THROWDOWN THURSDAY: Attempts to Overrule Citizens United are Misguided

October 23, 2013 11:56 pm507 comments

In early 2008, a conservative non-profit organization called Citizens United sought to air a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, who was then running for the Democratic nomination for President.  The Federal Election Commission wanted to prohibit it from doing so under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which banned corporations, unions and not-for-profit organizations from spending money on any communication that mentions a candidate within a month or two of their election. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, rightly rejected this governmental censorship, ruling that Congress cannot ban political speech merely because it does not like the identity of the speaker.

The ruling has sparked a massive outrage among many politicians, particularly those on the left.  President Obama condemned the decision to the Justices’ faces during his State of the Union Address and Representative Alan Grayson went so far as to say it was the worse Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott v. Sanford.  Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is leading the charge to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United.  This amendment would eliminate so-called “corporate personhood” and restrict free speech rights to “natural persons.”

Campaigners against Citizens United tend to invoke at least one of the following three ideas.  First, that corporations are not people. Second, that money is not speech. And finally, that government must restrict the speech of some so that the relative speech of others is amplified.  I will address each in turn.

It is undoubtedly true that a corporation is not a person in the sense that I am a person. But Citizens United opponents utterly fail to justify why associations of individuals, be they of the corporate, labor or other variety, should not be able to express opinions just as individuals operating on their own can. The Cornell Daily Sun, The New York Times, Cornell University and the American Civil Liberties Union (which supports Citizens United) are not “people” either. Would anyone suggest that Congress prohibit Cornell from expressing support for increased funding for education before a Congressional election, or The New York Times from endorsing Barack Obama for President, on the grounds that allowing these groups to speak would drown out the voices of real people?  Despite the fact that anything said by Cornell or The New York Times constitutes participation in the marketplace of ideas by non-individuals, we nevertheless respect their right to participate in our political system. Why should a film by a non-profit corporation critical of Hillary Clinton be treated any differently?

The second trope utilized by Citizens United opponents is that money is not speech. Given that that is true, so the argument goes, then it surely follows that corporations and other entities can be limited in how much money they can spend on elections. The difficulty with this argument is that it ignores the key role that money plays in facilitating not just free speech, but the exercise of other constitutional rights. For example, money is not a lawyer.  Does it therefore follow that the government could restrict the amount of money I can spend on legal assistance to defend myself at a criminal trial (for the sake of fairness to the indigent, of course) to $100? Additionally, to defend the permissibility of limits on the amount of money that can be spent on an election by any of us, as individuals or as parts of groups, is to empower political incumbents to write the rules of the electoral system that is supposed to hold them accountable. That is not likely to produce a fair system.

But what about the final argument?  If we allow some to use the vast resources at their disposal to speak as loudly as they want, do we not drown out the voices of people of more modest means?

For all the talk from Citizens United opponents about their faith in the people, this final argument is incongruous with what our system of self-government assumes about the people, namely, that they are generally intelligent and have the ability to distinguish between truth and fiction.  If we believe that “the people” are worthy of the power that democracy grants them, we ought to assume that those same people will not automatically accept the veracity of a statement just because it is presented to them ten times a week in the form of crass television advertisements. This is not to say that people can never be fooled — not one of us is perfect — but it is to say that giving self-serving politicians the power to decide how much speech is too much is a cure worse than the disease. Ultimately, it becomes a question of where you place your trust. Do you place it in the people’s ability to decide for themselves what policies and candidates they support in an unfettered marketplace of ideas, or the politicians’ ability to impartially decide who may speak and how much they may speak?

Rather than being derided as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history, Citizens United should be celebrated as the triumph of free speech principles over a bipartisan attempt to limit the scope of the First Amendment.  Nullifying it would make us all less free.

 

  • Luke

    Very good article Julius. Leftists get all agitated about Citizens United because they believe that corporations generally favor conservative candidates. (If they felt that corporations favored Democrats they would surely think this was the greatest court decision ever) In reality, corporations do give lots of money to Democrats as well just to cover their bases. Wall Street was giving generously to Obama until he started calling them fat cats and other unflattering terms. What leftists also fail to recognize is that corporate donations that result in favors for those corporations also help the workers (yes, even union workers) of the companies and the communities in which they are located.

    • Gadamer too

      Fact: Most Republicans want Citizens United overturned. That’s 78%! YOU, Luke, are outside of the mainstream with your extreme, corporate and plutocratic opinions.

      http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2013/06/14/taking-on-amendment-critics-part-xvii-applegate/

      • TravisCuvelier

        Fact: your graphic doesn’t cite a source.

        • Gadamer too
        • Todd A Scheller

          He is good at doing such, then providing links that don’t cite the source either.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            “Polling has long indicated robust popular support for an amendment, across party lines. For example, a 2010/2011 Peter Hart poll found that 79% of Americans, including 68% of Republicans, 82% of independents, and 87% of Democrats “support a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people”.

            Keep smearing me Todd; it makes you look lie the sleazy troll that you clearly are.

            http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/AcrossTheAisle-6-10-2013.pdf

          • Todd A Scheller

            So is it 68% like quoted here or 70% like in the graphic to your old link Victor? So let me ask you this, if there is such overwhelming support for your amendment, and has been for two years now. Where is it?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Well Toady, in West Virginia to begin with. Something tells me that you’re clueless about THAT too.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Well since there is no Amendment to the Constitution making Corporations not persons. it seems to me that the leader of MTA in NY is the real clueless one here, I seem to remember something about who that is? Let me see, that is right his name is Victor Scott Tiffany, and he goes by Gadamer Too on Disqus. Maybe you know him.

      • Luke

        Aside from not responding to 99% of the points in my post, you are mistaken in thinking that I view your sophomoric rant as a insult. I actually quite enjoy being called extreme, although not as much as I like the label of being a plutocrat.

        • Gadamer too

          I’m glad you like being called extreme; reactionary and misinformed are more appropriate terms.

          Workers in the US are NOT benefiting from corporate welfare. That may have been the case in the past, but now corporations seek the cheapest labor abroad.

          YOU are mistaken if you think I was trying to insult you. I was merely writing facts and correcting your mistaken belief that this effort is from “leftists” only. It’s not just polls that show Republicans in support of overturning Citizens United; ballot measures indicate this as well. 70% of Republicans in W. Allis indicate that you’re flat-out wrong to frame this as a right v left issue. This is about people vs. corporations, about democracy vs fascism.

          • Luke

            You forgot racist. Is not everyone that disagrees with you racist, as well as misinformed and reactionary?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            No.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Looks like you are familiar with Gadamer, too.

          • TravisCuvelier

            Nobody said anything about corporate welfare, we’re talking about the rights of corporations. Trust me, many of the people who support your cause (according to your site) voted for TARP, which was, in no uncertain terms, a disaster.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            TARP was a small amount compared to how much the Fed loaned out to the big banks, and without that effort, we’d still be in much worse shape than we are now. You do know that all but about $100 million of TARP was returned, right?

          • TravisCuvelier

            Who gives a shit, it’s about picking winners and losers.

          • Todd A Scheller

            The loans to banks was TARP genius.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Thousands of dollars invested in educating a ten cent brain – That’s old Victor Tiffany for sure!

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            TARP was a small percentage of money that the Fed loaned out. I guess they didn’t cover that on Fox.

          • Todd A Scheller

            TARP was the money that CONGRESS loaned to banks moron.

          • Guest

            What drugs are you on when you make up your “facts?”
            LMAO what a mess!

          • Todd A Scheller

            How do you figure that only $100 MILLION was not returned? There are banks that did not pay back BILLIONS that were loaned to them. paying interest does not get he banks off the hook to the fed, just like paying your bank interest does not get you off the hook for the principle Victor.

            Those recipients have received a total of $421 billion. A total of $371 billion has been returned.

            ProPublica

            Do you know the difference in $100 MILLION and $50 BILLION?

            All told, U.S. taxpayers committed $456.56 billion to the various parts of the program, and as of yesterday, have collected $414.27 billion in repayments.

            - 24/7 Wall St.
            Do you know the difference in $100 MILLION and $42.49 BILLION?
            Where is a source proving that only $100 MILLION is all that is outstanding on the principle of those loans Victor?

          • Todd A Scheller

            Wow, Victor fixes an error, I am surprised, Now if I can get him to understand that NY cannot have a balanced budget if it has $347 BILLION in debt, only $56 Billion of which happens to be in bonds, like his buddy Paul falsely claimed.

          • Todd A Scheller

            I’m glad you like being proven to be the misinformed one. Facts are like that though.

        • pewestlake

          Real plutocrats don’t slum it on social media, wannabe. lol

          • Luke

            You are probably correct. It is pretty slummy.

      • Todd A Scheller

        Funny, Gallup found 64% of Republicans agreeing with the opinion. As well as 62% of Democrats, and 48% of Independents. Total, 57% agreed that campaign giving was free speech, 55% thought the same rules should apply to individuals, corporations, and unions.

        • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

          Yes, and Gallop’s polls predicted a Romney victory last year. You’re a genius at finding “facts” to support your lies. From your first defense of Beck’s lies, you’ve been cherry picking information and twisting the meanings of words around to support lies coming from Mr. Beck.

          • Todd A Scheller

            So where is this poll that supports your lie? Not just a graphic of it, but the actual poll Victor?
            Prove I ever defended a lie of Beck.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Cherry picking deceiver: Gallop had Romney at 49% and Obama at 48%, a Romney victory. You miss the point as is your style: Gallop is not an accurate source of polling data. Romney lost, ironically, with 47% of the vote.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx

            I’m not going to waste an hour looking back at Beck’s website from 2010 to find your emotional and deceitful defenses of Beck’s many lies. I’ve wasted way too much time on you already. You need to crawl back into the hole Glenn Beck dug for you and the rest of his sheeple.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Seems that is the very same Gallup poll I listed above Moron. What part of POPULAR vote does not win a Presidential election are you missing? 49% to 46% with a margin of error of 3% is a statistical TIE you fool.

          • Todd A Scheller

            You do understand that popular vote does not win a Presidential election right? And that in a poll a 49 to 48 split is a statistical tie because of margin of error right?

          • Guest

            What drugs were you on when you make up your “facts ?”
            LMAO what a mess!

    • pewestlake

      Luke, nobody on any side of the aisle fails to recognize anything you mentioned. Every point you raise is as obvious as a dog in heat. The point you fail to recognize is that the constitutional structure of republican federalism is intended to help Americans strike a balance between competing interests for the betterment of the entire nation via the democratic process.

      Corporate oligarchs love talking about the “free market” and letting “market forces” decide the “winners and losers.” But those same people work so very hard to eliminate competition in the most important marketplace of all in a republican democracy — the marketplace of ideas. And that’s why it’s so important to them that spending money be defined as a form of protected speech. It’s much easier to advance an idea by drowning out competing ideas with overwhelming market saturation than it is to win people over using facts, logic and persuasive reasoning, especially when the facts are on the opponent’s side.

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair

      • Luke

        Are you suggesting that political advertising is the equivalent of the marketplace of ideas? Political advertising is pretty much a content free zone. This notion that corporate donations dominate such advertising is pretty difficult to substantiate. When was the last time you saw an advertisement advocating for faster depreciation schedules for capital equipment or an overhaul of the patent laws? These are the types of issues corporations care about. I guess everyone needs a cause to get them up in the morning.

        • pewestlake

          You’re kidding right? Almost half of the ads in the video linked below are directly funded by corporate treasuries and not one of them is about amortization:

          “These are the types of issues corporations care about.”

          Sure, and trying to convince Americans to open the countryside to fracking or build the XL pipeline or expand the private prison industry, etc, etc, are things that corporate managers would never use corporate money for.

          Talk about naive.

          • Luke

            So exactly what does fracking have to do with campaign finance law? Are you suggesting that before Citizens United, a corporation was not permitted to run an advertisement advocating fracking?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Luke, energy interests have been waging a multi-million dollar campaign in NY to con the people into supporting turning Upstate NY into a vast, toxic industrial zone. They were given the right to engage in this kind of propaganda in 1976 by the Court (always by the Court, never by any legislature). With Citizens United, this right was combined with Buckley v Valeo to allow corporations to spend as much as they wish to use the same methods of propaganda (deceit, repetition, false claims, etc) to make sure that the people in Congress will vote for the corporate agenda.

          • TravisCuvelier

            No, people like you are just upset that “the people of upstate New York” chose jobs over your political agenda.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            A lot more jobs would be available for sustainable energy development than the short-time jobs possible (usually offered to out-of-state contractors) from hydrofracking, a toxic process MOST New Yorkers are rejecting despite of the deceitful propaganda spewed on TV. In other words, your claim about the people of Upstate NY is just as deceitful as the ads on TV.

            Are you getting paid to be a deceitful corporate shill? Maybe you should apply to Fox “News” after you graduate.

          • Todd A Scheller

            So why is it that the Global Warming Scientist say that the only real course of action is NUCLEAR energy to save the planet?
            You do realize that wind and solar energy processing cost more than its worth right?

          • pewestlake

            Corporate personhood and money as speech are about a lot more than just campaign finance. As Gad said, prior to 1976, Congress could regulate spending on advocacy ads under the Commerce Clause. Now corporations wave the First Amendment around to use the airwaves for a non-stop propaganda campaign that results in getting the legislation they want when buying legislators isn’t enough on its own.

            Young people have no idea that there was such a time when a parent didn’t have to explain what an erection is to a child because a drug company ran an ad during an otherwise family-friendly program like the World Series. The public owns the airwaves and the bandwidth. We grant licenses to operate broadcast channels. Owning a radio or TV station is privilege, not a right. And now we have almost no democratic control over those publicly-owned institutions, thanks to SCOTUS. People need to wake up to the changes over the past forty years.

          • TravisCuvelier

            Yeah! And in the 60′s we had a committee on Unamerican Activities in the House of Representatives! You both just think you know what’s best for everybody- don’t you. You claim you want public control of the airwaves- your solution- government. And Gad, we all know your “green jobs” are a bunch of crap. As if those companies didn’t grease wallets….
            http://www.solyndra.com/

          • pewestlake

            Solyndra? Enough of this. You just outed yourself as a joke. What’s next, Benghazi? Kenyan anti-colonialism? Where’s the birth certificate? Only shills say “we all” as though speaking for the entire American population. You speak for nobody but yourself and not very well at that.

            Say whatever you want, Travis. You have nothing of value to add to any political discussion. I should have cut this off when you referred to the President (who I have no love for) as “dear leader.” Done with you.

          • TravisCuvelier

            Yes, because Solyndra and Benghazi didn’t happen and it’s not the Obama administrations fault. “The Obama administration was at no time aware of what the Obama administration was doing.” Our president would do well do take one from the book of Harry Truman and stop passing the buck.

