Company A starts up a subsidiary, which starts a subsidiary “Co B”, which starts a subsidiary “WorkAtHome.com”, which then buys ads backing a politician.
The ads say “Brought to you by WorkAtHome.com”.
Makes it hard for joe public to connect the dots when 6 months later Company A gets a big no-bid government contract.
Now last time I checked, a corporation is made up of stockholders and employees, all of whom get a vote if they are an American citizen, and all of whom can chip in money to support a politician…but that was not enough. Now a corporation can spend all its money to get the right judges elected so that someday corporations can be allowed to marry, just like hetrosexuals. Divorce lawyers are already smiling over the idea.
Uh, the Court ruled that corporations can run ads whenever they want and as often as they want. That's it. They still can't give more than the allotted amount of money in donations to a campaign. Besides, you don't think cover organizations weren't already currently being used to funnel money to political campaigns?
How long was Obama taking completely anonymous online 'credit card' donations? Oh, this is ok but if a corporation actually exercises it's right to SPEEK then democracy is in shambles?Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 28.01.2010 @ 08:05
How about we apply the old interpretation to news media? I mean, a corporation pays for Keith Olberman to speak right? All news is provided for by corporations. That's corporate speech - the corporation is even paying for the speech. So, news papers and news broadcasts need to conform to the same rules as other corporations do...how does that sound? Technically you don't need to belong to or be employed by a corporation to be a journalist - so lets try this out the liberal way but apply it fairly and equally and no one cashing their dirty filthy corporate pay checks can comment on politics under the rules of the old interpretation.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 25.01.2010 @ 10:15
So, let me summarize the liberal position on this issue:
(1) Voters are idiots. If they see an ad (which also declares who paid for it) they will believe it.
(2) Given point (1), voters must be sheltered from speech by groups liberals deem to be nefarious or corrupt - therefor free speech is only 'given' to those liberals feel are worthy of it.
Someone should let Microsoft in on this too - making the Zune more popular than the iPod is apparently only a matter of purchasing enough advertising.
Do you liberals realize that in the court brought before the Supreme Court that the lawyer defending the status quo admitted that the status quo could be used to ban books if that book had a political point of view and was paid for by a corporation?
Liberals and the liberal perspective dominate media and news corporations - I find it amusing that now that corporations can now actually defend themselves in the court of public opinion against a government (which regulates them) and news media that stoke populist rage against them we've somehow seen the death of democracy.
All the advertisements that can be bought up by corporations will still not even come close to surmounting the air time of liberal views that are the day-in-day-out fare of most news and media programs.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 25.01.2010 @ 10:07
Why is the sky blue?
I know there’s an explanation but not exactly sure what it is. The real question is why some many conservatives are in lve with someone so stupid.
“Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?”
~ Old Ben Kenobe
So in other words you don't know why she's stupid - she just is.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 4.12.2009 @ 18:01
Pat Doherty Said:
The constant drumbeat about the great unwashed and their illiberal litmus tests, while simultaneously calling for the excision of anyone who says something slightly disagreeable.
Sorry. I am not the one calling for purges. Marginalize the haters and ideologues - yes. Reduce their influence - yes.
Now - if you go to PJM and see how many people are saying that I should be drummed out of service for saying mean but true stuff about Palin, maybe you should be talking to them about purges, not me.
ed.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 4.12.2009 @ 17:13
Serious question for you Palin haters out there - would you mind enumerating why she is stupid?
I don't have an issue with the conservatives who think very poorly of Palin (like Rick) so I don't really see liking Palin as a litmus test for conservative bona fides but I am genuinely interested in why, specifically those who hate her do so.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 4.12.2009 @ 17:06
michael reynolds Said:
You’re kidding, right?
We’re not talking about slips of the tongue. Do you actually believe Obama doesn’t know how many states there are? You think he got through Harvard without knowing the number of states? Don’t base your argument on ridiculous comparisons. No one thinks Obama is either stupid or thoughtless. You may not like his policies, you may think he’s wrong, but it takes a complete idiot to think Obama is stupid.
