Thread: The Great 'I told you so" Thread

Rubicon is right! The Constitution clearly says that elections are best paid for by anonymous donations laundered through Karl Rove then dispersed under the banner of some nobly named campaign whorehouse.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I remember this "argument". Not to speak for Dex but the problem for me wasn't that you were able to produce a CBO memo or letter...it was that you intentionally disregarded the updated analysis from the CBO and only made reference to the old data analysis in order to make your point.

I didn't disregard anything. It wasn't necessary to address the subject because Obama Nate already did it. I quoted him above, but if it's too much trouble to find it, here it is again:

Originally Posted by Obama Nate

I posted two official reports published by the CBO to refute the idiotic assertions of your disciples of stupidity in this thread that the initial compilation of data with a detailed, projected discretionary outlays for the next ten years was innacurate insofar as the assertion made in the Bloomberg article was concerned. Guess what? When the "report" became official a week later, the premise of the article was backed by the report. The legislation passed, and the CBO released another report some time later, and that report still supported this big lie you speak of.



So exactly what was the lie?

Originally Posted by archer

Rubicon is right! The Constitution clearly says that elections are best paid for by anonymous donations laundered through Karl Rove then dispersed under the banner of some nobly named campaign whorehouse.

I guess we could go back to the old way inwhich labor unions extort money from their members to spend exclusively on liberal candidates which greatly skews elections to the left with no counter balance.

You are about to find out what Americans really want once there is an even playing field.

Liberalism can not survive in an election process that is not predominantly paid for by union thugs and government vote buying.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Correct, but a coproration is not a "person"...thus they are not entitled civil rights afforded to "people" via the constitution...the dissent is pretty clear on this...and I agree with the dissent.





Do you really think a corporation is a "person"? Furthermore, do you want corporations to be able to contribute whatever amount of money they like to a candidate/politician? For me it's a no brainer that this leads to corruption on both sides. The activism of the SCOTUS came from them addressing an issue that was not brought up in the Citizens United case.



Nice try. That doesn't mean that corporations are people.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Um, Rube, they already had personhood before becoming part of the corporation. The corporation isn't a single person, it's a business. It has tools at it's disposal because of that corporate status, money, money and money that individual vitiate often do not.

A corporation cannot vote (yet) it can only contribute to those who it chooses to support. I always thought it was one man one vote not one corporation one bought politician.

So both of you guys believe that by exercising the right to freely associate, people give up their right to collective free speech?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

I guess we could go back to the old way inwhich labor unions extort money from their members to spend exclusively on liberal candidates which greatly skews elections to the left with no counter balance.

You are about to find out what Americans really want once there is an even playing field.

Liberalism can not survive in an election process that is not predominantly paid for by union thugs and government vote buying.

I don't know what post old pot of glue that still thinks it’s a horse believes he responded to but it's becoming apparent that "Fell in the shower" is rapidly becoming Downbound Train’s Man-O-War of the how-he-dies horse race.

DBT = glue eater

Originally Posted by Rubicon

So both of you guys believe that by exercising the right to freely associate, people give up their right to collective free speech?

No not at all, but a corporation is not a collective created for the purpose of assembling to exercise free speech. It's a company whose purpose it to create profit (traditionally). By the same token, unions using their memberships to create campaign funds for politicians isn't much different in intent than a corporation being classified as an individual.

Corporations by their access to large sums are artificially given more rights than an individual.

One man one vote is the premise of representative republicanism.

Originally Posted by OSECS

No not at all, but a corporation is not a collective created for the purpose of assembling to exercise free speech. It's a company whose purpose it to create profit (traditionally). By the same token, unions using their memberships to create campaign funds for politicians isn't much different in intent than a corporation being classified as an individual.

Corporations by their access to large sums are artificially given more rights than an individual.

One man one vote is the premise of representative republicanism.

Agreed..

Originally Posted by OSECS

No not at all, but a corporation is not a collective created for the purpose of assembling to exercise free speech. It's a company whose purpose it to create profit (traditionally). By the same token, unions using their memberships to create campaign funds for politicians isn't much different in intent than a corporation being classified as an individual.

I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing something, or maybe creating a hurdle that isn't there. We don't have to state an intent in preparation in order to exercise a right.

