I'm sorry, Mark - what newspaper was it that broke the story of all of Kenneth Starr's "insider leaks" on the front page week after week during the Whitewater investigation? You know, those ones that were quickly debunked on page 10 - two days later?

Winnow,

I fail to see your point - I'm talking about how the NY Times has downplayed Hillary's manifold ethical problems...in fact, from what I understand the real lede in the story should be the fact that Hillary is trying to find a way to get back the dirty money she's given up...

Defending Craig? Try this at home:

1. Pull your pants down around your ankles/knees/wherever you do to mount the toilet.

2. Sit on toilet.

3. Spread your feet out wide.

Oh wait. You can't. Your pants constrain your feet to a maximum hip-wide distance.

Prosecution rests.

As for Hillary, all true progressives want her to fade away. She's WAY too embedded with lobbyists and dirty money. Nobody likes her. Plenty of people think she has enough money to buy the election and consequently will back what they see as a winner, but nobody likes her. She would make the secretive Bush administration look like a Hee Haw gossip sketch.

The NYT has no liberal bias. They have a wealth bias, like almost ALL MSM. They ALWAYS defend the millionaires first. If a millionaire gets busted actually doing a bad thing, they go on Larry King and get a free pass. That is, as long as they're white.

Mark,

I can certainly understand your position when you say you'd like your party to win next year. But to suggest that people should get behind it because of the superior morality of Republicans? I'd stick to issues if I were you - politicians on both sides are guaranteed to let you down on the morality front. They are all humans, after all.

I imagine that you'll say conservatives are somehow a better brand of sinner because they know right from wrong - but that doesn't make their wrongs against me feel any better.

Clinton is not the person to bring the U.S. back to where it stood before GWB became the decider. Sadly, that person is not in the running and the one Republican candidate who could possibly bring hope and change to a dispirited nation, although loved by the people, does not have the backing of the political machine. Sigh...

Mark, you seem to be wanting to crucify someone for something someone else did while asking another person to be spared for a crime they plead guilty to... Hmmm....

What is that the republicans on here say about the hatred toward GWB. We can see any good in any of his policies because of this factor. "Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?" That is in reference of H.Clinton.

Man, the lefty trolls are out in force. You must have hit a nerve.

CO - just who do you want to see running? Gore? The man who has been giving a "do as I say not as I do" message on energy conservation? I mean flying on private planes? Using SUV's? Having a mansion with no energy conserving processes installed?

kjstrouble-

If you have a problem with "do as I say not as I do", you've come to the wrong blog. The authors of this blog would be the first to tell you that they haven't practiced the virtues that they preach to others here. "Be fruitful and multiply" comes immediately to mind. Mark has written several posts regarding the selfishness of those who chose not to have children, yet he himself has none.

I'm not trying to bag on Mark. I'm just saying that around here, you don't need to be a model of the virtues you preach in order to preach them. Or stated differently, you don't need to BE right to be righteous, you just need to KNOW what's right. I understand that to be part of the ground rules at B4B.

JACK ABRAMHOFF...is there no difference!

"CO - just who do you want to see running? Gore? The man who has been giving a "do as I say not as I do" message on energy conservation? I mean flying on private planes? Using SUV's? Having a mansion with no energy conserving processes installed?"

Posted by: kjstrouble at September 13, 2007 10:30 AM

Thank you Kjstrouble.

That's classic Sean Hannity.

Sean Hannity - hypocrisy warrior!!!!

Let's do a little Hypocrisy Warriorin' of our own.

Let's apply Hannity's standards to oh, let's say....... Hannity.
Here's the case....

Hannity supports the war, Hannity is a patriot, loves this country and supports it in it's fight against all enemies foreign or domestic, right? He goes so far as to say those who don't support America in it wars is a traitor. He praises those that serve in this nation's military and derides those who do not. He has said that protesters should join the service to see what it is we're fighting out there. We know all these things about him because he tells us night after night.

Now Hannity looks like a strappin' able-bodied young man. Relatively fit, minus that 40 lbs he's packed on over the past few years.

