A good bumper sticker for Obama in '12, if elections haven't been outlawed by that point.

Good one, Reverend. You could also use that argument for the status quo in regard to government-supported corporate power, tax breaks for the rich, the current healthcare system, torture, racism, etc., etc.

Like it or not…that's how life works.

Uh, no. What Bachmann was complaining about was people like Barney Frank deciding which auto dealerships survived and which were wiped out. She was complaining about how unethical that is, where who you know in government is what makes the difference, where who you know dictates whether you succeed or fail. If you are for that type of government, there is no reason to discuss ethics with you, because you don't have any.

Money, being inanimate, does NOT have First Amendment rights.

People (the creators of money), on the other hand, do have those rights, and may use money to express them in order to support political candidates, no ?

Your apology for Obama breaking his pledge about public campaign financing was just lame, and exposes your true wish – that Democrats should have the advantage at all times, no matter what. That's the same thing Obama saw, and that's why he broke his pledge. He couldn't resist the money. Hopenchange.

But nice job trying to turn this entire thread into a "conservatives are for the rich" paean, especially after the REPUBLICAN McCain (who, btw, sponsored McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, in case that went over your head) took public financing and Obama broke all records for fund-raising. Then you have to audacity to say "The reason conservatives will fight to the death against any form of public campaign financing is because GOP policies favor the wealthiest." That flies directly in the face of the facts of the last election. You are just making it up as you go along.

And you didn't answer my question about whether citizen's groups should be allowed to run political ads and donate to politicians, and whether banning that would be a violation of First Amendment rights ? Would it ? Or are the ONLY recognizable groups the Democrats and Republicans ?

The gangsters are the ones that let the economy collapse so they could get their candidate elected. They were to interested in their own personal gain to even threaten to drill on our own land. The land the taxpayers support and own. They went against us purposely and let gas sit at $4 PLUS while they vacationed on our dime.

Isn't it Dodds fault that they get those big bonus', he allowed them in his 3AM bill change.

As far as the automakers. If you had a business and you came to me to borrow money to keep you afloat I would have 2 choices. To look over your business plan and either approve it or not lend you the cash. I don't have the option to forcebly invest, remove your management and then turn over the business your employees and take the rest for myself. This has to scare you rev. unless you are a socialist/communist? I wonder sometimes because you aline yourself with many of their beliefs such as blaming business for our woes, increased and unequal taxation, anti-god, pro-abortion, substandard but equal healthcare for all citizens, not making folks responsible for our own lives and letting govt be their god, even if people must struggle. It's okay if you are.

Rev we could argue back and forth all day using our own truths. Face it, the govt on both sides is treating us like Bonnie and Clyde did the banks. They are robbing us blind.

But let's take her words seriously……Why did GM and Chrysler come to the government for help? I mean, didn't GM and Chrysler approach government and not the other way around?

They came to government, hat in hand, because last fall their sales plummeted 50% within a 30 day period. The drop was directly caused by the economic collapse brought about by the banksters. We know this is true because Toyota's sales also dropped 35%. The problem wasn't just limited to GM and Chrysler.

Government had two choices. Allow GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt…..creating a few million unemployed basically overnight….or look for another way to lessen the societal damage. The Obama administration sought to save GM and help orchestrate a merger for Chrysler.

GM had to be reorganized to move forward…..and Bachmann is bitching about that reorganization. If government had chosen to allow GM to go bankrupt…NO GM dealers would have survived, none…..in anybody's district. That fact simply goes right over the nutty Congresswoman's head.

Conservatives can choose to call the Obama-led government "gangsters." The real gangsters are seen, however, in the $1.4 million per day spent by big insurance and big pharma to kill health care reform…..and the bankster gangsters still handing out huge bonuses with taxpayer money.

The very point of McCain-Feingold was to rein in flush corporate saturation of the politcal ad market leading up to an election. King says, agreeing with the arch-conservative Roberts court, that flush corporate saturation of political ads is a guaranteed first amendment right. Who knew?

I saw no answer to my question of whether money equals free speech. Does it?

If money equals free speech….then wouldn't it follow that those with the most, you know, money….would own a privileged position when it comes to exercising free speech? Wouldn't the richest have more free speech rights than everyone else? Is that how it should be?

But this….

