I think it should be illegal for any LLC to contribute to political campaigns
It's still illegal for LLC's to contribute to political campaigns. The SCOTUS ruling didn't change that. If you were told otherwise then you were misinformed. All it did was free up LLC's to spend their own money directly. They can now legally produce mailings/TV advertisments/Youtube clips/etc to participate in the political process.
Only people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression
I think it should be illegal for any LLC to... try to bribe our elected officials by helping them get elected. That includes non-profits like the NRA, EFF, ACLU.
Can you honestly not see the inherent incompatibility in those two statements? First you claim that people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression. Then you claim that we need to muzzle the organizations that people setup to exercise their free speech and expression.
When CEO's get the call asking for a donation, don't you think that CEO gets their concerns heard and addressed?
What makes you think CEO's are the only ones getting calls? Politicians call anyone they think can donate a sizable chunk of money. If you can afford to donate the maximum (currently $2,400) then you stand a good chance of being able to talk to the candidate. The last time I checked $2,400 wasn't a particularly large sum of money and as well within the reach of many professionals whom aren't CEOs. Again though, why are we talking about this? This ruling did not change the law as regards to donations to political campaigns. It remains illegal for LLCs to donate money to campaigns. It remains illegal for LLCs to coordinate their activities with campaigns.
The voter is now nearly powerless, and even more so if LLC's are permitted to influence political campaigns without restrictions or limits.
What you are really saying here is that voters are too stupid to make informed decisions on their own and need to be protected from the evils of limitless speech.
Yeah, I'm aware (I'm actually a network administrator) but I am a bit lucky in that I live in a very rural area so there is essentially zero chance of anyone even being in range. In a few mile radius, I have a total of 4 neighbors (all older people, no kids). Security through desolation.
Give me a high-gain antenna and a topographical map of your "very rural area" and I bet I can connect to your wireless network from some location far enough away that you'd never know I was there.....
If the need is there, the EU (and lets not forget other European countries) will be able to perform their own actions anywhere in the world.
No they couldn't. Real life does not operate like Civ2. The EU does not have the logistical wherewithal or the power projection platforms required to carry out large scale military operations outside of it's borders. They certainly have the economic base and technological know-how to acquire those capabilities but currently lack the political will to do so.
Don't take my word for it though. Study the Falklands War. One or two more Exocet missiles and the British task force would have limped home in defeat. As it was they didn't even have the logistical means to get their ships down there without support from the United States. Contrast that to the capabilities of the United States at that time.
By the way, the US gets half of it's oil from OPEC countries and the Gulf.
Factually incorrect in the context of the Gulf. The reference to OPEC is irreverent in a discussion about the political stability of the Middle East. You think that Venezuela and Angola (just to name two examples) are going to stop exporting oil if the Saudis and Iranians come to blows? Not terribly likely.
No, you are applying a double standard. You rationalize Chinese interventions but refuse to do the same for American ones. That's called hypocrisy and makes it rather hard to take you seriously.
And if the people wanted to remain an independent nation they had their chance when statehood was put on the ballot. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to vote yes.
BTW, Hawaii consists of many islands, it's not "the island"
Texas was 'invaded' by settlers who then instigated the rebellion against Mexico.
The fact that you had the put quotation marks around the word "invaded" suggests that you don't even take your own argument seriously.
Hawaii's royal kingdom was otherthrown by invading US marines.
Actually it was overthrown by private citizens but don't let the facts get in the way of your misconceptions. Either way, how does that change the fact that >90% of the population willingly voted to become a US State?
Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's put ten thousand nuclear weapons and the worlds most powerful Navy and Air Force under the control of an organization that seats Cuba and Libya on Human Rights Commissions. What could possibly go wrong?
PR, nothing more. How do *you* explain why there was no US response to the catastrophe that was Haiti for the last 50 years... it's not like they suddenly became the poorest western nation overnight, and it's not the first time they've had floods, hurricanes or earthquakes. The entire country is one big fuckup, and the US did nothing.
Bullshit. The US has poured money into that hellhole for years. In the 90s we deposed the military Government that seized power in an illegal coup.
sound familiar ? 1940s, a rather large war that you also arrived late to and then tried to claim all the glory ?
Our arrival wouldn't have been necessary if the French and Brits had any semblance of national honor and had opposed Hitler in the early 30s when he had no military might to back up his sabre rattling. Heck, the French alone could have nipped the whole problem in the bud in 1936 when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland.
Sorry, you don't get to blame us for your failures there either. Four hundred thousand Americans died because you couldn't control the rabid dog in your own backyard.
As for Tibet, and again not implying any support for Chinese policies there, well it's as much "interventionism outside their border" as the annexation of Texas or, more recently, Hawaii.
