 which was my response to Matt Christensen's new thread, and question, opening discussion about your December 27, 2009 Your View letter to The Free Press. I quoted verbatum the First Ammendment wherin the word "establishment" is used and wherin the word seperation is not found.

I did not coin the word "Obamacare". I would think you have seen that word in articles in many mainstream media outlets, including but not limited to AP, Reuters, McClatchy, ete., etc., etc.

Finally, I have no recollection of Geo. W. Bush giving any speaches about Social Security in church while he was President. If you know of him giving any speaches in church at all while he was president, you could have been specific as to where and when---like I was about President Obama. Please do not misconstrue that as "fishing" for a response from you!Well Bob, I see you have not lost your flare for the acidic. My ability to comprehend/read? I think you flatter your writing ability. You use irrelevant sentences as some kind of silly rationale to waffle on an issue or reverse what you say. It's like you have no ability to stake out ground on any issue. It's like a child denying they said what they said.

You argue with yourself about Obama's church presentation, but somehow seem bendt on bringing it up as a controversy. Such a silly statement about "free speech", and then being OK? I can't imagine that you would feel the President was not allowed to make his statements. That goes back to what I said earlier. You felt what Obama said was OK. It is irrelevant to discuss your childish rationalization of doubt. If so, then make your case, but quit the ridiculous argument with yourself. At least finish the argument with yourself before you engage others. You are arguing from schizophenia. You argue with no point. You made a statement Obama's speech was OK (because I believe any reasonable person would conclude he was allowed to make it. However, maybe reasonable excludes you). I stand with my original statement that you contradicted yourself saying what he said was OK, but then saying you preferred otherwise. Now, you want to throw in even another contradiction...I could care less about your convoluted rationalized contradictions. You said it was OK with you.

Also, not wanting to prick your ego balloon, I could care less that separation is not mentioned. Too many supreme court decisions over an exceedingly long period of time have preserved and emphasized the importance of separation of church and state. You somehow did not emphasize the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" That phrase adds a lot of meaning in the 1st amendment. Also, you forgot about the 6th Amendment, prohibiting religious tests for political office. Another important emphasis.

You know, it is a little childish to deny thought, ideas and beliefs simply because the words are not mentioned in the Constitution.

I never accused you of coining the word "Obamacare." I hope there are many four-letter words you never coined, but that doesn't excuse you when you use them. Obamacare was coined by others in the far right, intending it to be derogatory. So, I guess you meant it to be that too. Not an unreasonable deduction, considering your other reationary stands.

And you, of such short memory...I am including links to websites of GW Bush making speeches in churches:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_14_122/ai_n14867820/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0950991820080810

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/Unif5.html
Speech to Rev Moon church in 1995, before President

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109469342.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/10bush.html

[Dan Conner]

I found it very unnerving to read the ridiculous claims made by Dan Conner in the Free Press that a certain pastor does not have a right to speak when it comes to anything slightly involving politics. Is this a defensable stance?Well Matt, I don't find it surprising that you are misinterpreting the written word. I never said the reverend never had rights of free speech about politics or anything else. I am flattered that you think I have the authirity to deny that to him. Rev. Griffin has all the free speech rights he wants, and he should feel free to use them, but I think he should carefully evaluate what affect his speech could have on the tax-free status of his church and certain tax advantages reserved for ministers. So, he should speak up all he wants, but he and his church should be prepared to pay the appropriate taxes to do so. Also, it would help if he vented and spoke all he wanted without his church title (Rev.). That connotes he speaks as a representative of his church.

In other words, he should say all he wants, but be prepared for the IRS to come a knockin...Otherwise, he could do so without advertising his title as a clergy. Hey, otherwise I would support taxing churches anyway. Then, there is no problem for the minister or others to say as they wish, but I don't think it is appropriate to have all the freedoms everyone else does, but not many of the responsibilities.

[Matt Christianson]

Well Matt, I don't find it surprising that you are misinterpreting the written word. I never said the reverend never had rights of free speech about politics or anything else. I am flattered that you think I have the authirity to deny that to him. Rev. Griffin has all the free speech rights he wants, and he should feel free to use them, but I think he should carefully evaluate what affect his speech could have on the tax-free status of his church and certain tax advantages reserved for ministers. So, he should speak up all he wants, but he and his church should be prepared to pay the appropriate taxes to do so. Also, it would help if he vented and spoke all he wanted without his church title (Rev.). That connotes he speaks as a representative of his church.

In other words, he should say all he wants, but be prepared for the IRS to come a knockin...Otherwise, he could do so without advertising his title as a clergy. Hey, otherwise I would support taxing churches anyway. Then, there is no problem for the minister or others to say as they wish, but I don't think it is appropriate to have all the freedoms everyone else does, but not many of the responsibilities.

So every time a representative of church speaks the IRS needs to pay attention? That's utter nonsense. The IRS has no right to levy taxes on Rev Griffin or his church over a letter printed in a newspaper. That's laughable and I find it strange that you would think in such a way. He wrote a letter...he wasn't speaking in the pulpit. There's a huge difference.
Also, he is a pastor and has every right to use that title just as any doctor, for instance, would use their title in a formal letter. He was writing about a matter of morality so I belive he chose to use his title to legitimize his stance. Just as a doctor might do if he wrote a letter regarding a healthcare matter.

[Bob Jentges]

I will not bother to comment on hardly any of your post #11 because I consider it nonsencical gobbledegook, but I will comment on your final sentence i.e. "And you, of such short memory...I am including links to websites of G.W. Bush making speaches in churches"

For some background, this issue began in connection with President Obama's political speech on "Obamacare" in a D.C. church last Sunday. In my post #5 I said: "It would be interesting what some would have said if former President Geo. W. Bush would have went to a church and gave a speech on partial privitization of Social Security." That was followed by your comment in post #6: "As far as Bush speaking about Social Security in church...I think he did." I responded in post #8 with: "Finally, I have no recollection of Geo. W. Bush giving any speaches about Social Security in church while he was President." (All my emphasis)

That takes me back to your final sentance in post #11. I read the links you provided---except the one of the event before Bush became President---and was not impressed.

First, Bush was not in a church when he gave the June 20005 live video speach to the Southern Baptist Convention, and from the website it seems those he was speeking to were not in a church either. More likely the convention was held at a large hall in Nashville, TN.

Second, the August 2008 speech was at a church in China. If it was about human rights. If that is politicical, I doubt any in attendence vote in the USA.

Third, the October 2003 Dallas speech was promoting faith based iniciatives--argueably a non-political topic.

Fourth, the March 2006 speech was promoting money donations to religious charities, and not made from a church.

Earlier in this thread I commented about "...preferring no political speeches in church by anyone". That is still my position! I do not agree with what present White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual said on March 9,2009---"When you think about the First Amentment...you think it's slightly overated."

I think this about does it for me on this issue.

PS---Do not overlook Matt's last post in the event you chose to repspond

[Bob Jentges]

Yesterday's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC did not deal with freedom of religion, but it did deal with political free speech.

I think there is probably too much money in politics but since the Court had already held that money is speech, and the decision includes full disclousure of of the contributions (names & amounts), I think the decision was a victory for the U.S. Constitution and applying plain text reading of same when interpreting it.

The decision was 5-4---interesting to consider the so-called ideology of the justices on either side!

[Bob Jentges]

Since the Citizens United et al decision last Thursday I have been reading (NY Times/WaPo, etc.) how this will be the end of democracy. Hopefully it will promote democracy in that voters will have information available about the various candidates running for election/re-election, other than what the candidates themselves and/or their respective political parties want us to hear about themselves or their opponents.

Restricting the freedom of speech provided by the 1st Amendment restricts, rather than promots democracy. If we do not approve of those donating to a particular candidate, or any advertisement they might pay for to promote a particular candidate, we need not vote for that candidate. So long as we the people stay involved and informed and cast our votes accordingly, our democracy should be safe.

[Dan Conner]

Yesterday's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC did not deal with freedom of religion, but it did deal with political free speech.

I think there is probably too much money in politics but since the Court had already held that money is speech, and the decision includes full disclousure of of the contributions (names & amounts), I think the decision was a victory for the U.S. Constitution and applying plain text reading of same when interpreting it.

The decision was 5-4---interesting to consider the so-called ideology of the justices on either side!Bob, And I thought you were so sensitive to the words of the Constitution? The US Constitution says nothing about corporations, or that they are the same as people. Yet, you are willing to ascribe to the fact that they are covered under the same free-speech provisions as people. That is not provided for in the Constitution. I see a big problem with this. People who control corporations, like the boards and executives, have authority to direct the money of a corporation. Also, they have the authority to direct their own money. It's gives these people the political impact of a powerful entity in addition to themselves. This is way to much power for too few people. Besides, I and many other people who have bought their products, but who might not agree with their politics, shouldn't have to pay the political corporate "tax" to fund an adversarial campaign. Besides, corporations are allowed to deduct these contributions as an expense, while the ordinary person can not. That is not either fair or constitutional.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, you are correct; I am "...sensitive to the words of the Constitution". I consider myself an origionalist. If our Federal government, including the Supreme Court, had stayed with the plain language in the Constitution and intent of the founders who very thoughtfully placed that language in the document, maybe we would not have many of the problems we are faced with today, including but not limited to, too much money in politics.

The problem as I see it is that legislators do not hold true to their oath to support and defend the Constitution when proposing legislation. Also, rather than interpreting the Constitution literally the Courts have too often taken it upon themselves to inject what they think contemporary people want when rendering their decisions. From this case law evolves and since the Court is hesitant to overturn precedent, down the "slippery slope" we go!

P.S.---Since my above comments I came across an article titled: "The Only Way to Get Money Out
of Politics". I think you might find it interesting. It can be read at the following link:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view+569

[Dan Conner]

Dan, you are correct; I am "...sensitive to the words of the Constitution". I consider myself an origionalist. If our Federal government, including the Supreme Court, had stayed with the plain language in the Constitution and intent of the founders who very thoughtfully placed that language in the document, maybe we would not have many of the problems we are faced with today, including but not limited to, too much money in politics.

The problem as I see it is that legislators do not hold true to their oath to support and defend the Constitution when proposing legislation. Also, rather than interpreting the Constitution literally the Courts have too often taken it upon themselves to inject what they think contemporary people want when rendering their decisions. From this case law evolves and since the Court is hesitant to overturn precedent, down the "slippery slope" we go!

P.S.---Since my above comments I came across an article titled: "The Only Way to Get Money Out
of Politics". I think you might find it interesting. It can be read at the following link:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view+569The SCOTUS are not politicians elected to office, but yet they make very political rulings. The corporate money for campaigns was a decision objected to by the vast majority in the public. In addition, it overturned law that had existed for over 100 years. All the justices that made that bad decision were conservative. Very conservative.

I don't have time right now to read the article, but public financing is one way to get corporate money out of elections.

[Bob Jentges]

The SCOTUS are not politicians elected to office, but yet they make very political rulings. The corporate money for campaigns was a decision objected to by the vast majority in the public. In addition, it overturned law that had existed for over 100 years. All the justices that made that bad decision were conservative. Very conservative.

I don't have time right now to read the article, but public financing is one way to get corporate money out of elections.

You will get little arguement from me that some Supreme Court decisions seem to be political. I will continue to beleive that would not happen, at least very often, if the Justices decided cases based on "origionalism", irrespective of their own personal ideology.

