Coal company executives say they plan to target certain Congressmen they deem hostile to coal, and following the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations are unleashed. An International Coal Group VP, in a letter leaked to the Lexington Herald-Leader, wrote other coal executives: "With the Supreme Court ruling, we are in a position to be able to take corporate positions that were not previously available in allowing our voices to be heard." Allowing their voices to be heard, huh? Which is to say, allowing them to spend unlimited piles of cash smearing the lives and careers of Democrat Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Democrat Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, just for starters.From Politico:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already vowed to invest $75 million in the mid-term elections. And health insurers are also planning to play big in November....
And what minority group in Congress, armed with the sure-fire knee-capper called the filibuster, refused this week to even allow discussion of a disclosure law "which would require corporations and interest groups to identify themselves when they sponsor political ads and, in the case of smaller organizations, to reveal their donors"?
If you guessed "the Republicans in the U.S. Senate," then DING DING DING, you are our winner.
Republicans are struttin' right now, assured in their belief that the American people will want to put American corporations in charge of every freakin' thing in the universe, with the Republicans as their willing toadies.
17 comments:
Here is one analysis of the Supreme Court case and its implications:
http://www.justiceblind.com/citizensunited.html
Yawn.......
One man's opinion, who cares?
That's right Anonymous, You go back to watching American Idol. Don't bother to think about anything and your masters... I mean the free market will magically take care of everything.
Anonymous: Brushfire is absolutely correct. If that's your attitude, why should the rest of us at WW care about YOUR opion? Yawn, snore.
Most anonymous people don't care about my opinion! But I will keep offering it anyway. :-P
And at least my opinion is informed by understanding how the Supreme Court works, what precedents are, and why this ruling is judicial activism!
Do you feel unions have a right to do these things you say corporations should not? If so, why?
"That's right Anonymous, You go back to watching American Idol." Brushfire
The sniping ban did not last long, did it?
Anonymous:
So... how long have you been planning to instigate and promote a negative reaction to you so you can take the position of offended innocent? "Yawn" "who cares?" You were begging for a negative response!
And Brushfire's comment is only an astute, succinct observation of the extent of the intellectual curiosity YOU have displayed.
"But I'll not chide thee. Let shame come when it will, I do not call it." - W.S.
It does not speak to well about a person who writes an article and then has to post a link to it himself because nobody else feels it is worth doing. Mr. Robinson is showing the height of conceit by doing this. Only the gullible takes any information from a source such as this seriously.
The comment was valid. Brushfire had no rebuttal so she resorted to a personal attack.
also before some cretin says I attacked Mr. Robinson, I would like to point out that every thing I said could apply to anyone. I am sure many of the liberals on this blog feel it applies to me. If so you are agreeing with me.
Anonymous - How does one rebut a the comment "Yawn"? Let me clarify my point since you seem to have missed it. You asked "who cares." The answer is any thinking human who cares about a democratic society. According to Thomas Paine "There is no subject more interesting to every man than the subject of government. His security, be he rich or poor, and in a great measure his prosperity, are connected therewith; it is therefore his interest as well as his duty to make himself acquainted with its principles, and what the practise ought to be."
Brushfire:
I think a person who signs off as "Anonymous" needs to remain as such. I think it cowardly to post under this name, and any commentary he offered should be ingored, courteously. It is only anonymous babble.
How is anonymous any better, worse, or more anonymous than BikerBard? If you are such a hero post under who you really are and admit to being BikerBard. If you won't, it is only one more example of your hypocrisy.
Brushfie, the point I was trying to make is that it is demeaning for a man to have to quote himself because no one else thinks what he says is worthy of doing it. No one cares what this egotist has to say, or he would not have to link to his own work.
"How is anonymous any better, worse, or more anonymous than BikerBard?" - Anonymous
You completely miss the point, and you do so intentionally, I believe. There is only one BikerBard, one Brushfire, one Mike D, one Shyster, and one Matt (call me Dr.) Robinson. :)
It's not a matter of anonymity. It's a matter of friendship and community. If you are not here for friendship and community, why are you here, exactly? Just to cause trouble?
I hope to someday meet each and every person who posts on this site. But without a nickname, how would I ever give name to my potential friend?
Anonymous - I and many others care what Matt Robinson has to say. He expresses himself cogently, clearly, and effectively. I always enjoy reading what he writes and hearing him speak. It takes a lot of time and energy be such an effective advocate for social justice and I am very very glad he is doing it.
There can be many more than one person posting under any name. For instance, although I am one of the people that post under Anonymous, I will prove my point by posting under something different.
Brushfire, thank you for your opinion of Mr. Robinson. I disagree. I think he is egotistical embarrassment for his practice of linking his own work..
We are both entitled to our opinions.
Post a Comment