Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-25-2010, 02:47 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
So I guess the Republicans are not in favor of US Sovereignty any more


Devaluing democracy, in foreign currency
How will foreign interests wield power after "Citizens United"? Ask a politician who knows -- like Haley Barbour
BY JOE CONASON


Among the most troubling consequences of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is the opening of American elections at every level to uninhibited influence by foreign interests. With a single stroke, the Republican majority on the court razed the law's safeguards against such interference from abroad as well as its flimsy shelter from corporate corruption. Not much has been heard on this alarming topic so far from the "tea party patriots" or any of the other usual right-wing suspects, however. Their flag-flapping ire tends to be directed against Democrats and liberals only.

Actually, the Republican attorneys and the justices themselves reviewed this issue, at least glancingly, during the course of argument in the landmark case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, who happen to have been appointed by Democrats, asked whether foreign corporate interests would be able to funnel money into American elections through their U.S. subsidiaries if the court struck down law and precedent to allow unlimited corporate political spending. The reply came from Theodore Olson, who first gained notoriety as the lawyer for the secretive anti-Clinton Arkansas Project and has lately distinguished himself as a libertarian advocate for gay marriage. "I would not rule that out," he admitted.

Unsurprisingly, the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy simply failed to address the problem. Why draw attention to the bad news when you're overturning a century of precedent? Besides, it isn't bad new for Republicans, who have every reason to believe they will enjoy generous support from foreign corporations, just as they expect to bank millions of fresh crisp dollars from American corporate interests. Although they will sometimes scream about alleged or imagined foreign donations to Democrats, as some of them did in 2008, their own party’s record in soliciting support from dubious sources abroad is real, and worse.

Proof lies in the files of the campaign finance scandals of the Clinton era, when Asian and Asian-American businessmen were caught laundering money into both parties. Plausible suspicions that some of those funds had come from the Chinese government led, in turn, to wild accusations of treason against the Democrats in power. But when a Senate committee led by Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., investigated, little evidence emerged proving that either Democrats or Republicans had knowingly accepted money from a foreign source – except in one glaring case. Haley Barbour, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, hatched a complicated loan scheme that laundered $2 million from a Hong Kong businessman through a GOP "think tank" and into his party’s congressional campaigns. (That business executive, Ambrous Tung Young, visited Beijing with Barbour, who introduced him to both House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole in 1995.)

Barbour clearly knew that the money came from foreign sources and appeared to have lied to the committee about the matter. When the Senate hearings began, John Glenn, then a Democratic senator from Ohio, offered a pithy summary of Barbour’s behavior: "As far as I know, [this] is the only [case] where the head of a national political party knowingly and successfully solicited foreign money, infused it into the election process, and intentionally tried to cover it up." The Young scheme used a Florida subsidiary of his company -- which boasted Gerald Ford as a director! -- to conceal its foreign origin. That is certain to happen on a much larger scale in years to come.

A little money laundering among friends is not an obstacle to success among Republicans, however, and Barbour went on to bigger and better things. Today he is governor of Mississippi, where his penchant for influence peddling has served him well – and he is now a widely touted prospect for the Republican ticket in 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-25-2010, 03:30 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Central Kentucky
Posts: 1,068
Ok, so the Dems don't like it? Well guess what. We have a system to fix that. Called a constitutional amendment. Since the dems have a majority in both houses, they should get busy with the process.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-25-2010, 03:44 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: jersey
Posts: 188
i have learnt with no blue link its all bull for sure

just another rant to cause mental harm to some of us who like karma IE > Hinduism and Buddhism teaches on this OD mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - jz
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-25-2010, 03:46 PM
Jim B.'s Avatar
Who's flying this thing ?
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N. California./ N. Nevada
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjzjz View Post
i have learnt with no blue link its all bull for sure

just another rant to cause mental harm to some of us who like karma IE > Hinduism and Buddhism teaches on this OD mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - jz