So with that being said, tell us all kjstrouble, in what branch of the military did Sean Hannity serve to defend this, his beloved nation?

NONE??!!??!

Well he must of at least served in the National Guard like George W Bush huh?

NO AGAIN??!!!??!!

Huh......Imagine that.......... :-/

Kjstrouble-

In case you were wondering, you were the only watching Hannity and Colmes last night. LOL

You did a nice imitation of a parrot though.

Kjstrouble,

Sean Hannity? Whay did you bring up Hannity? What does he have to do with ... wait, you didn't! Sorry, zero must be losing the argument again and changing the subject to cover his incompetence.

Carry on.

Hey Zero,
Another thing the dreaded MSM didn't bother to report was Admiral Fallon's description of General Petreaus -- "an ass kissing little chickenshit"
Funny it seems that even bleeping the more unflattering parts of the admiral's description might have taken a little luster off of the general's portrayal (by the dreaded MSM) as a great military leader.

CO - just who do you want to see running?

Posted by: kjstrouble at September 13, 2007 10:30 AM

Why, Russ Feingold, of course. I still haven't changed my mind; regardless of how many slurs are thrown in his direction. He's the man.

Regarding, "the fate of the nation depends upon our ability to keep these corrupt fools out of power." Both parties have corruption, but calling them fools is questionable to me when they're doing what they must do under our current political system to survive. Democracy was hijacked after the Civil War when the foundation to let non-humans dominate the process of making laws for humans was laid. These so-called fools are simply pawns controlled by corporations and their wealthiest owners. When the elections are over we usually learn about 90% of the winners were those who spent the most.

To end corruption, start by banning corporations from politics using a constitutional amendment that abolishes corporate personhood.

Sean Hannity? Whay did you bring up Hannity? What does he have to do with ... wait, you didn't! Sorry, zero must be losing the argument again and changing the subject to cover his incompetence.

Carry on.
Posted by: Rathaven at September 13, 2007 01:06 PM

Rathaven-

Apartently YOU didn't see Hannity and Colmes last night either. lol

That's exactly where our friend pulled his little shot at Gore from.
Bad conservative not getting your nightly dose of Fox, bad conservative....

Still trying to change the subject? tsk-tsk
Just admit you cannot hold your own with kjstrouble and move-on!

Mike Pryslak,
What a great idea; and while we're at it, let's screw around with the Constitution and make it unlawful for Unions, PACs, neighborhood watch, clubs, organizations, colleges and universities, people and groups of like mind, and anyone with an opinion that might be benefited from a particular candidate or party, from expressing their First Amendment right to free speech.

Seriously, you can’t be that stupid.

Rathaven-

Talk about changing the subject. I see you went over to the H&C website and saw I was right.

Rat,
Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Dasein Libsbane, you may think I'm "that stupid," but I truly don't understand why you and the rest of America aren't outraged that we have no democracy. The Constitution was written around the premise that "We the People" have the right to govern ourselves. I can't find the word "corporation" anywhere in the Constitution. Simply because some rich white men paid their attorneys to convince some ex-corporate attorneys who became judges, to give these non-human legal entities rights that were intended for freed slaves doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.

The Constitution has had 27 Amendments, the most recent about something as administratively trivial as the pay raises for our elected representatives. One of the amendments was considered so bad, we had another amendment to reverse it. So what's wrong with amending the Constitution in an effort to achieve democracy? I'm proposing we clarify that "We the People" means simply, we the real, flesh and blood people are the only ones who can participate in the process of making laws. Where one person has one vote, instead of the system we operate in today, where all our votes from real people combined have less influence on law making than corporate gifts, campaign contributions and unlimited spending on lobbyists. To me, striving for democracy seems like a pretty good reason to amend the Constitution.

I have no problem with people of a like mind getting together and utilizing their constitutional right to free speech; but I do have a problem with them hiding behind a corporation and letting the corporation legally speak for them. Whatever rights corporations need to thrive and serve the public good, we people should give them. I'm not against corporations, they are wonderful tools for combining capital to accomplish amazing things, but they have no business being involved in the process of making laws that control us.