Except that Texas wanted to join the Union and the people of Hawaii voted 93% in favor of becoming a US State.
I think they are. I'm more than willing to make them at the expense of my own people. Heaven knows that most of us WASPs only got through college and landed good jobs because of Dad's golf buddies;) Heck, some of the best stereotypes are the white trash ones.....
I honestly don't think repeating a few off color jokes and/or stereotypes make one into a racist. But then I never was a big fan of political correctness.
I rather thought that SCOTUS got that ruling right. You do realize that the old law was so broadly written as to infringe on the political advocacy of groups like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?
Agreed. Liberals pretend they care about the poor while walking past beggars on the street without even making eye contact and consider themselves compassionate when they later complain that someone in a higher tax bracket should take care of him
That's a really insightful observation. A friend of mine is a die hard big city politically correct liberal. Amazingly enough she can't stand to make eye contact with the homeless and is afraid to venture out of her predominately white neighborhood if it means she has to cross into the dark part of town.
The last one was actually the subject of an amusing exchange between of the two of us. Earlier in the day I had noticed an African-American individual walking across the middle of a busy street against the light and nowhere near a crosswalk. I made a comment along the lines of "There goes a negative stereotype" and she jumped on me for being a "racist". Later in the evening when we were driving home I got cut off by someone and honked at them. No big deal, just my natural reaction when confronted with stupidity on the roadway. Of course she flips out and starts worrying that we are going to get shot because (and I quote) "We are white in the wrong part of town!"
So I asked her, who is the racist? The person who makes an off color joke or the person who is afraid to venture into the parts of town that don't conform with their own skin color? Needless to say, she didn't much care for that observation......
In my experience they don't vote. Of course I'm not in a large city where the political bosses hand out "walking around money" to bribe^Wencourage people to vote:)
I'm a student of history and my advocacy of our foreign policy is grounded in realism.
I would love nothing more than to see a return to the ideals of George Washington. No standing army, commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. I just don't think it's realistic in the nuclear age, when large counties can be destroyed in a matter of hours.
If you have a better suggestion that's grounded in reality and not fantasy land I'm all ears.
Large corporations work hard to create Fascist states. In the US, they seem to be succeeding, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision.
I actually agree with most of the rest of your post but I wish that people would consider the ramifications of the legislation that SCOTUS just struck down before they condemn the ruling. You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?
I hope that you can see why such a prohibition is inherently incompatible with the notion of free speech and expression.
The ancient Romans are on Line 1. They'd like to debate the matter with you and claim to have 400 some odd years of historical reference to draw upon. The Greeks are on Line 2 and claim to have another century or two to contribute.
The West has dominated in a military sense since Salamis. No foreign power has ever managed to achieve total military or economic dominance over the West. There have been periods of Western decline but Western civilization always manages to rebound in the end. I'm not overly concerned about the death of Western civilization.
I never claimed it was isolationist. Non-intervenionist would be a better term.
Of course you'll reply and point out twenty different banana republic interventions while ignoring the fact that those are a tad bit different than interventions between first world nation states that lead to industrialized warfare.....
California didn't "deregulate" power companies. If they had deregulated power companies they would have been allowed to enter into long term contracts to purchase electricity and wouldn't have been as vulnerable to Enron'ish manipulations of the spot markets.
You think they'll like the Chinese interfering in their affairs any better? To quote Jean-Luc Picard, "Let's hope they find you as tasty as they did their past associates."
Minor difference: The "brown people" as you so cynically refer to them asked us to help them. Did we invade Saudi Arabia or did the recognized Government of that country ask us to protect them against Saddam? Did we force Egypt to sign a peace treaty at gunpoint with Israel or did we act as an honest broker?
If it's all about resources then how do you explain our involvement in Afghanistan? Or the Balkens? -- unless they don't count because they aren't filled with brown people. How do you explain our response to humanitarian catastrophes like the Indian Ocean tsunami or Haitian earthquake? How do you reconcile the fact that those humanitarian operations were enabled by our military power with your cynical view of our motives?
I'll be the first to admit that we aren't behaving altruistically. We seemingly have no issue allowing genocide to take place where it doesn't interfere with our strategic interests. But on balance I would still maintain that the United States is a force for stability in the World. If you have an idea that's grounded in reality for replacing our role I'd love to hear it -- I'm getting sick of footing the bill for our role as the global policemen.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it should be illegal for any LLC to contribute to political campaigns
It's still illegal for LLC's to contribute to political campaigns. The SCOTUS ruling didn't change that. If you were told otherwise then you were misinformed. All it did was free up LLC's to spend their own money directly. They can now legally produce mailings/TV advertisments/Youtube clips/etc to participate in the political process.
