Guard Dog
-
Posts
644 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
202
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Guard Dog
-
-
I'm walking! I started last night, it's nice to be off the crutches. I go to get X-Rays next Wednesday, so technically I'm not really supposed to walk, but it has been 5 1/2 weeks and my leg feels great. I'm slow, my ankle and knee are stiff, but it's wonderful to have my hands free to carry stuff again. First thing I did was rearrange my classroom.
I'm suprised they waited so long. They wanted me up and walking 10 days after surgery. Not much but still. Congrats, I remember how good that felt.
-
Well, I maxed out my Visa today buying tools, a winch, and other accessroies. I also found a 1971 Corvette in a scrap yard in Birmingham with an L-48 small block 350 engine. I'm going down to see if it is in as good shape as I've been led to believe, it is that engine is mine! I also bought a Rochester 4 brl Carb and a rebuild kit for the transmission. It's been a long time since I've done any serious automotive work, not since I was a teenager. But I gotta tell you, I am loving this. I haven't been this jazzed up about anything in years. I spent two hours today moving it into the barn and removing the front end and radiator.
-
I bought a car today. It's a 1969 Camaro RS. It's in pretty bad shape. Engine and transmission are shot, interior looks like hell but the body and drivetrain are in great shape. This is going to be so cool once it restored. I had to tow it here, but I'm so excited I can hardly sit still.
-
i've heard there have been strides made by the IRS toward better observation of constitutional rights in recent years... the notion of guilty till proven innocent is beginning to fade, apparently. of course, that doesn't address the myriad other problems.
taks
No they still seize all of your assets, even in amounts greater than you actually owe first, then determine you actual debt later. You have to fight them in court or arbitration to get them back.
I danced with them back in 1998. I'd rather owe money to the mafia.
-
It's an Obamanation!
So, Canada is getting uppity again huh? Well, looks like we might just have to take away another one of you hockey teams!
-
*Edit* Never mind. I said some unkind things about some of you in this posts original text. But it was just the whisky talking (or typing).
-
It would be fun to see just how well Cuba would be doing for themselves if the (incredibly unfair) embargo was finally lifted. I'm thinking the US government are actually afraid to lift it because it might show Americans that a Communist nation CAN survive and thrive, despite everything American's seem to be taught in school.
Oh for Gods sake... There are 196 recognized nation states on earth. Cuba is free to trade with 194 of them. But it's the US that wrecking their economy huh? Give me a break.
-
still hungover. even after eating twice, drinking water all day, and taking a mixture of advil and nyquil (not at the same time). oof.
taks
They hurt more as we get older don't they.
Today I started to do some more work on the barn and garden but after two hours and three cups of coffee I'm still at my computer.
-
Those that support this court decision underestimate the power of lobbies on national policies, be it in the US, in Europe or anywhere else in the world.
There should be limits as to how much a political party can receive funds from a private company or an individual person for the electoral campaign or anything else.
The main problem with today's politicians is that most of the time they represent corporate interests rather than the interests of the people that voted for them. I have witnessed the power of lobbies with my own eyes when I worked some time ago for the European Commission. I was appalled...
And I believe freedom of speech was just an excuse. This has nothing to do with the presented case...
Ramza, political parties receiving money from lobbyists has nothing what-so-ever to do with this ruling, or the case. It was not even part of the discussion. There ARE limits on how much money any group can donate to any campaign and requirements for candidates to disclose where they get donations from.
This ruling is all about a private group called Citizens United that made a movie, using their own money, distributed with their own money, not done in coordination with any one else, politician or otherwise. The movie painted Hillary Clinton in an unfavorble way and called on voters to not support her. It did not advocate anyone else. The FEC banned their movie and prevented them from showing it. This was the power granted to it by McCain Feingold. Had they been a Union, or PAC, they could have done it. But private citizens were not allowed to express political opinions in this way under MC/Fe. The SCOTUS determined that it was unconstitutional for one group to be allowed to express themselves but not another. Now it is true this ruling allows anyone with the money and desire to run an ad advocating a candidate or issue to do so, including corporations, it DOES NOT put one penny in any candidates pocket.
