FWIW, I think you all are way too dismissive of the slavery-reparations thing. Try looking at it from the other side for a minute maybe. Unless the other side is a lunatic, then they must have reasons for what they think. Can you counter or answer all of those reasons?
They are lunatics.
What good is it doing anyone to bring up something that happened 150 years ago? None.
It's called "closure." In this case, it's a whole culture (a whole nation/wold, really) that needs closure. They are all DEAD! It is closed.
Do you agree with the idea of the government (or anyone else) trying to be accountable for its crimes by acts of closure and "reparation" (just another word for closure, really)? Another word for MONEY GRAB.
It's about making things even...and I don't think the money is a big part of it, though economic justice would seem to need to be part of any closure formula for slavery. It isn't about making anything even. All the slaves are dead.
The Civil War was fought over slavery. It doesn't matter how much high-minded veneer people at the time tried to put over it. Obviously written by a man that doesn't have a strong grasp on history.
If Lincoln had not been elected there would have not been a civil war in 1860. Anyone that thinks the civil war was about slavery should ask themselves why slavery was not banned in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware prior to the thirteenth Amendment.
"On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day."
There in denial about that and besides, there isn't any money for the most part to be had there.
True about the money. As far as they, and their denial go-- who is this "they" you two are talking about? You mean them Coloreds? The Negroes? Yeah, dey's always talking de shit, Massa! Dey's talkin' it behind yo back, yessuh! I's seen 'em back behind the woodshed, talkin' up a storm about how dey wasn't gonna talk about de slave trade in Africa. Oh, yessuh, you bet dey was talkin, and denialin' up a stom, yessuh!
That's part of the whole problem is that the minute you take a different view sometimes on this issue and you say hey wait a second on getting the checkbook out some mental giant tries to paint you as a racist or attaching racist overtones to what you said because he disagrees. What a sad, sad, worn out tactic. Instead of debate which you obviously can't do or have nothing to add you would try to attach racist overtones to someones views. Well I'll tell you something Lance. You have zero idea what is in my heart.
I said nothing that was racist. I said they are in denial about it. Many African Americans don't care to look at that aspect.not all but many. You quote Farahkahn, now there's a freakin racist nut but use him when convienient. There is STILL slavery going on in Africa right now in Rwanda. There are black people doing that to their own people as their are whites. The African nations could be sued in international courts. My point was why don't they ? For the reason mentioned above but mainly because how much money do you think that Many of these African nations have ? (oh sorry it's racist to state a fact, I forgot about that wealthy powerhouse that is Somolia.) If they sued them and won and money was sent from Rwanda, Somolia etc. and it was sent to African Americans the outrage would be huge and seen as an outrage that a poor nation had to pay money to people that are alot better off then people in those countries. So we are suing companies in America.
Ahhhh, go were the money is. But it's not really about money right ? Please. So answer this Lance. 1) Who should be eligible? 2)Were all blacks slaves ? 3) How far back do we go? 4) How does the money get divided? 5) Who pays it? 6) and the most important question is this ********* How much is enough? What dollar amount will it take? Should it be a million a piece ? Will that do it? how about 10 dollars a peice ? too little. O.K How much, if it's not about the money, how much ? You don't know do you ?
The difference in paying the Holocaust survivors and Japanese people who were interned is that they are still alive. Yes Black Americans were and have been treated badly. But let's say that the courts decide that they should be paid, O.K. now people that had nothing to do with it are paying money to people who weren't slaves. gee that's fair, and wether you want to believe it that would cause alot of resentment and more tension. I will be the first to help out in the quest for reparations if we then pay all the families of Union veterans. I'll expect a check. Oh I forgot the Civil War wasn't about slavery, o.k right. rewrite history all you'd like or whatever you need to do to fit an agenda. Like I said until we ALL refer to ourselves as only AMERICANS. and stop counting what race, creed or gender someone is will we only see true equality. You cannot legislate or mandate one person to love anonther. you cannot mandate what is in someone's heart. The only way to truly do that is through education and seeing ourselves as brothers and sisters. NO amount of money will EVER do that.
Luv2Fly - Like I said until we ALL refer to ourselves as only AMERICANS. and stop counting what race, creed or gender someone is will we only see true equality.
Dr. Martin L. King Jr - I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
These are good people that you are trying to persecute with your words. You may disagree with them, but please don't try to portray them as klansmen. You can do better than that.