Only people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression
I think it should be illegal for any LLC to ... try to bribe our elected officials by helping them get elected. That includes non-profits like the NRA, EFF, ACLU.
Can you honestly not see the inherent incompatibility in those two statements? First you claim that people should have the constitutional right to free speech and expression. Then you claim that we need to muzzle the organizations that people setup to exercise their free speech and expression.
When CEO's get the call asking for a donation, don't you think that CEO gets their concerns heard and addressed?
What makes you think CEO's are the only ones getting calls? Politicians call anyone they think can donate a sizable chunk of money. If you can afford to donate the maximum (currently $2,400) then you stand a good chance of being able to talk to the candidate. The last time I checked $2,400 wasn't a particularly large sum of money and as well within the reach of many professionals whom aren't CEOs. Again though, why are we talking about this? This ruling did not change the law as regards to donations to political campaigns. It remains illegal for LLCs to donate money to campaigns. It remains illegal for LLCs to coordinate their activities with campaigns.
The voter is now nearly powerless, and even more so if LLC's are permitted to influence political campaigns without restrictions or limits.
What you are really saying here is that voters are too stupid to make informed decisions on their own and need to be protected from the evils of limitless speech.
WASP is easier to type than ASGJPNAA (Anglo-Saxon-German-Jewish-Polish-Native-American-Agnostic) ;)
Actually I just call myself an American. Easier that way.
Yeah, I'm aware (I'm actually a network administrator) but I am a bit lucky in that I live in a very rural area so there is essentially zero chance of anyone even being in range. In a few mile radius, I have a total of 4 neighbors (all older people, no kids). Security through desolation.
Give me a high-gain antenna and a topographical map of your "very rural area" and I bet I can connect to your wireless network from some location far enough away that you'd never know I was there.....
If the need is there, the EU (and lets not forget other European countries) will be able to perform their own actions anywhere in the world.
No they couldn't. Real life does not operate like Civ2. The EU does not have the logistical wherewithal or the power projection platforms required to carry out large scale military operations outside of it's borders. They certainly have the economic base and technological know-how to acquire those capabilities but currently lack the political will to do so.
Don't take my word for it though. Study the Falklands War. One or two more Exocet missiles and the British task force would have limped home in defeat. As it was they didn't even have the logistical means to get their ships down there without support from the United States. Contrast that to the capabilities of the United States at that time.
By the way, the US gets half of it's oil from OPEC countries and the Gulf.
Factually incorrect in the context of the Gulf. The reference to OPEC is irreverent in a discussion about the political stability of the Middle East. You think that Venezuela and Angola (just to name two examples) are going to stop exporting oil if the Saudis and Iranians come to blows? Not terribly likely.
No, you are applying a double standard. You rationalize Chinese interventions but refuse to do the same for American ones. That's called hypocrisy and makes it rather hard to take you seriously.
And if the people wanted to remain an independent nation they had their chance when statehood was put on the ballot. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to vote yes.
BTW, Hawaii consists of many islands, it's not "the island"
Texas was 'invaded' by settlers who then instigated the rebellion against Mexico.
The fact that you had the put quotation marks around the word "invaded" suggests that you don't even take your own argument seriously.
Hawaii's royal kingdom was otherthrown by invading US marines.
Actually it was overthrown by private citizens but don't let the facts get in the way of your misconceptions. Either way, how does that change the fact that >90% of the population willingly voted to become a US State?
Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's put ten thousand nuclear weapons and the worlds most powerful Navy and Air Force under the control of an organization that seats Cuba and Libya on Human Rights Commissions. What could possibly go wrong?
Whatever floats his boat :)
PR, nothing more. How do *you* explain why there was no US response to the catastrophe that was Haiti for the last 50 years ... it's not like they suddenly became the poorest western nation overnight, and it's not the first time they've had floods, hurricanes or earthquakes. The entire country is one big fuckup, and the US did nothing.
Bullshit. The US has poured money into that hellhole for years. In the 90s we deposed the military Government that seized power in an illegal coup.
sound familiar ? 1940s, a rather large war that you also arrived late to and then tried to claim all the glory ?
Our arrival wouldn't have been necessary if the French and Brits had any semblance of national honor and had opposed Hitler in the early 30s when he had no military might to back up his sabre rattling. Heck, the French alone could have nipped the whole problem in the bud in 1936 when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland.
Sorry, you don't get to blame us for your failures there either. Four hundred thousand Americans died because you couldn't control the rabid dog in your own backyard.
As for Tibet, and again not implying any support for Chinese policies there, well it's as much "interventionism outside their border" as the annexation of Texas or, more recently, Hawaii.
Except that Texas wanted to join the Union and the people of Hawaii voted 93% in favor of becoming a US State.