          • pewestlake

            The single most catastrophic intelligence and defense failure since Pearl Harbor was 9/11. Not one member of the Bush admin has taken responsibility for that and people like you only ever say that the Bush admin “kept America safe.” No, they didn’t. They failed and nearly 3,000 people were murdered on American soil as a direct result of their incompetence. Anyone who gives the Bush admin a pass while jumping on the Benghazi bandwagon is either ignorant or lying to be deliberately divisive. Congratulations, Mr. Obvious.

          • TravisCuvelier

            How long had George Bush been president by September? Like 8 months? How long had Al Quaeda been planning this? Like five years? Which administration UBL in their sights? But I don’t even blame Clinton. Noone who still brings Benghazi up is criticizing the administration because the attack occured, rather, how it was handled- ie the Embassy asked for help nd didn’t get it, the Obama admin tried to paint the attack as some sort of a peaceful protest, and blamed it on some stupid movie. Some do criticize the state departments ineptitude at securing the chancery- the US Embassy in Paris has Marine guards, but the embassy in Libya had none?

          • pewestlake

            You wouldn’t give the same excuse if it was a Dem in the WH when 9/11 happened. Not in a million years. When it comes to Benghazi, the State Dept is always stretched thin and providing security protocol established after Beirut bombing has been difficult in all administrations.

            Intelligence was spotty in the first few days, just like the Bush admin coming out and instantly blaming Iraq for 9/11 and then changing their focus to Afghanistan a few days later. I doubt very highly you were critical in that instance. Shit happens. You only care about the shit that makes your guys look good and the other guys look bad. That’s the definition of unpatriotic tribalism.

            The guys who wrote the book on Benghazi have consistently debunked the notion that the Obama admin or the WH itself dropped any sort of ball. Special reaction force troops were dispatched immediately but couldn’t get there in time. Anyone who really cares about this issue wouldn’t be using it only as a blunt instrument to wail on the Obama team. That’s why your opinion is a joke.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Where does he give an excuse? He seems to reference FACTS.

          • pewestlake

            Oh, boo hoo, George Bush was only in office for 8 months. How can he possibly be held responsible for anything after only 8 months?

            If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

          • Todd A Scheller

            How long was Obama blaming Bush after he took office? Hypocrisy much?
            The man was comparing Bush’s time in office verses the time used to plan the attack, but you missed that didn’t you. never once did he try to remove RESPONSIBILITY from Bush you moron.

          • pewestlake

            Not defending Obama. I’m less a fan of Bush than Obama but not by much.

            And his comparison was stupid and nothing more than the foundation of an excuse. Clinton warned the Bush admin. They chose to ignore it. Case closed.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Where did I claim that you were?
            His comparison was accurate, then again like your buddy Victor you tend to show a lack of understanding of military tactics and strategy. You cannot plan for an attack that you did not know was coming.

          • pewestlake
          • Todd A Scheller

            We knew an attack was in the planning stages, where it was going to happen, nothing concrete.
            So Bush had 35 days to figure out who, what, when where, and how, then make a plan to stop it AFTER he know all that. Not asking much are you? Get back to us when you can accurately read a 194 year old court decision.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Where did I claim that you were?
            His comparison was accurate, then again like your buddy Victor you tend to show a lack of understanding of military tactics and strategy. You cannot plan for an attack that you did not know was coming.

          • BillStewart2012

            By the way, I drive past the former Solyndra factory on my way to work. It’s now a Seagate factory, so they’ve succeeded in selling the building, at least.
            Bill Stewart, Cornell Engr. 1978

          • Todd A Scheller

            And Seagate has a much better business record.

          • pewestlake

            Hey and it’s still being used for real American manufacturing. Something that’s become increasingly hard to come by in this era of outsourcing. Thanks for sharing.

            Paul Westlake
            New School for Social Research ’93

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Travis, I take it that you watch Fox “News” for your misinformation. Given the reality of species-ending climate change, we damn well had better go green or we’re doomed, not just as a civilizations but as a species. If I need to cite a reference on this, you need to watch something other than the narrow-casting that is not informing you now.

            You may want to turn the political system over to large corporations, but that’s not what the Framers intended. That is, in a word, fascism.

          • TravisCuvelier

            Read your Voltaire- respecting someone’s right to do something is different from agreeing with it (yes, I know he didn’t say that verbatim).

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            In what covenant is the burning of fossil fuels a “right?” Read your Constitution: where in there does it say that corporations are “people” or that they have rights?

            Two questions: take your time. Given the ridiculousness of your comments to date, I’m sure you can find some words to extract from your rectum (because you won’t find them in the Constitution).

          • TravisCuvelier

            We certainly have a right to property. First of all, the fourth ammendment says that we have the right to secure our property against unreasonable “seizure” but I know that’s a stretch. Maybe you should check out the 9th though, which says (through its application) that we have all sorts of other rights. The tenth goes on to state that unless the power is enumerated to the government, it is reserved for the states/people. Also, not that we have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the NY State Constitution (directly quoted by John Jay from the Dec. of Independance) and that in general these rights are thought to be encapsulated by the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You STILL don’t have a clue about the difference between a human (has rights) and properties (have privileges). I knew when I read your first comment near the top of the page that you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed. However, a tool you are.

          • TravisCuvelier

            Believe it or not, those of us who burn fossil fuel are people, and those who own companies are also people. If you don’t respect the right to property, I guess there’s nothing more we have to say. If its the collective action of owners that you don’t agree with, I’d remind you that we have he right to assemble. And for the record, you asked if we had a right to burn fossil fuels, and challenged me to find constitutional justification. In fact, if I buy a gallon of gas at Sunoco, I absolutely have that right by my constitutional argument above.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You haven’t had anything of value to write from your very first comment here. You’re a corporate shill, and have a proclivity to state the obvious as if it’s insightful.

            Your don’t have the “right” to buy a gallon of gas. Just as the government has outlawed the purchase of child pornography, we the people would outlaw the sale and purchase of gasoline if and when it becomes necessary to do so.

            When I ask for a constitutional justification, I want you to quote the Constitution with article and section number indicated; so I can fact-check you.

            There is NO language in the Constitution that supports the rights of assemblies (not to be confused with the rights of individuals to assemble). Individuals have rights, collectives, with one exception, have no rights. We, the people, have the collective right to amend the Constitution. All other rights are for individuals.

            Unless you’re into being embarrassed, you should quit while you’re behind.

          • TravisCuvelier

            First of all, I quoted the bill of rights and 14th amendment , and the preamble to the NYS constitution. If you are literate, I’m sure you’ll find them. An assmbly of individuals vs individuals assembling is practically moot. Since gasoline is legal, I can burn it if I own it. Also, look up the 9th ammendment, and how it’s been interpreted, and you might see my point. In any case, I have maintained civility to this point, and would like to keep doing so… just remember that as freedoms are taken away, they’re rarely given back, and that while you are entitled to seek an ammendment, there are higher laws than our Constitution, and while I’m no fan of corrupt politicians, I’d rather keep all my rights ( including those from my full or part ownership of a company).

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You STILL do not know the difference between an individual (with rights) and an association (with no rights protected in the Constitution).

            I want you to quote, with quotation marks, what you believe in the Constitution gives associations of people rights. I quoted former Chief Justice William Renquist — using quotation marks — who understood that they did not have rights.

            You are still outing yourself as a joke.

          • TravisCuvelier

            How about Euclid’s Elements: “The whole is the sum of its parts.”

          • pewestlake

            Where is that in the Constitution?

          • TravisCuvelier

            That’s fundamental fucking logic.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Have you noticed they seem to lack any logic what so ever.

          • pewestlake

            Funny how the Founders didn’t see fit to include your so-called “fundamental fucking logic” in the actual Constitution. You lose again, Mr. Roboto.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Funny how the Constitution is all “fundamental logic”.

          • pewestlake

            Really? Explain how 3/5 of a person is “fundamental logic.” Explain how allowing only property owners to vote is “fundamental logic.” And then you can defend your corporate pals never-ending attempts to demolish the commerce clause, if that’s all “fundamental logic.”

          • Todd A Scheller

            Explain to you how parts of the Constitution that were removed are fundamental logic? Really? Really try and keep up with REALITY here.

          • pewestlake

            You said the Constitution was “all fundamental logic.” But now you’re saying that the parts that were amended out of existence weren’t? So only the Constitution, as amended, is “all fundamental logic?” And if true, wouldn’t an amendment overturning Citizens United, et al, automatically become “all fundamental logic?”

            You can keep trying to make out that I’m the stupid one in this exchange but any casual observer can see through your trolling. I’m running out time and patience. My arguments and facts are carrying the day. You’re just a troll. Game. Set. Match.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yes and the parts that you named are NO LONGER part of the Constitution. Seriously keep up with modern times. Check and mate, you are not better at chess than you are a tennis.

          • pewestlake

            You’re an idiot, Todd.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Projecting again? Did Victor teach you that too?

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Judging from your posts on this page, I would say that you are more likely to be an idiot than Todd. So far, not one thing you have said has made sense or equates to the facts on the ground. Maybe you should refrain from bestowing appellations upon others until your own comments reflect reality and reason.

          • pewestlake

            “Victor’s Punishment?” Really? Nice try, Todd. ;-)

            Oh, and you’re an idiot. Have a nice life. :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Uh, that is not me there Genius. Try again.
            Your intellectual capacity is quickly approaching that of a case of pet rocks.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            This ain’t Todd, and you are the idiot my friend.
            I do have a nice life, so sorry for you since it is obvious you don’t.

          • pewestlake

            Whether you’re the same person or not makes no difference in this thread. You both love Beck, hate Victor and call anyone who disagrees with you stupid and disconnected from reality. Might as well be the same person if that’s all you have to contribute.

            And I couldn’t be happier with my personal life. My daughter is just past four months old and a source of (almost) non-stop joy. But I appreciate your empathy. Too bad it’s probably feigned. ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Your misrepresentations of either of us as lovers of Beck shows how hypocritical you are since your buddy Victor posts on his website more often than we do.

            Keep the lies coming Paul, I thought you were only willing to discuss CU v. FEC in this thread from now on.

          • pewestlake

            See how easy it is to find me? I don’t hide behind multiple anonymous accounts like some people around here.

            And your sad attempts to make me angry for mentioning my wife and father, while implying that I’m having an extra-marital affair with a man, say much more about you than anything else. You’re a very sad little twerp, Todd.

            OK, toodles!

          • Todd A Scheller

            Nor do I hide behind multiple accounts, that would be your buddy Victor.
            No more than you making references to the size of my manhood.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Got more empty assertions? How about some proof there genius?

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yes and the parts that you named are NO LONGER part of the Constitution. Seriously keep up with modern times. Check and mate, you are not better at chess than you are a tennis.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Victor, if Obamacare is the law of the land, then suck it up because Corporations having rights has been the law of the land for a lot longer than Obamacare.
            Yes Victoria, corporations have rights!

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            The only thing that sucks here Todd, is your pathetic, childish flame war. From get go here, you, too, are outing yourself as a joke, a corporate shill and an arrogant prick. In other words, SOS; DD. You even brought in Victor’s Punishment to demonstrate your pack of attack dogs strategy that I’ve been contending with for three years.

            Pathetic, yet feeble, woeful, sorry, poor, pitiful, lamentable, deplorable, and contemptible.

          • Todd A Scheller

            SOS means SAVE OUR SHIP. The Acronym you are looking for is SSDD moron. Keep proving how much it is you that sucks.

            Corporate Personhood is the law of the land Victor, just like Obamacare. Read 1 U.S.C. §1.

            Victor’s punishment made his own choice to come here and comment. Be a man and address him, not me for that. However, you can’t do that because your manhood is in your wife’s purse.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            I see you are still the same condescending pig you always were, eh, Victor? You have to be the most stubbornly stupid moron on the internet. Maybe we should post once again your famous list of lies so everyone here can see what a lying idiot you are?

            I am sure Todd can provide us with that informative list of your greatest hits.

            One thing you always prove time and again is that you are the penultimate troll.

          • Todd A Scheller

            The right to assemble includes a right to associate, and the Constitution also reserves all rights not given to the Federal Government for states or the PEOPLE. PEOPLE form ASSEMBLIES, try reading Roberts Rules of Order, Revised, (1915).
            So since people can assemble, in a group to address their government, this one just happened to call itself Citizens United. Low and behold, SCOTUS sided with them and not you.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yet Citizens United specifically addressed the ability of CU to FUND a campaign for political purposes. Your mental limitations are astounding.

          • pewestlake

            Again with the insults? Really? You think that wins you brownie points with your hardy-har-har pals or something?

            Citizens United is just the latest in a long string of SCOTUS cases expanding civil rights for legal fictions. Real libertarians get this and don’t need to flip people the finger to make a point. You’re just a tiresome corporate troll.

          • Todd A Scheller

            What insults? Seems the facts prove my statements to be true.

          • pewestlake

            Ah, so “mental limitations” is just an empirical fact? Is that like saying it’s obvious that you’re overcompensating for having a small dick? ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yet, your post prove your mental limitations, mine have nothing to do with the size of my penis.
            However, it is nice to know that you have to be childish.

          • pewestlake

            Todd, you’re a troll and a corporate tool. I’m so much smarter than you, it makes my fucking teeth hurt. I was being cheeky to let you know I was close to being done with your childishness. And now you think you can turn the tables? I think not. You’re as obvious as a cat in heat. I’ve ground every one of your straw man arguments and irrelevant technicalities into dust.

          • Todd A Scheller

            You are an idiot, and you keep making unproven assertions about me and what your opinion of me is. I am not the one trollin, that is what we call projecting. I am using facts and quotes fro mthe court cases you bring up to prove you wrong.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            “I am not the one trollin,….”

            What the hell do you call this, your very first comment here?

            “How well is keeping your profile private working for you Victor?”

            Let’s just be clear. Your claim that you’re not trolling is just another bold-faced lie. I know; you don’t care. You’re a Beckerhead. Beckerheads who “like” Glenn Beck are the last folks in the nation owning up to their obviously false claims (lies).

          • Todd A Scheller

            Most rational people call that a question Victor.
            Funny, how I am proving you and your buddy wrong with facts, not empty assertions, so the one trolling here is YOU Victor.

      • Luke

        Paul- I am curious. Do you feel that you are being more persuasive when every one of your posts includes some sort of insult to the person you are responding to?

        • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

          Luke, do you realize that you’re practicing double standards, or have you not noticed that Todd Scheller is doing exactly what you are accusing Westlake of doing? Double standards or selective perception: which is it?

          • Luke

            Neither. Todd is certainly as guilty as Paul and I think that Paul probably has more knowledge about this subject matter. That is why I addressed the question to him. If he has superior intellect or information, as he suggests, then why not rely on that? If you just like riling people up, that is OK too, but I am not sure that is Paul’s objective. He apparently believes that the one that yells the loudest and the longest is the winner.