As individuals we do not have to state that a portion of our working day is devoted to earning money for political purposes in order to exercise our free speech right with our money. As individuals we posses the right to free speech and money spent on political messages is considered an exercise of that right, regardless of our intent when we acquired the money.

On a related note:

By no precedent that I know of does exercising one of our rights, the right to freely associate, negate another of our rights, the right to free speech. If what you say were true then somewhere along the way, while exercising our right to free association, we would forfeit our right to free speech.

Where do you believe that point is, and by what justification does a person(or collection of people) lose that right to free speech? Do people only have a right to free speech if they are disorganized, but once they band together, if they are too well organized, they lose a portion of their rights?

That seems to be the argument you are making since you cite the corporations superior access to money compared to the individual as a reason that collection of people should no longer be able to exercise their right to free speech.

Corporations by their access to large sums are artificially given more rights than an individual.

Not at all, not any more than someone with a booming voice had more rights than someone with a frail voice did when the constitution was written.

If what you say were true, would that not mean that an editor at the New York Times has more rights than you or I do? His speech may be heard more loudly and by a broader audience but that does not equate to more rights, nor does it mean that you or I have fewer rights.

One man one vote is the premise of representative republicanism.

It is, and all the money in the world won't change that. Speech is not votes. Each person enters the ballot box by themselves and votes one time, regardless of how much speech they have been exposed to, or by whom, before they get to the polling place.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Agreed..

Reason enough to rethink your stance Osecs.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I If what you say were true, would that not mean that an editor at the New York Times has more rights than you or I do? His speech may be heard more loudly and by a broader audience but that does not equate to more rights, nor does it mean that you or I have fewer rights.

When the louder speech is liberal, no complaints. The Teacher has a bully pulpit to have greater influence than the average person. The College Professor, The Journalist, The Union Boss, the Hollywood star / writer / director / producer.

The Christian Preacher.....the biggest enemy of the left still standing......Undermined at all cost by all of the above.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Reason enough to rethink your stance Osecs.

[Chuckle chuckle] Hey, sometimes he gets it right, this is one of those times (no offense intended AA).

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I didn't disregard anything. It wasn't necessary to address the subject because Obama Nate already did it. I quoted him above, but if it's too much trouble to find it, here it is again:

Obama Nate, possibly one of your old alai, adressed nothing. The numbers referred to in the Bloomberg article were not from an official CBO report as you claimed...they were preliminary numbers created by the CBO to help formulate the program, these numbers where dated and based on assumptions that changed as the program changed...as a result the final CBO report told a different story. You refused to admit this and we're still talking about it to this day as a result.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Dumbass








All the links are intact so you can go back and read it for yourself. Have fun...again.

Yeah, you were wrong then, and I doubt that's changed. But setting aside the false claims of a CBO report (made before the report ever appeared), which you tried to escape on semantic grounds, can you respond to a single other one? Without relying on your typical semantic/moving the goalpost argument?

Didn't think so. So continue dodging...

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

The Christian Preacher.....the biggest enemy of the left still standing......Undermined at all cost by all of the above.

Thomas Jefferson had a total boner for Theocracy. Unfortunately, it turns out Theocracy was his nickname for Sally Hemmings.

Originally Posted by OSECS

[Chuckle chuckle] Hey, sometimes he gets it right, this is one of those times (no offense intended AA).

None taken sir.

Rubi, that was one crazy argument to get to coprorate personhood...and one that I disagree with.

I don't agree that working for a corporation necessarily = freely associating with one another. So your argument for corporate personhood doesn't work IMO. For example, liberal people working at Faux News may not agree with all the political angling that the Newscorp engages in. Yet they have no choice, other than to quit their job, than to go along with the efforts by the Newscorp to influence politics in the US. The same thing could be said of unions, expecially those in industries where it is mandatory to join the union.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

For example, liberal people working at Faux News may not agree with all the political angling that the Newscorp engages in. Yet they have no choice, other than to quit their job, than to go along with the efforts by the Newscorp to influence politics in the US. The same thing could be said of unions, expecially those in industries where it is mandatory to join the union.

Heh heh, see there's your problem. Your example is flawed. Everyone knows all the liberal folk work for NBC, ABC, CBS and the NY Times. : )

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

None taken sir.

Rubi, that was one crazy argument to get to coprorate personhood...and one that I disagree with.

