  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Aug-26 4:24 pm
AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisersAll industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest. | |
|
 | | |
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raiserssaid by en102:All industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest. Thats true. However, this case is a bit different being they violated the 4th amendment and broke the law. The telcos crossed the grey line on this one. And they got lucky they were let off the hook. This is a really sad state of affairs for our constitution. And is also where I lost all respect for Obama. I have little faith anymore for our federal government. | |
|
| |  NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers"They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.
There are civil and criminal laws to apply to corporations, of course. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raiserssaid by NormanS:"They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well. That's not entirely true. You're right that the Bill of Rights originally was only a bar against Congressional infringement. In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement (who were essentially reinstituting slavery by denying rights to freed slaves, either by passage of "Jim Crow" laws, or simply turning a blind eye to private violence against blacks. The intent of the framers of the 14th was to protect recently freed slaves from state laws recreating slavery. But, by implication it also extended to local laws (not nullified by the state), or private violence that went unpunished by state or local officials. The intent of the 14th amendment wasn't recognized by the Supreme Court until the mid 1920s when they began what became known as "selective incorporation" of the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment. Mark | |
|
| | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raiserssaid by amigo_boy:In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement... Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raiserssaid by NormanS:said by amigo_boy:In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement... Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one. I'm very familiar with the 13th though 15th amendments. The 14th amendment was the one that extended the Bill of Rights to state (and by implication) private or organizational infringement. It's a matter of semantics because, although the 14th amendment didn't give the federal government jurisdiction over private/organizational infringement, it gave them jurisdiction over the state that didn't take action over such municipal, private or organizational infringement. It's indirect. Mark | |
|
| | | | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisersBut what, about my post, didn't mention the extension of Constitutional protection, or control, or whatever you want to call it, to the states? Must I requote my comment? quote:
...and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.
What did I miss, that I failed to convey exactly what you said I didn't? | |
|
| | | | |
Alvin to NormanS
Anon
2008-Aug-28 12:20 pm
to NormanS
The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.
And in the greatest irony, it was the 14th amendment, through the Supreme Court and cases brought to it (over 80% of which were about corporations, not freed slaves) was the one that ultimately allowed Corporations to be defined as people and gave them the right to own property and have free speech leading to this problem with lobbyists and corporate domination in the first place.
Now they're able to use their pull to avoid responsibility. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raiserssaid by Alvin :
The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.
You're wrong. Congress and the President did nothing more than restate 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) [1]. That law already defines when telcos are (or are not) liable to criminal or civil prosecution. So, the so-called immunity deal [2] didn't convey immunity. It says its only applicable *if* 2511 applies. All it did was provide an avenue for the judiciary to make that determination. We know this was the basis of the Administration's defense of the telcos because AG Gonzalez documented his argument that 2511 applies.[3] [1] » www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html[2] » www.eff.org/files/fileno ··· _xml.pdf (see page 88) [3] » www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitep ··· ties.pdf (see page 23). | |
|
|  roc5955
Premium Member
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY |
to en102
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "We need a bloody revolution every twenty years, just to keep government honest."
It's been 232 years... Long overdue. | |
|
| |  Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
1 recommendation |
Mike
Mod
2008-Aug-26 6:20 pm
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisersSo...
How's that Change coming along? | |
|
| | | |
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Zoom 5341J
|
KrK to en102
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 11:56 pm
to en102
said by en102:its capitalism at its finest. Well, corruption, anyway... which you could argue is part in parcel with sufficiently unrestrained capitalism. | |
|
1 edit |
"a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"This was dead wrong.. A total violation of the 4th amendment. The democrats are no better then the Bush admin. I still can't believe they did this. At least my Telco Qwest did not allow illegal wiretaps. And reading about these parties really burns me up. What corruption. | |
|
|  tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
2 recommendations |
tiger72
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 4:31 pm
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"Really? You really can't believe they did this?
Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners.