I'm not trying to portray anyone as klansmen. I just think that people (predominantly non-black people, if the survey in that story means anything), are too quickly dismissive of the claims of people who are still bitching about slavery. Also too quick to feel blamed, as well. More than one person commented about how they and theirs had never done anything in connection with slavery. Well, the story wasn't saying you guys did. It was saying that Aetna and the railroad company, etc. did. Why some people decided that was an adversarial thing, and that the "they" that are pursuing reparations are actually waging battle with us here in the cooler, was beyond me. I (perhaps unfairly) presumed that racial insensitivity was at the heart of it. Not racism, per se, but just an inability to see the picture from the other side of the divide.
It sounded like many of you were fitting right into the numbers shown by the survey. Personally, when it comes down to answering the question, "Is the pain from slavery, etc. over?", I defer to the opinion of the African-Americans. Of coursethe pain is over for most white people, and for people whose ancestors weren't even here yet when all that shit went down. But I didn't get any sense (not even a smidgen) that anyone who was posting here about that was giving credence to the opposite view-- the view that there is still payback due, that the pain is not over, that it is not even yet. And that view is not as dismissable as the posts here would lead one to believe.
So how is money going to bring about a closure that the many people who died in battle to free the slaves couldn't?
Part of the damage done is economic. Look at the average earning power of a black person in the U.S. vs. the average earning power of everyone else. Look at it now, and look at it historically. Because of certain persons' and institutions' actions, a person with brown skin in the U.S. is born at a disadvantage. It was in laws and policies for decades-- centuries, really. Now, the person actions are basically impossible to pursue, because you can't hold one person responsible for the actions of another. But institutions are a different matter. The U.S. Government that did what it did in the 1700's and 1800's is still alive. Many of the corporations that were alive then are still alive today. Those institutions are still existing and thriving, in some part due to the advantage they took of black people way back when.
Why would those people dying in battle bring any closure to the ancestor of a slave? I don't understand that at all. First of all, its not something positive- the "victim" isn't going to be happy that the soldiers died. Second, the only reason the battle happened in the first place is because the country was founded on the backs of slaves from the start. Should the captive thank the captor for letting him out of his cage?
Please explain why some should get tax money from my wife's family or from my family that didn't even arrive here until the early 1900's.
I didn't say they should. Ideally, they shouldn't. But if they did, the argument behind it would be...
Because your families are citizens of the U.S., which is run by a government which happens to depend on your tax money for its revenue. That government also committed sorta crimes against humanity for half of its existence, and was complicit in the robbing of many people of their livelihood, their dignity, and their freedom. Its efforts to pay those people back, or even admit its own transgressions, have been shaky at best. As a result, the descendants of those people have been rendered disadvantaged, have suffered economic hardship, social stigma, humiliation, and other damages.
FWIW, my guess is that if a precedent-setting reparations case makes it through the U.S. courts, that there would certainly be efforts to bring suits in world courts against other nations and companies who helped spread the pain, and reaped the $$ by doing so.
I haven't heard any of you even begin to deal with the recognition that (assuming the facts in the case line up, of course) a part of Aetna's share price was earned by taking advantage of slaves-- that some of the properties that Aetna buildings reside on were (presumably) stolen from slaves, and so on.
I think that you would look at it differently if it was your anscestors whose lives had been stolen from them, whose family had been raped and beaten and denied their humanity for several generations. If you knew that some company had its home office on land that they flat-out stole from your great-great-grandaddy...you wouldn't want to settle that in court (or settle it somehow) if you could? I'd be surprised. In fact, I'd suspect you aren't being honest with yourself.
Were they slaves themselves? If they were maybe they have something to complain about.
No, they weren't slaves and you know it. If they were they absolutely would have something to complain about. You're the lawyer...are you trying to say that legal damages never go to the survivors or ancestors of people?
maybe you shouldn't. The pain of slavery is over. All the slaves are dead.
How do you know the pain of slavery is over? Is it over like the pain of Sept. 11th is over?
The country was founded only on the backs of slaves?
No, and I never claimed that.
Next thing you liberals will be saying companies haven't been giving their workers a living wage so the companies need to pay up for that too.
You must be talking to someone else here, because I am not a liberal, and there's no way in hell that that is the next thing I will be saying.
Its efforts to pay those people back, or even admit its own transgressions, have been shaky at best. Those people are DEAD.