Frankly, I am a little surprised everyone is so worked up about this. I thought freedom was good. This is not some landmark ruling that shook the foundations of the country. It just removed one part of a fairly recent law that limited the ability of private citizens and anyone else to run their own issue ads.
-
Since I keep having to remind you all of basic, fundamental precepts of socialism, such as the fact that everybody is not supposed to be totally equal, I guess so!Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things?You can't even answer that question without getting back into socialisim. You are like some highly interactive Bot. By the way, you never did answer my question a few weeks back, just how long did you manage to last on Free Republic? I'd bet large you are a frequent poster on DU.
Anyway, go ahead and talk communisim until you are red in the face (
), you are not changing anyone's mind. Just my $.02. -
if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment.
shut the **** up
Don't like sarcasm?
-
Are you even capable of discussing anything else? I mean anything? Music, alchohol, women, pets, hobbies, I mean c'mon. Do you really want another 30+ page thread where we all say the same things? You've already got two! Don't you have ANY other interests?
-
Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.
Individuals do, corporations are not individuals. Make things equal and tax them like individuals perhaps? And why won't you let corporations run for office? Discrimination!
The constitution makes no distinctions between companies and individuals on this matter.
-
The only solution that has any hope of working in this environment is rigorous public disclosure. And I mean rigorous. If there's a corporate donor, I want to know who is on the Board and who the major shareholders are. If there is a non-profit, I want to know who their big supporters are. If the donations are from individuals, I want to know if there are any trends in where they work and live. And I want the opposing candidates to know all this stuff, too, and to feature it in their campaigns when the stink of influence from a particular quarter gets too heavy.
This makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. It is never a good thing to restrict freedom, opinion, and information. It is always a good thing to disclose where it is coming from. This does both. Good call, too bad you are not in Congress. But then again, this idea would never fly there.
On my last post I was not ensorsing Scott Brown as a candidate or a Senator. Although, I was VERY happy to see the Democrat super majority in the Senate end. Total veto-proof, filibuster proof, ethics proof, control over the government by any political party is something to be feared and vigorously opposed no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. I was only pointing out that despite conventional wisdom, Obama and half of Hollywood, and millions uopn millions of dollars in advertising the voters in MA did what they thought was right, not what was expected of them.
OT here but have you ever considered running for office? You have the education, location, and you are already "inside" the machine. You have to at least thought about it. Not that I'm suggesting you should. I would not wish that on anyone.
-
I know there is a whole lot of business=bad, coporation=evil sentiment going on here but if I could get you guys to dial down the Marx for just a moment. Prior to this ruling, Labor Unions and Political Action Comittees (not for profit advocacy groups) were able to run any kind of advertisement they wished without worrying about the FEC coming down on them. A private citizen did not even enjoy that freedom under McCain Feingold. A corporation certainly could not. During oral arguments Justice Roberts asked the lawyer for the FEC straight out if a book was published (remember this case was about a privately produced and funded movie that was banned) that could be construed as taking a political position on a candidate, could that book be banned. The answer was yes. Dosen't that strike any of you as a bad thing? The soundbites for these campaign finance laws sound great but you really need to look at what they do. And even more important, who was exempted from them. Freedom of speech has to apply equally to everyone. These campaign finance laws gave the government the power to decide who was able to speak freely and who was not. I think Andrew Napolitano put it best, they are incumbent protection acts. The Citizens United v FEC defanged a really bad part of a bad law (most of McCain Feingold is still in effect) that should never have been enacted. You guys really should invest some time in actually reading what Justice Kenndy wrote before you bitch and moan about how unfair it all is. You might be surprised at how unfair it was before.
I'd like to point out one more thing. Corportions do not get a vote. Voters are the one who decide who gets elected. If you think they are incapable of making an intelligent and informed decision that runs contrary to a swarm of advertisement and high powered influence I'd like to direct your attention to the Special Election for US Senate that just took place this week in MA.
-
How's the leg doing?