          • Todd A Scheller

            What hypocrisy is this Victor? You are the one CURSING on this thread. how is that for a double standard on CRUDE.

            Once again Victor proves not to be smarter than a fifth grader.

        • pewestlake

          I merely pointed out that the concepts you claimed leftists failed to recognize were actually quite obvious to all observers. If you’re that easily insulted, maybe you should reconsider insulting entire classes of people when you comment.

          However, assuming that your question is based on reading every one of my comments on this thread, I’m curious to know if you asked Todd the same question. After all, he started insulting my intelligence long before I started answering in kind.

          Live by the sword, die by the sword, as it were. ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Are you dead from your own sword yet?

        • Todd A Scheller

          Luke,
          Unlike Paul I tend to provide facts, like the two statutes in the United States Code that refer to the word person meaning CORPORATIONS. Paul wants to contend that it is only case law. Paul has a fundamental alack of knowledge of how laws are recorded.

          Case law- Is only recorded in the opinions of the various courts, the strongest of which come from the Supreme Court.
          Legislative law is recoded two places:
          Statutes at Large- This is every law ever passed by Congress, if one gets amended, it does not leave the Statutes at Large. These laws are cataloged chronologically, thus why every law passed by Congress has a Public Law and Stat. number. They are also very hard to research in.

          United States Code- These are only Codified laws. that means only the ones that are general and permanent. Laws renaming a post office do not make it into the United States Code. The United States Code is organized by subject matter, making them easier to search.
          Case law only changes the United States Code when Congress passes a law because of a case. They have failed to do so after CU v. FEC.

          It is because of this lack of understanding on Paul’s part that I call him a moron, because he proves to be one.

    • hlgaskins

      Luke, “you must learn the way of the force.”

      It’s a year later and by all accounts Democrats are benefiting more from Citizens United than the Republicans are. If this turn out to be trend then I’m betting that you flip over like a freshly caught fish on hot pavement. While your blowing your conservative horn, ask yourself a simple question. Do you want to live in a country where a small group of people can manipulate your political leaders? Where your voice is drowned out by wealthy? If that’s what you believe then you’re a fool.

  • BillStewart2012

    Money might not be speech, but it’s certainly *press*. The court really didn’t have much choice in Citizens United.

    If whiny liberal Michael Moore can make a movie about the Evil Bush Family, then whiny right-wingers Citizens United can make a movie about Evil Hillary Clinton. Moore’s movie was pretty good; I assume Citizens United’s was unwatchably bad, but it’s still their right to make it and publish it.

    Also, if a media corporation like the MSNBC, Fox News, or Mother Jones can publish content about politics that includes opinion as well as “objective” journalism, with the goal of making a profit, how can legislatures or courts cleanly distinguish between them and a less objective corporation or one that’s less media-focused? There’s no bright line. And while I enjoyed Keith Olbermann (Ag ’79)’s show, and find almost everything on Fox unwatchable, all of those networks and the non-media corporations have a right to publish their opinions.

    Bill Stewart, Engr ’78.

    • Gadamer too

      “….how can legislatures or courts cleanly distinguish between them and a less objective corporation or one that’s less media-focused?”

      Because there is a difference between the free press (the rights of individuals) and corporations (entities with privileges, not rights except those granted by the Court).

      http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2013/05/29/1st-amendment-rights-are-for-natural-persons-not-artificial-ones/

      • TravisCuvelier

        The issue isn’t that the freedoms aren’t delegated, it’s that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Believe it or not, the shareholders of corporations are human beings with rights.

        • Gadamer too

          You confuse people with contracts/properties. No one is arguing that shareholders don’t have rights. The problem is when the corporations speak as corporations. They should have their PRIVILEGES regulated, not have rights protected.

          Are you going to ignore this too?

          http://acronymtv.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/corporate-personhood-how-did-we-get-here-legalize-democracy-excerpt/

          • TravisCuvelier

            That’s exactly what you’re saying! We’re not goddamn subjects, we have rights, not privileges.

          • Gadamer too

            We, the people, have rights; corporations have Court-granted rights that must be abolished before the United States regresses into full-blown corporate fascism. Again, I quote former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in 1978 “I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.”

            Chris Hedges wrote:

            Our shift to corporate totalitarianism, like the shift to all forms of totalitarianism, is incremental. Totalitarian systems ebb and flow, sometimes taking one step back before taking two steps forward, as they erode democratic liberalism. This process is now complete. The “consent of the governed” is a cruel joke. Barack Obama cannot defy corporate power any more than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton could. Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Bush, who is intellectually and probably emotionally impaired, did not understand the totalitarian process abetted by the presidency. Because Clinton and Obama, and their Democratic Party, understand the destructive roles they played and are playing, they must be seen as far more cynical and far more complicit in the ruination of the country. Democratic politicians speak in the familiar “I-feel-your-pain” language of the liberal class while allowing corporations to strip us of personal wealth and power. They are effective masks for corporate power.

            The corporate state seeks to maintain the fiction of our personal agency in the political and economic process. As long as we believe we are participants, a lie sustained through massive propaganda campaigns, endless and absurd election cycles and the pageantry of empty political theater, our corporate oligarchs rest easy in their private jets, boardrooms, penthouses and mansions. As the bankruptcy of corporate capitalism and globalization is exposed, the ruling elite are increasingly nervous. They know that if the ideas that justify their power die, they are finished. This is why voices of dissent—as well as spontaneous uprisings such as the Occupy movement—are ruthlessly crushed by the corporate state.

            This corporate totalitarianism is made possible by the Citizen United decision and corporate rights.

          • TravisCuvelier

            It boils down to weather or not the shareholders have civil rights, and they do. I’m not saying corporations can’t be regulated, but I’m saying you can’t regulate their political expressions (ie the collective action of their shareholders) any more than you can regulate the expressions of another group. Stop relying on colorful rhetoric and address that point.

          • Gadamer too

            What corporations are doing with their Court-granted speech rights have nothing to do with the will of the shareholders. If fact, because corporations are not humans, the state certainly can regulate the expressions of groups, associations, unions, etc. AGAIN, read the quote from former Chief Justice William Renquist, nobody’s progressive.

          • TravisCuvelier

            How do you figure that corporations don’t function at the will of their shareholders?

          • Gadamer too

            Shareholders don’t vote on whether the corporation is going to spend money trying to elect or unseat politicians. The corporate elite make those decisions.

            Corporate political expressions were regulated until this corporate Court unleashed them. You claim to the contrary is baseless.

          • TravisCuvelier

            And that’s where you’re wrong. The CEOs are responsible to the shareholders. Whether those shareholders are “the corporate elite” or hardworking people we should not be demonizing for their success is a different issue.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            No shareholder has a say in this campaign funding. I’m not wrong about that. No one is demonizing the corporate elite for their financial success (thank you for the deceitful connotation); we don’t want them dominating elections to create a government of, by and for the corporations. That’s not why or how this nation was founded.

          • TravisCuvelier

            The people on the board are shareholders!! And I think the phrase “corporate elite” has clear connotations.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I stand corrected over a trivial point. Not all people on the board are shareholders, and no shareholder, who is not on the board of directors has a say in campaign spending.

            You want a substantial argument? Go up to the first entry on the top of this page. A post was published in The Amendment Gazette to reply to Kairley’s corporatist philosophy. Also note where I pointed out that Libertarian candidate for president in 2012 supporting an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the corrupt Citizens United decision.

          • pewestlake

            Crickets.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Yes, I noticed. I thought that he’d spend time reading the decision and come up with some twistification that rationalizes his false claim, but he appears to be too engaged with hypocrisy, ironic insults and flaming to bother admitting he was wrong. Of course, that is something Todd NEVER does, no matter how clear it’s made to him.

            Remember: “Don’t argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Todd has been doing this for three years.

          • pewestlake

            Arguing with idiots is a problem but sometimes the truth has to be put in black and white for posterity.

          • Todd A Scheller

            I will remember that when arguing with you. Why is it twice now I have shown you where Kennedy cites corporate rights, and yet you have yet to respond to either? Hypocrisy much Victor?

          • BillStewart2012

            Perhaps not surprisingly, you’ll find Libertarians have a wide variety of opinions on that one. (Some of us will happily talk your ear off about it if you take the time to argue back :-)

          • Guest

            Not so long as Todd Scheller is allowed to continue pressing his childish flame war on this site.

            I’m local; I love debating reactionaries.

          • Todd A Scheller

            What part of the moron that says that we should accept Obamacare cannot understand that he has to accept CU v. FEC? It is THE LAW OF THE LAND that Corporations are persons.

            1 USC § 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

            In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—….
            the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

          • pewestlake

            No, Travis, you’re wrong. First off, shareholders rarely do anything but sign proxy forms that give management a rubber stamp and many of those “shareholders” are institutional investment funds that are, themselves, artificial entities. I’ve been an investor for more than twenty years and I’ve never been to a single shareholder meeting nor been presented with anything but the hand-picked management team the Board wants to put in place.

            Second, shareholders have virtually no control over political spending and lobbying by the corporate managers of the companies they own, even if the CEO is supposedly accountable to them. Most CEOs are accountable to Boards of Directors, not shareholders. And most Boards are comprised of, wait for it, other CEOs and corporate elites! It’s a mutual admiration society that shareholders are very distant from in most cases.

            Lastly, even though corporate managers are under no legal obligation to seek shareholder approval to use the general treasury for political expenditures, as a result of the SCOTUS decision in Knox v. SEIU, union leaders MUST obtain approval from their union members for every campaign they wish to engage in. Since union dues for political activity are only collected on a voluntary basis (as opposed to dues for day-to-day operations, including collective bargaining), union members and shareholders should be treated as members of the same legal class under the law. But the corporate Justices don’t care about consistency, they care about protecting the elite. Full stop.

            As usual, SCOTUS treats corporate managers like kings and union leaders
            like criminals. Corporate feudalists like that arrangement very much. Makes it
            easier for them to ram bills through federal and state legislatures that
            rob the taxpayers blind. Naifs like Mr. Kairey have swallowed their propaganda hook, line and sinker. And, apparently, so have you.

          • TravisCuvelier

            Oh yeah you’re right I forgot that the people on the board aren’t the majority shareholders (that would be democratic). And guess what else- EVERYONE gets to decide if they’ll support a corporations political activities! How? The free goddamn market. And by the way, we’re not a right to work country, and we are a right “not to buy” country (with the exception of the dear leader’s healthcare marketplace)- I see no reason why we should consider corps akin to unions.

          • pewestlake

            Travis, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. We live in a coercive marketplace. Need electricity? Pay a monopolistic utility. Need to drive to work? Pay a collusive auto-oil cartel. Need a telephone? Pay a monopolistic utility OR a collusive communications cartel. Need health insurance? Pay a collusive AND monopolistic private insurance cartel. We don’t have a choice when it comes to basic necessities, which makes your “free goddamn market,” “right not to buy” rant just so much hot air.

            Those of us who wish to restore the primacy of individual rights, as originally enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, do not have to justify a damn thing. We’re right. Full stop. Those who choose to maintain the fiction that artificial entities were meant to have civil rights, IN ADDITION to the limited liability of incorporation, are the ones that have to prove that such an interpretation exists IN THE CONSTITUTION. Find the passage in the actual document that suggests legal fictions should have the same status as living human beings. Go ahead. We’re not going anywhere.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Gadamer Too (Victor Scott Tiffany) has issues adding two and two and getting the right answer if you haven’t noticed.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Actually, Todd, you keep falsely claiming that you don’t lie, but this is a perfect example of a lie. It’s not an ignorant false claim, not a mistake; it’s a blatant LIE.

            Shall I start keeping track and counting your lies?

          • Todd A Scheller

            If a Corporation has not rights, how then can they enter into a contract? DUH!

            Try reading 1USC § 1 Victor.

          • pewestlake

            Try reading Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). Long before corporations claimed anything remotely resembling rights, “artificial personhood” still gave them the privilege to enter into contracts, sue and be sued, etc. The distinction in question is between the artificial personhood, long recognized in British Common Law and accepted in American jurisprudence since our inception as a nation, and the natural personhood that corporations (and unions, non-profits, NGOs, political parties, PACs, etc, etc) now enjoy by court order.

          • Todd A Scheller

            I have read Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) and it gives corporations the RIGHT to enter into contracts, and to enforce said contracts. What else do you have to lie about?
            So if you KNOW that it is settled matter of jurisprudence, as well as federal law, why then are you trying to amendment the Constitution.

          • pewestlake

            No, it recognized the property rights of the owners through the legal mechanism of the corporate charter. It did not recognize a “right” of anyone to enter into contracts as that point was not germane to the proceeding. It only prohibited the state from dissolving or altering a contract by legislation.

            “The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution.”

            In other words, legal fictions already had all the legal protection they needed in 1819, long before the 1886 case of Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific RR in which corporations were recognized as being “persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Anyone who thinks the Fourteenth was adopted for the purpose of granting corporations “natural” persohood is either lying or ignorant.

          • Todd A Scheller

            And it recognized said charter as a CONTRACT.

          • pewestlake

            Good job missing the point. There was no need to recognize a “right” to enter into a contract, merely the validity of the contract that was established prior to the Revolution. You can keep talking in circles all you want. The main point is that contract law was well established and sufficient to protect the property right of corporate owners long before natural corporate personhood was invented in 1886. That’s the point you keep ignoring because you know you have no answer for it. Whatever.

          • Todd A Scheller

            If you do not have a right to enter in to a contract then the contract will never be valid. Thus why those under 18 cannot enter into a contract. Legal opinions tend to follow this style of logic.

          • pewestlake

            Whatever, Mr. Circular.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Nothing circular about that. A contract entered into by someone that does not have the right to enter into is void, under the law. Have you not seen the movie Liar, Liar? Jim Carry gets a divorce granted and a prenup declared void, because his client lied about her age when she signed it. You really are not very smart are you.

          • pewestlake

            Right, and New Hampshire thought England lied about being a virgin. That’s why they tried to alter the contract with the college. What a moronic point.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, New Hampshire was trying to make Dartmouth College a public Institution. England’s sexual status had nothing to do with it. Try reading Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution where states are not allowed to make laws “impairing the obligations of a contract.” Oh wait, that is what Marshall used to decide the case.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You are confusing rights with privileges. Corporations have had the privileges of artificial personhood for centuries. Someone under 18 does not have that privilege. Until 1889, corporations ONLY had privileges.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            It’s so ironic that you write “DUH!” because you don’t understand history or corporate rights. Toady, corporations do not have a “right” to enter or break contracts, negotiate prices, sue or be sued. These are characteristics of artificial personhood that go back centuries, long before the American Revolution. They will still be in place after the rights of corporations are taken back by the people.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Funny, It is you that does not understand History or Corporate rights, and the fact that Kennedy cited Corporate rights THREE times in the CU opinion.
            So how exactly do corporations get sued if they don’t have the right to be sued? How about US v. Standard Oil? or US v. Microsoft? How stupid can you be Victor?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I’m all eyes Todd, the Beckerhead. Go to the decision and quote where Kennedy cited corporate rights case law in his decision.