I have heard and read arguements that Citizens United followed the literal words of the First Ammendment i.e. "freedom of speech", their plain common sense meaning, and the origional intent of the founders. I have also heard and read arguements like Mr. Pomeroy's that this was an activist decision because words like "corporations" and "labor unions" are not found in the First Ammendment.

Certainly Citizens overturned existing law. But it was not law that "had existed for over 100 years" as President Obama said in his State of the Union speech. Citizens did not change the long existing law preventing contributions to political campaigns by foreign entities e.g. Clinton and the Chinese. From what I have read and heard the overwhelming opinions of legal experts, including the liberal Supreme Court writer for the New York Times, is that Alito was correct---Citizens only changed law in effect since about 1990 as well as most of McCain-Feingold. The easiest to understand article I read is at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=578

As to overturning precedent law, I have said before that I believe precedent should be respected, but if their is strong evidence that the precedent was wrongly decided I think the case should be revisited. No Court, regardless of it's makup, is infalible.

I am undecided about "public financing" of political campaigns. Although it might more evenly distribute money, in effect it might be taking money from people who disagree with candidates and alloting it to those same candidates to promote their elections.

I find it interesting that in the 2008 Presidential election campaigns initially both McCain and Obama agreed to public financing limitations---McCain held to his commitmenmt but Obama changed his mind. I do not mean to incinuate Obama did anything wrong by changing his mind, or that Obama won because he took in more money from contributions because he changed his mind, but I think it is worthy of thought when considering campaign financing.

The way I see it, unless and until the Supreme Court overules the holding that money is speech as regards to political campaigns the decision in Citizens will stand, whether we like it or not.

[Dan Conner]

You will get little arguement from me that some Supreme Court decisions seem to be political. I will continue to beleive that would not happen, at least very often, if the Justices decided cases based on "origionalism", irrespective of their own personal ideology.

I have heard and read arguements that Citizens United followed the literal words of the First Ammendment i.e. "freedom of speech", their plain common sense meaning, and the origional intent of the founders. I have also heard and read arguements like Mr. Pomeroy's that this was an activist decision because words like "corporations" and "labor unions" are not found in the First Ammendment.

Certainly Citizens overturned existing law. But it was not law that "had existed for over 100 years" as President Obama said in his State of the Union speech. Citizens did not change the long existing law preventing contributions to political campaigns by foreign entities e.g. Clinton and the Chinese. From what I have read and heard the overwhelming opinions of legal experts, including the liberal Supreme Court writer for the New York Times, is that Alito was correct---Citizens only changed law in effect since about 1990 as well as most of McCain-Feingold. The easiest to understand article I read is at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=578

As to overturning precedent law, I have said before that I believe precedent should be respected, but if their is strong evidence that the precedent was wrongly decided I think the case should be revisited. No Court, regardless of it's makup, is infalible.

I am undecided about "public financing" of political campaigns. Although it might more evenly distribute money, in effect it might be taking money from people who disagree with candidates and alloting it to those same candidates to promote their elections.

I find it interesting that in the 2008 Presidential election campaigns initially both McCain and Obama agreed to public financing limitations---McCain held to his commitmenmt but Obama changed his mind. I do not mean to incinuate Obama did anything wrong by changing his mind, or that Obama won because he took in more money from contributions because he changed his mind, but I think it is worthy of thought when considering campaign financing.

The way I see it, unless and until the Supreme Court overules the holding that money is speech as regards to political campaigns the decision in Citizens will stand, whether we like it or not.I think the Constitution has been very liberally interpreted to mean that money is "free speech. Well, money can enable free speech or it can inhibit free speech. Therefore, I don't feel the SCOTUS was correct in allowing free speech, by equating it with money.

Generally speaking, I feel free speech is simply that - the ability to speak one's mind. I feel money should only enter into the free speech determinations when it inhibits the free speech of others. In other words, everything should be predicated on freedom, not restricting others.

I don't feel corporations are entitled to the freedoms intended for the citizens of the US. Afterall, they are only a legal contrivance, dreamed up by creative attorneys, like credit swap defaults were dreamed up by creative bankers. Corporations are not entitled to free speech. They can not vote, so why entitled to free speech? Also, I don't feel they should be able to contribute money to political campaigns because many people, who support opposing candidates have bought products, whose revenue is used in the campaigns. Why should consumers be supporting candidates that stand against their best interest?

Unfortunately, the political campaign process relies too much on money. There will never be enough money, as long as there are opportunities to get more. This turns out to be an incredible waste of GDP. Also, candidates are always trying to out-raise each other. Public financing should make campaigning funds equitable and limited. In that way, everyone has freedom of speech, with the emphasis on the quality of speech, instead of just the volume of speech.

[Dan Conner]

Certainly Citizens overturned existing law. But it was not law that "had existed for over 100 years" as President Obama said in his State of the Union speech. Citizens did not change the long existing law preventing contributions to political campaigns by foreign entities e.g. Clinton and the Chinese. From what I have read and heard the overwhelming opinions of legal experts, including the liberal Supreme Court writer for the New York Times, is that Alito was correct---Citizens only changed law in effect since about 1990 as well as most of McCain-Feingold. The easiest to understand article I read is at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=578

Bob, I thinik the 100 years was correct. The Tillman Acto fo 1907 first prohibited corporate donations:

As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, the United States Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907, named for its sponsor Senator Benjamin Tillman, banning corporate contributions. Several other statutes followed between 1907 and 1966 which, taken together, sought to ban corporate donations.

[Bob Jentges]

Good discussion, Dan!

As I understand it the Tillman Act of 1907 prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns, not the independent expenditures at issue in Citizens. A direct contribution is when a corporation, union, etc., gives a political campaign money. Independent expenditures are TV adds, direct mailing, etc., produced by a group independent of a candidate. Some might say that is a distinction without a difference, but the law is what it is.

From my reading it seems to me what the Court overturned in Citizens, along with much of McCain-Feingold, was the 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce thus the reference to overturning 20 years of precedent law as opposed to 100 years of law.

Therefore, it seems to me the ruling in Citizens brings us back to the First Ammendment language i.e. "Congress shall make no law...".

As I said in my post #20, unless and until some Supreme Court majority holds that money is not speech Citizens will stand whether we like it or not.

[Matt Christianson]

I think the Constitution has been very liberally interpreted to mean that money is "free speech. Well, money can enable free speech or it can inhibit free speech. Therefore, I don't feel the SCOTUS was correct in allowing free speech, by equating it with money.

Generally speaking, I feel free speech is simply that - the ability to speak one's mind. I feel money should only enter into the free speech determinations when it inhibits the free speech of others. In other words, everything should be predicated on freedom, not restricting others.

I don't feel corporations are entitled to the freedoms intended for the citizens of the US. Afterall, they are only a legal contrivance, dreamed up by creative attorneys, like credit swap defaults were dreamed up by creative bankers. Corporations are not entitled to free speech. They can not vote, so why entitled to free speech? Also, I don't feel they should be able to contribute money to political campaigns because many people, who support opposing candidates have bought products, whose revenue is used in the campaigns. Why should consumers be supporting candidates that stand against their best interest?

Corporations are run by individuals with a right to speak their mind. What's the difference between a corporation paying for an issue ad and a non-profit 527 organization funding one?

[Dan Conner]

Good discussion, Dan!

As I understand it the Tillman Act of 1907 prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns, not the independent expenditures at issue in Citizens. A direct contribution is when a corporation, union, etc., gives a political campaign money. Independent expenditures are TV adds, direct mailing, etc., produced by a group independent of a candidate. Some might say that is a distinction without a difference, but the law is what it is.

From my reading it seems to me what the Court overturned in Citizens, along with much of McCain-Feingold, was the 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce thus the reference to overturning 20 years of precedent law as opposed to 100 years of law.

Therefore, it seems to me the ruling in Citizens brings us back to the First Ammendment language i.e. "Congress shall make no law...".

As I said in my post #20, unless and until some Supreme Court majority holds that money is not speech Citizens will stand whether we like it or not.The law prohibited corporate donations in money and in-kind, I believe.

[Dan Conner]

Corporations are run by individuals with a right to speak their mind. What's the difference between a corporation paying for an issue ad and a non-profit 527 organization funding one?That's right, let them speak their mind and donate as much as they want. They have that same right as all other citizens, but I don't believe they also have the right to use other people's money to donate again, on behalf of someone else (corporation).

[Dan Conner]

Good discussion, Dan!

As I understand it the Tillman Act of 1907 prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns, not the independent expenditures at issue in Citizens. A direct contribution is when a corporation, union, etc., gives a political campaign money. Independent expenditures are TV adds, direct mailing, etc., produced by a group independent of a candidate. Some might say that is a distinction without a difference, but the law is what it is.

From my reading it seems to me what the Court overturned in Citizens, along with much of McCain-Feingold, was the 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce thus the reference to overturning 20 years of precedent law as opposed to 100 years of law.

Therefore, it seems to me the ruling in Citizens brings us back to the First Ammendment language i.e. "Congress shall make no law...".

As I said in my post #20, unless and until some Supreme Court majority holds that money is not speech Citizens will stand whether we like it or not.You're right about prohibiting direct corporate donations. However, this was the first attempt and recognition that corporate money in election campaigns was injurious to our country. President Roosevelt (Republican) advocated for it. However, the law had many loopholes and there wasn't TV media or 527's at the time. President Obama was corect to reference this law because of the sentiment to prohibit corporate money in election campaigns. The Tillman Act was revised and strengthened in many of the fo9llowing years:

The Tillman Act (1907)
Roosevelt used his Presidential stature to influence public opinion and to persuade Congress. The NPLA and other grassroots organizations also pushed for reform. The result of their efforts was the enactment of the Tillman Act of 1907. The act specifically prohibited direct contributions from corporations and businesses to political parties and election committees. It was the first law on the books to specifically address campaign funding on the federal level.
Unfortunately for those who wished for an incorrupt government, this law was easily circumvented. Businesses and corporations would give their employees large bonuses with the understanding that the bonus would be given to a company "endorsed" candidate. The corporations thus found a loophole, gained political access, and received an additional tax deduction for "employee benefits."

[Bob Jentges]

In the event people have not read all or parts of Citizens v. FEC and choose to read it, here is the PDF of the 1/21/2010 Supreme Court decision.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Since Citizens is the law, at least for the present, and requires full disclosure of all political contributions over a certain dollar amount I have a suggestion. If you do not agree with a political candidate a corporation might contribute to, do not buy that corporations product---another freedom we have as citizens of the USA.

[Dan Conner]

In the event people have not read all or parts of Citizens v. FEC and choose to read it, here is the PDF of the 1/21/2010 Supreme Court decision.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Since Citizens is the law, at least for the present, and requires full disclosure of all political contributions over a certain dollar amount I have a suggestion. If you do not agree with a political candidate a corporation might contribute to, do not buy that corporations product---another freedom we have as citizens of the USA.Bob, you still have a flair for stating the obvious. Of course, you don't have to buy the product, but that doesn't console a customer who has bought products and financed the company before they contributed to political campaigns. That customer has unwittingly helped finance that corporation's political enterprise. Not patronizing a company after the corporate political contribution is a little like closing the barn door after the animals have already escaped.

While I agree people are able to patronize companies that agree with their political persuasion, the process will give rise to a new private bureaucracy that will track corporations and their history of political support. As a footnote, I thought it interesting that Cambria used to display large signs and posters in support of George W. Bush for President in 2000. I understand the stopped the practice in 2004, because of potential adverse impact on business. I think smart business will avoid allying themselves too obviously with political candidates to avoid losing sales.

