World Politics

[Anonymous]

The decision didn't change or address EXISTING laws addressing this. Obama lied. It shouldn't surprise you.

The decision was about individual free-speech. Even in politics.

What is falling on deaf ears is the voice of the electorate to the Obama administration. The administration is viewing the Brown victory as a referendum for more Obama. Great! I disagree with that characterization but I agree with the administration. MORE OBAMA, MORE OBAMA!

Wrong. Decried the bail-outs and certainly don't want monopolies. I know of no one advocating for zero regulations, especially in the financial sector. I was completely against the Exxon/Mobil merger (not the financial sector, I realize) for example. Sensible, effective regulations (in my view) are better than total or no regulations. Can we agree on this point at least?

Are you really suggesting that corporations were not previously involved in elections past? Kinda like Jeff Immelt being the CEO of GE, who is the parent of NBC/MSNBC and all that cutting edge reporting of candidate/President Obama? Oh, and then there is Immelt betting the future of GE on technology to combat global warming, errrr climate change and in a position to add to their bottom line if in fact they help elect Obama? Hmmm, I don't think recent SC decision will mess up that cozy little relationship, do you?

Corrupt SC? Man, I hope not. Probably wouln't shock me tho...

You are correct on the existing laws, however: your interpretation on it being about individual rights is off a bit. The ability to treat corporations as individuals is based off of a faulty decision in the Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1886. (go read the case and the background of the court reporter who who worte the header that became precedent for lower courts....many of whom also happened to be deeply involved with the railroads.) It is interesting to me that the Court decided to undo 100 years of precedent, yet was unwilling to go back a couple of more decades and undo the real problem here. To suggest that corporations have the rights of individual voters, and having the effect of making them super voters because of the resources available to affect elections, is to truly make our founders roll over in their graves. It is a travesty and should be viewed as such by any single voter.

I never suggested that corporate influence is new. What I said was that, following the most recent ruling, the ability to buy government is unfettered. Yes the stops in place prior to that ruling were insufficient to ward off corruption in terms of the buying of elections, but instead of strengthening voter rights, they eroded them to the point of non-existence in practice. Representative democracy as a concept is dead unless you take that term to mean representative of corporate wishes. And it is the Republican party that is primarily responsible for this, and there is no way around that.

 

[scribe]

"Safe" nuclear technology is a code word that means "no" nuclear technology. The people demanding safety still carp about Chernobyl and other plants build with second generation designs that rely upon active safety measures instead of modern designs that use passive safety. Meanwhile China and Russia plan on having a massive number of new plants operating by 2020.

I doubt this administration is out the door on nuclear power. How many plants did Bush really start anyhow? He talked about them a lot. I remember every time he mispronounced the word.

 

[Anonymous]

I think there are a few gazillion regulations. Lawmakers are very good at passing laws. After all, it IS their job!

The problem is enforcement.

I think the left's issue with the SC decision is that they have had an imbalance of funding funneled their way through unions and he has done everything he can to demonize corporations (and it seems to work well with some people in this forum) and I think he has taken it to such an extent to hide his own shortcomings that now they are a little worried about the pushback that may occur at the next election.

Capitalism has shortcomings; every system of rule does. I don't think it's some utopian philosophy that should be without checks and balances, but to read some of these folks in here, it's the problem. I just see no common ground with that thinking.

No, the issue I have with the decision is that it is based on a precedent from 1886 written in a headnote by a court reporter who was a Railroad owner. It wasn't even part of the actual decision, but a summary. However, it cemented the right of corporations to be protected under the 14th Amendment. If the court wanted to do anything, it should have reversed this precedent in specific language...you know, because of the "strict constitutionalist" banter spouted by tea baggers et al.

 

[Anonymous]

I doubt this administration is out the door on nuclear power. How many plants did Bush really start anyhow? He talked about them a lot. I remember every time he mispronounced the word.

Nice try.

Let's talk about the political will of more nuclear power and which side keeps this bottled up. Hint: The bark-humping radical enviros (you know, leftists).

You should really consider a career in politics. You'll fit right in.

 

[Anonymous]

I doubt this administration is out the door on nuclear power. How many plants did Bush really start anyhow? He talked about them a lot. I remember every time he mispronounced the word.

Yea, Obama has started as many as did Bush. Hey, didn't he have a majority in Congress at one point? Guess he was too busy cuttin' brush on the ranch.