-
If anything can ever be labeled "judicial activism," I think this decision can-- it both overturned part of a reasonably long-standing act of Congress, and overruled past Supreme Court precedent.
Disregard of Stare Decisis is not judicial activisim. Disregarding the founders words or intent is, as I understand it anyway.
(I also wouldn't consider this "leveling the field" between Corps and Unions-- aggregate corporate revenue in America is many, many, many times higher than aggregate union revenue.)True but not relevant when it comes to applying the law in terms of free speech.
The interplay between individual rights and corporate entities is an interesting one. Just skimming over the Bill of Rights, it's obvious that certain rights can clearly have no application to corporations (e.g., they can't vote, and they don't get a jury of their (presumably corporate) peers when they are sued). It is also obvious that certain rights must always apply to corporate entities-- I don't think anybody would argue that the government can take property without just compensation or conduct searches without probable cause simply because the owner is incorporated. Prior to this decision, reasonable limits on corporate speech weren't seen as objectionable by the Court because all of the people involved (the shareholders, officers, executives, etc.) retained their full first amendment rights. But it is interesting that where other Amendments talk about "the right of the People" (see #2 and #4, and the latter part of #1), the Speech clause of the First Amendment simply says "no law" and talks about "speech" rather than focusing on the who or what the "speakers" are.I'd only point out that coporations are run, owned, and represent the interests of people. But it is an area I do not know much about admittedly. I'm going to have to do some reading on this.
-
Oh... wait. Thats not good news for you either.
Better for us than most teams including the Bucs
You wound me sir!
How ironic is it that on the 30th anniversary of the Jets Colts Superbowl (Namath's guarantee) the Jets and Colts will play to see who goes to the Superbowl, which incidently is once again in Miami! This time though, the Colts are going to win. I'm looking for an upset in the Big Easy. I'm taking the Vikings to stun the Saints.
-
We have a tree outside my house that's always filled with birds. Today however there's a blue jay in there that's being very loud and scaring all the other birds away.
Fling a few rocks at him, problem solved!
I spent the day building a new fence around an area I'm prepping for a garden. This spring i'm going to try my hand at growing veggies. Now I'm going to make a Lynchberg Lemonade and go sit by the creek.
-
Unions, PACs, etc all had free reign to run advocacy ads. This ruling just levels the playing field. Like Enoch said, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I think it was nuts for clowns like NY Senator Charles Schumer to label this "Judicial Activisim". #1 is't not. 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.. Seems to me the activist position was the minority. They ruled that the right to free speech did not apply to everyone, just those who filed the proper paperwork with the government for it (PACs). #2 Since when did that S.O.B Schumer think judicial activisim was a bad thing?
-
Who would have thought the Jets would shut down th Chargers like that. You could tell they were frustrated by all of the stupid penalites they were drawing. Well, Kelverin, at least spring training starts in five weeks. Oh... wait. Thats not good news for you either.
-
Here is a tragedy to compound a tragedy. The Port Au Prince airport is having to turn way planes full of food, medical supplies, search and rescue teams, etc because they can't get the planes on the ground unloaded and there is no fuel to refuel the outbound planes. What a complete mess. They need AvGas and loading equipment more than anything else. Forget the canned goods, anyone got a spare forklift?
-
I'm pulling for the Cardinals but I do think the Saints will win. Unlike Green Bay last week, the Saints can actually play defense.
Indy will win over the Ravens but I expect Balitmore will put a scare into them.
Vikings will defeat the Cowboys.
The Bolts will make short work of the Jets.
-
The reason calling women "fat" is bad is because it perpetuates an unhealthy self-image problem endemic to western patriarchal society that causes serious psychological and physical damage to women, not because the word is evil in and of itself.
Back in the middle ages, when the patriarchal power structure was even more powerful than it is now, being fat was considered as beautiful among women.
I don't know about beautiful but I think it was a sign of wealth. I remeber reading that somewhere.
), you are not changing anyone's mind. Just my $.02.
JD Salinger RIP
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
I guess now that he's gone the movie studios will finally get their wish and do a screen adaptation. I thought Catcher was just ok. My favorite work of his was a short story called A Boy in France.