Stop voting (D)
Stop voting (R)
Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual. | |
|
| | | |
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"said by tiger72:Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P | |
|
| | | Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA |
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc.. | |
|
| | | |  cdruGo Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2008-Aug-27 9:50 am
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"said by Jonbo298:There are other parties besides those 2 (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Independents are the next largest, green party, etc.. Unfortunately, if you aren't red or blue, you have essentially no chance of getting into office. There are only 2 Congress Critters in federal office that are not affiliated with either major party, Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. Lieberman was formerly affiliated with the Democrats and both caucus with them. Prior to Sanders being elected, the previous independent in the house was in 1950. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
to jimbo21503
said by jimbo21503:said by tiger72:Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P At the current rate things are going, that just might work! There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists... But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall. | |
|
| | | |  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 edit
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 5:14 pm
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"said by tiger72:There are many 3rd parties who would love your support, and chances are there are 3rd parties which line up with precisely what you want - whether they're Reform, Green, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists... But as long as we're stuck in the (D)-(R) chasm, we're going to just continue to fall. said by jmn1207:I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. The problem with most 3rd parties is that they spend too much time and money on national campaigns. If they went whole hog in a limited # of selected states they could actually get people elected to Congress(especially the House) and then use their leverage in a non-majority D-R split in Congress to negotiate some of the things they want and gain higher visibility for future elections. Until they do that they are going nowhere in Presidential elections. | |
|
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 5:19 pm
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"The LP is doing this to an extent, and slowly making inroads... | |
|
| | | | | Maggs
Premium Member
join:2002-11-29
Jackson Heights, NY |
Maggs to FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 6:26 pm
to FFH5
He's got a point, start small and kick some ass. Divide and Conquer as they say. | |
|
| | | | |
to jimbo21503
said by jimbo21503:said by tiger72:Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Who would you recommend then? If you don't vote D and don't vote R, you are not left with much. You suggest no one be president? Open office? ;P I would recommend you find out how your representative and your senators voted. If their votes don't agree with your values, vote their @ss out of office. It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt. one telling fact: the republicans couldn't get the immunity provision thru when they controlled congress; they were enabled and abetted by a democratically controlled legislature. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Aug-27 12:04 am
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"said by nasadude:It is correct to say this isn't really a D or an R issue - both sides (especially the Dem leadership) are equally craven and corrupt. And the Democrats would equally say "especially the Republican Leadership." What you just said is "Both sides suck, but the Dems suck worse, so vote for Republicans" which undermines the entire point, really. | |
|
| | |  SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA |
to jimbo21503
Nader! | |
|
| | | |  DownTheShorePray for Ukraine
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ |
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"Oh, puleez...  | |
|
| | | | | SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA |
SLD
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 9:08 pm
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"and does that same consumer protection cover the drug addicts too? | |
|
| | | | | | DownTheShorePray for Ukraine
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ |
to SLD
said by SLD:I guess if you are against people who fight for consumer protections, that is the appropriate response. Not against them at all - in fact I support them. But Nader is a man whose time has come and gone as a viable third party candidate. The only role he has now is as a spoiler, and his presence in the presidential race has already helped the Bush machine one too many times. I don't want to see his presence do the same for McCain. His voice would be better served organizing people to push the consumer agenda into party platforms - not getting a soundbite on the news stations. | |
|
| | | | | | | SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA |
SLD
Premium Member
2008-Aug-27 2:07 pm
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"The point is that "party platforms" are just corporate-driven agendas. I applaud his ability to "spoil" the race by forcing the major parties to take the third-pary will seriously. Same for the voters - make them aware that there really could be a choice. I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA
1 recommendation |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2008-Aug-27 2:20 pm
Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"said by SLD:I could care less whether McBush or Obama get elected - the outcome will be the same 4 years from now. Corporate agendas will be furthered by the administration at the cost of the citizens. I'm willing to bet that the minimum wage is increased at some point in an attempt to gather some votes, further adding to the already skyrocketing inflation, and, naturally, congress will surely give themselves a raise at some point over the next 4 years. Anything that else that gets done will most likely be a few passed bills with deceiving names that help a few C-level types at large companies at the rest of our expense. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
••••••••••••••••••
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 recommendation |
to tiger72
I agree. Both want your support for their agendas, and both are horrible.