I don't agree that working for a corporation necessarily = freely associating with one another. So your argument for corporate personhood doesn't work IMO. For example, liberal people working at Faux News may not agree with all the political angling that the Newscorp engages in. Yet they have no choice, other than to quit their job, than to go along with the efforts by the Newscorp to influence politics in the US. The same thing could be said of unions, expecially those in industries where it is mandatory to join the union.

Adolf, your example has absolutely nothing to do with rights.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Obama Nate, possibly one of your old alai, adressed nothing. The numbers referred to in the Bloomberg article were not from an official CBO report as you claimed...they were preliminary numbers created by the CBO to help formulate the program, these numbers where dated and based on assumptions that changed as the program changed...as a result the final CBO report told a different story. You refused to admit this and we're still talking about it to this day as a result.

No, you and Dexter are talking about it. I'm done. Neither of you seem to have the inclination or the ability to understand the issue, so the discussion is over.


I have not posted under an alias in 4+ years.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Adolf, your example has absolutely nothing to do with rights.

Sure it does. You're talking about someone's employment for a corporation = freely associating with others in that corporation and thus why a corporation should be afforded the same rights as a person. Working for a corporation does not = freely associating with others. Thus your lengthly discussion of the topic is baseless and has nothing to do with "rights'.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No, you and Dexter are talking about it. I'm done. Neither of you seem to have the inclination or the ability to understand the issue, so the discussion is over.


I have not posted under an alias in 4+ years.

Agreed, you were wrong then and you're wrong now. You've already admitted as much in this thread so I'm not sure why it came back up. Moving on.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

OK, lets stipulate that it didn't exist...

Originally Posted by The Dumbest Person in America

When the louder speech is liberal, no complaints. The Teacher has a bully pulpit to have greater influence than the average person. The College Professor, The Journalist, The Union Boss, the Hollywood star / writer / director / producer.

The Christian Preacher.....the biggest enemy of the left still standing......Undermined at all cost by all of the above.

The Teacher -- pays taxes
The College Professor -- pays taxes
The Journalist -- pays taxes
The Union Boss -- pays taxes
The Hollywood star -- pays taxes

The Christian Preacher -- does NOT pay taxes


Let that Christian Preacher start paying taxes and he can get involved in politics.

Originally Posted by Harry

The Teacher -- pays taxes
The College Professor -- pays taxes
The Journalist -- pays taxes
The Union Boss -- pays taxes
The Hollywood star -- pays taxes

The Christian Preacher -- does NOT pay taxes


Let that Christian Preacher start paying taxes and he can get involved in politics.

Tell it to Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.

Libs don't want to shut Christians up for being involved in politics. They want to shut them up because Christian morality is incompatible with liberalism, socialism and communism.

Originally Posted by archer

Rubicon is right! The Constitution clearly says that elections are best paid for by anonymous donations laundered through Karl Rove then dispersed under the banner of some nobly named campaign whorehouse.

kind of like Obama's accepting untraceable credit card donations on his website. now instead of corporations buying the vote, he's opened it up (again) to non-americans.

DUBIOUS DONATIONS (GANGSTER GOVERNMENT EDITION)

We have published a series of posts on Obama’s “dubious donations” — i.e., the Obama campaign’s invitation of fraudulent and illegal giving through the disabling of basic credit card/debit card verification devices. I wrote about the Obama campaign fundraising operation in the October 2008 New York Post column “Dubious donations.” The Post subhead observed: “Bam’s Web site invites fraud.”

The Washington Post reported on the matter two days later in the story “Obama accepting untraceable donations,” by Matthew Mosk. Mosk quoted Obama campaign officials on their practices. According to them, everything was copacetic.

It having worked so well the first time around, and it having aroused so little interest among the mainstream media, Obama is doing it again. So we have reported in the series of posts beginning with “Dubious donations (2012 edition).” There is a story here, but you’d never know it if you get your news from the mainstream media.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...nt-edition.php

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

I guess we could go back to the old way inwhich labor unions extort money from their members to spend exclusively on liberal candidates which greatly skews elections to the left with no counter balance.

You are about to find out what Americans really want once there is an even playing field.

Liberalism can not survive in an election process that is not predominantly paid for by union thugs and government vote buying.

We have come along way from time when The Kennedys were going after the Mob controlled Unions. Now the Mafia has gone so legit that they just buy politicians to steal directly from everyone (Legally)