even Eastwood turned on him. the empty chair thing has gone viral
Clint Eastwood v's Obama The Re-Match - YouTube
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uHCC32JA8T...hair%2BDay.jpg
even Eastwood turned on him. the empty chair thing has gone viral
Clint Eastwood v's Obama The Re-Match - YouTube
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uHCC32JA8T...hair%2BDay.jpg
So, Citizens Umited....
What gives a CEO the right to decide what to del with my freedom of speech? And why would he.not even.have to tell me what he intends to say with my speech?
I think the problems we have is due mainly to the Democrats and the Republicans. I've been on both sides of the isle in my lifetime and I gotta say that both parties have let us down, so...yeah, I'm pretty jaded with the whole political process.
I didn't respond to this post because I don't undertand what you are asking. But you asked it again, so I'll give it a shot.
Citizens United is not a "corporation or union," but they are entitled to the same free speech rights.
"Citizens United Foundation (CUF) is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt non-profit dedicated to informing the American people about public policy issues which relate to traditional American values: strong national defense, Constitutionally limited government, free market economics, belief in God and Judeo-Christian values, and the recognition of the family as the basic social unit of our society. CUF does not involve itself in any political campaigns, lobbying, or other activities." (source: CitizensUnited.com)
You are, by choosing who you invest with, but how does this relate to CUF? They are a non-profit foundation, not a publicly held corporation. The whole point of investing is to generate a profit on your investment. You can donate to CUF, but why would you do that if you disagreed with their beliefs and goals?
It's not. McDonalds or Pepsico can run political ads or donate to candidates as they choose, but they have to answer to their shareholders as well as how public perception will affect their business. If you (the collective "you") disagree with Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy's support for "traditional marriage" you don't have to invest in his company or buy his sandwiches. But you, as an individual have the same free speech rights corporations, foundations, unions and political action committees do.
Then speak out! You may not have the money to produce political ads or buy time on TV, but you can still make you voice heard here, on facebook, at town hall meetings, newspaper letters to the editor, etc. Citizens United can't stop you.
Since when does CUF (or any organization/corporation) speak specifally for YOU? And why should they?
I don't understand this either. The Supreme Court justices are not members of any political party. They are appointed, not elected. They DO lean liberal or conservative (or moderate) and naturally their personal beliefs will affect how they interpret the meaning or intent of the Constitution with respect to constitutional law. Is it any surprise that conservative justices tend to make pro-conservative rulings and vice-versa?
"stupid?" Please explain the stupid comment.
???
No, the Supreme Court did.
SCOTUS didn't pass the law. They ruled that it was constitutional and Roberts didn't "vote for it," He is one of the 5 judges supporting the majority opinion, but you are right. It was a terrible ruling. Obviously Roberts WANTED the plan to be constitutional, but it's not unless you call the penalty a "tax." But even then it's a stretch. Taxing only people who DON'T buy private insurance is much different than, say, STATE governments taxing license plate tags.
On this we agree. It's not a tax and therefore should have been ruled unconstitutional.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
On this we agree. It's not a tax and therefore should have been ruled unconstitutional.
Agreed! Very well said.
There will be no political talk today in observance of 9-11.
I think it's a mistake to make the attacks on our embassy's in the middle east more about some ridiculous, low budget, idiotic film that no one in their right minds would pay a dime to go see and less about the radical extremist choosing 9/11 to try and affect US foreign policy. Where is all this concern for religious "feelings" and sensitivity when Christians and Jews are berated, criticized and offended in an almost daily barrage of media attacks?
Just my two cents.
The USA is the height of civilized society on this planet. Even the poor here are not living as a great deal of the people in those countries do.
They live in poverty, and poverty means they have less to lose, and are generally going to be more invested in their emotions, and religion.
Poverty breeds all kind of dysfunction, including hostility.
If you backtrack through history and find where Christianity was less civilized, and less controlled by government/society, and the same type of behavior is evident among Christians. And when you trace back to eras ofChristian control you will see where Christianity has been even worse than anything we see today.
Not to make excuses for horrible behavior, but I do maintain that the religion is not to blame for a small minority making a lot of noise. Most Muslims despise having Islam represented in that way.
Keep in mind, Adolph Hitler was a Christian who claimed to he doing "God's work".
Just as Christians don't like to be represented by those who commit attrocities, the same can be said if any religion, or other group.
I think the movie was just a way of getting more people involved in the protest, so the violent intentions were protected by a larger mob.
And, while the movie was a sick idea when we are trying to cool the hatred between us, I do not suggest that such stupidity be banned.
And I do agree with your overall statement that the movie should be far less of a concern. But then, I don't see anybody really doing that.
I agree with everything you said. I use the term "radical extremist" recognizing that such characteristics can rightfully be termed to describe that particular mindset in the history of all religions. My references to the Jewish and Christian faiths is in response to the seemingly apologetic tone following the tough talk by the administration almost identifying with the attackers rather than the innocent victims of that attack.
I'm a conservative who widely disagrees with the current administration on a number of issues, however, I'm a Christian first and as such pray for President Obama and all our elected officials with faith that President Obama will handle such situations with wisdom. Attributing those attacks solely to a ridiculous film is either short sighted or dishonest at the very least.
Again just my two cents.