The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to ease the limits that corporations and labor unions can spend on during the campaign season. The decision overturned two lower Courts decision and appears to be a win for the Democrats. That apparent win for Democrats was dashed when President Obama stated on his weekly radio and internet show that "This decision opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don't." I find this state ironic coming from a man that promised to run on public funds then turned around and accepted millions in campaign donations that set records.
If we are a true Democracy then those who wish to spend their money to campaign for or against a particular candidate they should be able to. A few weeks back President Obama held private, closed-door conversations with union groups to discuss the impact health care reform would have on existing benefits. Remind yourself that President Obama said on several occasions that the health care debate would be hosted on C-SPAN as to ensure nothing is done within secret. While I acknowledge that Obama does not have control over the leaders in Congress as it pertains to C-SPAN offer to air the conference committee discussion on health care, I find it bothersome that Obama is not living up to a campaign promise. Amazingly enough, after the meeting with Union leaders President Obama encouraged Congress to look for other avenues of income than taxing "Cadillac" plans.
It is not his broken campaign promise that is in play here; rather it is lack of accountability for the actions he takes. Doesn't Obama find himself a bit of a hypocrite? In reading the Sunday's Star Tribune issue they alluded to Obama becoming a populist. I wonder how progressives see this "Change" and is this the "Change" they "Hoped" to see take place? And now President Obama is tapping David Plouffe to head a team of strategist in order to stem the tide of Democrat mid-term election appeal. The intent of bringing back Plouffe is significant as the Obama brand is losing its luster. While many Democrats up for election will welcome the additional help, it may be a little too late because, if the recent elections are the barometer, Obama does not carry the same weight with Independent's and Progressives he once did.
Maybe President Obama will read my blog and suggest change in the election process that I have previously laid out. Perhaps it is now time for a shorter campaign season that is restricted to public funds and denies any private donations to candidates or national committees. This type of change would not prevent individuals or corporations from buying air time to campaign for or against a candidate. Is it time for American's to demand a different approach to electing candidates? I am not suggesting the elimination of the Electoral College; rather looking to make all campaigns for national offices to the three months preceding November. In the end though, will the Supreme Court ruling benefit either major party or will it give grassroots movements a great advantage?
How is this a win for democrats?
ReplyDeleteMedia will benefit the most as they can rake in all sorts of cash now. Voters will lose because they will be flooded with private attack ads that smear candidates and don't advance any logical reason to vote one way or the other.
And it's a big loss for the Constitution. And a win for corporations who are now apparently individuals.
ReplyDeleteI am curious on how the decision hurts the constitution! Please expand.
ReplyDeleteIt treats corporations as individuals. That's the only way to have a first amendment argument. Corporations are, and have long be held, to not be individuals but entities created by the state in which they are incorporated.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, how is this a win for democrats?
ReplyDeleteI'm especially curious given that the "liberal" block of the court dissented.
The manner is which I view it as a potential win for Democrats is Unions. I understand that many will get fixated on the word Corporations and forget the ruling also applies to Unions.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling is good for the America as it shows us that we are a free society to campaign for whomever we want to. I do not see an onslaught of smear tactics from the majority of corporations as image is brand #1. To harm an image in order to smear a candidate is bad business.
Yet, if one still struggles with the ruling then join me and fight to revamp the system. Let's use only public funds, have live debate for all wanting office, and restrict the time frame - for all offices - to the three months prior to November. Now if you are in a big party that requires a nomination process, then we will allow you one month to do so.
Thoughts...
You honestly think union members have the bankrolls that corporations do? They can't use Union funds for the ads, so it has to come from the indiviudal members.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court granted first amendment protection to an entity. Rights that belong to individuals. This is judicial activism at its worst. Should corporations now have the right to vote in elections?
ReplyDeleteYou aren't limiting individuals and companies to advertise only in those 3 months, are you?
Viper, you keep coming up with the same routine about:
ReplyDeleteLosing his luster
Broken campaign promises
Not broadcasting on C-Span...
Why does Obama have to answer for these and the rest of the politicians past and present do not? Why do you keep recycling these same themes about Obama? You tend to hold him to such an incredible standard.