If you had read the recent SCOTUS decision, you would have noted the following: "The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864." While you stated the President was wrong in his 100-year reference of our country's desire to prevent corporations from making political donations, you didn't convince the SCOTUS. It referenced the Tillman Act in the dissenting opinion. So, I guess President Obama or me were not wrong afterall.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, with respect to your first paragraph I think people should look ahead to what they might do in the future. Best they not to look back to see what they did in the past---that is over and done with---unless one looks back to recognize their mistake and not do it again.

I agree with most of what you say in your second paragraph. That was my point to begin with.

As to your final paragraph, I did read most of Citizens United and recognize what you quoted was taken from a dissenting opinion rather than the majority opinion which is now the law. But as I suggested before, the last in a series of opinions upholding the Tillman Act preventing corporations from making direct contributions to political candidates was the 1990 Austin et al case. Austin, along with most of McCain-Feingold, is what Citizens United overturned. If you want to call it 100 years go ahead, but technically I think it is about 20 years maximum.

For some clarification, what Justice Alito mouthed "dissagreement" with President Obama's comment about Citizens United overturning 100 years of precedent law was the part where the President included the remark about opening up contributions from foreign entities. The majority decision in Citizens United specifically pointed out that was not at issue in Citizens United. They did not address it in their holding, therefore that is still not allowed based on prior law.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, with respect to your first paragraph I think people should look ahead to what they might do in the future. Best they not to look back to see what they did in the past---that is over and done with---unless one looks back to recognize their mistake and not do it again.

I agree with most of what you say in your second paragraph. That was my point to begin with.

As to your final paragraph, I did read most of Citizens United and recognize what you quoted was taken from a dissenting opinion rather than the majority opinion which is now the law. But as I suggested before, the last in a series of opinions upholding the Tillman Act preventing corporations from making direct contributions to political candidates was the 1990 Austin et al case. Austin, along with most of McCain-Feingold, is what Citizens United overturned. If you want to call it 100 years go ahead, but technically I think it is about 20 years maximum.

For some clarification, what Justice Alito mouthed "dissagreement" with President Obama's comment about Citizens United overturning 100 years of precedent law was the part where the President included the remark about opening up contributions from foreign entities. The majority decision in Citizens United specifically pointed out that was not at issue in Citizens United. They did not address it in their holding, therefore that is still not allowed based on prior law.With respect to your first paragraph - In many cases, it is impossible to look forward when a corporation has not made that astronomical political donation. At that time it is too late to unpurchase products. Also, the information about corporate donations will alway lag behind the fact. So, what you say sounds good, but nearly impossible to effectively do.

Also, I disagree with your 80-year discrepancy. The President was correct. He framed his statement that it has long been the intent of our country to limit corporate money in politics, going back 100 years. He was correct, as born out by the facts. The President never limited his objection of corporate donations to only direct contributions. That's what you surmise, but not what he said. You are trying to prove something he never said, as wrong.

The President was also not worng about foreign corporations. Many of our corporations are now headquartered in foreign countries. Halliburton is now headquartered in Dubai, as an example. Also, many foreign countries own corporations housed in the US. Also, many foreign corporations own substantial interests in US corporations. I believe that's what the President meant by foreign corporation donations. And again, I believe he was correct.

[Bob Jentges]

Here is what President Obama said in his State of the Union address: "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I beleive will open the floodgates for special interests---including foreign corporations---to spend without limit in our elections." (My Emphasis)

You can read the President's statement how you choose, but I did not "surmise" he limited his objections "...of corporate donations to only direct contributions". For me to "surmise" that it would have been necessary to disregard the phrase "special interests", which I think include corporations, unions, and independent expenditure organizations. I was addressing Citizens United overturning the Austin case which was the last to uphold the Tillman Act, which did deal only with direct contributions.

Finally, I think FactCheck.ORG validated what I said about Austin not addressing contributions from foreign corporations. Their analysis included: "There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441 e(b)(3),...The courts recent decision didn't expressly deal with that question."

[Dan Conner]

Here is what President Obama said in his State of the Union address: "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I beleive will open the floodgates for special interests---including foreign corporations---to spend without limit in our elections." (My Emphasis)

You can read the President's statement how you choose, but I did not "surmise" he limited his objections "...of corporate donations to only direct contributions". For me to "surmise" that it would have been necessary to disregard the phrase "special interests", which I think include corporations, unions, and independent expenditure organizations. I was addressing Citizens United overturning the Austin case which was the last to uphold the Tillman Act, which did deal only with direct contributions.

Finally, I think FactCheck.ORG validated what I said about Austin not addressing contributions from foreign corporations. Their analysis included: "There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441 e(b)(3),...The courts recent decision didn't expressly deal with that question."Surmising...that's what you are doing. The President's statement was entiorely true, exactly as he stated it. You should be aware of that as a textualist. The Supreme Court did reverse a century of law (all sorts of laws limiting corporate contributions, direct or indirect).

I think you are still confused. The President simply said the Supremem Court overturned a centurey of law.....TRUE. You said the President was wrong because because it was only 20 years of law. Well, the President wasn't wrong....you were. Frankly, I don't give two hoots about your "direct contributions" stipulation. It's not germain to the arguement. Your original statement causing all this prolonged trivial arguement was: "Certainly Citizens overturned existing law. But it was not law that "had existed for over 100 years" as President Obama said in his State of the Union speech." No matter which way you cut it, that statement was wrong. If you want to debate the other aspects of your argument, that's fine, but your statement the President erred was wrong. Many of your other points I DON'T disagree with. You are spending all sorts of space talking about Austin, etc. when it isn't relevant to your above one-sentence statement. You were wrong, plain and simple. All you have to do it admit it or drop discussion of it. If you indicate you want to move on to another discussion of SCOTUS, that's fine.

[Bob Jentges]

Surmising...that's what you are doing. The President's statement was entiorely true, exactly as he stated it. You should be aware of that as a textualist. The Supreme Court did reverse a century of law (all sorts of laws limiting corporate contributions, direct or indirect).

I think you are still confused. The President simply said the Supremem Court overturned a centurey of law.....TRUE. You said the President was wrong because because it was only 20 years of law. Well, the President wasn't wrong....you were. Frankly, I don't give two hoots about your "direct contributions" stipulation. It's not germain to the arguement. Your original statement causing all this prolonged trivial arguement was: "Certainly Citizens overturned existing law. But it was not law that "had existed for over 100 years" as President Obama said in his State of the Union speech." No matter which way you cut it, that statement was wrong. If you want to debate the other aspects of your argument, that's fine, but your statement the President erred was wrong. Many of your other points I DON'T disagree with. You are spending all sorts of space talking about Austin, etc. when it isn't relevant to your above one-sentence statement. You were wrong, plain and simple. All you have to do it admit it or drop discussion of it. If you indicate you want to move on to another discussion of SCOTUS, that's fine.

You are impossible!

The phrase "...---including foreign corporations---" makes President Obama's statement incorrect, at least in part, and not "...entirely true, exactly as he stated it", as you suggest. It does not surprise me that you will not accept my analysis as put forth in my posts 20, 23, and 33, but since you do not, apparrently you do not accept the analysis of FactCheck.ORG either. When you get FactCheck.ORG to admit they are wrong I will take another look.

Maybe the 100 years vs. 20 years is open to interprutation, but the fact that Citizens United overturned the 1990 case of Austin, which affirmed existing law on direct contributions by corporations, is not open to interprutation.

The crux of the issue is that the present status of campaign finance law is based on 2 U.S.C. e(b)(3) with respect to foreign contributions, and Citizens United with respect to domestic corporations, unions and independent expenditure organizations, irrespective of President Obama's remarks.

Since I doubt either of us will be in a position to challenge the present law I would prefer to drop discussion of the issues, but knowing you I doubt you will allow me to have the last word.

[Dan Conner]

Here is what President Obama said in his State of the Union address: "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I beleive will open the floodgates for special interests---including foreign corporations---to spend without limit in our elections." (My Emphasis)

You can read the President's statement how you choose, but I did not "surmise" he limited his objections "...of corporate donations to only direct contributions". For me to "surmise" that it would have been necessary to disregard the phrase "special interests", which I think include corporations, unions, and independent expenditure organizations. I was addressing Citizens United overturning the Austin case which was the last to uphold the Tillman Act, which did deal only with direct contributions.

Finally, I think FactCheck.ORG validated what I said about Austin not addressing contributions from foreign corporations. Their analysis included: "There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441 e(b)(3),...The courts recent decision didn't expressly deal with that question."Bob, why do you twist around in irrelevant arguments? I've never experienced someone so determined to deflect their argument into another area after they were wrong.

President Obama said as you quoted above. Where was he, or me for that matter, wrong? Many laws restricting corporate money in campaigns have been passed since 1907 - a hundred years ago. The recent Supreme Court decision turned much of that on its ear. When the Supreme Court gave corporations, otherwise previously restricted donations, the authority to expand their money and influence into politics, that's change 100 years of law.

Now you might reasonable argue about whether the "floodgates" were opened, but I here again, I agree with the President. There certainly is ample opportunity for adding a corrosive corporate influence in politics.

Well, you choose your definition of surmise and I will use mine. I think you surmised it. Your simple, but wrong, statement was that the President, and I, were wrong when it was said that 100 years of law was reversed. You said it was really 20 years. Well, it was 100 years. Neither the President or I was wrong, you were. And frankly, I will not debate this issue any more. You can use all the deflection, circular arguments and smoke screens you want, but it won't change the fact you were wrong about the President being wrong.

As far as the rest of what you say, I have no issue with it. However, you greatly strayed from the original argument and had nothing to do with the 100-years-ago issue.

Also, I suggest you reread my prior email. You better look up what the Supreme Court meant by foreign corporations. There are US corporations owed by foreign countries and foreign corporations chartered and housed in the US. There are also many US corporations owned to varying degrees by foreign entities. In fact, there are few "pure" US corporations. Did the Supreme Court address these?

[Dan Conner]

You are impossible!

The phrase "...---including foreign corporations---" makes President Obama's statement incorrect, at least in part, and not "...entirely true, exactly as he stated it", as you suggest. It does not surprise me that you will not accept my analysis as put forth in my posts 20, 23, and 33, but since you do not, apparrently you do not accept the analysis of FactCheck.ORG either. When you get FactCheck.ORG to admit they are wrong I will take another look.

Maybe the 100 years vs. 20 years is open to interprutation, but the fact that Citizens United overturned the 1990 case of Austin, which affirmed existing law on direct contributions by corporations, is not open to interprutation.

The crux of the issue is that the present status of campaign finance law is based on 2 U.S.C. e(b)(3) with respect to foreign contributions, and Citizens United with respect to domestic corporations, unions and independent expenditure organizations, irrespective of President Obama's remarks.

Since I doubt either of us will be in a position to challenge the present law I would prefer to drop discussion of the issues, but knowing you I doubt you will allow me to have the last word.No Bob, you are impossible! While you belated concerns about foreign corporations are irrelevant to your 100-year error, I feel you are also wrong about foreign corporations. I explained that in my prior post. I guess it all comes down to how you define a foreign corporatioin. And for that, I would think you would want to find out what the President meant. That's the issue here, not what you surmise.

[Bob Jentges]

No Bob, you are impossible! While you belated concerns about foreign corporations are irrelevant to your 100-year error, I feel you are also wrong about foreign corporations. I explained that in my prior post. I guess it all comes down to how you define a foreign corporatioin. And for that, I would think you would want to find out what the President meant. That's the issue here, not what you surmise.