Nice try at moral relativism though.
I think they are. I'm more than willing to make them at the expense of my own people. Heaven knows that most of us WASPs only got through college and landed good jobs because of Dad's golf buddies ;) Heck, some of the best stereotypes are the white trash ones.....
I honestly don't think repeating a few off color jokes and/or stereotypes make one into a racist. But then I never was a big fan of political correctness.
I rather thought that SCOTUS got that ruling right. You do realize that the old law was so broadly written as to infringe on the political advocacy of groups like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?
Agreed. Liberals pretend they care about the poor while walking past beggars on the street without even making eye contact and consider themselves compassionate when they later complain that someone in a higher tax bracket should take care of him
That's a really insightful observation. A friend of mine is a die hard big city politically correct liberal. Amazingly enough she can't stand to make eye contact with the homeless and is afraid to venture out of her predominately white neighborhood if it means she has to cross into the dark part of town.
The last one was actually the subject of an amusing exchange between of the two of us. Earlier in the day I had noticed an African-American individual walking across the middle of a busy street against the light and nowhere near a crosswalk. I made a comment along the lines of "There goes a negative stereotype" and she jumped on me for being a "racist". Later in the evening when we were driving home I got cut off by someone and honked at them. No big deal, just my natural reaction when confronted with stupidity on the roadway. Of course she flips out and starts worrying that we are going to get shot because (and I quote) "We are white in the wrong part of town!"
So I asked her, who is the racist? The person who makes an off color joke or the person who is afraid to venture into the parts of town that don't conform with their own skin color? Needless to say, she didn't much care for that observation......
In my experience they don't vote. Of course I'm not in a large city where the political bosses hand out "walking around money" to bribe^Wencourage people to vote :)
So basically you are going to rationalize Chinese imperialism/interventionism while condemning the US for the same?
I think I see how this works.
I'm a student of history and my advocacy of our foreign policy is grounded in realism.
I would love nothing more than to see a return to the ideals of George Washington. No standing army, commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. I just don't think it's realistic in the nuclear age, when large counties can be destroyed in a matter of hours.
If you have a better suggestion that's grounded in reality and not fantasy land I'm all ears.
Large corporations work hard to create Fascist states. In the US, they seem to be succeeding, especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision.
I actually agree with most of the rest of your post but I wish that people would consider the ramifications of the legislation that SCOTUS just struck down before they condemn the ruling. You do realize that the ban on corporations participating in the political process also extended to organizations like the NRA, ACLU and EFF, right?
I hope that you can see why such a prohibition is inherently incompatible with the notion of free speech and expression.
Western dominance is an anomaly.
The ancient Romans are on Line 1. They'd like to debate the matter with you and claim to have 400 some odd years of historical reference to draw upon. The Greeks are on Line 2 and claim to have another century or two to contribute.
The West has dominated in a military sense since Salamis. No foreign power has ever managed to achieve total military or economic dominance over the West. There have been periods of Western decline but Western civilization always manages to rebound in the end. I'm not overly concerned about the death of Western civilization.
There, now you've got four examples. Next time open a history book instead of worrying about what your lungs are up to....
Vietnam: Invaded
India: Invaded
I never claimed it was isolationist. Non-intervenionist would be a better term.
Of course you'll reply and point out twenty different banana republic interventions while ignoring the fact that those are a tad bit different than interventions between first world nation states that lead to industrialized warfare.....
California didn't "deregulate" power companies. If they had deregulated power companies they would have been allowed to enter into long term contracts to purchase electricity and wouldn't have been as vulnerable to Enron'ish manipulations of the spot markets.
You think they'll like the Chinese interfering in their affairs any better? To quote Jean-Luc Picard, "Let's hope they find you as tasty as they did their past associates."
Minor difference: The "brown people" as you so cynically refer to them asked us to help them. Did we invade Saudi Arabia or did the recognized Government of that country ask us to protect them against Saddam? Did we force Egypt to sign a peace treaty at gunpoint with Israel or did we act as an honest broker?
If it's all about resources then how do you explain our involvement in Afghanistan? Or the Balkens? -- unless they don't count because they aren't filled with brown people. How do you explain our response to humanitarian catastrophes like the Indian Ocean tsunami or Haitian earthquake? How do you reconcile the fact that those humanitarian operations were enabled by our military power with your cynical view of our motives?
I'll be the first to admit that we aren't behaving altruistically. We seemingly have no issue allowing genocide to take place where it doesn't interfere with our strategic interests. But on balance I would still maintain that the United States is a force for stability in the World. If you have an idea that's grounded in reality for replacing our role I'd love to hear it -- I'm getting sick of footing the bill for our role as the global policemen.