Could someone translate the above words into ordinary, understandable, everyday English please
__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-25-2010, 03:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: beautiful Bucks Co, PA
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK View Post
Ok, so the Dems don't like it? Well guess what. We have a system to fix that. Called a constitutional amendment. Since the dems have a majority in both houses, they should get busy with the process.
I think most Americans don't like it. The deed was done by Republicans regardless of who does or doesn't like it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:03 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK View Post
Ok, so the Dems don't like it? Well guess what. We have a system to fix that. Called a constitutional amendment. Since the dems have a majority in both houses, they should get busy with the process.
So, you are OK that foreign corporations can now participate in US elections ?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:04 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjzjz View Post
i have learnt with no blue link its all bull for sure

just another rant to cause mental harm to some of us who like karma IE > Hinduism and Buddhism teaches on this OD mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - jz
Joe Conason is an opinion columnist who is widely published, I'm sure that's a tough concept.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:09 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas H View Post
I think most Americans don't like it. The deed was done by Republicans regardless of who does or doesn't like it.
I also don't think we need an amendment just to undo a bad ruling, otherwise it would have taken an amendment to end segregation, where Plessy was overturned by Brown, just for one example. The real question here for Republicans is why they support this ruling and this concept after decades of braying at the Democrats about "sovereignty" when this so clearly undermines it. This ruling will allow literally billions of foreign dollars to flow into our campaigns. How are we a free country any more when Saudi Arabia can walk in and tell a congressman, "if you vote for this bill, we're going to give your opponent a 500 million dollar 'campaign contribution' "? How exactly ?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:19 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger View Post
I also don't think we need an amendment just to undo a bad ruling, otherwise it would have taken an amendment to end segregation, where Plessy was overturned by Brown, just for one example. The real question here for Republicans is why they support this ruling and this concept after decades of braying at the Democrats about "sovereignty" when this so clearly undermines it. This ruling will allow literally billions of foreign dollars to flow into our campaigns. How are we a free country any more when Saudi Arabia can walk in and tell a congressman, "if you vote for this bill, we're going to give your opponent a 500 million dollar 'campaign contribution' "? How exactly ?


Isn't that about how much they "contributed" to Obamas campaign?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:31 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
The Saudis? You got proof of that? How about the one trillion dollar contribution we made to the Saudis to get rid of Saddam ? But hey, instead of gutlessly avoiding the question posed by the thread, could you give us a straight answer? Are you in favor of foreign corporations participating in US elections, yes or no? Please answer the question instead throwing out some vagary this time, could you?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:38 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
Could someone translate the above words into ordinary, understandable, everyday English please
You mean turn it into "lawyer-ese?"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:41 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger View Post
So, you are OK that foreign corporations can now participate in US elections ?
They always have.
Don't you recall that Hillary, apparently, had a lot of Chinese donations from "individual Chinese" donators, that couldn't be located, based on their "addresses" that was supplied with the "donations?"
Yup, works well for BOTH sides.
That's why Nader barely competed. HE pissed off all sides-no one wanted to give him their money.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:42 PM
MS Fowler's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Littlestown PA ( 6 miles south of Gettysburg)
Posts: 2,208
The title of this thread sure seems like a trolling one to me--apparently intended only to inflame.
__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:46 PM
cmac2012's Avatar
Renaissance Dude
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 15,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
Could someone translate the above words into ordinary, understandable, everyday English please
Can't be done.
__________________
cmac

1986 300SDL, 315K
1987 BMW 325i, 440K
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-25-2010, 04:49 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler View Post
The title of this thread sure seems like a trolling one to me--apparently intended only to inflame.
It's a fair question. Corporate boards are loaded with foreign nationals, who can now direct millions to candidates of their choice, circumventing the existing law against foreigners participating in US elections. I am asking you, where do you stand on that? Perhaps you feel it is "trolling" because it is an embarrassing question for you to have to answer. Why has the Supreme Court decided to go beyond the parameters of the case and grant "personhood" to corporations, and to grant an unlimited right to foreign nationals to pass out the loot in US campaigns? How is this Constitutional, what article in the COTUS grants that right to foreigners in any way?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page