Although Wikepedia is not one of my preferred sources, to try to satisfy you I used it to get a definition of "foreign corporations". That definition read, in part: "...a corporation incorporated outside the United States authorized to do business in one or more of the United States." I expect President Obama would agree in principle with that definition.

I saw, heard, and read what the President said. I quoted what he said in earlier posts in this thread. I admit I do not know what the President was thinking when he made the statement. But I would hope the President said what he was thinking, especially since the remark was not made in an interview Q & A setting---it was made in his State of the Union message. If he does not mean what he says in a serious setting like that i.e. carefully prepared remarks most likely read from a teleprompter, it makes it difficult to think he means what he says in any setting!

Case closed---at least from my perspective.

[Dan Conner]

Although Wikepedia is not one of my preferred sources, to try to satisfy you I used it to get a definition of "foreign corporations". That definition read, in part: "...a corporation incorporated outside the United States authorized to do business in one or more of the United States." I expect President Obama would agree in principle with that definition.

I saw, heard, and read what the President said. I quoted what he said in earlier posts in this thread. I admit I do not know what the President was thinking when he made the statement. But I would hope the President said what he was thinking, especially since the remark was not made in an interview Q & A setting---it was made in his State of the Union message. If he does not mean what he says in a serious setting like that i.e. carefully prepared remarks most likely read from a teleprompter, it makes it difficult to think he means what he says in any setting!

Case closed---at least from my perspective.Well, it's amazing that you now accept Wikipedia. It wasn't good enough for you before, but now it's OK? Well, if you read one of my prior posts, you would notice a big problem this "foreign corporation" definition causes. Halliburton was incorporated in the US, even though it is headquartered in Dubai. It will finance candidates that benefit it financially even though it might not be beneficial for the US. It will have a propensity to favor legislation benefiting Abu Dabi. Also, there is Citgo, a US corporation, owned by Venezuela. There are countless other US chartered corporations also owned by foreign entities. I don't know about you , but I prefer not to benefit foreign countries/people, who own our corporations. I could do research and probably find scores of other US corporations owned for foreign countries. As an illustratiion, do you remember Communist China? They have bought scores of US corporations.

Now, according to your Wikipedia definition, these foreign owned corporations would not be defined as foreign. Score another correct statement for the President.

[Bob Jentges]

Why I used Wickipedia was explained in the first sentance of my post #37, but apparrently you did not catch-on to the ironical taunt behind it---not surprising!

To the best of my knowledge the definition of a foreign corporation, Wickipedia or elsewhere, has not changed since the Citizens United decision, like you seem to suggest. I have checked other sources which I consider more reputable than Wickipedia, and from what I found it was unanimous that essentially a foreign corporation is defined as one incorporated under the laws of a foreign country i.e. incorporated outside the United States relative to our discussion of United States campaign finance law.

Your circular discussion goes from examples of corporations incorporated inside the United States (domestic corporations) operating at least to some extent in other countries, to corporations incorporated inside the United States (domestic corporations) owned at least in part by foreigners. None of those examples are foreign corporations as defined anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

Since you apparrantly are keeping a "scorecard", you might cinsider revising it. While you are at it think about my belief that loyalty to a person (public or private) or organization (public or private) is a commendable characteristic---but blind loyalty to anyone/anything can become problematical.

[Dan Conner]

Why I used Wickipedia was explained in the first sentance of my post #37, but apparrently you did not catch-on to the ironical taunt behind it---not surprising!

To the best of my knowledge the definition of a foreign corporation, Wickipedia or elsewhere, has not changed since the Citizens United decision, like you seem to suggest. I have checked other sources which I consider more reputable than Wickipedia, and from what I found it was unanimous that essentially a foreign corporation is defined as one incorporated under the laws of a foreign country i.e. incorporated outside the United States relative to our discussion of United States campaign finance law.

Your circular discussion goes from examples of corporations incorporated inside the United States (domestic corporations) operating at least to some extent in other countries, to corporations incorporated inside the United States (domestic corporations) owned at least in part by foreigners. None of those examples are foreign corporations as defined anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

Since you apparrantly are keeping a "scorecard", you might cinsider revising it. While you are at it think about my belief that loyalty to a person (public or private) or organization (public or private) is a commendable characteristic---but blind loyalty to anyone/anything can become problematical.You apparently taunt without taunting! Either that, or you have such a dry sense of humor that there isn't any humor. You used Wikipedia. You didn't indicate any kind of jest. I'm sorry but you are wrong again Bob.

Also, you are being incredibly dense. Either that or you never read my post. I have never argued with you about your definition of foreign corporation, but that definition is outdated and immaterial to Obama's and my concerns. We have US corporations (incorporated in the US) and fomerly owned by US citizens, but are now wholely owned by foreigners or foreign governments. That is what Obama was referring to, but I guess your Wikipedia security blanket won't allow any such interpretation. However, I think I, along with the President, object to foreign influence in our political system, allowed because they own US corporations. And I mean US corporations as you define it.

I guess you digress to the semantical debate when you are not correct. I guess you must feel that is better than admitting wrong, or even trying to understand what someone said. Instead you try to "muddy the waters" in an irrelevant debate over semantics, corporations, Wikipedia, and "other references." That's OK. It's just a strong indicator of being close-minded (humor like yours intended).

[Bob Jentges]

Against my better judgement, I will try to get through to you again. Please read what I say without any preconceived notions.

The majority ruling in Citizens United did not address foreign corporations, only domestic corporations. Therefore the Court could not have reversed existing law that prohibited contributions made by foreign corporations and/or foreign nationals, and that law is still in existance.

In his State of the Union speech President Obama used the phrase "including foreign corporations". That phrase is what Justice Alito and many others expressed technical disagreement with, suggesting the President misspoke. It also seems to be the only relevent major disagreement between you and me on this subject at this time.

As recited previously in this discussion there is a distinct difference between a domestic corporation and a foreign corporation. If Congress wants to place the same restrictions on domestic corporations owned by foreign entities, persons, or permanent resident aliens as existing law placed on foreign corporations, etc., they should introduce such legislation. Frankly I hope it would pass and be held Constitutional!

[Dan Conner]

Against my better judgement, I will try to get through to you again. Please read what I say without any preconceived notions.

The majority ruling in Citizens United did not address foreign corporations, only domestic corporations. Therefore the Court could not have reversed existing law that prohibited contributions made by foreign corporations and/or foreign nationals, and that law is still in existance.

In his State of the Union speech President Obama used the phrase "including foreign corporations". That phrase is what Justice Alito and many others expressed technical disagreement with, suggesting the President misspoke. It also seems to be the only relevent major disagreement between you and me on this subject at this time.

As recited previously in this discussion there is a distinct difference between a domestic corporation and a foreign corporation. If Congress wants to place the same restrictions on domestic corporations owned by foreign entities, persons, or permanent resident aliens as existing law placed on foreign corporations, etc., they should introduce such legislation. Frankly I hope it would pass and be held Constitutional!Now you listen. Can you think?? I AM TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS!! tHESE CORPORATIONS ARE DOMESTRIC, CHARTERED HERE, BUT NOW PARTIALLY OR WHOLELY OWNED BY FOREIGNERS OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Man do I have to draw a picture? The domestic corporations they talk about are owned by foreigners. Obama means just as I do. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, but he means domestic corporations owned by foreigners. Do you get this or are you lost in Wikipedia?

[Bob Jentges]

Now you listen. Can you think?? I AM TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS!! tHESE CORPORATIONS ARE DOMESTRIC, CHARTERED HERE, BUT NOW PARTIALLY OR WHOLELY OWNED BY FOREIGNERS OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES. Man do I have to draw a picture? The domestic corporations they talk about are owned by foreigners. Obama means just as I do. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, but he means domestic corporations owned by foreigners. Do you get this or are you lost in Wikipedia?

The good news is your reply's are getting shorter which allows me to quote your entire post in my reply, leaving more room for me to address the seemingly insurmountable task of making you understand the specifics of what I am saying.

The third paragraph in my post #39 indicates I understand you are talking about domestic corporations, and that I also understand what a domestic corporation is, and furthermore that I understand that some domestic corporations are "...owned at least in part by foreigners".

In your post I quote above you quoted my post #41. You might want to take a few seconds to review the three sentance final paragraph of that post, esepcially the final two sentances which were right in front of you when you prepared your post #42.

But the issue we have been disagreeing over is President Obama's comments about the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United in his State of the Union speech. To be repetative, the critical phrase from my perspective was: "...including foreign corporations."

To be certain I had not used an inaccurate quotation I tripple sourced, including the always reliable (sic) Huffington Post---it had the exact same quote I used.

Maybe you are intuitive enough to know that the President actually meant domestic corporations owned at least in part by foreigners when he said "foreign corporations", but I am not ready to take that leap. I prefer to take his words literally until he actually comes out and makes a clarification/correction!

I took some time to read the text of the State of the Union speech provided to the press before the speech. Even though I read it more than once I did not find any comment at all about Citizens. Maybe I missed it. But I saw/heard it when I watched the speech live, and many times since in news clips!

If it was not in the prepared transcript it would be cynical to think the comment was not origionally intended to be included in the speech, and the President ad libbed the remark to criticize members of the Supreme Court sitting in the front row knowing they could not respond. But if that was actually what happened it might be a lesson not to go off script (teleprompter) when giving a speech as serious as the State of the Union, unless you are certain what you are going to say is what you mean to say.

It could also be support for the reason some Justices give for not attending State of the Union speeches regardless of whether the President is Democrat or Republican i.e. the speeches are overly partisan and the Court should not be partisan in their decisions.

Since you admittedly did not grasp the sarcasm in my earlier reference to my using Wickipedia for a defintion, it was because in the past you had used it as a source and I had questioned it's reliability. In response to your question: No, I am not "lost in Wickipedia"---I have not used it as a source since and probably will not use it, except as a last resort.

So you do not miss it, the (sic) at my above reference to Huffington Post also includes some sarcasm.

[Dan Conner]

The good news is your reply's are getting shorter which allows me to quote your entire post in my reply, leaving more room for me to address the seemingly insurmountable task of making you understand the specifics of what I am saying.

The third paragraph in my post #39 indicates I understand you are talking about domestic corporations, and that I also understand what a domestic corporation is, and furthermore that I understand that some domestic corporations are "...owned at least in part by foreigners".

In your post I quote above you quoted my post #41. You might want to take a few seconds to review the three sentance final paragraph of that post, esepcially the final two sentances which were right in front of you when you prepared your post #42.

But the issue we have been disagreeing over is President Obama's comments about the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United in his State of the Union speech. To be repetative, the critical phrase from my perspective was: "...including foreign corporations."

To be certain I had not used an inaccurate quotation I tripple sourced, including the always reliable (sic) Huffington Post---it had the exact same quote I used.

Maybe you are intuitive enough to know that the President actually meant domestic corporations owned at least in part by foreigners when he said "foreign corporations", but I am not ready to take that leap. I prefer to take his words literally until he actually comes out and makes a clarification/correction!

I took some time to read the text of the State of the Union speech provided to the press before the speech. Even though I read it more than once I did not find any comment at all about Citizens. Maybe I missed it. But I saw/heard it when I watched the speech live, and many times since in news clips!

If it was not in the prepared transcript it would be cynical to think the comment was not origionally intended to be included in the speech, and the President ad libbed the remark to criticize members of the Supreme Court sitting in the front row knowing they could not respond. But if that was actually what happened it might be a lesson not to go off script (teleprompter) when giving a speech as serious as the State of the Union, unless you are certain what you are going to say is what you mean to say.