            Before corporations were granted rights by judicial activism in 1889, they were sued. Being sued and suing someone are NOT constitutional rights.

            You want to insult someone’s IQ, Todd, the Beckerhead, start with a mirror.

            Now watch you turn this into yet another page of childish, silly and stupid flame war. Westlake is right; you need a therapist.

          • Todd A Scheller

            You want me to quote Kennedy? good thing I have already done this for you previously.

            Kennedy did not cite corporate rights? Now you prove yourself to be very stupid.

            From the decision of Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010):
            “In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination.” So wait we have a non-profit corporation appealing a decision of a lower court, and its not about corporate rights? You Victor Scott Tiffany are not smarter than a fifth grader.

            “Citizens United did not waive this challenge to Austin when it
            stipulated to dismissing the facial challenge below, since (1) even if such a challenge could be waived, this Court may reconsider Austin and §441b’s facial validity here because the District Court “passed upon” the issue, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374; (2) throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its right to free speech; and (3) the parties cannot enter into a stipulation that prevents the Court from considering remedies necessary to resolve a claim that has been preserved.” Emphasis mine, to prove you are an idiot.

            “Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.” Boy, your claim about not citing corporate rights is getting weaker.

            “The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415.” Really Victor, does the FIRST AMENDMENT not address rights solely?

            Now to Kennedy’s opinion rather than the summation:
            “We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject.” Emphasis mine, to prove you are an idiot.

            “Second, throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its First Amendment right to free speech.” Really Victor, how can a corporation claim a right it does not have?

            “Rather, it is—at most—“a new argument to support what has been [a] consistent claim: that [the FEC] did not accord [Citizens United] the rights it was obliged to provide by the First Amendment .” Ibid.” What you mean CU was asserting a right they already had? Guess you are wrong again Victor.

            Lets make this lie number 46 shall we? I think We shall.
            Try dishonestly editing your comments again fool. You still have not proven me to be a liar, you have an empty assertion, and not proof that you know what a reactionary really is.
            So how again is it me that needs a therapist? I don’t insult your IQ Victor, you do.

    • pewestlake

      How is money “press?” What do you think freedom of the press means?

  • Gadamer too

    Kairey could not be further from the truth about Citizens United. I have no idea why any “student” would support corporate propaganda in our elections, not to mention oligarchs buying influence in Congress and the White House, influence that We the 99% cannot begin to afford.

    There is a reason why Senator McCain called Citizens United “worst decision ever.” Citizens United is a non-profit media corporation. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in 1978 “I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation.” Corporations only have rights because of judicial activism in the Court. No legislature in the US has EVER granted corporations rights, and there is no basis for corporate rights in the Constitution.

    Opposition to Citizens United has nothing to do with limiting speech and everything to do with stemming the tide in America toward corporate fascism. Kairey is expressing desire for a “fair system,” but there is nothing fair about plutocracy.

    For more debunking of Kairey’s anti-democratic ideas, see The Amendment Gazette. http://www.amendmentgazette.com/site-contents/

    • TravisCuvelier

      We’re not a democracy, we’re a limited republic, emphasis on the limited.

      • Gadamer too

        You need to get your head out of the 19th Century. ALL democratic governments are referred to as democracies these days. Only reactionaries have an issue with that nomenclature. The limits that Madison inscribed have been broken, broken when slavery was abolished, broken when blacks got the right to vote, broken when woman got the right to vote and broken again when the people got the right to directly elect their senators.

        The system isn’t broken; it’s fixed, and that seems just A-OK with the author.

        • TravisCuvelier

          I have no problem referring to this country as a “limited democracy” but the fact of the matter is that we are not a total democracy and for 49.99% of the people this is a very good thing!

          • Gadamer too

            I did not and would not use the word “total.” I would call the current, Citizens United triggered political order neo-feudalism.

            http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2013/08/02/feudalism-then-and-now/

          • TravisCuvelier

            You didn’t. But your espousing of “democratic ideals” (as opposed to “anti-democratic” ones) fails to recognize that democracy can be an extremely brutal form of government, yet functions much better when it’s scope is limited. See Aristotle.

          • Gadamer too

            What democracy? Again, Citizens United triggered neo-feudalism. How more or less our political order should be democratic can be debated once we the people take the country away from the corporate, power elite who run the show now.

          • Luke

            Gad- why do I get the distinct impression that if you were unable to use over the top, overly dramatic hyperbole, you would have nothing to say?

          • TravisCuvelier

            Yeah just going to have to stop feeding him.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            It’s Mr. Kairley who served up the pile of horse manure that you folks seem to be eating up. I’m trying to explain that his thinking is toxic for democracy and fuel for the corporate elite who now run this country.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Stay tuned; my editor took this on since he has more time than I this week.

          • Guest

            What editor? Another Vicky pretense.

          • pewestlake
          • Guest

            ROTFLMFAO ! ! ! ! !

          • pewestlake

            OMG, it’s like totally 1996 all over again. I think you forgot an exclamation point or two. [facepalm]

          • Todd A Scheller

            You seem to spend a lot of time with your face planted in your palm.

          • pewestlake

            When talking to people like you, absolutely. You got that one correct, sir. Give that man a cigar!

          • Todd A Scheller

            Well if you actually had facts in your favor, you would spend less time hitting yourself with your palm.

          • pewestlake

            Sure, pretend I haven’t been beating you like a rented mule all night. Whatever.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Got any proof of you beating me? Nope. You think a 501 (c) (3) has to be a BUSINESS, when I already quoted you what the IRS says they must be.

          • pewestlake

            This entire thread is all the proof I need. I never said it must be a business, I said it must be organized, aka chartered, aka incorporated. Some churches and unions are incorporated, too. Imagine that, Captain Obvious.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, you said it had to be INCORPORATED, which is what FOR PROFIT Businesses do. you never mentioned chartered liar. It is all here in the thread for everyone to see, unless you go edit it.
            Charitable organizations do not have to INCORPORATE.
            So for there to be a charter or an incorporation they have to be on record in some clerks office, find a copy and post it and I might believe you.

          • pewestlake

            You’re an idiot…..

          • Todd A Scheller

            Got more empty assertions? How about some proof there genius?

          • Todd A Scheller

            What part of the Constitution establishes a REPUBLIC are you missing?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            F$%k off troll.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Can you get a rational argument with out the use of vulgarity in public? Guess not. That is where all discussions with you end up/

        • Guest

          So, you admit to being racist and sexist.

  • TravisCuvelier

    At some point we ought to stop blaming the donors and instead blame he recipients who allow those donations to influence their policy decisions- oh wait, that would require dissolving New York State.

    • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

      I should have known when I read this comment that you’re not playing with a full deck.

      Dissolving N Y State? This nonsense is pretty typical of the “logic” you’re using down this page.

      • TravisCuvelier

        I think that was pretty obvious sarcasm, but let me state explicitly that it was. New York is a pretty corrupt state, all in all, and I was just suggesting that we try to change that, but you know what, we could do that WITHOUT infringing on other people’s rights.

        • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

          Every state is corrupt. Thanks largely to Citizens United, corruption is endemic in our entire system of government. We CAN and will fix thiw, and we’re not going to infringe on any person’s rights. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

          How long is it going to take to get these simple ideas through to you?

          • TravisCuvelier

            People own corporations, it’s the people (the owners, majority shareholders, etc,) exercising their rights. You fail to recognize this as well as the prevalence of shareholder activism.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You clearly do not understand the Citizens United decision. It was not about people; it was about corporations, unions and other associations being allowed to buy up politicians. FreeSpeechNow.org v FEC was more about individuals being allowed to corrupt our system of government.

            Again, you have a knack for stating the obvious as if it is enlightening.

            Give me one documented example of shareholders supporting the spending of corporate funds to buy politicians with votes on this explicit expenditure. You fail to recognize how much shareholders are out of the loop.

          • TravisCuvelier

            I mean what I said I mean. I do not separate corporations from those who own them. Shareholder activism is more common- albeit not in regards to campaign donations. However, shareholders DO absolutely elect board members, whether they choose to vote by proxy or not is wholly on them. You COULD make headway with regards to the shareholders, and, so long as the corp isn’t a (government mandated) monopoly you could also get results through the open market. Feel free to raise awareness to your cause, and maybe you’ll see a change. Just don’t get your change by taking away their rights- the issue of most of them being ambivalent is irrelevant, because some of them, self included, aren’t.

          • pewestlake

            “I do not separate corporations from those who own them.”

            The law recognizes a distinction. Read the decisions in NAACP v. Alabama, NAACP v. Button and Knox v. SEIU. [I know you won't, Travis, because you're a shill. But I want others who might read this to know where to look. ;-)]

            http://www.amendmentgazette.com

          • Todd A Scheller

            Which NAACP v. Alabama case there are several:
            NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 US 449 (1958)
            NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 US 288 (1959)
            NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 360 US 240 (1964)

            Try learning how to cite a case properly so people know what you are talking about.

            Now as to where you are wrong:
            The NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 US 449 (1958) applied the due process clause of the XIV Amendment to the NAACP (a corporation registered in New York). “We think that petitioner argues more appropriately the rights of its
            members, and that its nexus with them is sufficient to permit that it
            act as their representative before this Court. In so concluding, we reject respondent’s argument that the
            Association lacks standing to assert here constitutional rights
            pertaining to the members, who are not of course parties to the
            litigation.”
            As to Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, No. 10-1121 (2011) held that union cannot collect dues from non-members, the rights of the corporation were not at question in the case.
            Did you take lessons in lying from Victor Scott Tiffany?
            NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) applied the I and XIV amendments to the NAACP. “We think petitioner may assert this right on its own behalf, because,
            though a corporation, it is directly engaged in those activities,
            claimed to be constitutionally protected, which the statute would
            curtail.”

          • pewestlake

            All the NAACP citations are for the same case, genius…

            “This case, involving the right of the petitioner, the National
            Association for the Advancement of Colored People, to carry on activities in Alabama, reaches this Court for the fourth time.”

            Knox v. SEIU is significant for the requirements it imposed on union leadership, a requirement that corporations do not have to go through when spending shareholder dollars from the general treasury.

            “With Justice Samuel Alito writing the opinion, the court concluded that a longstanding precedent — that the First Amendment demands that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to “opt out” of such special fees — was insufficient. Instead, the majority said, non-members should be sent a notice giving them the chance to “opt in” to the special fees.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-unions-knox-v-seiu_n_1625659.html

            You certainly are a practiced liar but you’re not having much success pinning that tail in this donkey. Hee haw. ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Actually no they are not, each one is for a seperate OPINION, thus a separate review of the case, thus why they have different ex rels.

            HUFFPO are you serious?
            Try quoting the case, not HUFFPO.

            “Under the First Amendment, when a union imposes a special assessment or dues increase levied to meet expenses that were not disclosed when the regular assessment was set, it must provide a fresh notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”

            “Similarly, requiring objecting nonmembers to opt out of paying the nonchargeable portion of union dues―rather than exempting them unless they opt in ―represents a remarkable boon for unions, creating a risk that the fees nonmembers pay will be used to further political and ideological ends with which they do not agree.”

            “Courts “do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.””

          • pewestlake

            I knew you’d get your freak on over a link to HuffPo. Just wanted to see how quickly you’d out yourself as a partisan shill. And that was fast, Popeye.

            Oh, and your citation doesn’t alter the basic facts — unions must now go through an extra step that corporations do not. Doesn’t matter if corporations were subject of the decision. Unions are treated as third class nobodies while for-profit corporations are treated as first class citizens with civil rights coupled to their already existing limited liability.

            From the case itself:

            “Petitioners, on behalf of nonunion employees who paid into the fund, brought a class action against the SEIU alleging violation of their First Amendment rights. The Federal District Court granted petitioners summary judgment. Ruling that the special assessment was for entirely political purposes, it ordered the SEIU to send a new notice giving class members 45 days to object and to provide those who object a full refund of contributions to the fund.”

            Perhaps you think shareholders can assert the same right?

            “Current law does not provide shareholders a meaningful opportunity to contest how the money they have invested is spent in politics or whether it should be spent on politics at all.”

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1550990

            The point is equal protection under the law, which has gone missing when it comes to union members and shareholders. Yet another point I’m sure you’d rather avoid by bringing up yet another meaningless technicality.

            I’m satisfied with the record of our “discussion” generated here. Any objective observer can see who is making legitimate points and who is trolling. Happy fishing, dude!

          • Todd A Scheller

            I am not the one using highly biased sources. I often use HUFFPO to prove Victor wrong though so its funny that you went to them.

            Let me make this clear to you, Knox v. SEIU was about INDIVIDUAL not UNION rights. not sure what you are missing here.

          • pewestlake

            I’m not missing anything, cupcake.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yes, you clearly are. SCOTUS decided Knox v. SEIU on INDIVIDUAL right, not UNION rights.

          • pewestlake

            Individual rights as applied to the political activities of unions but not corporations. You’re an idiot.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, as to the NONMEMBERS individual rights you moron. the idiot here is YOU.

          • pewestlake

            I’m not missing anything, cupcake.

          • Todd A Scheller

            What part of the Knox v. SEIU was decide on KNOX’S rights and limited the UNION are you still struggling with?

          • Todd A Scheller

            The person that claimed the Kennedy never cited corporate rights is the one that lacks an understanding of the CU v. FEC decision.

          • Guest

            Get real Vicky, corruption was endemic way before Citizens United. If money is not speech, then Soros should be banned from manipulating our political arena with his money.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Grow up Guest: name is Victor. Why are all Beckerheads so immature?

          • Guest

            Victor the Moronboy. Sorry – I omitted the last part before.

  • Gadamer too

    For a better perspective than what Kairey is offering with his pro-oligarch perspective, see the preview of Legalizing Democracy:

    http://acronymtv.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/corporate-personhood-how-did-we-get-here-legalize-democracy-excerpt/

    • Luke

      Gad- are you a member of the Occupy movement?

      • Gadamer too

        I’m the state-wide coordinator for Move to Amend in NY. Many of us, including myself, were involved in the Occupy movement.

        • Luke

          Does that mean you do not shower?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I won’t deign to answer a childish question.

          • Guest

            How funny, since you do deign to give childish answers.

        • Guest

          What is your favorite car to poop on?

        • Todd A Scheller

          When there is only one member it must not take much to be a leader, it sure keeps the arguments to a minimum.