I am curious as to the Paw [sic] family in California who were Hsu's conduit for giving funds to the Clintons. This is a family that makes $45K per year and contributed $250K over a four year period.

Shouldn't they be getting a $250K check in the mail? Sweet.

Mike,
Okay, you’re not that stupid, I apologize. You are, however quite naive.

“Corporations” as you have demonized all business to be, includes LLC’s, Partnerships, and Sole-Proprietorships as well as corporations ranging from Subchapter S to Multinational. Each of the business types have interest in legislation, taxation, international relations, payroll and human resource law, as well as tariffs, interstate commerce and retaliatory and predatory processes instituted, controlled, and restricted by the government to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity.

Some of the largest businesses in the world are partnerships, consisting of two or more persons banded by business toward a common monetary goal. Many a large business is the Sole-Proprietorship, consisting of one person taking all the risks and receiving all the rewards from his/her endeavors. Are you seriously implying that Price Waterhouse by virtue of not being a Corporation has the right and ability to contribute to political candidates and causes and Alpha Enterprises, a corporation consisting of three people, the minimum required to incorporate in California, doesn’t? That the Imperial Palace with its 2,600 employees can, as a Sole-Proprietorship engage in political contributions in the name of the single owner and any corporation of 3-10 people can’t? A family owned business can; a family owned corporation can't?

Your contention is, of course absurd. Business has a vested interest in government, as do labor unions and PAC's. The more you try to restrict Americans' desire to engage in the political process monetarily, the worse the results. Hsu, Trie (shoe tree?), "no controllint legal authority", Bhuddist nuns, Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, you want more of this?

The Constitution isn’t a living breathing thing, it’s a legal document and shouldn’t be amended unless there’s compelling reasons to do so. Restricting business from the First Amendment while promoting Unions influence over the process is hardly compelling.

Mike Pryslak,

Well, in all fairness, the ACLU, NOW, NAMBLA, and other Radical "Rights" Activists, have no business usurping the powers of the people through our Supreme Courts system, and abusing the Consitution legislating Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Anti-Moral, and Anti-Family Laws from the bench .... THEY'RE the ones people should be mad at ... THEY'RE the ones who deserve to be dethroned ... THEY'RE the ones who have DESTROYED this country, along with their Leftist friends, and cohorts - THE REAL Enemy!!!

Sheesh, when will people ever learn??!!!

Jeremiah

He goes so far as to say those who don't support America in it wars is a traitor.

Let's see a transcript of this, Zeroballs, and not the one from MMFA, where you obviously got this whopper. I listen to Hannity more often than you read MMFA's lies, and I've never heard him call anyone who opposes the war a traitor.

Lying POS, that's Zeroballs...

Dasein Libsbane, apology accepted.

I'm not in any way demonizing businesses. I understand how important businesses are to America's prosperity and I agree their needs must be considered before laws are written. But corporations don't need CONSTITUTIONAL free speech rights to provide input. Instead, we need legislated rules that govern the way they provide input.

"We the People" elected representatives in our states to enact laws that enabled corporations to exist. Those laws limited the purpose and operations of corporations. But over a lot of time, we've now reached a point where the corporations determine which candidates are viable, and once elected, exert tremendous pressure to control which laws get passed. How do natural people participate anymore? Sure, they get to vote you'll say. But who are they voting for? They're voting for the candidates most funded by the corporations, because those are the only ones who can afford to win.

The second half of your last response (starting with the Price Waterhouse paragraph) asks if I'm implying certain things - I'm not - I'm only saying, take the artificial legal entities out of politics - all of them - and then let the people decide how they should participate. Keep the people in CONTROL, not the artificial legal entities. Near the end when you stay restricting business while promoting unions is another example of how you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying to promote unions. I'm saying, let the people make the laws that determine how everyone can participate fairly.