It could also be support for the reason some Justices give for not attending State of the Union speeches regardless of whether the President is Democrat or Republican i.e. the speeches are overly partisan and the Court should not be partisan in their decisions.

Since you admittedly did not grasp the sarcasm in my earlier reference to my using Wickipedia for a defintion, it was because in the past you had used it as a source and I had questioned it's reliability. In response to your question: No, I am not "lost in Wickipedia"---I have not used it as a source since and probably will not use it, except as a last resort.

So you do not miss it, the (sic) at my above reference to Huffington Post also includes some sarcasm.First, I suggest you try to be more brief. While I understand what you have said, you contradict yourself in the same quote. I, and I don't think President Obama (As I have said before), don't care about your Wikipedia definition. You went on your typical criticism of Obama parsing the words he said without determining what he meant. Maybe you should have determined what he meant before you went off half-cocked.

I'm not going into it again about what I, or the President, mean by a foreign corporation, but he was accurate. His statement is composed of words as he defines them, not you. I too classify a domestically chartered corporation, but wholly owned by a foreign entitly, as a foreign corporation, regardless what your out-of-date references show.

Most appalling is that you miss, intentionally or not, the point the President made, that the Supreme Court decision could allow all sorts of foreign money into our election process because of the above. And he was correct.

Now you can continue on your semantical, obfuscating, petty parsing of the President's words, but you are missing the intent of what he says. The question is foreign money in our politics, not what you consider foreign. You can quadruple source whatever you want. I suggest you use a little more common sense and look at the bottom line here.

By the way, the President is a citizen, and he has already showed his birth certificate. Bob, get over the hate for the President. Also, I think you need to get over my sarcasm and humor. I'm not angry, but you sure seem to get so.

I think you need to sit back and think a little. The President didn't object to foreign corporations or domestic ones. He said he doesn't want foreign MONEY in our election process. I have done my best to explain the situation allowing foreign money in our election process, but you, in your cloistered shell and hate for the President are determined to attack the President, even if it means a petty parsing of words. In fact, you seem to set him up for a trivial, petty, and irrelevant standard when you parse every word. Yet you carelessly make erroneous statements. I suggest you first "heal thyself." Also, it is so surprising that you are so vigilant about Presidnet Obama when I can't remember ever reading one of your trivial parses of President Bush. He seemed to have screwed up by the numbers. Don't expect me to trust your judgement about Obama, when I saw the faith you invested in Bush. Widely acclaimed as the worst President of all time. That judgement goes to the core of credibility.

Also, try shorter responses.

[Bob Jentges]

The great majority of my posts are quite brief; usually two or three short paragraphs. But sometimes trying to address what you say makes brevity very difficult---this may be one of those times.

I did not parse the Presidents words. I initially quoted his complete sentence. Later I shortened what I quoted from his complete sentence to the phrase "...including foreign corporations..." because that is the pertinant language over what our discussion developed into.

My references for definitions were not "out of date". Those definitions of foreign and/or domestic corporations were essentially those in effect at the time of The President's State of the Union speech, and still are in effect, as far as I can tell. I am discounting your attempt to divine what the President "really meant" when he literally said "...including foreign corporations". And with all due respect to the President I do not believe he has the power to change the meaning of defined words at the same time he utters those words.

I have no idea what brought you to say: "By the way, the President is a citizen...". I have never suggested he is not a citizen---some may have, but not me!

I do not "hate" the President! From what I have seen of him on TV, which is a lot, he seems to be a charming fellow. I simply disagree with some of his policies. I have people who I consider friends, as well as some relatives who I have a very good relationship with even though we might disagree on some political issues. It seems to me I addressed the "hate" word in previous writings to you---maybe you forgot.

I can not remember ever reading any "humer" from you, and the word "sarcasm" I used in my post #43 was in reference to my "sarcasm", not yours. I am not "angry" either. My replying to your posts gives me fun entertainment when I have nothing better to occupy my time.

I think President Obama, you, and me all agree we do not "...want foreign MONEY in our election process...". In the final paragraph of my post #41 I suggested that if Congress beleives the recent decision in Citizens United created a loophole for foreign contributions they should introduce legislation to close that loophole, and if they did I hoped it would pass and if challanged in court, be held Constitutional.

I was not a fan of most of the domestic/economic policies signed into law by President George W, Bush, especially those during the last two years of his second term when Congress was controlled by Democrats. I made my thoughts clear to then Republican Senator Norm Coleman more than once, to no avail. But I did support President Bush's efforts in what was then referred to as the war on terror.

Obviously not a short reply, but you left me with too many important issues to address to be as brief as I would prefer my posts be.

[Dan Conner]

The great majority of my posts are quite brief; usually two or three short paragraphs. But sometimes trying to address what you say makes brevity very difficult---this may be one of those times.

I did not parse the Presidents words. I initially quoted his complete sentence. Later I shortened what I quoted from his complete sentence to the phrase "...including foreign corporations..." because that is the pertinant language over what our discussion developed into.

My references for definitions were not "out of date". Those definitions of foreign and/or domestic corporations were essentially those in effect at the time of The President's State of the Union speech, and still are in effect, as far as I can tell. I am discounting your attempt to divine what the President "really meant" when he literally said "...including foreign corporations". And with all due respect to the President I do not believe he has the power to change the meaning of defined words at the same time he utters those words.

I have no idea what brought you to say: "By the way, the President is a citizen...". I have never suggested he is not a citizen---some may have, but not me!

I do not "hate" the President! From what I have seen of him on TV, which is a lot, he seems to be a charming fellow. I simply disagree with some of his policies. I have people who I consider friends, as well as some relatives who I have a very good relationship with even though we might disagree on some political issues. It seems to me I addressed the "hate" word in previous writings to you---maybe you forgot.

I can not remember ever reading any "humer" from you, and the word "sarcasm" I used in my post #43 was in reference to my "sarcasm", not yours. I am not "angry" either. My replying to your posts gives me fun entertainment when I have nothing better to occupy my time.

I think President Obama, you, and me all agree we do not "...want foreign MONEY in our election process...". In the final paragraph of my post #41 I suggested that if Congress beleives the recent decision in Citizens United created a loophole for foreign contributions they should introduce legislation to close that loophole, and if they did I hoped it would pass and if challanged in court, be held Constitutional.

I was not a fan of most of the domestic/economic policies signed into law by President George W, Bush, especially those during the last two years of his second term when Congress was controlled by Democrats. I made my thoughts clear to then Republican Senator Norm Coleman more than once, to no avail. But I did support President Bush's efforts in what was then referred to as the war on terror.

Obviously not a short reply, but you left me with too many important issues to address to be as brief as I would prefer my posts be.Bob, I hate to say you lie, but that isn't the first argument you raised. The first thing you quarreled about was the 100-year issue. You were proven wrong then and now, as is typical for you, you morph the argument about what you consider a "foreign corporation." You criticize the President based on you interpretation. I think you need to put a different shoe on and start to look and see it as he does.

As I have always learned from interpreting literature and reading famous statements, it is important that the reader/listener try to determine what the writer/speaker meant. You never endeavored to do that. Instead, you parse his words in an effort to prove him wrong. The first question I would want to ask is .....WHY? I guess it is important for you to prove the President wrong. Well, not me. I tried to interpret what he meant and find him to be spot on. Apparently, you like to put your faith in the words of Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, O'Neill, Sean Hannity, etc. These are the people looking to divide our nation, so Rupert Murdoch can make ever increasing profits and buy up ever increasing shares of the media market.

I wish to support the side that wants positive things for America and to see it grow and prosper for my children and grandchildren. Currently, our country and State are in a state of decline, and they will never rise to improve their (and our) situation in the world without mutual support. That involves paying our share. Education funding has declined in the Pawlenty years and so has our status as a national leader in education.

Companies used to come to Minnesota for its highly educated workforce and standard of living, but neither of these exist anymore. So, do you think companies will relocate here because of our great weather? Prospering requires some sacrifice for us all, just like winning wars do. I think too many people have had it too good to realize what sacrifice is, because they have not had to make any sacrifices. You know the world doesn't always boil down to money. I think it should be happiness, provided we all contribute and that it doesn't come at the expense of another.

[Dan Conner]

The great majority of my posts are quite brief; usually two or three short paragraphs. But sometimes trying to address what you say makes brevity very difficult---this may be one of those times.

I did not parse the Presidents words. I initially quoted his complete sentence. Later I shortened what I quoted from his complete sentence to the phrase "...including foreign corporations..." because that is the pertinant language over what our discussion developed into.

My references for definitions were not "out of date". Those definitions of foreign and/or domestic corporations were essentially those in effect at the time of The President's State of the Union speech, and still are in effect, as far as I can tell. I am discounting your attempt to divine what the President "really meant" when he literally said "...including foreign corporations". And with all due respect to the President I do not believe he has the power to change the meaning of defined words at the same time he utters those words.

I have no idea what brought you to say: "By the way, the President is a citizen...". I have never suggested he is not a citizen---some may have, but not me!

I do not "hate" the President! From what I have seen of him on TV, which is a lot, he seems to be a charming fellow. I simply disagree with some of his policies. I have people who I consider friends, as well as some relatives who I have a very good relationship with even though we might disagree on some political issues. It seems to me I addressed the "hate" word in previous writings to you---maybe you forgot.

I can not remember ever reading any "humer" from you, (guess waht, I can't remember any humer, or humor from you either) and the word "sarcasm" I used in my post #43 was in reference to my "sarcasm", not yours. I am not "angry" either. My replying to your posts gives me fun entertainment when I have nothing better to occupy my time.

I think President Obama, you, and me all agree we do not "...want foreign MONEY in our election process...". In the final paragraph of my post #41 I suggested that if Congress beleives the recent decision in Citizens United created a loophole for foreign contributions they should introduce legislation to close that loophole, and if they did I hoped it would pass and if challanged in court, be held Constitutional.

I was not a fan of most of the domestic/economic policies signed into law by President George W, Bush, especially those during the last two years of his second term when Congress was controlled by Democrats. I made my thoughts clear to then Republican Senator Norm Coleman more than once, to no avail. But I did support President Bush's efforts in what was then referred to as the war on terror.

Obviously not a short reply, but you left me with too many important issues to address to be as brief as I would prefer my posts be.Bob, my words of "humor" and "sarcasm" are simply intended as yours. You have previously stated that and now so have I.

Bob, if you disagree with his policies, then recommend your own. Criticism is easy and requires little thought. If you are wise enough to critique the President, then shouldn't you be wise enough to recommend an alternative? In fact, criticism requires little committment. All that is known is what you are against. Well, I think it is long passed that you need to start saying what you stand for, not against. Being petty and parsing words is trivial, insignificant, and a tremendous waste of time.

P.S. Democrats in the Congress are working on legislation to correct the Supreme Court ruling, but with no Republican support. Republicans like the ruling as it stands. Bob, now you say you don't like what Obama believes in and you didn't like Geoirge Bush...what the heck do you like? I would greatly appreciate hearing from you what you stand for, not what you stand against. Come on, stake out some ground for yourself.

[Bob Jentges]

I will respond to your posts #'s 46 & 47 with a single post that I will try to keep shorter than your consecutive individual posts combined.

I said the "100 year issue" was open to interpretation, but the 1990 date of the Austin case was not open to interpretation. You say I was "...proven wrong then and now..."