For reference, my comment is in response to the Ardent Viper's comment at 1:29pm. Like one other commenter said, the fact that unions are also included is of minimal benefit to any party let alone the Democrats. And there's no indication that people are forgetting that the ruling applies to unions too. Furthermore, the fact that some people may forget that does not equate to the decision being a "win" for the Democrats. If you disagree, provide some sound reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI find your reasoning on why this is a good ruling laughable. I don't know about you, but before the ruling I was fairly confident that we lived in a free society and could campaign for whoever we wanted to. I suppose though that you would retort with the typical "our freedoms have been stripped away by this administration" and then praise the fact that Court finally did something to give us our rights back. Again, laughable.
Finally, the idea that you would actually see a negative ad with the tagline: "Sponsored by Pfizer" or "Paid for by Goldman Sachs" or perhaps "Brought to you by Aetna" is just ridiculous. Do you think that these corporate titans are going to be stupid enough to just plaster their name all over an ad? The money will go from corporations to lobbyists, trade associations, special interest groups or any other third parties that can run commercials. You just don't get it. This is a win for big business. You, of all people, the person who constantly rants that "big government" is "eroding our freedoms" and "stripping away our rights" and "freedom of speech is the greatest example of a democratic society" looks at unlimited sums of money from the private business world as a positive. At best you're a hypocrite.
To Anon that asked “Why does Obama have to answer for these and the rest of the politicians past and present do not?” Please elaborate or point out that I am only holding Obama’s feet to the fire? Sen. Obama ran on a platform of hope, change, and no more special interests in Washington D.C. I acknowledge that many before him did the same but the message sent by American voters was because they believed that Obama would do just that. To which he has not.
ReplyDeleteNow, if another elected official runs on a similar platform and does not hold up to their end of the bargain you can bet I will be there beating down their door. And I will talk about it here. I have a state senator, Sen. Ortman (R-Carver County) that fits the mold. Sen. Ortman is not easy to get a hold of and thus far as provided lip service to Western Carver County. I have asked repeatedly for a report from the group she brought around over a year ago to discuss the needs of Western Carver County. I have not yet seen such a report nor has my City Administrator.
So, I do not care what one’s political affiliation is when it comes to being honest and accountable to those that vote you represent. That aside, I am not recycling a theme. The truth is that Obama has done nothing to change the culture of Washington and has done nothing to change the mix of politicians, advisors, and former lobbyist that run the White House. I did not vote for Obama, nor did I vote for McCain, because I knew that neither of these two candidates would have the political clout or stamina to stand up to those that got them elected.
To the other Anon that claims I am a hypocrite, I do not see the Courts ruling as affirmation of my rights as a citizen nor as the White House objection as taking my rights away. Regardless of the ruling, I had and still have the right to participate in the political arena. I do agree with you that the corporate world will not, or may not; add tag lines at the end of campaign ads.
That being said, then we ought to have our Congress pass reform to include language that any add must display the true source of funds. I do not see how allowing Corporations and Unions the ability to freely campaign for or against a candidate hurts the little guy. Grassroots are the bedrock of our society. I tell you what scares the Progressives are that this ruling paves the way for a larger Tea Party movement.
So don’t call me a hypocrite as I am not. At least with Corporations and Unions being able to run ads it will help with transparency instead of hoping that a Senator, Representative or President will disclose who is contributing or pulling their strings! I like what Robin Williams said in a recent stand bit in Washington D.C. He thought, and I paraphrase, that all politicians should where labels on their suits much like sponsors on NASCAR have. That way all Americans can see who is bought and paid for. The root of all evil is the formation for political parties but it is a side effect of the right to assemble. Just one last point, to the last Anon…please join the site and comment with an identifier.
Please, please, please stop saying that constitutional rights cannot be granted to entities. The Supreme Court has granted constitutional rights to entities NUMEROUS times. I recall more than 1 case where entities surrounding the racial divides of this nation (KKK, NAACP, etc) were granted AS ENTITIES the right to freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this you might ask?
Because an entity is not some obscure concept held in by the state purely for tax purposes. It is a group of people and as those people have rights therefore so do the entities in which they reside be those entities neighborhoods, corporations, charities, hate groups, etc. The constitution does not differentiate. Only progressive interpretation of the constitution would infer that the constitution does differentiate.