The waste is the issue, and we need to work on effective means of dealing with it while we build new nuclear power plants. And the next time I hear "Clean coal" I think I will puke...uh.....lets see........nope, there is no such animal.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice try.

Let's talk about the political will of more nuclear power and which side keeps this bottled up. Hint: The bark-humping radical enviros (you know, leftists).

You should really consider a career in politics. You'll fit right in.

Uh, like I already alluded to, Bush had a majority in Congress, did he not?

 

[Anonymous]

You are correct on the existing laws, however: your interpretation on it being about individual rights is off a bit. The ability to treat corporations as individuals is based off of a faulty decision in the Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1886. (go read the case and the background of the court reporter who who worte the header that became precedent for lower courts....many of whom also happened to be deeply involved with the railroads.) It is interesting to me that the Court decided to undo 100 years of precedent, yet was unwilling to go back a couple of more decades and undo the real problem here. To suggest that corporations have the rights of individual voters, and having the effect of making them super voters because of the resources available to affect elections, is to truly make our founders roll over in their graves. It is a travesty and should be viewed as such by any single voter.

I never suggested that corporate influence is new. What I said was that, following the most recent ruling, the ability to buy government is unfettered. Yes the stops in place prior to that ruling were insufficient to ward off corruption in terms of the buying of elections, but instead of strengthening voter rights, they eroded them to the point of non-existence in practice. Representative democracy as a concept is dead unless you take that term to mean representative of corporate wishes. And it is the Republican party that is primarily responsible for this, and there is no way around that.

Well, now you are at odds with Linda Greenhouse and the NY Times. The Times being critical of Obama can not be good news.

"Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to the justices’ faces, on national television, in the State of the Union speech."

"This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=5&sq=supreme%20court&st=cse

 

[scribe]

Nice try.

Let's talk about the political will of more nuclear power and which side keeps this bottled up. Hint: The bark-humping radical enviros (you know, leftists).

You should really consider a career in politics. You'll fit right in.

Oh that's right. He only started NUCULAR power plant RHETORIC.

 

[Bala Verde]

I may have slept through that part if he did mention Nuclear power. Good.

He mentioned 'nuclear' 5 times (that how speeches are analyzed in the US?)

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Only once in connection with nuclear power/energy, then 4 times in connection with evildoers. Luckily the Wall Mart CEOs have bought themselves a couple of acres in the middle of nowhere where they completed their fall out shelters. Be assured, they won't suffer, and after the Apocalypse, they'll rebuild the nation from scratch with cheap good for everyone!

 

[Anonymous]

Uh, like I already alluded to, Bush had a majority in Congress, did he not?

Bush wanted to drill in ANWR with majorities and that didn't work out too well either.

I'll ask you, who or whom is keeping the US govt from building more nuclear power plants?

 

[Anonymous]

Oh that's right. He only started NUCULAR power plant RHETORIC.

Same question to you... who is stopping nuclear power?

 

[Bala Verde]

Bush wanted to drill in ANWR with majorities and that didn't work out too well either.

I'll ask you, who or whom is keeping the US govt from building more nuclear power plants?

Are you asking the government to provide services to their citizens! Blasphemy!

More telling is that you attribute the nuclear status quo in the US to evildoing environmentalists. They must wield some power! They have aptly withstood 8 years of republican government from the day they took office and prevented them from expanding the network of nuclear power plants. If only the civil right lefties had such superhuman capabilities, then torture wouldn't have been an issue either.

It's the market. Nobody wants to cough up the dough to build a nuclear power plant, and certainly never-ever-not during a recession.

 

[fatandfast]

I remember finding out from from a guy out on a hilly ride in the Swiss alps that they got more than a third of their power from nukes. Health care, trains, energy Obama really did make us look like a nation of rednecks. He was proud to say that he was knocking down the student loan obligation to 20 years and we should be proud. While in Germany I lived next to a guy from Iran that was getting his Phd in biology. He had to call a couple of his friends to make sure that something was not lost in my poor translation. Lots of beer,German,English, Farsi and lots of head shaking , Half a dozen people discovered another dirty secret about the US,we don't have free school. I am sure that all 6 asked more people than me just because nobody could believe it. Obama is wrong people don't want to see the man behind the curtain.

 

[scribe]

Same question to you... who is stopping nuclear power?