This morning I read an article by Mark Sherman of the AP (noted right wing news organization) titled "Alito objected to Obama's history claim". In quoting from Justice Alito's questioning during oral arguements the article read, in part: "Mr. Waxman, all of this talk about 100 years and 50 years is perplexing. It sounds like the sort of sound bites you hear on TV. The fact of the matter is that the only cases that are being, that may possibly be reconsidered, are McConnell and Austin. And they don't go back 50 years, and they don't go back 100 years." Should you chose to read the entire article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DMIN980&show_article=1

If you do not know the basics of "...what I stand for..." after about 550 posts in Freep Forum and a number of Your View and My View articles in The Free Press as well as articles in other media outlets you may have seen, I suggest at least two possible reasons: 1) You might not be paying attention. 2) You are either a slow or reluctant learner.

[Dan Conner]

I will respond to your posts #'s 46 & 47 with a single post that I will try to keep shorter than your consecutive individual posts combined.

I said the "100 year issue" was open to interpretation, but the 1990 date of the Austin case was not open to interpretation. You say I was "...proven wrong then and now..."

This morning I read an article by Mark Sherman of the AP (noted right wing news organization) titled "Alito objected to Obama's history claim". In quoting from Justice Alito's questioning during oral arguements the article read, in part: "Mr. Waxman, all of this talk about 100 years and 50 years is perplexing. It sounds like the sort of sound bites you hear on TV. The fact of the matter is that the only cases that are being, that may possibly be reconsidered, are McConnell and Austin. And they don't go back 50 years, and they don't go back 100 years." Should you chose to read the entire article: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DMIN980&show_article=1

If you do not know the basics of "...what I stand for..." after about 550 posts in Freep Forum and a number of Your View and My View articles in The Free Press as well as articles in other media outlets you may have seen, I suggest at least two possible reasons: 1) You might not be paying attention. 2) You are either a slow or reluctant learner.Come on Bob! Somehow you can take a joke? Lighten up. Some sarcasm and you get personal. You get so angry when you are wrong. Then you resort to arguing semantics. You seemed consumed in meaningless trivia and irrelevant parsing. Maybe sometime you will talk substance. However, go ahead with the juvenile "I told you so's." Maybe you'll learn to be more accurate next time.

[Bob Jentges]

Come on Bob! Somehow you can take a joke? Lighten up. Some sarcasm and you get personal. You get so angry when you are wrong. Then you resort to arguing semantics. You seemed consumed in meaningless trivia and irrelevant parsing. Maybe sometime you will talk substance. However, go ahead with the juvenile "I told you so's." Maybe you'll learn to be more accurate next time.

Not suprisingly, very little if anything in your post #49, including a quote of my post #48, was relevant to what I said in my post. If you could ever come up with a real "joke" believe me I can take it. Moreover, my #48 did not get "personal"; did not express "anger"; did not include "juvenile 'I told you so's'". What it was, was an accurate quote from an AP article quoting Justice Alito. No need to try to divine what Justice Alito meant!

There have been many opinion articles about the Presidents remarks in his State of the Union speech, and I do not intend to get into an exchange of what various people said except, here is another accurate quote for you to consider. It is from Professor Bradley Smith of Captial University Law School. His opinion of what President Obama actually said about Citizens United during his State of the Union speech was "...either blithering ignorence of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind". Apparrently Professor Smith was either unable or unwilling to divine what the President meant from what the President actually said, like you apparrently claim you could do.

[Dan Conner]

Not suprisingly, very little if anything in your post #49, including a quote of my post #48, was relevant to what I said in my post. If you could ever come up with a real "joke" believe me I can take it. Moreover, my #48 did not get "personal"; did not express "anger"; did not include "juvenile 'I told you so's'". What it was, was an accurate quote from an AP article quoting Justice Alito. No need to try to divine what Justice Alito meant!

There have been many opinion articles about the Presidents remarks in his State of the Union speech, and I do not intend to get into an exchange of what various people said except, here is another accurate quote for you to consider. It is from Professor Bradley Smith of Captial University Law School. His opinion of what President Obama actually said about Citizens United during his State of the Union speech was "...either blithering ignorence of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind". Apparrently Professor Smith was either unable or unwilling to divine what the President meant from what the President actually said, like you apparrently claim you could do.Hey, my attempts at humor are just like yours. That's funny...

You should be used to the blithering ignorance. You supported Bush's 4 years. And man, talk about ignorance. Also, I noticed you let everyone speak for you, sometimes on both sides of the issue. It's as if you are unable to think for yourself- you know, being some kind of droid. You quote this person, that person, and everyone you can google, but rarely do you express your own opinions. I then hear you defend yourself by saying you never said something because it was one of your plagerized ideas. I suggest you start using your ideas. We can all find many quotes to serve our position. Anyway, I think it is time to start thinking for yourself and explain why, not fall back to someone who already thought for you. Stake out you own ground.

[Bob Jentges]

Hey, my attempts at humor are just like yours. That's funny...

You should be used to the blithering ignorance. You supported Bush's 4 years. And man, talk about ignorance. Also, I noticed you let everyone speak for you, sometimes on both sides of the issue. It's as if you are unable to think for yourself- you know, being some kind of droid. You quote this person, that person, and everyone you can google, but rarely do you express your own opinions. I then hear you defend yourself by saying you never said something because it was one of your plagerized ideas. I suggest you start using your ideas. We can all find many quotes to serve our position. Anyway, I think it is time to start thinking for yourself and explain why, not fall back to someone who already thought for you. Stake out you own ground.

I expressed my opinions on the "100 years" issue, and foreign/domestic corporations, and direct contributions/independent expenditures, days before I found the AP article quoting Justice Alito and/or Professor Smith's opinion and you know it. I cited the AP article and Professor Smith to support my opinions, not to formulate my opinions.

With respect to Professor Smith's opinion, I thought liberals/progressives considered academics as the "enlightened class". Apparrently that definition only applies when the academic agrees with their thinking.

Maybe you should cite or quote someone from the "enlightened class" that agrees with your divine interpretation of what President meant to say, if you can find one.

In closing, in the event no one has ever suggested you get over George W. Bush, let me suggest it now!

[Dan Conner]

I expressed my opinions on the "100 years" issue, and foreign/domestic corporations, and direct contributions/independent expenditures, days before I found the AP article quoting Justice Alito and/or Professor Smith's opinion and you know it. I cited the AP article and Professor Smith to support my opinions, not to formulate my opinions.

With respect to Professor Smith's opinion, I thought liberals/progressives considered academics as the "enlightened class". Apparrently that definition only applies when the academic agrees with their thinking.

Maybe you should cite or quote someone from the "enlightened class" that agrees with your divine interpretation of what President meant to say, if you can find one.

In closing, in the event no one has ever suggested you get over George W. Bush, let me suggest it now!Bob, don't resort to more of you pathetically dry jokes here. I do consider academics worth listening to, but they don't all agree, do they. Global warming being a case in point. There are experts on both sides, but the vast vast majority on the side that man is significantly contributing to global warming. Now, you can cherry pick academics to make your case, but I'm afraid the preponderance disagree, but good try.

There is a major problem with your ideas. You fomulate them by listening to such stalwart intellectual deserts as Tea Partiers, Glen Beck, O'Reilley, Hannity, Limbaugh. I, unlike you, don't need the security blanket of references to "support" my ideas, like you. I know this was the case about foreign corporations because I heard the President say it. Can't get a better source for his quote than that.

You go ahead and worry about the intellectually barren ideas about 100 years vs 20 years. And your foreign vs domestic corporation definition. That is probably time well spent for you. It keeps you occupied in the light-weight side of politics, away from the weighty issues of the day. Who knows, maybe some day you can become the lexicon of politics?

Why should I get over George Bush? He was the President who single-handedly almost brought down the US. He tortured, imprisoned, and spied on US citizen illegally. He started a war and caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths by repeatedly lying to the people of the US. He caused the rest of the world to hate our country. He instituted a "reverse Robinhood" system of taxation. We better all talk about him and his joke of an administration, if we are to learn from the mistake and prevent any kind of a buffoon like him from becoming a President again. Unlike Preisident Obama, I would have prosecuted Bush for numerous crimes against the people of the US and war criimes. In that respect, you better like Obama. If it weren't for him, Bush would be a convict by now.

I will talk about Bush when ever I can. His failures need to be ingrained in our memories, so we never repeat them.

[Bob Jentges]

The title of this thread is "Freedom of Speech", so some can go on and on and on (like a single Senator filibuster of the 50's era) about issues unrelated to what this topic is i.e. what President Obama actually said, and what some divine what he meant to say, about Citizens United at his State of the Union speech. But I prefer to get back on topic.

I happened to have CSPAN on in the background while occupied with other things today and heard a replay of President Obama's speech to the Democrats in Washington D.C. yesterday. I stopped what I was doing and listened carefully. He beirfly mentioned his concern over his perceived "loophole" for "special interests" in Citizens United. But I found it curious that he did not use the phrase "reversed a century of law" or the phrase "including foreign corporations"--- phrases he used in his State of the Union speech.

I have not read any articles comparing the difference yet and probably will not, because the overwhelming consensus of articles I have read (and one I wrote for a California website yesterday) about what he said in the State of the Union suggest he misspoke there. If you are interested, the most recent I saw in that regard can be found in NewsMax today---published subsequent our discussion and my website article yesterday.

I do not claim to know why he avoided using those phrases again---maybe it was an oversight---maybe he realized they were not correct. But it sure is fun to speculate!

If you heard the D.C. speech it would not surprise me if you said you heard him say those phrases again, or divined he meant to say them again.

P.S.---Against my better judgement I will drift off topic to address just a couple of off point remarks in your last post. First, nothing in my post #52 was or was intended as a "dry joke". Second, your repeatitive rambling about George W. Bush is so old. In a colossal mistake I voted for Jimmy Carter, but I got over it!

[Dan Conner]

The title of this thread is "Freedom of Speech", so some can go on and on and on (like a single Senator filibuster of the 50's era) about issues unrelated to what this topic is i.e. what President Obama actually said, and what some divine what he meant to say, about Citizens United at his State of the Union speech. But I prefer to get back on topic.

I happened to have CSPAN on in the background while occupied with other things today and heard a replay of President Obama's speech to the Democrats in Washington D.C. yesterday. I stopped what I was doing and listened carefully. He beirfly mentioned his concern over his perceived "loophole" for "special interests" in Citizens United. But I found it curious that he did not use the phrase "reversed a century of law" or the phrase "including foreign corporations"--- phrases he used in his State of the Union speech.

I have not read any articles comparing the difference yet and probably will not, because the overwhelming consensus of articles I have read (and one I wrote for a California website yesterday) about what he said in the State of the Union suggest he misspoke there. If you are interested, the most recent I saw in that regard can be found in NewsMax today---published subsequent our discussion and my website article yesterday.

I do not claim to know why he avoided using those phrases again---maybe it was an oversight---maybe he realized they were not correct. But it sure is fun to speculate!

If you heard the D.C. speech it would not surprise me if you said you heard him say those phrases again, or divined he meant to say them again.

P.S.---Against my better judgement I will drift off topic to address just a couple of off point remarks in your last post. First, nothing in my post #52 was or was intended as a "dry joke". Second, your repeatitive rambling about George W. Bush is so old. In a colossal mistake I voted for Jimmy Carter, but I got over it!Well, you further demonstrate your ineptness as a voter? Now you tell us all that you voted for Carter and Bush. While Carter may have been a mistake for you, it's nothing compared the the most colossal of all time...George W. Bush. Bob, with your record maybe you should stay home on election day. Believe me, doing so would be doing the most patriotic thing you have ever done.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, you further demonstrate your ineptness as a voter? Now you tell us all that you voted for Carter and Bush. While Carter may have been a mistake for you, it's nothing compared the the most colossal of all time...George W. Bush. Bob, with your record maybe you should stay home on election day. Believe me, doing so would be doing the most patriotic thing you have ever done.

