Friday, February 12, 2010

Inane at Any Speed

Ralph Nader, one of the biggest frauds of the last half century, weighs in, poorly, on the recent Supreme Court election free speech decision.


The disparities between individual contributions and available corporate dollars mock any pretense of equal justice under the law. A total of $5.2 billion from all sources was spent in the 2008 federal election cycle (which includes 2007
and 2008), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the same two-year period, ExxonMobil's profits were $85 billion. The top-selling drug, Pfizer's Lipitor, grossed $27 billion in sales during that time.


Of course business is the ultimate boogie man for Nader, unless he is busy shaking them down. Nevermind that the McCain-Feingold act which the court truck down was only created in 2002, and there were plenty of rich companies before that, none of which were spending billions of dollars on campaign related commercials. The idea that they would is just silly.

Nader proposes a solution:


In the absence of a future court overturning Citizens United, the fundamental response should be a constitutional amendment. We must exclude all commercial corporations and other artificial commercial entities from participating in political activities. Such constitutional rights should be reserved for real people, including, of course, company employees, to enhance a government of, by and for the people.


Nevermind that the case he is talking about is not about a commercial corporation, but Citizens United, a non-profit one. This also effects unions and other such non-commercial entities. I would love to see Nader supporting an ammendment banning unions from political speech.

3 comments:

幸運之神 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Papa Giorgio said...

.

I am a big fan... so this is tough to ask. Firstly, check out my blog:

http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/

In the lower (just past the half-way-mark of that column) right hand portion, you will see my huge link debunker of many conspiratorial myths. I just had a friend over and we were talking about old times. We both were huge conspiracy fans back in the day -- I even joined the John Birch Society at one point (had about 100 books on the subject -- still do, just packed up), met Ron Paul and Ezola Foster, had the latest books on Conspiracies from both the secular and the religious viewpoints. Yada, yada.

We [my friend and I] were reminiscing about one video we saw years ago. I was wondering if any people you know worked through this video at all? I realize that the major downfall of this video (parts 1 and 2) are the many cuts... but I wanted to put some resources together or join some heads to prove or debunk portions of this video (like Bill Clinton's soon to be testifying bodyguard possibly being killed by fellow ATF agents).

I realize I may sound like a nut... my wife would always chime in with the affirmative. As you can tell, I have come a long way from my "everything is the government's fault days," but I would love some input on this one. If only to give me some fodder to talk with an old friend.

Feel free to erase this post once you glean the info from it. Again, love your site and help in any way for my current conspiratorial views and helping me debunk others. Feel free to point out the stupidity (if you must) of what I am missing -- I say that it is just cut too many times to be credible.

PART 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6868243455069739697&hl=en#docid=573761538341962905

PART 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6868243455069739697&hl=en&emb=1#

Papa Giorgio

.

Nancy said...

" I would love to see Nader supporting an ammendment banning unions from political speech." I would love this too!!

I am enjoying your blog!

This is Nancy from Israeli Uncensored News