Comments Posted By the Dragon
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 58 Comments
WHAT'S ALL THE HUB-BUB ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE?
JerryS,
I guess Valero with @21,000 employees and @5,800 business locations is a Foreign Corporation. Doing business in 44 states, I can see how there few local issues that might matter.
IF the $500 mil number is supposed to scare me, IF disclosed, not much. How much hay can be made by making an issue can be made of Valero trying to buy an election.
One other thing is, and I don't know the actual wording of the statute, is it only Corporations as opposed to LLC's, LLP's, and Partnerships. The 527 entities are Corporations, which also have exemptions to the Campaign finance rules.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 13:01
JerryS,
Disclosure. The disclosure requirements were not changed.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 12:33
Michael Reynolds said:"Dragon: the 1st amendment guarantees a free press. A free press is not paid political advertising. And the right to a free press does not rest on recognition of corporate personhood — it predates the ludicrous notion of corporate personhood."
Here is the ACTUAL VERBATIM text of add-on #1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."After dealing with Religion, the next is dealing with Free Speech, then the press. Please show me where there is a SUPERIOR position in Rights of the Press v. Freedom of Speech.
A Corporation is Legal business structure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Michael Reynolds also said:" The NYT does not buy attack ads, it runs a newspaper."
So what? I will deal with the Washington Post, which is similar to the NY Times in both corporate structure AND it runs a newspaper. The Washington Post (a rag that has come into my house for 30+ years)does not buy attack ads, they, when in their editorial judgement it is appropriate, they are an attack ad. The Washington Post single handedly got Sen. Jim Webb elected. He won over Sen. George Allen by @7,200 votes. After the Washington Post electioneered for several months over the "macacca" comment (almost if not daily, probably close to 100 articles on the subject). They tried similar this fall against Bob McDonnell over the thesis issue) I am sure you see that as news coverage (how convenient).Unlike your position, I am for MORE free speech rather than quashing free speech I do not like. I do reject limiting the free speech of some to the benefit of others.
Bottom line, IF it is the Corporation that is offensive, then ALL Corporations are offensive.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 11:30
Really quite simple. This ruling treats "ALL" Corporations equally. IF this ruling is in error as some suggest, than the alternative is to ELIMINATE the exception for "Media" Corporations. Since IF the "Corporate" structure is the issue, IF a "Corporation" DOES NOT have Free Speech rights, IT CANNOT have Free Press rights.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 24.01.2010 @ 09:03
IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND: MORE EYOREISM ON BROWN
Rick,
Very interesting.
You take some blog post's as a reason to continue to trash Cool Conservatives on Radio & TV.
Please list for me ONE issue that Scott Brown discussed in his victory speech that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin would disagree with?
On the other hand, I presume you consider Scott Brown a failure, because he is an economic moron. He in FULL THROAT near the end of his speech gave his economic cure as lower Taxes on individuals and business, to get the economy going. When Sarah Palin said that, She was a "economic moron". (Yes that was not your precise word, yet it was your precise meaning..end of Oct/early Nov time frame).
Maybe instead of poking a stick in a dogs eye and crying when you get bit, you might think a bit. For most on the right, there is a core set of beliefs which bring us together, particularly when things are bad. It's the side issues which only gain traction when economics are good.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 20.01.2010 @ 20:41
Joe said:"Obama wouldn’t hesitate too use the full force of our military to defend our interests."
Best laugh I've had today.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 9.12.2009 @ 19:15
Rick,
Excellent post.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 9.12.2009 @ 15:27
PALIN MAINSTREAMS THE BIRTHERS
busboy,
Maybe it was the US magazine thing, I think there is a more likely, politically incorrect answer she avoided giving.
"Katie, I LOVE fiction, I read the Washington Post, The NY Times and the LA Times" ;-)
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 7.12.2009 @ 12:11
busboy asked:"Let me turn the implicit question (you can’t prove she’s stupid) around — what does she say that implies she’s intelligent?"
Herein lies the rub. HOW do YOU define intelligent? Is it an IQ score?
This sort of harkens back to our discussion on Krugman. Did Krugman win his Nobel Economics Prize because he went to MIT? I doubt it, he won because the Committee considered that his Theory groundbreaking in some way. Did his degree at MIT alone earn him the Nobel, unlikely, yet I'm sure it a was helpful foundation, BUT what he did with/after the degree was what seemed to merit the Award.
I'm not answering directly, because the only one's who ever bring "intelligence" in reference to Sarah Palin are those wishing/attempting to diminish her. There is not this chorus of Palin supporters saying I support Sarah because she's so smart. It's a given.
If you want her IQ, I don't know.
I'll ascribe how Palin has gotten to where she is as to proof of intelligence. IF she had been the next in line in some machine in some major city, then empty suits can go far. To run an get elected at several levels, particularly as an outsider for Governor I would guess could just be luck, getting major ethics reforms and gas pipeline and reworking oil leases could also be luck, both in picking those issues AND picking the people to get them done, or maybe it was getting ALL the opponents drunk, if that's what you wish.
Bottom line, the question is inane.
IF you want to use a different question regarding specific abilities like can she proceed directly to the blackboard and write out the mathematical equation's for the 5 insoluable problems of the string theory before the 11th dimension was added, I am betting she can't do that.
A better question from your perspective might be questions regarding her judgement. Depending on how you posit the question, the answer(s) are far more varied.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 5.12.2009 @ 19:23
busboy,
First, the "She's like us" is not limited to the education thing, it was just an easy personal example.
Second, I did not say that the Couric interview was good, neither has Sarah Palin. You have stated categorically that Couric did not pick and choose from from 9 hours to get 13 minutes (that's roughly 3.5% of the total tape). Have you seen ALL 9 odd hours?
To your Obama example, IF all that was shown was the 2nd question which was horrible, does that mean he is stupid? OR did he just give a bad answer to a question?
Third, regarding Charlie Gibson, OK interview. I do remember seeing a series of 3/4/5 questions of the "Bush" Doctrine sequence, which context made the 1 answer chosen/shown sensible/reasonable.
Fourth, as to "Leader of the Free World", one thing you can be sure, Sarah Palin WILL NOT be apologizing for the US to every tinpot dictator in the world.
Finally, as I mentioned to Michael. ALL this focus on Sarah Palin and could/can she, would/will she, should she in 2012 is idiotic at this time. 2010 is what should be the current focus.
Regards,
Comment Posted By the Dragon On 5.12.2009 @ 15:34