Yeah, I know they're dead Jethro. So were the syphillis soldiers. Did you yell "your husband is DEAD, ma'am!" at the ceremony where the President apologized to their families?
In case the soldiers of anti-abortion and reparations for African-Amercians didn't notice something I find extremely interesting, is that George Bush signed a campaign finance reform bill this week.
Not compelling in the same way, but for people who love to watch the ebb and flow of allegiances and horse races, something pretty interesting.
Why did he do it? -- here's one thought that's probably plausable, to steal an issue from the Democrats.
Here's one thought from an interesting fellow named Michael Graham, from his blogging site www.michaelgraham.com/
"The idiot Bushies still chant the "We Hate McCain" mantra, blaming McCain for campaign finance reform as though it's the Arizona senator's fault that President Bush has such a weak spine. McCain is wrong on campaign finance issues, but he's earnestly wrong. Bush is worse: He KNOWS what he's doing is wrong. McCain is Andrea Yates, living under a delusion. Bush is Susan Smith, rolling his principles down into the cold, dark water in order to get something he wants."
Why did he do it? -- here's one thought that's probably plausable, to steal an issue from the Democrats.
Maybe he believes that the unconstitutional portions of the law will be struck down by the Supreme Court leaving Republicans with a huge advantage in the end. As for stealing an issue, it appears very few people care about campaign finance reform.
I'm not inside the president's head, but if he believes it's unconstitutional, why did he sign it? It is only partly unconstituional. The limitations on when people can speak, for instance.
What would be the huge advantage Republicans have? How would they get that? My understanding is that it raises limits to $2,000 directly to candidates and that Republicans have an advantage in this area already.
I think had he said he wasn't going to sign it then the accusations from the left would be the same tired old, they only care about big biz etc. yadda, yadda, yadda. Or he would have been fairly criticized for not having the authority to detrmine what is or isn't constitutional. Or at the very least he would have been accused by political opponents as being an obstructionist on campaign finance reform. Personally I think it is unconstitutional and the courts will shoot it down and we will be right back (sadly) where we were. The bill was championed by McCain (a Republican!) written and approved by both R's and D's. It gives them all political cover. And also helps protect their incumbent status. I think it's window dressing on a problem that needs to be solved better. Both parties feed at the trough. It needs to be fixed. This fix was anything but. There are too many holes and things that prohibit free speech. Something oddly that conservatives were bashed for when they used it as an argument for opposing the way it was written. Turns out thatit's true. That's why I think they (the courts) will shoot it down and everyone can say, "well i voted for reform" Ahhh politics. UGH
I think he signed it for all the reasons you stated. Mr. Triangulation is not above politics, I guess.
That the Republican party is in bed with big business is far from tired. CEO's vote overwhelmingly Republican and donate money to Republicans for a reason. They expect some return. And, not doubt, they'll continue to get it.
The only interest I have in campaign finance reform is to watch for entertainment value. Candidates will find a way around anything that's passed.
I've never understood how money =free speech, but greater minds than mine have said it is. Maybe one day I, too, might be able to wrap my brain around that.
Many of the laws are so absurd (you can raise funds on this telephone, but not that one) they require politicians to make countless distinctions that easily picked apart under close scrutiny. And there's enough lawyers in Washington who are willing to devote large chunks of their career to do just that.
That the Republican party is in bed with big business is far from tired. CEO's vote overwhelmingly Republican and donate money to Republicans for a reason. They expect some return. And, not doubt, they'll continue to get it.
I thought how someone voted ie: 87% of journalists voting D, didn't matter ? :) How they personally vote is not really the issue. As far as R's being the only benefactor of money from big business or organizations, the Dems have their hand in the cookie jar just as well, they are both guilty of a legal yet slimey process. The finance reform will take some of that out of it which agree with you is good. Sadly there are so many other holes as you stated that BOTH parties will exploit it so much that it becomes toothless. And a feel good bill that really doens't do much good. But they can all say they are for it come election time.
I don't watch enough of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings to give an opinion one way or another.
But you've probably made up your mind that they are biased before you've turned on the TV, so you can bet your life that's what you're going to hear, whether it's there or not.
But you've probably made up your mind that they are biased before you've turned on the TV, so you can bet your life that's what you're going to hear, whether it's there or not.