Free Speech is free speech regardless of who is saying it be they a citizen, corporation, etc. Infringing upon free speech is unconstitutional - plain and simple.
The constitution is the winner in this ruling. The citizens would be too if they were educated enough to parse out the mis-information from the facts and make rational voting decisions. But then, given the people you all choose to get your information from I'm prone to think that the loser in this is the American people. But that's because as a group, the American people are too stupid to demand better than the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Olberman, CNN/Fox news, et al.
I'll add that I have never heard the liberal left complain when free speech was supported by the constitution with regards to cases where reports/journalists and their Corporate sponsors fought for those rights against the governments or others attempts to supress those same rights.
ReplyDeleteFunny how when it comes to election reform, free speech isn't an admirable trait. But when it comes to reporting "news" free speech is the pinnacle of ethics and such.
And then you say hypocrisy when Chris calls this a good decision? It was, if you truly support the constitution. But then, most Americans don't know what the constitution stands for let alone what it truly says.
Why would anyone, even "the liberal left complain when free speech was supported by the constitution with regards to cases where" reporters fought for those rights? Are you suggesting that there should have been an uproar and that those rights should have been taken away? If so, why? What does it matter if a "corporate sponsor", whatever you mean by that, files an amicus curiae brief in support of a petitioner or respondent? What of it? It happens all the time.
ReplyDeleteFree speech is always an admirable trait and a right that is guaranteed, with certain limitations, under the Constitution. To say that this is a "good decision" is subjective. The suggestion that a person disagreeing with it or believing that it is a "bad" decision means that they do not truly support the Constitution is the same tired rhetoric of the right. If you don't support it, you're not a patriot. According to your overly simplistic logic, the four justices that dissented apparently don't truly support the Constitution.
To believe that you or anyone else has an understanding of what the Constitution stands for is both arrogant and ignorant. Arrogant because absent a lifetime of formal education and a career spent studying the Constitution and cases flowing from it you believe that reading a few internet or blog posts makes you well informed or some sort of junior Constitutional scholar. People spend their entire lives studying the Constitution and all the cases that have come before the Supreme Court to gain a modicum of understanding of what it all means. Ignorance because you are unable or unwilling to admit that you are not a Constitutional law expert and you simply accept what is trotted out by media outlets. Humility might be a trait to take on from time to time. It's really a liberating thing to admit that you don't know everything or have all the answers or acknowledge that those with differing views just might have a legitimate point.
"According to your overly simplistic logic, the four justices that dissented apparently don't truly support the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteNice backhanded ad hominem there. But to answer your point, NO, it simply means that they follow a more progressive ideology regarding interpretation of the constitution.
"Humility might be a trait to take on from time to time. It's really a liberating thing to admit that you don't know everything or have all the answers or acknowledge that those with differing views just might have a legitimate point."
I'd mention the "pot/kettle" analogy but the sheer level of condescension dripping off your post makes me think you're probably too obtuse to get the reference.
Viper-I'm the Anon from the 1/25 1:44 post.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the whole "complain about the political system" seem cliche to you? When I personally read this blog, and you reference something that Obama promised and didn't deliver on, it just becomes that tired old politicians are crooked and shouldn't be believed routine.
I am not trying to rip on you alone. It seems like everyone does it.
I am sorry Viper, but this is the political system that we are stuck with. I had a discussion the other day that focused on this topic and one thing that I mentioned was how I wished Obama would be more forceful with his ideas and sell them to the American public more. I was told that he actually did, but he doesn't write the legislation. All he really can do is be a cheerleader to what he wants.
Backroom deals? It's been happening since the foundation of our country. What makes you think its going to change now?
I never stated anything about political party. I could care less. However, Obama is not perfect and has got some serious flaws. But if you are angry because he is not delivering on what he said in the CAMPAIGN then I think you are barking up the wrong tree. All politicians are guilty of this.
Sorry
Responding to Anonymous from 2:03pm today:
ReplyDelete"Backhanded ad hominem"? Hardly. I was simply restating your argument that "it was [a good decision], if you truly support the Constitution." It's the same old tired rhetoric of the right. If you don't agree with us, you're not a patriot [or you're not a true American; or you're a communist]. It does appear that you've come to your senses to a certain extent. There is no doubt that members of the Supreme Court have differing views on what the Constitution is and how it is or should be interpreted. It pains me read comments by people that fail to recognize this or people that have no idea how complex each Supreme Court opinion is, especially when it's a 5-4 decision. I've read two or three Supreme Court opinions in my time and I can honestly say that they've left my head spinning. Read the campaign finance opinion (183) pages and you might have a better appreciation for what the justices do. It's not as simple or as clear cut as some would have you believe.
