j_b

You are right that I am neither buying your trying to put words in my mouth nor a fetishist framing of the issue but you are obviously deluded about the lack of specific rebuttal.

of course not, but I am first making sure you understand that corporations aren't people because they are legal fictions created at our pleasure, right? Next, we can make up rules that account for how non-profit corps acquire their financial muscle and whether spending should be capped sure, conservative interests outspending liberals 2:1 during 2010 resulted in a big yawn that's because ultra conservatives on SCOTUS will never acknowledge that equal protection demands accounting for economic muscle.

(sorry for injecting facts in the middle of this deluded rant)

Yeah, right. I checked on the first 3 claims through the 34th second (that's all I could stomach), and it appears to be a bunch of lies. But, check for yourselves instead of being good sheep like these tea party morons expect you to be: Health care law (3.3 MB): http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

Stress is very bad for you. Perhaps you should consider another "sabbatical" from spray.

troll

Is there any doubt that the purpose of that cesspool known as cnsnews in putting out that blurb was to incite the neanderthals to bash government spending on "frivolous" research?

as if anti-science/anti-intellectual/anti-government demagoguery wasn't the bread and butter of right wing propaganda. Time for you to put your glasses on because I already answered that vulture creature for whatever his drivel was worth.

See if this moves the discussion along. PS, it's the comments you have to read, hilarious. CLICK THIS LINK BUT READ THE COMMENTS UNDER THE STORY LOL!~ Classic anti-science demagoguery by know-nothing right-wingers. The money spent on that research will not only provide answers as to how we affect the marine environment we depend on for resources but it is much better economic stimulus than tax cuts for the 1% (or the 99% for that matter).

"We're Done With You" Oh? and who is in charge of the ~7,000 mercenaries still there who are funded by the American taxpayer? I guess you didn't notice the increasingly bellicose rhetoric toward Iran (some say that war already started).

I don't follow the logic. The people retain their 1st amendment rights, while corporations are a construct enabled by the government of the people. government is in the business of providing equal protection for people, not corporations.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu? Right, but there is a difference between corporations for profit (and only profit despite whatever claim they may have that whatever they do is to improve our lives ) and non-profit corporations meant to improve the collective good.

The "only" way to rock: [video:youtube]v=RvCRKJc8xF4

why should you care whether or not anybody competes with Obama from the right when there are candidates competing with him from the left. Example: [video:youtube]v=tYQfgMt3jws

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice? Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

Not true. Obama clearly said that he was for keeping public funding of presidential elections. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-keep-public-funding-of-presidential-elections/1

No. You show me when Paul has opposed the GOP's attempts at destroying what's left of public financing of fed elections. You show me when Paul turned down soft money and accepted matching funds. Then, you'll have to explain to me how come he isn't on the public record on this critical issue.

"The evidence shows that thieves impersonated the police while robbing the bank. The logical conclusion is that we don't need the police"

You do realize RPaul is against public financing of elections? Right?

Keep on ignoring that Ron Paul lies about his knowing the nasty propaganda that was published under his name for the better part of 2 decades (as if being a tool of the far right without his knowledge wouldn't be damning to his competence). Ron Paul is a classic demagogue who'll identify correctly some of the pressing issues (AHitler too was right about the role of the WW1 victors in keeping Germans under their boots) to better propose doing more of what brought us where we are today (privatization of the public domain, deregulation and disenfranchising of the 99%). Before you tell me that Paul would be non-interventionist, remember that he gave a blank check to GWB on Afghanistan.

Ron Paul, the scam artist (you too could get his financial newsletter for $99/yr): http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-campaign-paul-plots-idUSTRE7BM03320111223

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/22/ron-paul-racist-newsletter-scandal?INTCMP=SRCH

Ron Paul doesn't know the content of his newsletter after he defended it in an interview in 1996: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1 Anybody wants to bet he'll once again claim he was misquoted as he does routinely to avoid owning up to his record?

freedumb sausage