How biased of YOU! I watch them them on occassion. Their bias shows, generally, not in what they say but how they say it.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!! Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
Your short-sighted assessment didn't win this time, JT. It's not called the Arcitic National Oil Field. You want that? -- You'll probably get your wish. The powerful oil industry takes what is wants under Republican leaderhsip.
For now -- Congratulations Sens. Daschle and Lieberman!
I wonder what Rick will say after Republicans gain control of the Senate after the November elections? That will put an end to the whole debate. As for being shortsighted, Rick, it is the environmental extremists that are being short sighted.
Your short-sighted assessment didn't win this time
What's your long sighted assessment?
It's not called the Arcitic National Oil Field.
Why can't it be both? Are we to allow a natural resource to simply sit there?
You'll probably get your wish.
I hope so.
The powerful oil industry takes what is wants under Republican leaderhsip.
Why's that? Why can't the "Save the Caribou" crowd pull together and counter the oil industry? My guess is because people would rather have oil than caribou.
If the president and this oil drilling Veep were really concerned about the search for oil, they would take the Gulf Coast of Florida first. Infrastructure in place and large reserves.
FWIW, I think you all are way too dismissive of the slavery-reparations thing. Try looking at it from the other side for a minute maybe. Unless the other side is a lunatic, then they must have reasons for what they think. Can you counter or answer all of those reasons?
They are lunatics.
What good is it doing anyone to bring up something that happened 150 years ago? None.
It's called "closure." In this case, it's a whole culture (a whole nation/wold, really) that needs closure. They are all DEAD! It is closed.
Do you agree with the idea of the government (or anyone else) trying to be accountable for its crimes by acts of closure and "reparation" (just another word for closure, really)? Another word for MONEY GRAB.
It's about making things even...and I don't think the money is a big part of it, though economic justice would seem to need to be part of any closure formula for slavery. It isn't about making anything even. All the slaves are dead.
The Civil War was fought over slavery. It doesn't matter how much high-minded veneer people at the time tried to put over it. Obviously written by a man that doesn't have a strong grasp on history.
jethro, for once i find myself agreeing with you in post 871.
Can't you just disagreewith someone and then explain why you disagree, jethro?
If Lincoln had not been elected there would have not been a civil war in 1860. Anyone that thinks the civil war was about slavery should ask themselves why slavery was not banned in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware prior to the thirteenth Amendment.
"If Lincoln had not been elected there would have not been a civil war in 1860."
When would we have seen the equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation?
if there was not slavery, would there be the need for an Abolitionist movement?
Would there be a Republican Party?
You may not have seen the equivalent of the emancipation proclamation. You wouldn't have had the 13th Amendment paassed in 1865 either.
If there had been no slavery you may still have the Whig party.
There was also this skirmish:
"On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day."
The Anniversary is coming up...
Lance,
There in denial about that and besides, there isn't any money for the most part to be had there.
That's part of the whole problem is that the minute you take a different view sometimes on this issue and you say hey wait a second on getting the checkbook out some mental giant tries to paint you as a racist or attaching racist overtones to what you said because he disagrees. What a sad, sad, worn out tactic. Instead of debate which you obviously can't do or have nothing to add you would try to attach racist overtones to someones views. Well I'll tell you something Lance. You have zero idea what is in my heart.
I said nothing that was racist. I said they are in denial about it. Many African Americans don't care to look at that aspect.not all but many. You quote Farahkahn, now there's a freakin racist nut but use him when convienient. There is STILL slavery going on in Africa right now in Rwanda. There are black people doing that to their own people as their are whites. The African nations could be sued in international courts. My point was why don't they ? For the reason mentioned above but mainly because how much money do you think that Many of these African nations have ? (oh sorry it's racist to state a fact, I forgot about that wealthy powerhouse that is Somolia.) If they sued them and won and money was sent from Rwanda, Somolia etc. and it was sent to African Americans the outrage would be huge and seen as an outrage that a poor nation had to pay money to people that are alot better off then people in those countries. So we are suing companies in America.
Ahhhh, go were the money is. But it's not really about money right ? Please. So answer this Lance. 1) Who should be eligible? 2)Were all blacks slaves ? 3) How far back do we go? 4) How does the money get divided? 5) Who pays it? 6) and the most important question is this ********* How much is enough? What dollar amount will it take? Should it be a million a piece ? Will that do it? how about 10 dollars a peice ? too little. O.K How much, if it's not about the money, how much ? You don't know do you ?