By the way, it's pretty clear that you've summoned the powers of a thesaurus to craft your comment. Your backhanded insult is off the mark to say the least. Stick with simple language. You and the Ardent Viper might be more convincing that way.
Here is the deal. Obama ran on hope, change, and transparency. I understand that many politicans run on similar platforms. Also, the media had been behind, except conservative programming, Obama like I had never witnessed before. So the bar was set high. Then he is awarded, notice I did not say won or earned, the Nobel Peace Prize.
ReplyDeleteThe man cannot even direct Peace inside his own administration by brokering a deal on health care that brings true reform. Now, he is attempting to run to the middle but do not be fooled, the spending freeze is a smoke screen and accounts for a fraction of the Trillion dollars about to be printed at the Fed.
So, that being said. I do not care if past politicans have broken promises, this man, Obama, was suppose to be different. And he has proven time and time again he is nothing more the a puppet for the Chicago Machine.
came across this and found it interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obamas-promises/?hpid=topnews
ReplyDeleteIt's an interactive tool on where Obama stands on promises he mades. And before some commenters bash me for using the "liberal left-leaning" Washington Post, I'm not taking a stance, merely passing along the tool.
"It's the same old tired rhetoric of the right. If you don't agree with us, you're not a patriot [or you're not a true American; or you're a communist]."
ReplyDeleteI love it how people presume that because they are on the left side of the political spectrum that anyone who disagrees with them are automatically on the "right". As Chris can attest, I lambaste the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats for their johnny-come-lately attitude towards fiscal responsibility and small government.
In retrospect, it might behoove you to not ascribe opinions, beliefs, ideologies to people whom you do not know through anything other than a single post on a blog forum.
But now back to your argument.
You’re saying that businesses are not protected by the constitution and afforded the same rights as citizens? However, this is a moot argument given that those types of groups having rights is considered settled law. (485 U.S. 46 (1988) for starters) Businesses are entitled to the same freedoms as citizens such as freedom of speech, press, etc. To say that they are not is to infringe upon the rights given them by the constitution.
"There is no doubt that members of the Supreme Court have differing views on what the Constitution is and how it is or should be interpreted.…. I've read two or three Supreme Court opinions in my time and I can honestly say that they've left my head spinning."
I applaud you for being able to craft a wonderful appeal to authority here. It’s truly breathtaking. You claimed both above and in prior posts that, and I paraphrase, “those without a PhD in Constitutional Law cannot possibly have an opinion on the subject” and then proceed to tell me your own opinion. I'll respond with this - the founding fathers were not constitutional lawyers or politicians. Most were educated land owners, farmers, printers, inventors, engineers, etc. By your logic it must have been a staggering feat of legal wizardry for them to craft a document as sublime as the constitution which is so simply stated that a layman can understand the meaning.
The fact that 250 years later constitutional lawyers, historians and scholars disagree on their intent is not to say that the constitution is complex but rather that we infer our own complexities upon it by trying to read modern context into the verbiage.
The constitution says what it says, means what it means and implies only what the words themselves construe. The fact that progressive jurists have made interpretations of the document does not mean that the rest of us cannot read that document and understand it's meaning. It simply means that people are trying to make a judgment of law based upon the best information they have at the time. That those people color their decisions with their own political leanings is no more surprising to me than the fact that you continue to attempt to elicit an emotional response with your childish trolling antics.
Now, so we’re clear on something. I’ve read more than your 2-3 opinions of the Supreme Court. If they make your head spin - have a good cup of coffee, a highlighter and common sense when reading them. The first two I suspect you might be able to muster but given your attempts at inflammatory debate here I question the latter. This is not to say I’m by any means an expert, but to refute your assumption that I’m some un-educated hick making baseless remarks.
Here are a few you might try on for size if you have the stomach.