I will not respond in kind to your above quote. Since you seem to be bankrupt of new arguements on the topic of President Obama's remarks in connection with Citizens United and it's effect on freedom speech, maybe you should consider forfitting your free speech rights in this thread until you have something on topic to offer, and move on to other threads!

[Dan Conner]

I will not respond in kind to your above quote. Since you seem to be bankrupt of new arguements on the topic of President Obama's remarks in connection with Citizens United and it's effect on freedom speech, maybe you should consider forfitting your free speech rights in this thread until you have something on topic to offer, and move on to other threads!I have given all the remarks on Obama's speech I care to. He was completely right and you are worng. And you are talking about bankrupt? Your only substantive discussion of his speech is whether it was 20 or 100 years (where you were wrong) and Wiklipedia's definition of foreign corporation. Bob, something tells me you really miss the message, or you don't want to hear the message. Your voting history might be an indication of that. At least you admitted you were wrong in your voting - by the way a far more grave mistake than the definition of foreign corporation. That explains why you miss getting the big ones right. You are consumed in all the chicks&*%$&. You must have a sense of humor, as weird as it is - asking one to surrender freedom of sppech? Come on Bob, I would have thought you would be running to teacher/editor, or Freep buddies, by now, to tattle and ask for assistance. It must be terrible to be selfish and abused at the same time. Go ahead, I understand. Hey, if you want, you can come cry in my pocket.

[Bob Jentges]

PATHETIC and inaccurate post, Dan!

[Dan Conner]

I thought this was a very interesting uTube presentation on campaign finance reform and what can be done:

http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/page/invite/chronicleIV?source=message&utm_source=message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100209

[Bob Jentges]

I watched the U Tube video.

The way I saw it, it confirmed that Citizens United dealt essentially with independent expenditures by domestic corporations which has basically been my position all along. I expect the video did not address contributions by foreign corporations or foreign nationals because the narrator understood they are prohibited from contributing by 2 U.S.C. 441, which was not taken-up in Citizens and is still the existing law.

I also heard the narrator say he did not recommend trying to overturn Citizens or opposing free speech by "anyone or anything".

The video promoted the Fair Elections Now Act. Because I agree there is too much money in elections, back in my 2/4/10 post #41 I suggested that if Congress wanted to change the law it should "introduce such legislation". Without having read the actual Act, which I was not aware of at the time of my post, that is apparrently what the Fair Elections Now Act would try to do. In that same post I said if Congress did that "I hope it would pass and be held Constitutional".

[Dan Conner]

I watched the U Tube video.

The way I saw it, it confirmed that Citizens United dealt essentially with independent expenditures by domestic corporations which has basically been my position all along. I expect the video did not address contributions by foreign corporations or foreign nationals because the narrator understood they are prohibited from contributing by 2 U.S.C. 441, which was not taken-up in Citizens and is still the existing law.

I also heard the narrator say he did not recommend trying to overturn Citizens or opposing free speech by "anyone or anything".

The video promoted the Fair Elections Now Act. Because I agree there is too much money in elections, back in my 2/4/10 post #41 I suggested that if Congress wanted to change the law it should "introduce such legislation". Without having read the actual Act, which I was not aware of at the time of my post, that is apparrently what the Fair Elections Now Act would try to do. In that same post I said if Congress did that "I hope it would pass and be held Constitutional".

Then I don't think you watched the video to completion. The uTude video even illustrated the corporations, like Halliburton and Exxon, plus others. Hardly foreign according to your interpretation.

Also, I guess Republicans are entitled to their free speech to, if if they are lies and hypocritical. Read this Washington Times (conservative paper) about Republicans how spoke against the stimulus, but have been applying all sorts of pressue to get millions of dollars of stimulus projects for their home states---a lot hypocritical.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/09/stimulus-foes-see-value-in-seeking-cash//print/

[Dan Conner]

Too bad that Bob considers allowing unlimited corporate money in our elections as "free speech." It's more like suppression of speech. If you think corporate spending will have anything to do with improving the lives of the people, I have some swamp land for you to buy.

[Bob Jentges]

With respect to post # 61, I did watch the video to a conclusion, twice yesterday, and yes I saw the illustrations of "Halliburon, Exxon, plus others". And yes, they are "Hardly foreign". They are domestic by definition. I also noticed the video did not show illustrations of SEIU, UAW. AFL-CIO and other similar organizations, which I thought strange at the time, and think even more strange now since I have found out the Senate co-sopnsers of the Fair Elections Now Act are Dick Durbin (D IL) and Arlen Specter (D PA). Next time you post something for view it might be a good idea to be as sure as possible it fully promotes what you are/were trying to sell---unless you have changed your mind and abandoned most of your arguement.

I do not respect any politician who says one thing for publication and then says does something different in practice. But you do not need to look far or hard to find some like that.

With respect to post #62, it really does not matter what I think, because according to the U.S. Supreme Court it's the law!

[Dan Conner]

With respect to post # 61, I did watch the video to a conclusion, twice yesterday, and yes I saw the illustrations of "Halliburon, Exxon, plus others". And yes, they are "Hardly foreign". They are domestic by definition. I also noticed the video did not show illustrations of SEIU, UAW. AFL-CIO and other similar organizations, which I thought strange at the time, and think even more strange now since I have found out the Senate co-sopnsers of the Fair Elections Now Act are Dick Durbin (D IL) and Arlen Specter (D PA). Next time you post something for view it might be a good idea to be as sure as possible it fully promotes what you are/were trying to sell---unless you have changed your mind and abandoned most of your arguement.

I do not respect any politician who says one thing for publication and then says does something different in practice. But you do not need to look far or hard to find some like that.

With respect to post #62, it really does not matter what I think, because according to the U.S. Supreme Court it's the law!Bob, you are laughable. Our unions are not foreign or domestic corporations. You really have it in for unions don't you. Unions are ALL about its people. That's the reason for their existence. Corporations are about their product, service, and profit - period. Unions and corporations are on a completely different level. The reason for unions are to see that people are not forgotten in the rush for profits.

Your expectations to hear about unions are irrelevant and immaterial to corporate money in politics. Maybe you want to propose separate legislatiojnh about unions? Meanwhile, that issue is about as relevant to this discussion as George Bush is. Bob, you are a very prejudiced and hateful man. You hate Obama, labor unions, people on welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., but you love assistance for large corporations. You usually deny this, but then you come back with that familia refrain, blasting all of the above. I've heard what you've said, but they don't match you long-term rhetoric.

The biggest illustration of hypocrisy is the Repbublican party at present. They say they want to work with Obama on reform, but they have said they want him to fail and they want the status-quo. Pretty hypocritical.

And guess what? All the other areas where the Supremem Court has ruled, throwing out your out-of-touch interpretations of the Constitution, is the law. So, it doesn't matter what you think there as well.

[Bob Jentges]

For the "umpteenth" time you read something into my post I did not say! But your doing that is not peculuar to what I write in my posts.

I never said unions were corporations! I listed some unions in a sentance and in the same sentence referred to "other similar organizations"!

The reason I brought up unions was because the video and you referred only to corporations and I wanted to point out that unions contribute to campaigns just like corporations do!

I will repeat myself for the "enth" time---I do not "hate Obama, labor unions, people on welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc"! Except for President Obama, whom I have never met, I have friends that fall into each of the other catagories you mentioned in your typical tirade.

I guess no matter how many times I use exclaimation marks after my sentences what I write still does not get through to you!

By the way, your final sentence does not make sense!!

[Dan Conner]

For the "umpteenth" time you read something into my post I did not say! But your doing that is not peculuar to what I write in my posts.

I never said unions were corporations! I listed some unions in a sentance and in the same sentence referred to "other similar organizations"!

The reason I brought up unions was because the video and you referred only to corporations and I wanted to point out that unions contribute to campaigns just like corporations do!

I will repeat myself for the "enth" time---I do not "hate Obama, labor unions, people on welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc"! Except for President Obama, whom I have never met, I have friends that fall into each of the other catagories you mentioned in your typical tirade.

I guess no matter how many times I use exclaimation marks after my sentences what I write still does not get through to you!

By the way, your final sentence does not make sense!!I am doing all I can to break out in laughter. You said, "With respect to post # 61, I did watch the video to a conclusion, twice yesterday, and yes I saw the illustrations of "Halliburon, Exxon, plus others". And yes, they are "Hardly foreign". They are domestic by definition. I also noticed the video did not show illustrations of SEIU, UAW. AFL-CIO and other similar organizations, which I thought strange at the time, and think even more strange now since I have found out the Senate co-sopnsers of the Fair Elections Now Act are Dick Durbin (D IL) and Arlen Specter (D PA). Next time you post something for view it might be a good idea to be as sure as possible it fully promotes what you are/were trying to sell---unless you have changed your mind and abandoned most of your arguement."

While discussing corporations, you can't resist bringing up unions. You wondered why the video never mentioned unions. Of course I realize that you said that only out of love for unions - ha-ha. You hate unions! It shows in so much of what you say. Your hypocrisy is not admitting it! You say you don't hate unions, but you find every opportunity to criticize, or bring them into a contentious argument. Bob, start leveling with me and others. You hate unions...period. You are like someone caught with their hand in the cookie jaw, but responds to the teacher, "What about Johnny? He had his hand in there too." Kind of juvenile.

What's the relevance of Durbin and Spector (former Republican)? Are you insinuating something? If not why did you bring them up? So they are co-sponsors? Someone usually co-sponsors bills making it to the floor. So, what's the point? If there is not point, then why do you bring it up? Are you recommending Durbin and Spector for awards?

What are you going to do in the global warming debate, wonder why unions were not mentioned as a cause? Come on Bob, grow up a little here. Your preoccupations with unions borders on paranoia. Really Bob, unions won't hurt you. Stop treating unions like the boogey man. It'll be all right. Don't be afraid.

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article about the Citizens United decision: "Why Citizens United Helps the Grassroots (and Scares Incumbents)"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/why_citizens_united_helps_the.html

I think this writer has a different take than what most have been concerned over. If he is proven correct maybe Citizens will end up taking some corporate money out of political campaigns, or at least limit strong-arm tactics by incumbents to contribute to their campaigns, or else.

[Dan Conner]

Interesting article about the Citizens United decision: "Why Citizens United Helps the Grassroots (and Scares Incumbents)"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/why_citizens_united_helps_the.html

I think this writer has a different take than what most have been concerned over. If he is proven correct maybe Citizens will end up taking some corporate money out of political campaigns, or at least limit strong-arm tactics by incumbents to contribute to their campaigns, or else.I find your perspective amusing. You come from a place where you think corporate money is "strong-armed" by politicians? There might have been a few cases, but I think you'll find that the vast preponderance of cases is that corporations are far more likely to "strong-arm" politicians. I don't know how many times I have heard that legislator's hands are tied because they have taken substantial corporate donations. Also, I have heard many many stories about corporations threatening to stop substantial campaign donations if the legislator doesn't "toe the line." I guess we are looking at the same glass and seeing the opposite, but I think the bulk of power falls to corporations. They "swamp" Washington with lobbyists, dwarf donations by all other parties, and frequently parlay their donations to some corporate advantage. Health insunac companies are but one example. Coal companies were another example 60 years ago. Thwarting auto-workers 70 years ago another example. I don't think corporations fear legislators at all. IN most cases, it's quite the reverse.