Not me. I'd like to see this move forward. I'd bet the biggest challenges are NIMBY activists. It's not really the government that builds these things anyhow. They might give incentives, etc. But they should be owned and operated by private companies. Probably French companies.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you asking the government to provide services to their citizens! Socialist blasphemy!

Wrong. The govt wouldn't drill for shit, they would give their blessing and some for profit evil corporation would drill and provide oil to the US consumer killing untold number of caribu in the process messing up the worlds last public refuge.

All so conservatives could drive their gas-guzzling SUV's leaving an enormous carbon footprint only to screw future generations by leaving them a planet with no glaciers and boiled oceans.

edit: Same basic scenario for nuclear power plants.

 

[BroDeal]

Same question to you... who is stopping nuclear power?

You mean aside from things like building a plant like an AP1000 costs $8B, takes three years to build, the industry has a history of cost and construction overruns, and the money could be used to make other investments that have less financial risks?

 

[Anonymous]

Same question to you... who is stopping nuclear power?

Not me. I mean, there is a waste problem, but we can work on that.

 

[Anonymous]

You mean aside from things like building a plant like an AP1000 costs $8B, takes three years to build, the industry has a history of cost and construction overruns, and the money could be used to make other investments that have less financial risks?

And they can burn the sh!t out of coal and blame everything on tree huggers. It is a brilliant tactic if you think about it. Blast the h3ll out of a mountain, get the coal, burn it. Claim to be working on making it cleaner to do so, complain to government that you can't do what you really want to do and ask for tax breaks because of it, get them and add it to the pile of money you make off of making power with coal. Pretty slick.

 

[Bala Verde]

You mean aside from things like building a plant like an AP1000 costs $8B, takes three years to build, the industry has a history of cost and construction overruns, and the money could be used to make other investments that have less financial risks?

Ignoring market realities has been a long standing tradition in the conservative camp. Those closet revolutionaries still have that 1776 mentality and pretend to live in the times when an apple was a penny and the interweb a set of tubes.

Nuclear power plants were high on Jefferson's list, for which he granted licenses to French companies, while he would provide the slave labor to have them built. He paid them with bread, rum and cigars.

 

[Anonymous]

Ignoring reality has been a long standing tradition in the conservative camp. Those closet revolutionaries still have that 1776 mentality and pretend to live in the times when an apple was a penny and the interweb a set of tubes.

Nuclear power plants were high on Jefferson's list, for which he granted licenses to French companies, while he would provide the slave labor to have them built. He paid them with bread, rum and cigars.

...and made them go to church and study that Old Testament stuff about slaves being subservient to their masters. Dang.

 

[Bala Verde]

...and made them go to church and study that Old Testament stuff about slaves being subservient to their masters. Dang.

This is what Mount Rushmore Limbaugh sees if/when he wakes up and looks in the mirror:

 

[Anonymous]

This is what Mount Rushmore Limbaugh sees if/when he wakes up and looks in the mirror:

Limbaugh could only wish to pull that much nookie.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you asking the government to provide services to their citizens! Blasphemy!

More telling is that you attribute the nuclear status quo in the US to evildoing environmentalists. They must wield some power! They have aptly withstood 8 years of republican government from the day they took office and prevented them from expanding the network of nuclear power plants. If only the civil right lefties had such superhuman capabilities, then torture wouldn't have been an issue either.

It's the market. Nobody wants to cough up the dough to build a nuclear power plant, and certainly never-ever-not during a recession.

Google "The Sierra Club, nuclear power."

It might shock you to know there has not been a new nuclear power plant approved to be constructed since the late 1970's. That was actully during the Carter administration.

 

[Anonymous]

Google "The Sierra Club, nuclear power."

It might shock you to know there has not been a new nuclear power plant approved to be constructed since the late 1970's. That was actully during the Carter administration.

Yea, we know. Now count the number of Republican presidents and majorities in Congress since then and ask yourself if they were all just cowards, or not paying attention?

 

[Anonymous]

And they can burn the sh!t out of coal and blame everything on tree huggers. It is a brilliant tactic if you think about it. Blast the h3ll out of a mountain, get the coal, burn it. Claim to be working on making it cleaner to do so, complain to government that you can't do what you really want to do and ask for tax breaks because of it, get them and add it to the pile of money you make off of making power with coal. Pretty slick.

Funny. Your side stops it and then you blame the other side. The old "Okey-Dokey."