Whether it's the Democrats:
Tax us till we break, and spend irresponsibly (medical/medicare fraud, general wasteful spending). Sue for discrimination wherever possible, and kill off any hope of running your own business.
Or the Republicans:
Sell it all to the highest bidder, outsource north America, and still raise fees on everything possible. Become the world's police, for corporate interests. | |
|
| | |
•••• |
| | jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA
2 recommendations |
to tiger72
said by tiger72:Really? You really can't believe they did this? Partisanship has only hidden the reality of politics. Each side points and cries "THEY are horrible!". When it comes down to it, both parties do the same crap, just under different banners. Stop voting (D) Stop voting (R) Vote on the issues, and this will stop. Until then, it'll continue to be business as usual. I just want to see a national debate with a 3rd party participating. We generally keep voting the incumbents back into office over and over again and we are going nowhere. There is very little separating a Democrat from a Republican other than the direction the mud is being slung. I keep hearing how I am wasting my vote by casting mine for anything other than R or D each election, but I know in my heart that I am really doing the right thing, and we have to start somewhere. | |
|
| | |
••••••••••••••••••••
|
|  MysticGogetaThe Robot Devil
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Katy, TX |
to HiDesert
Yeah both party's do suck. However there never will be a perfect president from either party so you have to deal with BS all the time. | |
|
|  ChrisXPUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium Member
join:2002-12-13
USA |
to HiDesert
said by HiDesert:The democrats are no better then the Bush admin. Yeppers. Dirty politics need power and money, and corporations and online advocate websites helps to grease their very wheels. | |
|
blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL |
blips
Member
2008-Aug-26 4:33 pm
1984Welcome to Big Brother. They will chip away at all our freedoms in the name of protecting us. Who will protect us from them? | |
|
FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 4:40 pm
Pols will NEVER pass on chance to collect re-election moneyThe only way to gain access to a politician is thru money or thru large organizations(NRA, AARP, NAACP, etc., etc.) representing lots of voters. It has been that way in the U.S. Congress since 1800 and no laws are ever going to change that. The "Golden Rule" applies here and around the world. | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Aug-26 5:21 pm
Re: Pols will NEVER pass on chance to collect re-election moneyI agree... I'd like to see an update to the stats though, as this was published in 1997.
A global economy is where we are, and must deal with it. The golden rule will never really change. "He/She that has the gold, makes the rules". | |
|
1 recommendation |
Why are you here?I looked at the video attached and I can see why people would not provide answers to the "reporters", who in their right mind is going to discuss anything with an unknown reporter and film crew? | |
|
| | |
Re: Why are you here?said by Austinloop:I looked at the video attached and I can see why people would not provide answers to the "reporters", who in their right mind is going to discuss anything with an unknown reporter and film crew? Exactly. Thank you. I was just about to post the same thing. Good lord people are such idiots. OF COURSE joe or jane average event attender is not going to get all chatty with some agressive OBVIOUSLY agenda-laden "reporter". And then you get all frothed up in a lather with your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. | |
|
| | | |
Shamayim
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 5:51 pm
Re: Why are you here?As your type would say, 'If they're not doing anything wrong, what have they got to hide?'  | |
|
| |
Hold your nose...I’m very disappointed with the Dems & Obama for this one. But one bad decision can’t compare to John (Bush) Mccain trying to bring down America. | |
|
| | |
Re: Hold your nose...What one bad decision are you talking....Is that a part of the spare change as promised by Obama? So why is Bush any worse? Obama has more flip flops that anyone else whether it be outsourcing or it be drilling or it be our rights! | |
|
 TitusMr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26
1 recommendation |
Titus
Member
2008-Aug-26 4:58 pm
Teh Two-Party systemchugs along guzzling corporate spooge ($$$) for our dining and dancing pleasure. Until enough people unite behind third-party candidates, those of us who see through the RNC/DNC dog & pony show will continue to suffer under its reign. The first thing people can do is turn off the TV, radio and two-party oriented blogs -- our media is pravda at this point.
-- | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
gee, i wonder...who AT&T is gonna back? McCain with whoever or obama with biden? I'm placing my bets on obama+biden. just look at biden's record. change obama says? it'll be a change for the worse, which seem impossible given bush and his cohorts right now. | |
|
|
••• |
2 recommendations |
Shamayim
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 5:31 pm
I'll say it againKlein was and is an American hero. | |
|
| Relic (banned)
join:2003-09-29
1 recommendation |
Relic (banned)
Member
2008-Aug-26 5:38 pm
Re: I'll say it again | |
|
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2008-Aug-26 6:00 pm
I wonder how much Obama costs....Looks like we have another bought and paid for politician. In fact, it makes it easy for ATT to hand out checks since everyone is in the same place.  | |
|
| | |
Re: I wonder how much Obama costs....That might be a good question for Resco | |
|
nutcr0cker
1 recommendation |
Spare change as promised by the messiah George ObamaSay no to war...flipflop....its ok
Say no to outsourcing....flipflop...Its ok well replace them by minimum wage jobs
Say no to trampling civil rights...flipflop....Its ok immunity for Telcos
Say no to further pollution...flipobama...its ok well gat some fat money from the oil companies and openup drilling even at home.
So can any Obama supporter plese tell us what we're getting into if we vote for this flipflopper? McCain atleast has some bone rather than this slimobama having less bones than a jellyfish to stand up for anyuthing.....lol and the hillairyt is his wife claiming outlandish things | |
|
|
••••• |
| |
ultracooldave
Anon
2008-Aug-26 6:10 pm
In case you haven't noticed-We Have a 1 Party System!Yes, and if you think your well considered vote will change your lot in life you better think again! The totally controlled media WANTS you to think things will change by your vote because you want to believe this if you are one of the 2/3 suffering now expect the only thing to change will be more people in your "club"
The good paying jobs, our technology and wealth have already been transferred away from you and your children.
They (the super rich and powerful worldwide) are throwing Obama out there so you will at least vote for someone, how embarrassing should only 10% actually vote. But does he really vote for regular people or attempt to solve their problems- just look at both Obama and Biden voting for the change in bankruptcy laws after 20 years of lobbying by the banks-or the telecom immunity or a whole list of other laws not helping any middle class people.- and McCain is no better nor are any Congress people.
To all those who say _"its democratic to vote and we will pick the best of a bad lot" Keep it up until you arrive in the ever growing nowhere middle class club! Does your diligent voting stop the largest transfer of wealth in history (debt from 5 to over 9 trillion in just a few years)- where did all that money go! Whereever, it ain't here and we owe it. Don't blame Iraq- that only accounted for 1/10 of it, and please don't blame only Bush, he just blindly agreed to it.
You should really watch some of those old TV shows from the 50's and 60's to remember how it used to be and how it is now! | |
|
 JSY
Premium Member
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY |
JSY
Premium Member
2008-Aug-26 6:30 pm
Just goes to show you...- you can sugar coat shit as much as you want, but in the end it's still shit. Meanwhile, politicians from all parties tell you straight in the face that they are not for special interests and will not be swayed by big business. Hogwash. They're all fricken jokes and come Election Day you're gonna have to try to figure out which the lesser joke of them all - but make no mistake, whomever you pick is just as big of a crook as the last one. | |
|
| |
what i wanna knowis do they need a warrent from now on, and have to do shit by the book, and just being protected from the past, or is this like evect them for ever, and let them give info out to who ever they feel like? | |
|
|
••••••• |
 fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17
fishing
1 recommendation |
the cost of prostitutesCampaign contributions, from the article: quote:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:
$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)
| |
|
|
••• |
DownTheShorePray for Ukraine
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ |
And When The Republican Convention Rolls Around......there'll be another "slew of private corporate-sponsored parties", with another one hosted by AT&T for exactly the same reason.  The parties hosted by the oil companies should be quite lavish...  | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2008-Aug-26 8:17 pm
ughvomit. | |
|
| |
| |
Patricia MadridSaid the other night that democrats would stand against wiretapping, but yet they compromised on a bill that let them get off scott free. Fucking Hypocrites. | |
|
|
••••••••
|
|
|