          • pewestlake

            New York state has more than one MTA affiliate and Gad is, indeed, our state chapter coordinator.

            https://movetoamend.org/new-york

          • Todd A Scheller

            Now the picture becomes clear. You two sit in a room and argue about things that have already been decided way above your pay grades.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Aren’t you the hypocrite who claims to tell the truth, who points your finger at “lies?” We don’t sit in a room, we rarely argue and there are thousands of members of MTA in NYS. That’s three false claims you made here so far.

            The only picture that is clear is your childish flame war and long list of hypocrisies including this one demonstrated is black and white in case it’s not already obvious.

            http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2012/03/one-reason-becks-followers-cannot.html

          • Todd A Scheller

            Prove your empty assertions Victor, you no credibility blog is proof of nothing.
            Yeah, and NY has a balanced budget too, do you remember lying about that?

          • pewestlake

            What would you know about my pay grade? I make my arguments with facts and logic, not bluster and arrogance, as with most pro-corporate tools, such as yourself. Try reading the constitution and then we’ll talk.

          • Todd A Scheller

            So this is why your facts have been wrong? Okay. Funny, I don’t work for a corporation. I work for a state government agency. So who is it that is arguing with facts again?

          • pewestlake

            Oh, so you’re one of those public sector leeches your side loves to hate. Hypocrisy personified.

            Lots of pro-corporate tools work for the government, Einstein. Then they go work on K Street or for trade groups or think tanks, like Dem Evan Bayh and Rep Jim DeMint. So you’re in on the revolving door. Makes perfect sense that you would be defending the kleptocracy. You earn a living by making other people suffer.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, I am not a public sector leech. But then again you seem to get a lot of things wrong.
            Jim Demint works at the Heritage Foundation, again not a CORPORATION.

          • pewestlake

            Heritage Foundation is an incorporated tax-exempt artificial entity, a legal fiction. It has to be incorporated in order to receive federal tax exempt status. Churches that receive tax exemptions are also incorporated. Incorporation doesn’t automatically mean the entity has “corporation” in the name.

          • Todd A Scheller

            You really id take lying lessons from Victor Scott Tiffany didn’t you.

            Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational
            institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote
            conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise,
            limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

            It is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

            To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e.,
            it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of
            its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for
            or against political candidates.

            501(c)(3) does not require incorporation, liar. Nor are they LEGAL FICTION.

          • pewestlake

            Oh for crying out loud. ALL non-living artificial entities are legal fictions. It’s a legal term that describes the entire class of legal entities that is neither a living person nor a government agency. And one must have an operating business entity before one can apply for that entity to receive 501(c)(3) status. The process of creating that operating business entity is known as chartering, or incorporation. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Not when they appear in the LAW you moron.

          • pewestlake

            I’ve just been called a moron by a person who can’t even be bothered to make syntactical sense. Whatever.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Does a 501 (c) (3) exist in the law, and it defines what that type of organization is. Struggling with reading plain English much?

          • pewestlake

            The organization must exist first, then it can be granted exemption status under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Keep being insulting. It makes my explanations look better and better. :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            The ORGANIZATION, not Business. Now we are getting somewhere. Not all Organizations are BUSINESSES.

          • pewestlake

            I never said business. You’re an idiot.

          • Todd A Scheller

            What part of a BUSINESS incorporates do you not get?

          • pewestlake

            The organization must exist first, then it can be granted exemption status under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Keep being insulting. It makes my explanations look better and better. :)

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Ad hominem attack is his style, and then he’ll have a fit if you point out his obviously average IQ, not understanding hypocrisy after three years of being schooled about it for example.

          • Todd A Scheller

            To bad its not ad hominem when you and pewestlake prove it to be true.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You don’t know the difference between “To” and “Too,” the correct word; but you point your finger at others with false assertions of “moron.” Todd, you keep showing how f$%king stupid you are, so you need to get off your high rocking horse.

            You won’t though. Sleazy character assassination and childish flame wars are your game just as Todd Scheller is your name.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Wow, the Master Grammarian found another typo. Good for him, he actually got this one right. Now if he could just communicate like a grown up and not need to use vulgarity in public. Keep proving who the childish one is Victor.
            Funny how I keep proving you ans pewestlake are morons with facts.

          • pewestlake

            Yep. That’s what all trolls who only care about being divisive do. Attack and insult while ignoring the substance of the reply.

          • pewestlake

            PS – You haven’t proven a single one of my facts wrong. Not one, chuckles. You can keep trying for the rest of your natural born days and you’ll still never win this argument. The pro-corporate kleptocracy is a band of thieves and you and they know it. Nothing you can do or say will prove otherwise.

          • Todd A Scheller

            I have proven you have no facts to your arguments. Like your false claim about Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Hint: A charter issued by the government, even the British Crown, is a contract.
            Or the fact that there are more than one NAACP v. Alabama opinion.

          • pewestlake

            Never said it wasn’t. Keep running your straw men up the hill. I can mow them down all day and night.

            The only thing you’ve proven is that you’re a troll, cupcake.

          • Todd A Scheller

            It has to be for Dartmouth College to have the right to a contract you fool. What are you missing about that?

          • pewestlake

            Yes but the court didn’t decide that in Dartmouth, it merely understood it to be true. The decision was about the legislature’s power to alter that contract, not the right of Dartmouth to enter into one in the first place. This is the same point people make about Citizens United — SCOTUS didn’t create corporate personhood because it already existed. It merely assumed it to be true in order to make the ruling it did.

            I shouldn’t bother with this level of nuance with a troll. It’s like putting lace on a bowling ball.

          • Todd A Scheller

            But Yes the Court did decide that Dartmouth had a RIGHT to operate under the existing contract, which the King Of England at the time of issuance called a Charter. See my quotes below from the case.

          • pewestlake

            Whatever.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Who, your debating tactics are as well developed as Victors, meaning they are nonexistent.

          • pewestlake

            You’re an idiot.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Got more empty assertions? How about some proof there genius?

          • Todd A Scheller

            So what does an argument like this say about you? Projecting again?

          • pewestlake

            Whatever.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Do you realize that 1 U.S.C. §1 existed prior to CU v. FEC?

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, they must not be a BUSINESS to be a 501(c)(3) they can be a CHARITABLE organization. Try reading the law and get back to me.

          • pewestlake

            The entity doesn’t have to be a charity. Heritage certainly isn’t a charity. It can’t be for-profit.

          • Todd A Scheller

            The entity can be many things as long as it is not for PROFIT, or a BUSINESS. Like I said I already provided a list from the IRS, which enforces 501(c)(3), as to what they can be, find it in this thread.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            There are thousands of people in NY signed up with MTA. Todd, is your ignorant mistake a lie, or are you going to rationalize your deceitful claim some other way?

          • Todd A Scheller

            And this makes you qualified to lead a group of morons how?
            Your mommy would be so proud that you got thousands to sign up in a state that has a population over 19 MILLION.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I didn’t get hundreds of them to sign up, much less thousands; but more important, what makes you believe that people who don’t agree with the way you think are “morons?” You think it’s moronic for we the people to take back what the Framers did not intend to extend to associations, i.e., constitutional rights.

            This is where Gadamer too comes in most relevantly. Take the hermeneutic circle back to what the Constitution is about (the public interest, leaving the private interests to thrive in liberty). There is no constitutional justification for granting associations civil rights. No one’s liberal, William Rehquist understood this and rejected the false “precedent” of Santa Clara Co. Complete the circle by coming back to the current state of affairs, corporate-statism (the U.S.) enforcing a neo-liberal (corporate) uni-polar world order.

            Glenn Beck is right about one thing: we the people are not in control. The <1% are in control. Beck is wrong in pointing his finger at Dems; both major parties are of the 1%. The problem for our fading Republic is the dominance of corporate wealth and influence, undue influence for what you describe here as a "contract." In a democratic Republic, the government is supposed to be of the people, not the properties, the contracts, the corporations.

            This is not an ideological matter. You have accurately pointing out that my position on corporate rights is reactionary. Here's a conservative reason to oppose corporate rights: judicial activism. Only the Court has granted constitutional rights. Corporate personhood gets at the root of Citizens United, including (you're right), the decision. Therefore, abolishing corporate personhood is radical. Radicals get at the root of a problem. Finally, this is progressive in the tradition of Roosevelt, not anti-market or regulatory, but clipping the power of corporate entities, called trusts at the time. That's reactionary, conservative, radical and progressive. This is a trans-ideological and cross-partisan issue. Do you know which red state has passed a resolution to Congress calling on the abolition of corporate rights and the doctrine that spending $$ is electoral propaganda? Do you?

          • Todd A Scheller

            I do not believe that those that think differently from me are morons Victor. I know you and Paul are morons because of what you write. There is a big difference. Here is an example:

            I never claimed you got them to sign up. I ask why you thought you were qualified to lead them. There is a big difference there as well.

            Prove the founders did not intend to extend Constitutional rights to associations, because I have found in the United States Code two examples of where Congress decided that they do. That would be 1 U.S.C. §1 and 15 U.S.C. § 77b (2). These have been part of Federal law since 1948 and 1933 receptively, Victor. So deal with those facts. These come from CONGRESS not the Courts you fool.

            It was not judicial activism, you moron. I don’t care what state has passed a resolution to Congress saying anything, as it is not binding in FEDERAL LAW. So stay stupid Victor. FYI: NYC council is not a state. So it is even less meaningful. Occupy DC is not a state. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine,
            Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode
            Island, Vermont and West Virginia are states. Yet three years down the line still no amendment has been passed or made it out of committee. Why? Because it works for all sides of the political spectrum.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            “The society that loses its grip on the past is in danger, for it produces men who know nothing but the present, and who are not aware that life had been, and could be, different from what it is.” — Aristotle, Politics

            No where in the Constitution or Federalist Papers is there any reference to associations having rights.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Using your quote from Aristotle, Federal Law says that a person includes: “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals” and has since 1933 and 1948.
            What part of that being in the past do you not get?

          • Guest

            “The society that loses its grip on the past is in danger, for it produces men who know nothing but the present,…” and that is the problem with you liberal progressive morons. You have no concept of the dangers you are creating with what you think are progressive visions because you have no appreciation of the past and the failures of your already tried and failed ideology.

      • Guest

        Gadamer’s Occupooper crowd of 2 had to demonstrate in the parking lot behind the church.

        • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

          Guest is a follower of Glenn Beck.

          Enough written.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Victor Tiffany is a liberal Progressive Moron, He can’t seem to get his facts straight either.

            1). You never coined the term “Yellow Propaganda,”
            yet you defended that claim for three days. How does defending this lie for
            three days and then claiming it was a mistake change it from a lie Victor?

            2). There were 24 SEALs on the Bin Laden raid, not 39 Seals. Seals are aquatic
            Pennipeds, they have no opposable thumb, therefore they cannot hold a gun to
            kill OBL. SEALs are Naval Special Warfare operators specially trained in the
            use of any firearm. It might have been humorous to see the video of OBL being
            smacked to death with seal flippers though.

            3). There is no limit on the number of post one individual can place in a

            thread on this website. You never once proved there was a limit, as I often had
            far more posts on any thread than you did.

            4). Your posts are not disappearing. You never proved this one either. Your
            posts were being moved into Chronological order, and you were never smart
            enough to find them, even when I was replying directly to them.

            5). Taxing the rich will solve the budget problem. You never proved this one
            either. Last year, the US lost 147k Millionaires. How again is the 1% supposed
            to fund the other 99% all by themselves.

            6). Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News. You and everyone else that makes this
            false claim has yet to prove it. Glenn Beck announced HE was leaving Fox News
            on April 6, 2011; he appeared on the network until June 31, LIVE. How long did
            Keith Oblermann remain on MSNBC after they announced he would not longer be on?
            How about Cink Uygur?

            7). Fox News lost money on Glenn Beck. Still waiting for you to prove this lie,
            as News Corp made more in profits during Beck’s tenure, because of increased
            income from FOX NEWS.

            8). You never made a joke about Jesus and sheep, and then had to later edit
            because you really did. Funny we all know for a fact that you did this and then
            lied about it.

            9). I nor anyone else has threatened you on this or any other website. Where
            are these threats again Victor? Got any Links? Shall I prove that you
            threatened my wife again?

            10). You lie about Benny__Hill and say he is a racist. It’s not true. How

            quickly can I find a post where you have said as much? You assertion that

            Benny__Hill called Obama a boy, the masculine term for a child. Gender equates
            to race again how?

            11). You claim Sandie has violated the cyber stalking law. It’s not true.

            That’s one you’ll need to prove. If it were true, and you had filed a

            complaint, she would already be being prosecuted. If Sandie violated this law
            why is she still free and not at FPC Alderson?

            12). You claimed you are an educated man that acts like a 56 y/o (Now 58), yet
            your posts prove otherwise. Your post really do prove otherwise Victor.

            13). You lie about not hating Beck. Your posts and your blog prove otherwise.

            14). You lie when you use phonetic spellings of profanity. What more needs to
            be said? Even your Qbert spellings do not help.

            15). You lie when you say Todd has no credibility. When my posts have

            references it is hard for me not to have credibility. You do remember giving up
            your credibility when you lied about allowing me a guest blog post right? What
            is wrong Victor, do you have an issue when people prove the facts that you used
            for your blog to be wrong?

            16). You lie when you say you are a media critic. I nor anyone else should

            trust you to be a critic of dog droppings. You only are critical of Beck, not

            the Media as a whole.

            17). You lie when you try to redefine things like spam. The bad part is what

            you used to define spam proved everyone else correct, and you wrong. Relying on
            Wikipedia is like that.

            18). You lie when you claim ad hominem. Most of us attack your facts and your
            use of them not you personally, that is when you try to use them.

            19). You lie about Beck all the time. Every time you write something about Beck
            it contains a lie.

            20). You lie about conservatives who align with Beck. Beck even allowed

            Liberals on his show, were they aligning with him too?

            21). You lie about Becks audience.

            22). You lie about Beck’s support of gay marriage.

            23). You lie about Van Jones. Where did Van Jones say he was no longer a
            Communist again?

            24). You lie about Beck’s intent on 8/28.

            25). You lie about Beck’s record of correction.

            26). You lie about how Benny “changed” the settings of Disqus to

            prevent you from receiving notices in your email that she had replied to one of
            your messages.

            27). And mostly, you lie about how smart and well educated you are.

            28). Lied that Sandie claimed she was a “good Christian”

            29). Lied that TEA Party are mostly racists.

            30). You claimed Beck is gay, with no proof to support it, other than your

            assertion. If a former roommate made this accusation on record, where is the
            record? Still waiting for you to provide the record of where his roommate said
            this. Assuming the claim that two men slept in the same room, it in noway
            proves that they were intimate with each other.