The difference in paying the Holocaust survivors and Japanese people who were interned is that they are still alive. Yes Black Americans were and have been treated badly. But let's say that the courts decide that they should be paid, O.K. now people that had nothing to do with it are paying money to people who weren't slaves. gee that's fair, and wether you want to believe it that would cause alot of resentment and more tension. I will be the first to help out in the quest for reparations if we then pay all the families of Union veterans. I'll expect a check. Oh I forgot the Civil War wasn't about slavery, o.k right. rewrite history all you'd like or whatever you need to do to fit an agenda. Like I said until we ALL refer to ourselves as only AMERICANS. and stop counting what race, creed or gender someone is will we only see true equality. You cannot legislate or mandate one person to love anonther. you cannot mandate what is in someone's heart. The only way to truly do that is through education and seeing ourselves as brothers and sisters. NO amount of money will EVER do that.
rob, can you break your post into paragraphs? It would make it easier to read. Just a thought.
will Do Jethro. Good idea.
How's that, better ?
I personally prefer one long run on sentence.
There's a wiseguy in every crowd, we just seem to have more than our fair share in here :) (present company included)
Yes, that is great, rob. Thank you.
Luv2Fly - Like I said until we ALL refer to ourselves as only AMERICANS. and stop counting what race, creed or gender someone is will we only see true equality.
Dr. Martin L. King Jr - I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Looks like you are on the right track, Luv2Fly.
I'm not trying to portray anyone as klansmen. I just think that people (predominantly non-black people, if the survey in that story means anything), are too quickly dismissive of the claims of people who are still bitching about slavery. Also too quick to feel blamed, as well. More than one person commented about how they and theirs had never done anything in connection with slavery. Well, the story wasn't saying you guys did. It was saying that Aetna and the railroad company, etc. did. Why some people decided that was an adversarial thing, and that the "they" that are pursuing reparations are actually waging battle with us here in the cooler, was beyond me. I (perhaps unfairly) presumed that racial insensitivity was at the heart of it. Not racism, per se, but just an inability to see the picture from the other side of the divide.
It sounded like many of you were fitting right into the numbers shown by the survey. Personally, when it comes down to answering the question, "Is the pain from slavery, etc. over?", I defer to the opinion of the African-Americans. Of coursethe pain is over for most white people, and for people whose ancestors weren't even here yet when all that shit went down. But I didn't get any sense (not even a smidgen) that anyone who was posting here about that was giving credence to the opposite view-- the view that there is still payback due, that the pain is not over, that it is not even yet. And that view is not as dismissable as the posts here would lead one to believe.
Part of the damage done is economic. Look at the average earning power of a black person in the U.S. vs. the average earning power of everyone else. Look at it now, and look at it historically. Because of certain persons' and institutions' actions, a person with brown skin in the U.S. is born at a disadvantage. It was in laws and policies for decades-- centuries, really. Now, the person actions are basically impossible to pursue, because you can't hold one person responsible for the actions of another. But institutions are a different matter. The U.S. Government that did what it did in the 1700's and 1800's is still alive. Many of the corporations that were alive then are still alive today. Those institutions are still existing and thriving, in some part due to the advantage they took of black people way back when.
Why would those people dying in battle bring any closure to the ancestor of a slave? I don't understand that at all. First of all, its not something positive- the "victim" isn't going to be happy that the soldiers died. Second, the only reason the battle happened in the first place is because the country was founded on the backs of slaves from the start. Should the captive thank the captor for letting him out of his cage?
I didn't say they should. Ideally, they shouldn't. But if they did, the argument behind it would be...
Because your families are citizens of the U.S., which is run by a government which happens to depend on your tax money for its revenue. That government also committed sorta crimes against humanity for half of its existence, and was complicit in the robbing of many people of their livelihood, their dignity, and their freedom. Its efforts to pay those people back, or even admit its own transgressions, have been shaky at best. As a result, the descendants of those people have been rendered disadvantaged, have suffered economic hardship, social stigma, humiliation, and other damages.
FWIW, my guess is that if a precedent-setting reparations case makes it through the U.S. courts, that there would certainly be efforts to bring suits in world courts against other nations and companies who helped spread the pain, and reaped the $$ by doing so.