Too many legislators are looking for lots of campaign cash to stay in office, jobs in corporations if the should lose, and corporate favors ("perks") while in office. It is almost like a malignant addiction, and its called corruption.

[Bob Jentges]

I find your perspective amusing. You come from a place where you think corporate money is "strong-armed" by politicians? There might have been a few cases, but I think you'll find that the vast preponderance of cases is that corporations are far more likely to "strong-arm" politicians. I don't know how many times I have heard that legislator's hands are tied because they have taken substantial corporate donations. Also, I have heard many many stories about corporations threatening to stop substantial campaign donations if the legislator doesn't "toe the line." I guess we are looking at the same glass and seeing the opposite, but I think the bulk of power falls to corporations. They "swamp" Washington with lobbyists, dwarf donations by all other parties, and frequently parlay their donations to some corporate advantage. Health insunac companies are but one example. Coal companies were another example 60 years ago. Thwarting auto-workers 70 years ago another example. I don't think corporations fear legislators at all. IN most cases, it's quite the reverse.

Too many legislators are looking for lots of campaign cash to stay in office, jobs in corporations if the should lose, and corporate favors ("perks") while in office. It is almost like a malignant addiction, and its called corruption.

I have no idea why you what brought you to bring this up now, other than you noticed my 2/16/10 post was the last post in the thread and you could not resist your obsession to always have the last word.

But if you read my post #67 and/or read the link included therin you would have seen I said: "I think this writer has a different take than what most have been concerned over."

Since you obviously did not read the link, or if you did you didn't get it, I will quote a small portion of what the writer said. In discussing Justice Kennedy's majority opinion the author of the article said: "He then goes on to note how sometimes, the cooperation between big corporations and big government is voluntary, but at other times, 'it may be at the demand of a Government official who uses his or her authority, influence and power to threaten corporations to support the Government's policies'".

You can disagree with Justice Kennedy, but he said what he said, and it is evident to me his opinion has merit. Take for example the special treatment unions (who I do not hate per se) seem to be getting in the Democrat and Obama health care reform proposals, Stimulous Package, etc.

We could argue 'til the cows come home over who strong arms who the most but never agree, unless we might agree to agree we do not approve of either tactic.

[Dan Conner]

I have no idea why you what brought you to bring this up now, other than you noticed my 2/16/10 post was the last post in the thread and you could not resist your obsession to always have the last word.

But if you read my post #67 and/or read the link included therin you would have seen I said: "I think this writer has a different take than what most have been concerned over."

Since you obviously did not read the link, or if you did you didn't get it, I will quote a small portion of what the writer said. In discussing Justice Kennedy's majority opinion the author of the article said: "He then goes on to note how sometimes, the cooperation between big corporations and big government is voluntary, but at other times, 'it may be at the demand of a Government official who uses his or her authority, influence and power to threaten corporations to support the Government's policies'".

You can disagree with Justice Kennedy, but he said what he said, and it is evident to me his opinion has merit. Take for example the special treatment unions (who I do not hate per se) seem to be getting in the Democrat and Obama health care reform proposals, Stimulous Package, etc.

We could argue 'til the cows come home over who strong arms who the most but never agree, unless we might agree to agree we do not approve of either tactic.First, I could care what your link said. I was not commenting on the link, only your statement that politicians strong-arm corporations. I think you get my point that that is a bunch of BS. It is really the other way around. Politicians are subject to jail ffor strong-arming companies (mayor of Washington D.C. and Rep. Jefferson from Louisiana prod your memory?).

What brought up my comments was your post, isn't that what usually generates comments here. Bob, you worry about the silliest things...to me more signs of your paranoia?

I could care what the writer said. I was commenting on your statement that politicians "strong-arm" corporations. That statement is wrong. Then, you go on about Justice Kennedy? I could care. I didn't comment about him, only what you said. What is it with you Bob? You read a thousand things into what someone writes, except the obvious. It has to be paranoia.

Then, your hate for unions raises its ugly head all over again. You really have it in for unions. You obsess with them. Is that more paranoia? There is a significant difference between union donations to campaigns and that of corporations. One, unions stand for benefiting their members. They represent members (people). Corporations represent money and profits to the exclusion of employees. And it is people, who pay the union dues to represent them. Two, as far as lobbying Congress is concerend, a major point you miss is that unions want their members rights protected, but also corporate earnings. Corporations represent only their profits. Corporations have donated to campaigns since the beginning of time, why can't unions?

You illustrate your hate of unions again when you said they get all this favored treatment from Obama? Bob, you continue with your reactionary prejudices that have little to do with reality, but is mostly about paranoia. Pres. Obama just proposed to tax union "cadillac" health care plans to help finance his health care proposals. That ain't union favoritism to me. There was no comprehensive tax on corporations. Doesn't that show bias in favor of corporations? Do better research.

Why do you object to unions spending their money however they see fit? It is their money. They earned it. Why can't they spend it as they see fit? Where is your concern about corporations spending customer and stockholder money without consent? Why should customers and stockholders have to give money to finance those they disagree with? At least unions discuss with membership plans for campaign donations.

Also, I am so puzzled at how you walk along as a lemming, with Justice Kennedy, when he participated in one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever. Many people feel it was worse than Marbury vs Madison. Many Republicans objected to the stupid decision. Corporate free speech...what a stretch! Let's hear that corporation speak then. Somehow there's this carousel of CEO's making political campaign decisions as a matter of corporations free speech? They speak for themselves, not the corporations. Undoubtedly, Congress will undertake legislation to mitigate the SCOTUS decision.

Bob, you are too much of a sychophant to have your own opinion. If there is anything that is predictable, it is that you will agree with anything that supports your rationalization of law, society, etc., as is espoused by Glen Beck and company, early teachings, etc., but there isn't consistent reasoning used. You even agree with decisions that conflict with your basic philosophy, or other things you previously agreed to.

Bob, you aren't one to study an issue to formulate an opinion, you only look for writings to support your reactionary viewpoint. Much of that is rooted in paranoia. In not too many years, you (white man) will become a minority in our country, harboring all sorts of reactionary opinions that will make you incompatible. The sad thing is that your paranoia, hate, and intolerance will make it impossible for you to cope. What a shame.

You incessantly criticize the poor, unions, government, but make no effort to improve anything. You only complain. It's more of that "I've got mine and to hell with anyone else". If selfishness was a virtue, you would be a world class hero. You construe Justice Kennedy's statement that something "may be" the case to mean fact, in a mind looking for rationalizations. Bob, you miss the point. You totally missed my point, you certainly miss the union and corporate points, and you decidedly miss Justice Kennedy's point. However, you continue to sort the world according to your paranoia and hate. It sure has had a adverse affect on your comprehension of the written word.

Your response missed the entire point, then rambled on into issues never broached by, or considerd by me. Then, your ramblings opened new issues with poorly researched and presented point of view.

[Bob Jentges]

You do not care what the link said. You do not care what Justice Kennedy said. You say he participated in one of the "worst Supreme Court decesions ever", which is almost identical to what you said about Chief Justice John Marshall in an earlier thread today on a different case.

You complain about what you consider my "poor research" even when I cite Supreme Court Justices precedent law opinions to support my arguement. Allow me to let you in on a secret. Research is essentially worthless unless you have the ability to analyze the research and apply it to the issue at hand. Conducting the research is generally the easiest part of the equation. Analyzing and applying is more of a challange, and from what I have seen in this Forum you are seriously lacking in those areas.

But I will agree with one thing you said, pharaphrazing: I do look for things that support my opinions. Try it sometime "Mickey" you might feel better about your pontifications.

As for the 100's of other words in your post, I have heard those song's before and to respond would only contribute to the repitition.

[Dan Conner]

You do not care what the link said. You do not care what Justice Kennedy said. You say he participated in one of the "worst Supreme Court decesions ever", which is almost identical to what you said about Chief Justice John Marshall in an earlier thread today on a different case.

You complain about what you consider my "poor research" even when I cite Supreme Court Justices precedent law opinions to support my arguement. Allow me to let you in on a secret. Research is essentially worthless unless you have the ability to analyze the research and apply it to the issue at hand. Conducting the research is generally the easiest part of the equation. Analyzing and applying is more of a challange, and from what I have seen in this Forum you are seriously lacking in those areas.

But I will agree with one thing you said, pharaphrazing: I do look for things that support my opinions. Try it sometime "Mickey" you might feel better about your pontifications.

As for the 100's of other words in your post, I have heard those song's before and to respond would only contribute to the repitition.I agree with you Bob. When one supplants the the Articles of Confederation and the process constructing the Constitution, relying solely on the Federalist Papers, selling the Constitution to NY, you search the insignificant for the superficial. Besides, it is only speculation about who wrote what in the Federalist Papers, since they were signed "Publius."

There is no doubt the Supreme Court is now composed of a majority of reactionary corporatists. I'm sure you like that, since you have such and endearment to corporations. If you recall, the SCOTUS decision was 5-4. The most revealing comment was what the minority wrote about the decision. As many scholars have reported, it was one of the most excoriating opinions in the history of the court, criticizing the majority opinion. It was not just a disagreement. The minority said the majority was wrong...dead wrong.

As far as researching is concerned, we can all fault each other for analysis, but first one has to make an attempt to analyze. You have never even attempted to do that. You look for some "dittohead" quotable, generally out of context, and pretend that is some enlightenment for your readers.

[Bob Jentges]

first one has to make an attempt to analyze. You have never even attempted to do that.

Astounding comment!

Makes me wonder if you simply have difficulty reading and comprehending, or if you might be out of touch with reality.

[Dan Conner]

Astounding comment!

Makes me wonder if you simply have difficulty reading and comprehending, or if you might be out of touch with reality.Good retort...tsk,tsk

[Bob Jentges]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0050.cfm

The above link is to a February 17, 2010 article titled Citizens United and the Restoration of the First Amendment. Note the word Research in the link.

The article seems to read similar to posts, but in much greater depth and with much more authority, that a Forum member was making in this thread in late January 2010, quite sometime before the above article was published.

Although I would recomend reading the entire article, in summary Citizens United did not overturn existing law preventing corporations and unions from making direct contributions to political campaigns and preventing contributions to political campaigns by foreign entities, etc. It did overturn the federal ban on independent political advocacy by corporations and unions.

[Dan Conner]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0050.cfm

The above link is to a February 17, 2010 article titled Citizens United and the Restoration of the First Amendment. Note the word Research in the link.

The article seems to read similar to posts, but in much greater depth and with much more authority, that a Forum member was making in this thread in late January 2010, quite sometime before the above article was published.

Although I would recomend reading the entire article, in summary Citizens United did not overturn existing law preventing corporations and unions from making direct contributions to political campaigns and preventing contributions to political campaigns by foreign entities, etc. It did overturn the federal ban on independent political advocacy by corporations and unions.Great job Bob. You now have progressed to the next level of research by being able to find the word. I bet you are able to find even more words. You are so good finding words. I'll bet you used all those analytical skills of yours finding it. By the way, did you read the minority decision? I'll read this, when you read that. I noticed you picked such an objective source like the Heritage Foundation? They're about as far right as you can get. More of your right wing pap?

P.S. Bob. That's what the objections to the poor SCOTUS decision is all about--corporate political advocacy, using millions upon million of dollars.