            31). You provided a quote from Mussolini that Mussolini never said nor wrote.
            You even had to admit that you were lying about the quote when you got caught
            at it.

            32). You lie when you complain that posters remove reply buttons. This is set
            by the website using Disqus not controlled by the user.

            33). You lied about Todd Scheller neglecting his children.

            34). Lincolnian Republican’s do not offer Presentations to the Democratic

            Socialists of America, but Viktor has no problem with it (or even allow videos
            of themselves to be shown at their meetings).

            35). You live in NY and yet you still lied about it having a Balanced Budget.

            36). You lied about the CR being the Ryan Budget.

            37). You lied when you said it was Republicans that removed millions from NIHs
            budget, but it was Obama that did it on March 1, 2013. So it was not even LAST
            YEAR (2012) like you claimed.

            38). Victor claimed on October 10, 2013, that the Federal Health Care Exchanges
            did not open on October 1, 2013. Really? They had been in the news at that time
            as having flaws, and needing to be shut down several times for fixes.

            39). Claimed that NY Constitution requires a balanced budget

            at Article VII, Section 2: Ҥ2. Annually, on or before the first day of
            February in each year following the year fixed by the constitution for the
            election of governor and lieutenant governor, and on or before the second
            Tuesday following the first day of the annual meeting of the legislature, in
            all other years, the governor shall submit to the legislature a budget
            containing a complete plan of expenditures proposed to be made before the close
            of the ensuing fiscal year and all moneys and revenues estimated to be
            available therefor, together with an explanation of the basis of such estimates
            and recommendations as to proposed legislation, if any, which the governor may
            deem necessary to provide moneys and revenues sufficient to meet such proposed
            expenditures. It shall also contain such other recommendations and information
            as the governor may deem proper and such additional information as may be
            required by law. (New. Derived in part from former §2 of Art. 4-a. Adopted by
            Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November
            8, 1938; amended by vote of the people November 2, 1965; November 6,
            2001.)”

            40). Victor claims Todd Scheller never attended college. Yet Mr. Scheller has a
            BS in Criminal Justice Administration from the University of

            Phoenix, and a Master’s of Science in Justice and Security Administration from
            the same institution. Mr. Scheller also attended the University of Central
            Oklahoma.

            41.) Victor claimed that Prohibition was not a Progressive

            program. How this moron got two college degrees is beyond me.

            42). Victor claimed there was nearly no voter fraud. Yet Minnesota had 113
            convictions for it after 2000. There were 38 convictions in 13 other states
            over the same period.

            43). Victor claimed and found a source that said all Southern

            Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet I was able to provide
            the list of the 23 Democrats from states that Victor thinks are Southern States
            that voted FOR the law.

            44). Victor claimed there was no boycott of Chris Matthews,
            yet I was able to find three sources going back to 2008, calling for a boycott
            of Matthews.

            45). Victor claimed the Republicans in the House are holding
            up the American Jobs Act, even though they passed it, on a vote of 405-16. Yet
            it did not get passed by the Senate, because it could not clear a cloture vote.

            46). Victor claimed that Justice Kennedy did not cite
            corporate rights in the CU v. FEC decision, yet I was able to find three
            examples of where he did in the decision, and four more in the summary.

            47). Victor claimed the US is only #1 in killing people abroad,US #1 in GDP,
            oh it really does only take one to prove this to be a lie.

          • pewestlake

            You have way too much time on your hands, dude. If you’re not getting paid to stalk Gad around the web, you need therapy. I’m not kidding. You’re either a paid provocateur or you’re effing nuts. Wow. Just wow.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Todd is a big fan of Glenn Beck, and yes, he needs therapy. You can see this in his comment history. He’s quite obsessed with me, has been for over three years.

          • Guest

            Actually, it is the other way around, you are just experiencing reprisal – after all you did threaten him and intimidated his wife – a total stranger to you.

          • pewestlake

            I doubt very seriously that Gad did any such thing. I don’t doubt that you and your cohorts 1) made that up out thin air or 2) interpreted a point he was making in a way that would give you and your hero some sort of moral high ground. Glenn Beck is a dangerous fifth column fascist and anyone who believes a single word out of his mouth — including “and” and “the” — is too uninformed for civil dialog.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Funny, he has a copy of the threat on his blog.

          • pewestlake

            Provide the link.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Go to his blog and find it, he is your friend, I don’t frequent his blog.

          • pewestlake

            Oh lordy. I thought you meant someone else’s blog. I’ve been to that blog many times. I’ve even written for it. No, son. It’s not there. If you have specific evidence you want to share, then share it. Everything else is baseless slander.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Did you miss when I claimed the copy of his threat was on HIS blog? Do your two braincells ever touch?

          • pewestlake

            I was bouncing back and forth between bitch-slapping you and Travis and got my wires crossed. I thought you meant that someone else had a blog that documented the alleged transgressions you described. It wasn’t that big a deal but you’ll take any reason to accuse me of being stupid. Congratulations on being utterly predictable.

          • Todd A Scheller

            You lack of mental stability is your problem not mine. The threads are there to read for you just like for me, if you are using dashboard, there is also a context button. Let me know when the red mark come off your face from getting slapped, because I have no such mark on my face.

          • pewestlake

            Whatever…

          • Todd A Scheller

            Twice in two minutes, I see this becoming your best argument ever posted. To bad it still proves NOTHING.

          • pewestlake

            You’re an idiot…

          • Todd A Scheller

            This three word comment is the best argument you can muster? At least when I call you a moron, I provide proof.

          • pewestlake

            Whatever…

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yes, It is there. Start reading at “Lisa, your husband” and stop at “Todd is involved.”

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Now you think that 4 = 28? The world according to a psychotic Beckerhead: 4 = 28, hypocrisy is the same as having double standards, Obama is a socialist, Glenn Beck is honest and factual, a warning is a threat and mistakes are lies.

            Like Paul wrote: you need therapy.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Victor you seriously need to learn to read. The Four letter WORD referenced above is LAZY. But then again you are not very smart are you, and your comment just proved it to me. Where did 28 come from?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Cherry pick much?

            What you just proved is that you ARE psychotic by not addressing the other five psychotic views you hold.

            Next time spell the word out and try to be honest. Westlake is not lazy by any stretch of your angry and hateful imagination.

            Shall I count that as your second lie, and I haven’t even added up the ones you have spew just on this page, your latest battleground in your endless, sleazy, childish and stupid flame war against me (for being critical of your god or whatever he is to you, Glenn Beck).

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Guest’s “User Activity is Private.” How come you don’t call him a coward? Double standards, a reactionary’s typical ploy.

            The WARNING to your wife is published on The Glenn Beck Review on the same post where you write “Viktor” and later on demonstrate hypocrisy by whining about how I left the ‘c’ out of your last name. That’s just one example of many of your hypocrisies, some of which are evident on this page you and your fellow Beckerheads have hijacked for the purposes of waging your childish flame war…again!

            And no, your double standards are not synonymous with your hypocrisy although both are ethical short-comings. Care to embarrass yourself, again, on the Cornell Sun website by arguing that they are the same Todd?

          • Todd A Scheller

            Because I don’t know who Guest is, I do know who you are Victor. Sorry you can’t put on your big boy pants.
            The THREAT to my wife, get it right Victor.
            Yes, I changed the c to a k in your name after I found out you were speaking to the DSA. Having issues understanding the Joke, Comrade?
            Your lack of intelligence does not a double standard for me make Victor.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            How weak minded do you have to be to paste two different definitions into a comment and claim that they are the same, equal, synonymous? It’s very clear that you are, by any standard of mental health, psychotic. 2+2 does not = 5, and double standards, which always involved at least three people, is not the same as hypocrisy which usually involves one or two persons. Put another way:

            “A double standard is any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to have virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess.”

            When I published a piece on The Glenn Beck Review that argued Beck has created an army of psychotics, people like you, Todd, are Exhibit A. Just because you want 2+2 to = 5 or having double standards to be equal to being a hypocrite, doesn’t mean that they are.

            Keep showing folks how ethically stunted you are, Psychotic Todd.

          • Todd A Scheller

            How weak minded do you have to be to miss the rest of the comment after the definitions?

            Unlike you Victor I have never made an argument that attempts to get 2+2 to equal 5.

            You have argued that NY ha a balanced budget, totally ignoring the fact that NY has a $347 BILLION debt. 2+2≠5 Victor.
            Get some evidence to make your arguments valid, like normal you have none.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Westlake has already ripped you a new one for your ignorance about NY’s budget process. No need to add my boot to his.

            Like normal, you screw up punctuation. You’re becoming impossible to take seriously, not that any Beckerhead, childish flame warrior or liar should EVER be taken seriously.

          • Guest

            Quotes c/p from Victor Tiffany aka Gadamer too posts:

            “The same is true about Todd Sheller’s fugly wife. I contacted her once on FB, and this should supply the context that CA (of course) leaves out:

            “He has, twice now, written, “The Game all changes on Tuesday.” I don’t know what his plan is, but if there is anything illegal that goes down, Todd will be tied in as a conspirator. Others on Glenn Beck dot com have threatened me, so you might want to make sure that Todd is not conspiring to have me killed or attacked. I’ll make darn sure that the authorities are aware that Todd is involved.”

            Clearly, this was a warning to let her know that her husband would be tied into any direct attack on me. The of Beck’s followers have attempted to assassinate people Beck disapproves of, so the concern was real.

            Captain America wants me banned from the Internet…. [blah blah blah]”

            That was quoted from Victor aka Gadamer. Obviously the rantings of a paranoid person. No one threatened him.

            Another:

            “You demonstrate over and over what a fake “Christian” you are, below when you claim that I started Todd’s campaign to stalk me because I “stalked” his family. I asked his fugley wife if she knew what Todd was plotting since Todd was intimating some kind of conspiracy to do something. Turns out, Todd was registering with Google, so he could continue his sleazy flame war on my blog, but I didn’t know that when I asked his wife –ONCE — if she knew what he was up to.

            Grab a barf bag: [link to Todd's wife's facebook page]”

            Victor aka Gadamer’s rant to Todd’s wife, a total stranger:

            “Lisa, your husband should concern you. He and I go back and forth about Glenn Beck, who you must know Todd defends. He has, twice now, written, “The game changes on Tuesday.”

            I don’t know what his plan is, but if there is anything illegal that goes down, Todd will be tied in as a conspirator. Others on Glenn Beck dot com have threatened me, so you might want to make sure that Todd is not conspiring to have me killed or attacked. I’ll make darn sure that the authorities are aware that Todd is involved.

            Victor Tiffany”

          • pewestlake

            I don’t condone calling his wife ugly. However, Glenn Beck and his fans are dangerously unhinged and actually believe their fellow American citizens who happen to be liberal or progressive are traitors. Beck tells his fans that liberals are co-conspirators with terrorists and authoritarian dictators who want to destroy America. When you’ve been brainwashed enough to believe propaganda like that, all it takes is one crackpot with a vendetta for safety to be an issue.

          • pewestlake

            I don’t condone calling his wife ugly. However, Glenn Beck and his fans are dangerously unhinged and actually believe their fellow American citizens who happen to be liberal or progressive are traitors. Beck tells his fans that liberals are co-conspirators with terrorists and authoritarian dictators who want to destroy America. When you’ve been brainwashed enough to believe propaganda like that, all it takes is one crackpot with a vendetta for safety to be an issue.

          • Guest

            Glenn sometimes exaggerates for drama effect, just like you and others here do. Your blanket statement “Glenn Beck and his fans are dangerously unhinged….” shows that. You paint all with the same biased brush.

            Since there are crackpot liberals, why wouldn’t there be crackpot conservatives. They come in all flavors.

            As far as liberals being co-conspirators with terrorists and authoritarian dictators who want to destroy America….. I wouldn’t paint them all that way, but it certainly fits a lot of them.

          • pewestlake

            No, it doesn’t fit any of them. Just as it doesn’t fit any American who has to live here. None of us want to destroy America. I don’t think Beck’s fans want to destroy America, but they’re certainly doing a number on the civic discourse, like pretending that destroying America is on the agenda for anyone who isn’t an avowed enemy of America.

            The only Americans who fit that description are the ones who can easily relocate to another part of the world and watch America die in comfort. I believe that description excludes 99% of Americans of all political stripes. However, there is a class of the top elites who play our passions off one another and already do live in multiple parts of the world, depending on the season and their moods. If any American is an enemy of America, it’s those people.

            Note that I mentioned Beck’s fans, not his listeners. The two groups overlap but are not exactly the same. Beck is a dangerous wannabe neo-fascist and if you’re a *fan* of Beck, you are, too. Full stop.

          • Todd A Scheller

            -Yes, it fits quite a few of them. Remember the II Amendment is there so that people can assist if the country is invaded, as well as protect themselves if a criminal comes after them. There are MANY liberals advocating heavily restricting our rights to do that. Dianne Feinstein is one of those who has been doing so for YEARS. Joe Manchin III is not one of those.

          • pewestlake

            Discussing the relevance of the Second Amendment in the modern age isn’t treason or hating America. It’s a political discussion. But calling people you disagree with traitors is exactly what I expect from Beckaide drinkers.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Nor did I imply that it was either. However, it is making it easier for the terrorists and the criminals to prey on our citizens.

          • Guest

            While I am not a fan of Becks, I do find that he does have some things to contribute that are worth consideration. I also find that people who dismiss him out of habit or hate because his ideas are discordant with theirs have such a bias issue that their views and what they espouse are highly suspect and not worth consideration.

            I find it queer that you would think (assume) that people in the top 1% can and will easily dismiss America and run off if things get bad here (other than the George Soros kind who have their own special agenda), since much of their $$$ depends on what happens here.

          • pewestlake

            I don’t just disagree with Beck’s views. Beck is a liar. Every day. I don’t have a problem with the likes of Beck or Fox having points of view that I disagree with. I have a problem with the lies they tell to justify them.

            I don’t expect you to take anything I say seriously because you believe that George Soros is the only rich guy who might want to do harm to America. Spreading the George Soros is the boogieman theory is part and parcel of the disinformation campaign of the corporate neo-feudalists. I’m sure your participation is appreciated, if not rewarded.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Victor Scott Tiffany lies everyday too, but you have no issue hanging with him.

          • pewestlake

            Not that I’m aware of. I’ve read and contributed to the blog about Beck. Happily so. Beck is a stain on humanity and anything that I can do to piss him and his hapless followers off is aces in my book. Aces, I tells ya. ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Then I guess you missed the list I have been keeping, wait, not you already commented on it. Victor thinks NY has a balanced budget, so please explain how it has $347+ BILLION in debt.