I haven't heard any of you even begin to deal with the recognition that (assuming the facts in the case line up, of course) a part of Aetna's share price was earned by taking advantage of slaves-- that some of the properties that Aetna buildings reside on were (presumably) stolen from slaves, and so on.
I think that you would look at it differently if it was your anscestors whose lives had been stolen from them, whose family had been raped and beaten and denied their humanity for several generations. If you knew that some company had its home office on land that they flat-out stole from your great-great-grandaddy...you wouldn't want to settle that in court (or settle it somehow) if you could? I'd be surprised. In fact, I'd suspect you aren't being honest with yourself.
maybe you shouldn't. The pain of slavery is over. All the slaves are dead.
No, they weren't slaves and you know it. If they were they absolutely would have something to complain about. You're the lawyer...are you trying to say that legal damages never go to the survivors or ancestors of people?
How do you know the pain of slavery is over? Is it over like the pain of Sept. 11th is over?
No, and I never claimed that.
You must be talking to someone else here, because I am not a liberal, and there's no way in hell that that is the next thing I will be saying.
Yeah, I know they're dead Jethro. So were the syphillis soldiers. Did you yell "your husband is DEAD, ma'am!" at the ceremony where the President apologized to their families?
In case the soldiers of anti-abortion and reparations for African-Amercians didn't notice something I find extremely interesting, is that George Bush signed a campaign finance reform bill this week.
Not compelling in the same way, but for people who love to watch the ebb and flow of allegiances and horse races, something pretty interesting.
Why did he do it? -- here's one thought that's probably plausable, to steal an issue from the Democrats.
Here's one thought from an interesting fellow named Michael Graham, from his blogging site www.michaelgraham.com/
"The idiot Bushies still chant the "We Hate McCain" mantra, blaming McCain for campaign finance reform as though it's the Arizona senator's fault that President Bush has such a weak spine. McCain is wrong on campaign finance issues, but he's earnestly wrong. Bush is worse: He KNOWS what he's doing is wrong. McCain is Andrea Yates, living under a delusion. Bush is Susan Smith, rolling his principles down into the cold, dark water in order to get something he wants."
Let's see the difference between 135 years and 7 months is? Hmmmmmmm.......
Why did he do it? -- here's one thought that's probably plausable, to steal an issue from the Democrats.
Maybe he believes that the unconstitutional portions of the law will be struck down by the Supreme Court leaving Republicans with a huge advantage in the end. As for stealing an issue, it appears very few people care about campaign finance reform.
I'm not inside the president's head, but if he believes it's unconstitutional, why did he sign it?
What would be the huge advantage Republicans have? How would they get that?
No Justice in Reparations
I'm not inside the president's head, but if he believes it's unconstitutional, why did he sign it? It is only partly unconstituional. The limitations on when people can speak, for instance.
What would be the huge advantage Republicans have? How would they get that? My understanding is that it raises limits to $2,000 directly to candidates and that Republicans have an advantage in this area already.
Rick,
I think had he said he wasn't going to sign it then the accusations from the left would be the same tired old, they only care about big biz etc. yadda, yadda, yadda. Or he would have been fairly criticized for not having the authority to detrmine what is or isn't constitutional. Or at the very least he would have been accused by political opponents as being an obstructionist on campaign finance reform. Personally I think it is unconstitutional and the courts will shoot it down and we will be right back (sadly) where we were. The bill was championed by McCain (a Republican!) written and approved by both R's and D's. It gives them all political cover. And also helps protect their incumbent status. I think it's window dressing on a problem that needs to be solved better. Both parties feed at the trough. It needs to be fixed. This fix was anything but. There are too many holes and things that prohibit free speech. Something oddly that conservatives were bashed for when they used it as an argument for opposing the way it was written. Turns out thatit's true. That's why I think they (the courts) will shoot it down and everyone can say, "well i voted for reform" Ahhh politics. UGH
Rob:
I think he signed it for all the reasons you stated. Mr. Triangulation is not above politics, I guess.
That the Republican party is in bed with big business is far from tired. CEO's vote overwhelmingly Republican and donate money to Republicans for a reason. They expect some return. And, not doubt, they'll continue to get it.
The only interest I have in campaign finance reform is to watch for entertainment value. Candidates will find a way around anything that's passed.
I've never understood how money =free speech, but greater minds than mine have said it is. Maybe one day I, too, might be able to wrap my brain around that.