"I have come to agree with public campaign financing, and we would have had it in the last election except for……….Obama, who broke his pledge to accept it. Obama also set a record for campaign spending, by far, so how has McCain-Feingold helped restrict campaign cash ? It hasn't. Obama, whose biggest campaign donors are the unions, said "I owe them," and admitted he would try to advance their agenda."

…is simply misleading. Obama, as King knows, filled out a state questionaire stating his opinion that public financing would be a better way to go. Obama's donors, as King knows, were made up of over 2 million individual donors giving, on average, less than $100 each.

The reason conservatives will fight to the death against any form of public campaign financing is because GOP policies favor the wealthiest. In return, those wealthiest pay for GOP campaigns. Yes, Democrats take corporate money as well…..we see that right now with Max Baucus and others…..but as a political party, Republicans are more indebted to big corporate donors.

Hey…the rich shall inherit the earth. Conservatives are simply doing god's work.

I took your sentence out of context King to campare it to an exerpt from Tues when Obama was asked about private insurance. He is touting and apparently lying about our future rights to private healthcare. Yet a blogger that probably actually read the bill has to bring this to the forefront. To me this is an impeachable offense. To not know what is actually in a bill is reprehensible. Especially one that will cost us trillions of dollars and send our wealth and future out of the country?

another source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090721114220AA723kD

"During that call, a blogger referenced an article in Investor's Business Daily indicating Section 102 of the House bill would "outlaw" private insurance.

"Is this true?" the blogger asked Obama. "Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?"

The president's response on behalf of the legislation he is pushing through Congress: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME?

I don't know, ac. The liberals usually use the "moral relativism" argument. I think we should add that one to the list instead. But libs do use the "facts are irrelevant, I am just right" argument as well. I'll have to ponder on it. Maybe we'll add them both.

Roy wants to add "HuffPo didn't say that."

Good, but I think we can include that under the "attack the messenger" argument. They think only THEIR sources are credible, and any others are just lies.

Good return to the Rev.

About McCain-Feingold. It prevents citizens groups from running ads within 60 days of an election that mention a candidate's name. Would you call that an infringement on free speech ? I certainly would. Are only the Democrats and Republicans allowed to have access to the airwaves to air their views ? That doesn't sound right to me. It sounds more like a duopoly. I remember when John McCain said that citizens groups run ads the candidates don't approve of, as if that was a bad thing. Well, why SHOULDN'T citizens groups be allowed to have a voice ? Are we to only hear from the candidates themselves ? That's pretty convenient for the candidates, don't you think ? It's also suppresses opposing or differing views.

I have come to agree with public campaign financing, and we would have had it in the last election except for……….Obama, who broke his pledge to accept it. Obama also set a record for campaign spending, by far, so how has McCain-Feingold helped restrict campaign cash ? It hasn't. Obama, whose biggest campaign donors are the unions, said "I owe them," and admitted he would try to advance their agenda.

Also, McCain-Feingold resulted in soft money contributions being replaced with contributions to 527 groups. If the Reverend thinks groups of people known as corporations are not entitled to free speech, then the Reverend should also believe other groups of people, 527's such as moveon.org, are not entitled to free speech either. And if we stop all manner of groups of people from donating to political campaigns and airing political ads, isn't THAT an infringement on free speech ? Doesn't that also conveniently help to perpetuate the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties ?

When George W. Bush signed McCain-Feingold in 2002, he expressed concern over it's constitutionality. He signed it anyway. It's kinda bizarre that a president would sign a bill he thought was unconstitutional, but I think Bush was most likely correct. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

Politico….

"In a sign that the Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning one of the underpinnings of modern campaign finance rules, Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday announced that justices would rehear a case challenging restrictions on corporate-funded campaign ads.

The result of the argument, which is scheduled for September 9,…"

And I told you…I never read Huffington…..and very seldom Kos. The liberals have a very deep and intelligent blog bench.

Two, I never do manage to leave that reservation any more than you leave the HuffPo – Kos one. You try leaving yours and I will try something other than reading all the crap libs throw out for me. I read all that crap but seldom go looking for any more than that.

I was laughing my butt off when I saw a lefty complaining about Bachman. I listened to the whole thing and failed to hear her saying anything that wasn't true. Of course, Kos and HuffPo don't like her at all so Leftys of all stripes see her as something that I don't see. I see that woman as one of the biggest enemies the Dems in Congress has and for pretty obvious reasons. Mainly she doesn't like them.