          • pewestlake

            New York state, like all the states except Vermont, is required by law to balance its budget every year. The debt is in bonds. As long as the state factors the annual interest payments into the budget, it’s considered balanced.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-state-budget-new-york-idUSBRE92S09D20130329

            There ya go, big fella. You can call me stupid all you like but you haven’t been correct about anything yet. People notice. :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, NY is not required by law to have a balanced budget. It is not in the Constitution of NY that the budget must be balanced. There are actually THREE budgets in NY, one from the Governor one, one from the NY Superior Court, and one from the legislature.

            No the debt is not in bond, it is from previous UNBALANCED Budgets. But you stick your lies.

            As to your link, which Victor has already used, it stated that the budget was passed on TIME, not that it was balanced. “The budget also closes a $1.3 billion spending gap.” ≠ balanced

          • pewestlake

            From the article:

            Standard & Poor’s rates New York’s bonds AA with a positive outlook and praised the state’s conservative budgeting in a report at the beginning of March.
            [...]
            “New York faces an ongoing challenge maintaining budget balance amid slow economic growth and tax revenue that persistently lags projections,” the state top financial watchdog Thomas DiNapoli said in statement on Friday. “The year ahead won’t be an easy road.”

          • Todd A Scheller

            You still miss the fact that only $56 Billion of the debt is from Bonds genius.

          • pewestlake

            From the National Conference of State Legislatures:

            “All the states except Vermont have a legal requirement of a balanced budget. Some are constitutional, some are statutory, and some have been derived by judicial decision from constitutional provisions about state indebtedness that do not, on their face, call for a balanced budget. The General Accounting Office has commented that ‘some balanced budget requirements are based on interpretations of state constitutions and statutes rather than on an explicit statement that the state must have a balanced budget.’”

            http://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-balanced-budget-requirements.aspx

          • Todd A Scheller

            So then provide where NY is required to have a balanced budget. Where is it in NY law?

            Because they have not had one for the last several years:
            NY Gov. Cuomo Submits Budget With $1.3 Billion Deficit
            NY staring at sea of red ink
            In 2012, New York State Budget Almost Set, But Deficit Remains
            Hint: If you have a deficit there is not a balanced budget.

          • pewestlake

            All of those links are from the time frame during budget negotiations, before it was passed. The “deficit” is the budget shortfall that had to be closed. My link was from when the actual law for the budget passed, and included the phrase, “New York faces an ongoing challenge maintaining budget balance,” meaning the balance had, in fact, been maintained.

            And this from one of your own links…

            “After successfully passing two on-time and balanced budgets during his first two terms in office, Gov. Cuomo, submitted this year’s budget with promises for a historic third year in a row, something not done since 1977 in New York state.”

            So when you said NY State hadn’t had a balanced budget in several years, you were lying. You’re a liar and a shill and an idiot and I’ve had enough of you.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Uh, no. All these links are from PREVIOUS years, when they actually had deficits. Lie about it how ever you like.
            Your quote has an issue from my link, it does not claim that the budget that was passed is BALANCED. That is the budget that had a $1.3 BILLION deficit you fool. So who is lying here?
            You Paul Westlake are not smarter than a fifth grader. Now grow a pair and provide the NY law that requires a BALANCED BUDGET or drop your lie.
            Hint: The word Balanced is not found in the NY Constitution.
            If you have had enough of me, you are free at any time to stop responding or reading my comments. Too bad I prove that you and Victor lie more often than I do, kind of like your lie about the debt being from bonds.

          • Guest

            What does it get you? What does it accomplish that is worth while other than to provide you with a childish sense of accomplishment?

          • pewestlake

            You’re assuming I get a sense of accomplishment. I don’t. And I don’t go out of my way to find Beck lovers. There is no retrieving a person like that from the fantasy they live in. If I encounter them, I ridicule them. The only accomplishment is to give them a taste of their own medicine. But I don’t exactly have notches on my belt or anything. Calm down, cowboy.

          • Todd A Scheller

            There is no assumption in a clarifying question. Were you required to pass English 101 to get that degree you claimed you have?

          • pewestlake

            So when did you stop beating your wife? ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            So when did you grow a third brain cell? Loaded questions do not work to prove your point.

          • pewestlake

            So a question can include an assumption? Imagine that! Dipshit.

          • Todd A Scheller

            That was a loaded question not a CLARIFYING question. Again you are trying to project you lack of intellect onto me moron.

          • Guest

            Poor you, rambling along in life operating under the same delusions as Vicky does.

          • Guest

            I was hoping that you weren’t going t be just another liberal/progressive with blinders on. If you are concerned with lies, why not go after the liars who really have an impact on this country, like Obama?

            Also, don’t make ignorant assumptions about who I think wants to do harm to America. As far as ” I’m sure your participation is appreciated, if not rewarded.” .. you have just shown a bigoted mindset that will not be open to reason or reality. That is your cross to bear.

          • pewestlake

            I didn’t make any assumptions. You said as much in your comment. I’m glad I disappointed you. Maybe you’ll stop talking me now. :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yes, you did, and often do make assumptions in your posts on this thread.

          • Guest

            The fact that you make assumptions is obvious. The fact that you misinterpret things also is. Your taking pleasure in disappointing, is telling.

          • pewestlake

            When the Beck posse comes out of the woodwork, it’s easy to make accurate assumptions. hahaha

          • Todd A Scheller

            Not for you and Victor, and most of your assumptions turned you in to asses.

          • Guest

            Apparently you couldn’t make an accurate assumption if your life depended on it.

          • Guest

            Pewe, if you don’t want someone “talking” to you here , why are you posting here? You do realize where you are, don’t you?

          • pewestlake

            I came for the article. I stayed for the stoopid. My mistake. ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yet we got treated too it.

          • Guest

            And you provided the stoopid, like your idol Victor. You must have met in the same class…. “How to remain ignorant , make ignorant comments and make no significant contributions”.

          • Guest

            Calling his wife fugly wasn’t the issue – he contacted her, a complete stranger, and intimidated her. He made a threat as Todd pointed out in one of his recent posts. It is not the only time he has threatened. On another occasion he threatened to contact Todd’s employer and get him fired. He has threatened other posters, and at one point it got him banned. He made his bed by attacking others and then playing victim. I think he deserves what he has instigated.

          • pewestlake

            He perceived a threat coming from the unhinged Beckaide drinkers. He reached out to someone he thought might be more reasonable. I wouldn’t have made that assumption but to call his warnings “threats” is par for the course for pots calling kettles black. Beck plays the victim while attacking everything that doesn’t fit with his vision of the world. His fans are identical in that regard. You will make no headway with anyone who knows what Beck is all about. None. Have a nice night.

          • Todd A Scheller

            His PERCEPTION is irrelevant, there was no threat. It was the weekend before Beck launched The Blaze. Victor was just too stupid to make the connection. he had no right to contract my wife, period. I never contacted his.

          • pewestlake

            Maybe he made a mistake but he had every right to contact your wife, especially if she has a public profile on Facebook. Many of my Twitter followers know who my wife is and so do all my Facebook friends. If I was threatening people, someone might attempt to appeal to reason through her. Nothing wrong with basic communication. He didn’t threaten her or you. He warned you. You didn’t like it. Tough.

            This article is about Citizens United and attempts to overturn it. If I bother to reply to you again, it will be on that subject alone.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, he did not have a right to contact my wife. She was no way involved in the conversations. He also has called the FBI several times for NOTHING. Victor is not my friend on Facebook, nor do I have a Twitter account. I also know who his wife is, but I have NEVER contacted her, I have no need to.
            Yes, Victor did threaten to contact POLICE over nothing. He does not even understand what it takes for there to be a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
            Don’t bother contacting me about CU v. FEC, you have demonstrated you have no ability to understand it or the related cases.

          • pewestlake

            We all have a right to contact whoever we want, except when sufficient evidence has been provided to prompt a court to issue a restraining order. If your wife didn’t have a restraining order issued to prevent his contacting her, then he had a right to contact her. Period. Take your butthurt to someone who cares.

            PS – I kicked your ass on CU, munchkin. Nice try, though. ;-)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Uh, no you don’t have a right to contact anyone and threaten their husband with arrest.
            Uh, I am 6’1″ so not a munchkin, and no you did not beat me on CU v. FEC, as it is still the law of the land, but then again you have not proven to be very smart.

          • pewestlake

            You’re still an idiot.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yeah, idiots normal prove geniuses to be wrong, right Einstein.
            Get a real argument, but have some facts on your side this time.

          • pewestlake

            I’ve been beating you like a rented mule for a long time now, Todd. I’m beginning to think you’re also a masochist. :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            You are a liar, Two days is not a long time, nor have you been beating me, unless you are believing your own delusions.
            I have known you were a moron since reading your first post in support of Victor.

          • pewestlake

            Well, I will defer to you as the expert in believing one’s own delusions. hahahaha

          • Todd A Scheller

            Too bad it is you that is projecting that on to me. You have yet to get a reference to the meaning of a case right yet in the last two days.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            That’s what I think! Todd is a masochist who enjoys being humiliated. He seems, however, completely deluded about his righteousness. The phrase self-righteous comes to mind.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Let me know when you man enough to humiliate me. You seem to forget your wife still has you r manhood in her purse.

          • Guest

            The only real threat was coming from victor Tiffany who has actually made threats by using his Smith&Wesson. He’s a OWS anarchists who are well known for actually committing violet acts against people associated with established norms in this country.

            The one who should feel actually threatened is Todd’s wife who was contacted out of the blue by an actual anarchist out to destroy the nations infrastructure.

            Victor is still advocating for the downfall of the Corporate structure of this nation. He hasn’t changed his spots one bit.

          • pewestlake

            There is no “corporate structure of this nation.” The “structure” of this nation is the U.S. Constitution, which includes exactly zero provisions for corporations or any other type of legal fiction. Using the concept of “corporate structure of this nation” as a premise reveals you to be a wannabe neo-feudlaist or someone who has swallowed the neo-feudalist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

            OWS has never lifted a finger in violence toward anyone, ever. That’s false propaganda based on regular street crimes that were committed *against* Occupiers or nearby to OWS encampments. They are not “well known” for acts of violence. That’s horse manure.

            There are “anarchists” in OWS and most of them are just young and ignorant. I’ve done several events with OWS and found it to be a very eclectic mix of people from a variety of backgrounds. But the anarchists are a dominant faction and a big reason why OWS can’t really get any traction or attract solid allies. I’ve been an outspoken critic of their anarchistic ideology, to their faces, since the beginning.

            On the other hand, they’re barely a stone’s throw from Ron Paul libertarians who think the world will organize itself into neat markets of freedom if we could get just get this blasted government out of the way. Corporate propaganda that creates the impression that America’s government is an undemocratic entity in opposition to the people has infected the extremes on both sides of the aisle.

            America is a federalist republic. The democratic institutions may not be functioning very well at present (to understate the matter) but it is a government of, by and for the people. There was no Tea Party movement at all in 2008. Then it started with the grass roots in early 2009. Now there’s a Tea Party caucus in Congress. Even though I would argue that they’re mostly Tea Party In Name Only, the speed with which the grass roots found voice in the federal legislature is a testament to the enduring republicanism of our founding.

            If you think the notion of bringing corporations to heel in this country and making them answerable to the democratic institutions of our own creation is somehow anti-American, then you’ve been brainwashed by corporate propaganda and are most closely aligned with the very people who would destroy the Republic for their own personal gain.

            If you truly love America and what it has always stood for, you should not be so willing to cast off self-government. As the Founders put it in the Declaration of Independence:

            “…the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise…”

            In other words, there will always be some form of governance, no matter what label it goes by. Our founders chose an imperfect self-governance and created a document that could expand the franchise to include more people over time. If we allow the corporate elite to so hobble our governments as to render them incapable of governance, then those powers, “incapable of annihilation,” will devolve to someone else. And our long-standing trust in the public sector will be lost as the private sector takes over where the private power of the monarchy left off. That’s what we mean by “neo-feudlaism.”

            The King wasn’t a public sector representative. His was a private power. All monarchies are thus. If you prefer corporate power to public power, than you are rightly labelled a monarchist. And nothing could possibly be more un-American than a monarchist. Nothing.

          • Guest

            You don’t think there is a corporate structure in this country?

          • pewestlake

            Not constitutionally. There may be a de facto corporate structure but not a de jure one. The implication being made is that we who favor overturning Citizens United would be violating some sacred tenet of the U.S. Constitution, which, in this case, is taken to include a “corporate structure.” No such thing exists in the Constitution or in any act of the legislature since the Constitution’s adopting. The courts are the only place where corporate civil rights have been granted. Last I checked, conservatives called that “judicial activism.” But I guess that’s OK when they think it helps the conservative tribe. Poor fools.

          • Guest

            “No such thing exists in the Constitution…..” and realize that the Constitution does not proscribe any such thing either. What a bitch it is when you try to use the Constitution to make your case when it doesn’t, eh?

          • pewestlake

            Treating corporations as real people is, in fact, proscribed, just not explicitly. To wit:

            Fourteenth Amendment
            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

            Corporations are neither born nor naturalized, which means all references to “persons” is describing individuals. The Bill of Rights is generally considered to protect individual rights. But to the degree that legal fictions aren’t specifically omitted, you are correct. Still, nobody mistook those rights as belonging to legal fictions for nearly a hundred years.

            The Founders could have been more specific but the Courts have definitely overstepped original intent in this regard. That used to piss originalists off. Now they’re standing up and cheering. So much for principle, eh?

          • Todd A Scheller

            Here again you lie, there is no implication in the Constitution that treating anything as a person is proscribed.

            And? Under US law a person can be an “individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a trust, any unincorporated organization, or a
            government or political subdivision thereof.”

            Struggling with facts here are you not?

          • pewestlake

            Nope. That’s based on case law. The US Code is an amalgam of legislation, executive orders and case law from court interpretation. If it wasn’t corporations wouldn’t have constitutional rights because no such legislation was ever passed. If it was, please find it and provide links. Thanks.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No moron, that is based on laws on the books in the United States Code. I have quoted TWO of them for you, and still you argue that it is case law. When are you going to become smarter than a fifth grader?

          • pewestlake

            Laws get on the books in multiple ways. You have to find the origin of the law — legislation, executive order or judicial interpretation. Find the actual piece of legislation, not the code.

            If you can find an actual piece of legislation that granted these rights, that would be very helpful to me in my work and I would genuinely be grateful to you. I’ve searched in vain for a long time. There is no legislation that I can find. The code is not legislation. Find the legislation. Otherwise, it’s just the courts.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Laws in the UNITED STATES CODE come from ACTS of Congress. But you keep proving to be an idiot.

            1 U.S.C. § 1 came from an act of Congress passed June 28, 1948.

            15 U.S.C. § 77b (2) came from the Securities Act of 1933.
            So what other lies do you have for us?

          • Guest

            “The implication being made is that we who favor overturning Citizens
            United would be violating some sacred tenet of the U.S. Constitution..” that is your misinterpretation.