Many of the laws are so absurd (you can raise funds on this telephone, but not that one) they require politicians to make countless distinctions that easily picked apart under close scrutiny. And there's enough lawyers in Washington who are willing to devote large chunks of their career to do just that.
Rick,
I thought how someone voted ie: 87% of journalists voting D, didn't matter ? :) How they personally vote is not really the issue. As far as R's being the only benefactor of money from big business or organizations, the Dems have their hand in the cookie jar just as well, they are both guilty of a legal yet slimey process. The finance reform will take some of that out of it which agree with you is good. Sadly there are so many other holes as you stated that BOTH parties will exploit it so much that it becomes toothless. And a feel good bill that really doens't do much good. But they can all say they are for it come election time.
If journalists were donating money to Democrats that could call their objectivity into question.
Because a journalistis Democrat doesn't necessarily mean their journalismis Democrat.
There are so many who can state both sides of an issue with equal forcefulness. And a good one should be able to.
There are so many who can state both sides of an issue with equal forcefulness. And a good one should be able to.
You mean people like Dan Rahter and Peter Jennings?
I don't watch enough of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings to give an opinion one way or another.
But you've probably made up your mind that they are biased before you've turned on the TV, so you can bet your life that's what you're going to hear, whether it's there or not.
But you've probably made up your mind that they are biased before you've turned on the TV, so you can bet your life that's what you're going to hear, whether it's there or not.
How biased of YOU! I watch them them on occassion. Their bias shows, generally, not in what they say but how they say it.
What malarcky. How do they say it Andy? Or maybe it's the color tie they are wearing or the pattern on it that is brainwashing everyone.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!!
Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
Why read the rules. You ignore them.
It was bad enough when Democrats just lied a lot themselves, purported not to know what "is" means, and claimed that "everybody" lied, perjured themselves and suborned the perjury of others. Markey has staked out a more aggressive position by announcing that Republicans who tell the truth are breaking the law.
A great pic of a great American!!!!
Ann Coulter can write bitter, caustic columns (because she's a bitter, caustic woman) until the caribou come home.
Fact is, her side couldn't even get a majority to go with them.
Save ANWR from corporate plunder!!!
Drill ANWR and save us from the Middle Eastern plunder.
Your short-sighted assessment didn't win this time, JT. It's not called the Arcitic National Oil Field. You want that? -- You'll probably get your wish. The powerful oil industry takes what is wants under Republican leaderhsip.
For now -- Congratulations Sens. Daschle and Lieberman!
I wonder what Rick will say after Republicans gain control of the Senate after the November elections? That will put an end to the whole debate. As for being shortsighted, Rick, it is the environmental extremists that are being short sighted.
Your short-sighted assessment didn't win this time
What's your long sighted assessment?
It's not called the Arcitic National Oil Field.
Why can't it be both? Are we to allow a natural resource to simply sit there?
You'll probably get your wish.
I hope so.
The powerful oil industry takes what is wants under Republican leaderhsip.
Why's that? Why can't the "Save the Caribou" crowd pull together and counter the oil industry? My guess is because people would rather have oil than caribou.
If the president and this oil drilling Veep were really concerned about the search for oil, they would take the Gulf Coast of Florida first. Infrastructure in place and large reserves.
But Brother Jeb put the keebash to that idea.
If the president and this oil drilling Veep were really concerned about the search for oil, they would take the Gulf Coast of Florida first.
Let's see we can get oil from an unpopulated wasteland or from the ocean which have beaches populated with millions. hmmmmmmmm......
It's ok to supposedly pollute the ocean but not the tundra?
That's right jethro:
Drill in Florida first.
Glad you agree.
To hear these oil guys talk they pump oil in your backyard and you'd never notice.
Drill in Florida first.
Glad you agree.
I agreed? Once again hmmmmmm........
To hear these oil guys talk they pump oil in your backyard and you'd never notice.
That is why they should drill in ANWR first, it isn't anyone's "back yard" it is a wasteland.
JT:
Was it you who just a few minutes ago said:
"Are we to allow a natural resource to simply sit there?"
"It's ok to supposedly pollute the ocean but not the tundra"
Oil production pollutes? Heavens, no. Can't happen.
They say they want just 2,000 acres in ANWR? Like hell. They'll take more and more as the opportunity presents itself.
Let them in at all, and they'll think it's all theirs.