I'm conservative on most issues, but I have a hard time seeing much difference between Republicans and Democrats AND much difference between corporations and governments. Sure there are a few issues, like the right to life or socialized medicine that are mostly championed by one party and fought by the other, but the most important issue - the importance of democracy - is being ignored because those in power are firmly entrenched in power, and they like it. Again, striving for democracy seems like a great reason to modify the Constitution. (I'm no legal scholar, but I think I read once that the change could be most easily made by replacing the word "person" with "natural person" in two or three places in the 14th Amendment.)

No one knows all the answers, but as long as we're DOMINATED by corporations, we'll never see all the possibilities.

Mike,
I’ll make this as simple as I know how;
1) You write “corporations” when you mean "businesses".
2) You claim that “Businesses” aren’t “natural persons”.
3) You advocate restricting “businesses” influence over government because,
4) Only “natural persons” should influence government.

What’s wrong with your argument,
1) Businesses represent the commonality of interests of natural persons,
2) We do not, nor have we ever functioned as a “democracy”,
3) A sole-proprietorship is a natural person and a business
4) A partnership is a natural person(s) and a business,

What you get,
1) Only “rich persons” will be able to influence government.
2) Business interests will be silenced,
3) With no protection and no voice, businesses will be subject to retaliatory and predatory processes by those individuals looking to confiscate profits for the “general welfare” (see: Hillery Clinton, "Take away the profits and invest in ..." statements).

The United States isn’t a massive anarcho-syndicalist commune; we are a representative form of government that allows those of like interests and financial wherewithal to engage in the political system.

Dasein,

1) You write “corporations” when you mean "businesses".

Not true. When I write corporations, I mean artificial legal entities formed with state government approval. It’s not just businesses that incorporate, individuals do, too; I have.

2) You claim that “Businesses” aren’t “natural persons”.

Yes, but that's not what I said. I claim artificial legal entities aren’t natural persons. An artificial legal entity doesn’t have an inalienable right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. An artificial legal entity can’t exist without the approval of a state government. An artificial legal entity can be bought and sold, not so for a natural person.

3) You advocate restricting “businesses” influence over government

Now we’re getting close. I advocate restricting (not preventing) corporations from having unchecked influence on the process of making laws. Today, we can’t restrict them because they use Bill of Rights protections to stop us.

4) Only “natural persons” should influence government.

No. I advocate that the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, should not be used by corporations to prevent government (“We the People”) from regulating corporations. Only natural persons should have Constitutional protections; corporations should get their protections from the legislatures, the same legislatures that authorized their charters through state laws.

What’s wrong with your argument,
1) Businesses represent the commonality of interests of natural persons,

Not true. Businesses represent the commonality of financial interests of a limited number of natural persons, and other corporations. Very often, business interests are at extreme odds with the commonality of interests of the population of all natural persons (the common good). (For example, a factory polluting a river.)

2) We do not, nor have we ever functioned as a “democracy”,

True! This may be the one statement we are in complete agreement about. (I wonder why we're seen as the world's beacon for democracy?)

3) A sole-proprietorship is a natural person and a business.

No. A sole-proprietorship is a business owned by a natural person. Consider Joe’s Restaurant, a sole-proprietorship owned by Joe. Joe can sell the restaurant to Mary. Now Joe’s Restaurant is owned by Mary. In the USA, one natural person cannot be sold to another natural person.

4) A partnership is a natural person(s) and a business,

No – same argument as above. A partnership is a business owned by natural persons. It is property, not a natural person. It can’t be put in jail for violating laws.

What you get,
1) Only “rich persons” will be able to influence government.

No, natural persons can pool their money together with reasonable legislated regulations (like 527s do today). Natural persons should always have Constitutional protections.

2) Business interests will be silenced,

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that’s not what I’m saying. Business interests can be expressed following legislated rules. Business interests won’t be silenced, but they won’t be unlimited and able to dominate our governance.

3) With no protection and no voice, businesses will be subject to retaliatory and predatory processes by those individuals looking to confiscate profits for the “general welfare”

They will have protections and a voice allowed by legislatures. They will be subject to retaliatory and predatory processes, not by individuals, but by legislatures. Don’t forget externalities – it’s reasonable for society to tax business profits, not just for the general welfare, but also for the specific common resources businesses consume to produce their profit (truckers wear out roads, factories pollute, etc.)