5 U.S. 137 (1803)
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
545 U.S. 469 (2005)
60 U.S. 393 (1857)
403 U.S. 713 (1971) – pertinent to this discussion
485 U.S. 46 (1988) – pertinent to this discussion
376 U.S. 254 (1964) – pertinent to this discussion
The list goes on and on. Please feel free to peruse these cases and others and come back with a well thought out response. Or come back and troll, I could care less. Whatever floats your boat buddy.
This is a different anon, I'm curious your thoughts on this. If the constitution says what it says and means what it means according to you, I'm assuming a strict textual interpration of the document, why should the business entity itself be granted the protections of the constitution? Business(well, once but relating to a Qurom to do Business), corporation or entity are not mentioned in the constitution. However, people and person are numerous times.
ReplyDeleteThe individuals working for the business, sure, but not the business itself. Maybe I'm trying to draw to fine of a distinction for practical purposes.
If the framers wanted to have businesses covered by the protections of the constitution, why not include them?
Please don't think I'm being obtuse or an uneducated hick. I've read many, many constitutional law cases before.
Your point begs the question, does exclusion exclude the right or are their some assumptions that must be made to have a rational common sense interpretation?
ReplyDeleteThe argument, if I understand it, is that if I'm a purist (which I am more or less) how can I include things not included explicitly.
The answer is simply that I'm not including anything not explicitly detailed in the constitution. An organization, be it a corporation, charity, hate group, etc are made up of individuals. Simply because they formed a group to further some mutual goal does not negate their individual rights. Therefore, to limit the rights of that group limits the rights of it's membership which is unconstitutional except extreme situations such as where that speech incites or directly advocates violence against others or criminal intent.
I hope that answers your question.
"does exclusion exclude the right or are there" (stupid typo)
ReplyDeleteI realize that it may be difficult to sort out the various anonymous posters on this blog, but I can tell you with certainty that I never said that "businesses are not protected by the Constitution and afforded the same rights as citizens." That would have been from a different anonymous comment. Nevertheless, your own words suffer from an all too common defect: overstatement. Businesses are entitled to some of the same freedoms as citizens such as freedom of speech, press, etc. but those freedoms are often limited in very specific ways.
ReplyDeleteTo borrow from Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion: The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Apart perhaps from measures designed to protect the press, that text might seem to permit no distinctions of any kind. Yet in a variety of contexts, we have held that speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speaker’s identity, when identity is understood in categorical or institutional terms. The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems. In contrast to the blanket rule that the majority espouses, our cases recognize that the Government’s interests may be more or less compelling with respect to different classes of speakers, cf. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue , 460 U. S. 575, 585 (1983)." And before you say it, yes, this is in a dissenting opinion (the "losing" opinion), but it should at least give you pause.
So you are aware, the "I've read two or three Supreme Court opinions" was a bit of an understatement. Not that it would matter to you or anyone else, the number is much greater than that. While I appreciate your attempt at to paraphrase my previous comments, I'll reproduce them here for your benefit: "...you believe that reading a few internet or blog posts makes you well informed or some sort of junior Constitutional scholar. People spend their entire lives studying the Constitution and all the cases that have come before the Supreme Court to gain a modicum of understanding of what it all means." Nowhere did I suggest that you could not posit an opinion regarding the Constitution or the decisions of the Supreme Court without a Ph.D.
When it comes to the founding fathers, I would say that it was an astounding feat for them to craft a document so seemingly simple but yet so complex as the Constitution.
Who exactly are "those people"? Are they "progressive jurists"? I would hope that you inadvertently left out the "conservative jurists" from your rant. To even suggest that "those people" are the only jurists that "color their decisions with their own political leanings" is just plain wrong. If you honestly believe that justices like Scalia, Thomas or Alito do not let their own political leanings color their decisions then you are truly ignorant.
Getting back to reading habits, the list is done. Read them all. And more. They made my head spin. No doubt about it. It's not easy reading. But I did have the stomach for it. I was able to muster the courage to read those and other cases. No, I didn't just Google them and read the syllabi either; I've read the full decisions. So I don't need to try on any for size. I don't need to peruse these cases. And my response? Am I supposed to cite more Supreme Court decisions? Is that the "well thought out response" that you seek? I doubt it. You appear to be bent on displaying your arrogance and "charm". Well done anonymous commenter. You've won me over.