By contrast, pretty much everyone has figured out that Palin is a ninny. People on the left, people on the right, people in the middle. Everyone from Charles Krauthammer and George Will and Rick Moran and Christopher Hitchens (I could go on all day) to absolutely everyone from center right to far left.
In fact, if you want a quick and easy Idiot Identifier just add the people who think Obama is stupid to the people who think Palin is smart. If you fall within that circle it’s a pretty sure bet you’re an idiot.
Which is not to say that any number of people outside the circle aren’t also idiots. (In fact, you could add the number of people who admire Cindy Sheehan and the number of people who think the CIA blew up the twin towers and get the same ambient IQ.)
I’m just saying if aliens show up and demand a meal of complete cretins unadulterated by any indigestible shreds of intelligence, we can safely feed them Palin fans without concern for the aliens’ digestion.
Oooh, Obama went to Harvard!!!! He's still incompetent as President.
Is Palin smart? I don't think she's as stupid as her detractors think she is and I'm not convinced by her supporters that she's competent to be President. The larger point is that people are much more willing to give Obama a pass on being 'smart' than they are Palin.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 4.12.2009 @ 17:03
michael reynolds Said:
Palin generally says whatever pops into her little head. Someone — I can’t recall who — pointed out that she never sees beyond the next ten minutes. She makes George W. Bush look like Solomon. And people who think she’s the next Reagan? I was never a Reagan worshipper but Palin isn’t the equal of his big toe.
You mean like stating there are 57 states or that the cops in Cambridge acted stupidly or bowing embarrassingly to foreign dignitaries or giving one our nations staunchest allies (Britain) an insulting gift and giving them the traditional reception their dignitaries deserve?
I think what Palin said was stupid but if it makes her incompetent then by what standard can you claim Obama is competent?Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 4.12.2009 @ 13:26
The existing “law” for doctors is the law of the free market. They make money from performing procedures. So what exactly would motivate a surgeon to say, “Look, you don’t need or want this surgery, all it would do is drag out your miserable existence for another six weeks.”
Why would a surgeon say that to a patient? Altruism? Are you a big believer in altruism? Because I have to tell you that the predicate of a free market is individuals acting in their own interests. It is very much in the surgeon’s interest to perform surgery. And there is really zero doubt that health care in this country is about ass-deep in unnecessary but very profitable procedures.
Unless you propose eliminating Medicare the vast majority of these pointless but very profitable procedures are going to be paid for by the taxpayer. So don’t you think it’s a good idea for the persons paying — the government, meaning us — to have some say in how many pointless procedures a doctor performs? Or is your wallet just an open trough at which any doctor may feed?
It looks like we've wandered back into the "doctors are foot-rustlers and tonsil-diggers" territory. The problem I have with the heart of your position is that it seriously distrusts doctors to act in the best interests of their patients in favor of their pocket book while we can trust politicians and bureaucrats to do the right thing. The argument of "we're paying for it so we should have the ultimate say in it" paves the road to a massive erosion of personal liberties - particularly when liberals want to move us to a system where the government pays for everyone and for 'every thing'. You're comfortable attributing altruistic virtue in bureaucrats and politicians (if I'm not misreading you it seems because you think they accurately represent you) and I'm more comfortable attributing altruistic virtue to doctors. Also, I don't see how getting Medicare to demand these sorts of meetings with doctors solves the problem in your mind - if these doctors are so sinister that they are going to give their patients bad medical advice then how does forcing them to give this bad advice fix anything?Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 25.11.2009 @ 08:21
The “involvement” of government was that Medicare would pay for the doctor’s visit - once every few years. That’s it. Period. No instructions to the doctor to tell them how to advise their own patients. No death panels. It was pure fear mongering and a bogus, fallacious slippery slope argument.
Medicare doesn't already pay for a doctors visit for any reason? A doctor can't spend 10 minutes talking to a patient during a yearly exam?
It concerns me when a bill has to micro-manage things at this level.Comment Posted By Bald Ninja On 24.11.2009 @ 10:44