The United States isn’t a massive anarcho-syndicalist commune; we are a representative form of government that allows those of like interests and financial wherewithal to engage in the political system.

Well this one blows me away, I am that stupid, I don’t know what anarcho-syndicalist commune means. As far as a representative form of government, at least corporations can’t yet vote, so the elected representatives only represent the voters, who are all natural persons.

By the way, thank you! I've enjoyed this dialog.

extra,

The moral difference between Republicans and Democrats is that we Republicans don't try to excuse it all away - we know what is wrong, and when one of ours falls short, he's forced to pay his proper price for it. Democrats are always excuse making - and for variety, accusing the GOP of doing what they are doing (such as Hillary Clinton's fabulous accusation that the GOP was engaging in the politics of personal destruction...this from a lady who has ruthlessly destroyed everyone who crossed her...).

Mike,

This has been covered, but I'll put my two cents in:

We're not just a collection of individuals - and thank God for it. Individuals are all too easily crushed - it is in what Burke called our "little platoons" where we individuals find our safety and our liberty. It is in our churches, clubs, families and, yes, even in our corporations where we actually restrain the overwhelming power of the central government. The will of the people is only a part of proper governance of a democratic republic - just as important is the will of the interests, including the corporate interests.

What we really want is more and more types of influence to be placed on government - the more the better, because this prevents the tyranny of the majority from destroying us all.

Mark, I think Burke had it right. Elected representatives owe us their best judgment. They should listen to all sides of a debate, including business interests, and then vote based on what is best for the common good. Corporations don't need constitutional rights intended for natural persons to express their interests to legislators. It is the Bill of Rights that protects individuals from being crushed by mob rule, but by extending the Bill of Rights to tools of the rich, individuals are being crushed.

An influential corporation controlled by a very tiny few who are obligated by law to focus only on shareholder profit is not "a little platoon we belong to in society."

Why must a corporation's ability to speak come from the Constitution when every other aspect of its existence comes from state legislatures, where laws are first debated by Burke's elected representatives who are able to use their best judgment?

fabulous accusation that the GOP was engaging in the politics of personal destruction

Yeah, I mean, Troopergate, "Vince Foster was murdered!", "the Clintons are drug dealers and have hit squads to do their dirty work!", "Hillary is a lesbian who was also, for some reason, sleeping with Vince Foster!" and so on (and on...and on...and on).

So were you comatose during the Clinton administration, or are you just plain stupid?

So were you comatose during the Clinton administration, or are you just plain stupid?

No, Tractatus, but the Clinton administration sure was. That's why bin Laden was able to declare war on America--Slicky Blue Dress was too busy doing the people's work, playing golf and chasin' wimmin, to go after him. WTC '93, Khobar Towers, embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, USS Cole, etc.

Mike,

Because business is an interest and must have its seat at the table...it ain't pretty, but it is the way it has to be. You should bear in mind in such discussions that I'm in favor of returning to indirect election of Senators and a termination of the "one man, one vote" requirement imposed by the US SC on State upper Houses (we don't have "one man, one vote" for the United States Senate - CA and MT have the same number of Senators but vastly different numbers of people - but the SC has ruled that State Senators must represent equal numbers of people...an absurdity which negates the purpose of an upper House). I need my desires as a citizen brought forward; but I also need my desires as a Catholic brought forward; as an employee of the financial industry; as a citizen of the State of Nevada; as a homeowner; etc, etc, etc...all of these are me, and all of them need a seat at the table.

Mark, your answer implies all interests require Constitutional level protections.

David Million says, "These are questions about individual responsibility and obligation, distribution of wealth, and state power. Inconclusive arguments about corporate personhood fail to address these questions forthrightly."

Regardless of the arguments, corporate personhood has been the law of the land and getting stronger for more than a century; it's likely to be here for a long time. But its abuses have also been growing and eventually may become intolerable. As Newt said, "real change requires real change."