"You appear to be bent on displaying your arrogance and "charm"."
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps I'm merely karma returning the favor. Just some food for you to think about when it comes to pointing fingers.
"If you honestly believe that justices like Scalia, Thomas or Alito do not let their own political leanings color their decisions then you are truly ignorant."
Again with the attribution of beliefs that are not my own. Your inference that I would believe so simply because I did not state otherwise is a wonderful appeal to ignorance but a blatant and bold faced one at that. And to punctuate it with an ad hominem is as wonderfully telling about your position in this argument as it is about your character.
A more accurate interpretation of what I said would be along the lines of the following. If I assert that it's not surprising that they color their decisions with their political leanings regarding progressive jurists (as I did) you could also surmise that I would use like logic for conservative jurists.
But because you continue to assume and further attribute facts not in evidence regarding to me with regards to beliefs I have never espoused here to me in some vain attempt to pigeon hole me into your stereotypically niches you continue to miss the mark.
"No, I didn't just Google them and read the syllabi either; I've read the full decisions."
Again with your appeals to authority, really? Yes, keep telling yourself I'm an ignorant fool and you are the authority. That will make it true won’t it.
Like I said, whatever floats your boat buddy.
Where did I express the view that I was "the authority"? It seems an odd comment coming from you since post after post is filled with high minded rhetoric and backhanded ad hominem insults.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like people interpreting your comments or extending them to their logical conclusion, then say what you mean. Your assertion that I should have surmised that the same logic about political leanings coloring decisions would apply to conservative jurists is simply your way of shifting blame for your poor reasoning or inability to avoid overstatements. Call it a Freudian slip. Perhaps it was. Or perhaps it was further validation of your slanted views.
Finally, it's funny that you didn't address the substance of my comment at all (the quote from Stevens). Why is this? I suppose you're busy reading the full opinion though. Right? Isn't that what floats your boat buddy?
"Where did I express the view that I was "the authority"?"
ReplyDeleteBy asserting that you've read 2 or 3 decisions (now suddenly many more) you are attempting to imply that you are somehow an "expert" is an attempt to gain a debate "high ground" over your opponent through an appeal to authority. It’s fallacious logic.
"It seems an odd comment coming from you since post after post is filled with high minded rhetoric and backhanded ad hominem insults."
This is a laughable complaint from you given your tone and tenor throughout your posts. Should I go back and count the number of front/back handed insults you’ve thrown? Most have gone unanswered.
"If you don't like people interpreting your comments or extending them to their logical conclusion, then say what you mean."
Yes, because based upon my statement that I believe progressive jurists color their decisions with political leanings it can logically be inferred that I believe the opposite is true of conservative jurists. Yes, that is a completely logical conclusion.
"Your assertion that I should have surmised that the same logic about political leanings coloring decisions would apply to conservative jurists is simply your way of shifting blame for your poor reasoning or inability to avoid overstatements. Call it a Freudian slip. Perhaps it was. Or perhaps it was further validation of your slanted views."
ROFLOL....really? I had a Freudian slip there? So let's get this straight, by NOT saying that conservative jurists, who were not part of the conversation, also color their decisions with political leanings I must therefore believe the opposite is true. And this is your reference to a “Freudian slip”? WOW! The plethora of logical fallacies you had to use to jump to that conclusion are so staggering it's beyond reasoning on my part.
Your ability to obfuscate the discussion with this kind of fallacious logic astounds me but thanks for the laugh.
But to answer your last “bait” of a question. As I demonstrated to another poster, I’m willing to discuss politely if it’s returned in kind. But from the very outset you took the low road in an attempt to “score points”. While I find you amusing and have no problem returning that in kind – the fact that you cannot discuss from a foundation of logic leads me to believe that any true discourse here would be pointless since you will simply pick through the minutia of the statements for supposed inferences or “Freudian slips”. Or more to the point you would simply make “facts” up in a further attempt to score points.
That begs the question – what’s the point?
I love the debate that is going on. To make things a bit easier on those involved and those watching, is it possible for all the anonymous posters to sign on as a nickname?
ReplyDeleteMy goal with opening up to anonymous comments was to spur debate in hopes that people who were frequent posters would create an identifying mark. It will make it easier and less confusing but I respect everyones decision to remain anonymous.