          • pewestlake

            Sure it is.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yes, it really is, you wrote it.

          • pewestlake

            You’re an idiot.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Actually, this sis you projecting again because you have no valid arguments.

          • Todd A Scheller

            There is a de jure corporate structure in the country though.

            Yes there is an act of the Legislature that sets a corporation as being a PERSON, otherwise there would be no definition of a person or whoever including “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals” in 1 U.S.C §1.
            Keep the lies coming Paul.

          • Guest

            Who is Paul?

          • Todd A Scheller

            Paul Westlake = pewestlake

          • Guest

            OK – you posted to me your answer to him again.

          • Todd A Scheller

            That was an error of Disqus, becasue it was supposed to be to him.

          • Guest

            Gotcha – Disqus has been acting up recently

          • Todd A Scheller

            What part of those entities describe in the law are not legal fiction do you not understand?

          • pewestlake

            That’s case law, recognizing the long-standing recognition of natural corporate personhood dating back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. You won’t find an act of the legislature granting natural personhood to legal fictions. Only case law. Updating the code is routine work that is a combination of legislation and precedent established in the courts.

            Citizens United didn’t create natural corporate personhood. It merely recognized it and justified its ruling based on it, along with the recognition that spending money is an expression of speech, first established in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and reaffirmed in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978.

            You can keep impugning my intelligence as you demonstrate your own ignorance. That’s fine. It’s the mark of a loser.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No Paul, 1 U.S.C §1, is CODIFIED law. I just quoted it to you, and yet you still want to stick with the lie that the law does not exist. Not Case law. Case law only comes from the COURTS, not Acts of CONGRESS.
            Keep the lies coming.
            So the Court did nothing new in CU v. FEC, you actually admit that correct?

          • pewestlake

            You’re wrong, as usual, Todd. Don’t care what you think. And yes, they did something new, just not different. If they hadn’t done anything new, there’d be no such thing as a super PAC.

          • Todd A Scheller

            How again am I wrong stupid? I am quoting US law from the United States Code. So apparently you DON’T think.

          • Guest

            “He perceived a threat coming from the unhinged Beckaide drinkers. ” … “He” is a delusional paranoid who perceived (missperceived) things to fit his twisted reality. He initiated the events that led up to the incidents. He needs to face reality and ‘own’ it.

            Victor has had a problem for many years whereby when someone disagrees with his opinions/claims and provides substantiation, proof, etc for their refutation, he gets really ‘bent out of shape’ and strikes out at them with insults, ad-hominem attacks and with some even vile and vulgar personal attacks. Don’t even try to provide some excuse for him. I have watched on the sidelines for a few years, I have seen his nastiness, I have seen the retaliation (much deserved I must say) and seen him banned from websites for his threats and transgressions.

            By trying to make this about Beck is pretty lame. That sort of diversionary tactic doesn’t fly.

          • pewestlake

            You’re part of the same tag team that stalks him around the web. I know him far better than any of you. I also know people like you better than you know yourself. The people in your little Beck posse are all the people who will ever care what you think.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Uh, only if you are admitting to being his gay lover do you know him any better than we do. The man needs psychological treatment.

          • pewestlake

            Todd, you have a condition called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Seek treatment.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Do you have a license to practice medicine? If not I suggest you stop trying. No, OCD cannot be diagnosed from my posts on the internet.

          • pewestlake

            You diagnosed someone else first. Don’t like having the shoe on the other foot, eh?

            I have a degree in internet troll. I’ve been on social media since it was born in the mid-90s. I used to be a moderator for CNN on CompuServe. People like you existed back then, too. But we had a kill switch. Ah, the good old days! :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            Who did I diagnose first? What did I diagnose them with? Got a link?
            So you admit that you are trolling? Thanks for that.
            I am surprised you have not been on the internet since it was invented by Al Gore.

          • pewestlake

            You said, “The man needs psychological treatment.” It’s five comments above this one.

          • Todd A Scheller

            That is not a diagnosis you moron. I did not name a disease. You really are stupid.

          • pewestlake

            True, I was playing a bit fast and loose with the terminology. But you suggested mental health problems first. I was just a tad more specific. :)

          • Todd A Scheller

            So you admit that you lied, that is all I needed. Thanks for playing “Paul proves he is a moron.”

          • pewestlake

            You accused him of having mental health problems before I did the same to you. That’s a fact. But no, I didn’t lie. I do actually think you have some serious OCD going on. Why would I lie about that? lol

          • Todd A Scheller

            I did not diagnose a disease you fool. That is practicing medicine. It is not hard to tell someone has mental health problems, it is more difficult to diagnose the specific problem.
            Those are facts. Deal with them.

          • Guest

            Ignorance is yours. I am not part of any “tag team” stalking “him” around the internet, which shows that you don’t know anything about “people like you better than you know yourself.” Your building obsession about Beck is falling right in line with Victor’s obsession. It would almost seem as though you were brothers or some other family alliance. My condolences.

          • pewestlake

            The obsession with Beck belongs to his fans. As far as I’m concerned, he’s just another corporate propagandist. The tie-in here is the blog.

            http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/

            That’s what has the Beck lovers upset. If you’ve been upset with him for years, then it’s because of the blog and his commenting in support of it. Therefore, you are part of that tag team.

            Also, you’re anonymous. I’m not. No way of confirming anything you say. I can be found easily. One of us is confident and one of us is not. Pretty easy to tell which is which.

            Bye now.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No the Obsession with Beck belongs to you and Victor. It seems you two are the first ones to bring him up.

          • pewestlake

            If you’ve been following him around for three years, it’s because of the blog. End of story.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Actually no, it is becasue of his lie. His blog does not use Disqus, so keep your lies coming Paul. You would lose at “Who is smarter than a Fifth Grader.”

          • pewestlake

            You’re a liar, Todd. You’re obsessed because of his Beck blog. Period. Disqus has nothing to do with it.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No Paul, the liars here are you and Victor. I found out about Victor’s blog from his posts on Becks Website. Do you often go around singing the Scarecrow’s song? From your comments, it seems you do.

          • Guest

            I am not a not a Beck lover, and I don’t give a flying crap about Victor’s blog. After all, it is just a repetition of the leftist meme, talking points, falsehoods, smears, plagiarisms of other leftist bloggers, and blatherings of a Beck obsessed delusional nutcase. It is a snake pit for circle jerk leftists like you and Vicky.

          • Guest

            Tag team? not me. You and Vicky are the tag team, quite obviously. Obvious since Vicky said you would be taking over for him here. LMAO the blind leading the blind. Too funny.

          • Guest

            Trying to clarify things for morons is a waste of time.

          • Todd A Scheller

            And here is the threat you moron:

            I don’t know what his plan is, but if there is anything illegal that goes down, Todd will be tied in as a conspirator. Are you really that stupid?

          • Guest

            I think you meant to send this reply to pewestlake and not me?

          • Todd A Scheller

            I thought it was Gadamer Too not you, so sorry.

          • Guest

            I understand

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            By any sane interpretation, I was warning your wife that if you pull something illegal against me, you’ll be tied in as a conspirator.

            Keep showing people more examples of your biased assimilation of facts. It’s helps the casual observer grasp the smears of a clown, the character assassination of a Beckerhead and the raw ignorance of a hard-core reactionary.

          • Todd A Scheller

            By a sane interpretation that is a threat Victor.
            If I am a Beckerhead, why are you still making comments on his website? Hypocrisy much?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You STILL do not have a clue what hypocrisy is. WTF does MY posting comments on Beck’s website have to do with you being a Beckerhead or my doing something that I am opposed to?

            Thanks for showing, yet again, that you’re neither sane nor aware of the ethical lapse called hypocrisy. It’s not an epithet, no matter how much you want to treat is like one.

          • Guest

            It shows that you are Beckerhead Peckerhead yourself – you are on Becks constantly commenting. As far as hypocrisy goes, you are the perfect example to accompany the definition.

          • Guest

            That is a lie victor, and you know it.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Why are you being so hypocritical Victor? Why can’t people see your comment history? We already know the Answer Victor, you are a COWARD.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Because I’m trying to hide from a$$holes like you Todd, you sick mo fo!

          • Todd A Scheller

            So you admit to being a coward finally. Thanks for that at least. Grow up Victor and learn how to communicate without the vulgarity. Start acting your age (58) not your shoe size.

          • Guest

            Keep showing your egotistical delusional mind. Pathetic. Get help – try your Obamacare shrinks.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Prove that I am getting paid to post. I have followed Victor Scott Tiffany’s idiocy for three years now. Yes, I know his real name because the coward used to use it as his screen name previously on Disqus. That was before his use of vulgarity and threats got hem banned from most places.

          • pewestlake

            I don’t have to prove anything. My point was simply that you should be getting paid to spend this much time stalking a single person around the web. Otherwise, you belong in a funny farm.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yet I spend far less Time than Gadamer Too (Victor Scott Tiffany) on the web, who even admits to doing so at work. So hypocrisy much? Or did Victor teach you that too?

          • pewestlake

            I run two blogs and spend a fair amount of time on the web as a result. What I don’t do is chase one person around all day and night like some teenage obsession. Gad is your Justin Bieber. You love, love, love you some Gad. Can’t get enough. That, son, is what we call “a condition.”

          • Todd A Scheller

            Nor Do I chase him around all day, most of those 47 lies have been made in RESPONSE to me. No need to chase him around, which is hard to do as he has his profile set to PRIVATE, which means his comments do not appear in the Disqus dashboard. Seems you have a limited understanding of how Disqus works too.
            Are you licensed to practice medicine?

          • pewestlake

            You obviously track him down somehow and you have a treatise prepared for when you do. That takes way more effort than I’m willing to put into learning how Disqus works. I used Disqus on one of my blogs for about two seconds before I decided it was too much of a pain in the ass. I care about content, not bells and whistles. You care about being a troll. Have fun with that.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Because he responds to ME on an OPEN forum. Not hard for a five year old to do. Are you really that lacking mentally?
            I can train a monkey how to operate Disqus, so what does that say about you?

          • pewestlake

            Sure he does, cap’n. Whatever.

          • Todd A Scheller

            To bad you can’t prove me wrong. Since the fool has his account set to PRIVATE. But I can prove me right.

            Gadamer too Todd A Scheller • 10 days ago

            Yes, Todd, you’ll ignore what the meanings of words are and arrogantly call others “moron” and “fool” because YOU do not know WTF you are writing about … as usual.

            Reactionary: “of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism inpolitics; opposing political or social change.”

            Sen. Cruz, like you and Glenn Beck, are reactionaries.

            http://dictionary.reference.co

            Now we know who the moron and fool is.

            What other lies do you have for us? Is that all your meetings at MTA of NY are about is how to lie better?

          • pewestlake

            You’re an idiot….

          • Todd A Scheller

            Got anything substantial to post? apparently not from the loos of your other comments.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Calling bull$hit on Todd’s comment below. He just wrote, in response to a comment I wrote to someone else:

            We are in such a lcimate collapse that they had to rename their theory from Global Warming, to CLIMATE CHANGE. There is a consensus on Climate Change, as it changes four times a year, most rational people call those seasons. keep proving you are the flat earthier Victor. The climate is not collapsing, the atmosphere is the same size today as it was 3000 years ago.

            He found me! I have to laugh at his idiotic comment about the climate not collapsing because the atmosphere is the same size it was 3,000 years ago, not to mention the sheer stupidity about equating climate change with the changing seasons. Todd really has gall to insult anyone’s IQ. Gall and an amazing lack of self-awareness.

          • pewestlake

            It’s a typical tactic of ignorant egotists. America is full of people, of all political stripes, who believe they’re right about everything despite never having done any actual research. We used to have a first class education system. The results of its collapse are all around us.

          • Todd A Scheller

            The stupidity here is you Victor, when I was in ELEMENTARY School the scientists were waring about a coming ICE age. That did not happen either. The climate does CHANGE four times a year, they are called seasons, and they are regulated by the earths orbit around the sun and rather or not the poles are pointed at or away from the sun.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            What Todd thinks he’s accusing you of is double standards, criticizing him but not me for spending time online. Instead, because Todd still doesn’t know what hypocrisy is — even though I have schooled him dozens of times on his ignorance and demonstrations of hypocrisy, he asks “hypocrisy much?” (BTW, that’s a style I’ve been using online for a while, and Todd is flattering me by picking up that same approach to pointing out hypocrisy, reactionary, deceitful, etc.)

            Todd, like his hero, Beck, cherry picks information to suit his character assassination attempts. I have noted to Todd many times that my boss allows me to do anything I want while working if there is no official work to do. (Nice job, eh?) He doesn’t mention this, nor does he admit to being the first to attack when he spots any comment of mine, as is evident on this page.

            I’m not Todd’s Justin Bieber. I’m his Justin Timberlake, or so he would have it.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marlo-thomas/celebrities-who-survived-bullying_b_3367046.html

          • pewestlake

            Like father like son. ;-)

          • Guest

            So, you are Vicky the clowns son. No surprise, you both make the same goofy type comments and live in the same fantasy world.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yet, I accused him of no such thing Victor. The point is to make all those lies you had to spend as much if not more time on line than I do. Display your ignorance some more.
            Lie some more about my heroes Victor, Beck is not one of them.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Except your “lies” are smears that anyone out of grade school could understand. At least when I’m online, I’m not ignoring my children; you are!

          • Todd A Scheller

            Yet they are not lies by me Victor, they are lies you made, and were proven with irrefutable EVIDENCE. So they are not smears. Keep your lies coming Victor.
            My children are all teenagers, and I am normally online while they are in bed or at school, so I ma not ignoring them. See lie 33 of the list Victor.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Smears of a clown, a clueless, reactionary and hateful clown. How many times do I need to explain that a mistake is not a lie? It doesn’t matter because #1 smear on your list is the yellow propaganda smear that I’ve debunked dozens of times now. Do you take it off your list of smears? No. You are either dishonest or too stupid for words, words like “a mistake is not a lie.”

          • Todd A Scheller

            Not when they are proven with Evidence Victor. How is it that I found 23 SOUTHERN Democrats that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when you used a source that said all of them voted against it? Because you and your source LIED.

            You never once debunked the fact that you LIED about coining the term “Yellow Propaganda,” Then tried for three days to insist that you really did. Sorry Victor, you can’t debunk the truth. It does not work that way. Then again you like being proven to be an idiot.

          • Guest

            Me – a follower of Glenn Beck? NOT ! Another idiotic assumption made by the moron Victor Tiffany.

          • Todd A Scheller

            No, Victor you lie again. The list on that outdated link has a list of TWELVE lies from you used over two years ago, the current list is FORTY-SEVEN lies long. So try proving the m wrong with evidence not empty assertions.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Your dishonesty is conveyed by the fact that you haven’t removed the 12 smears that I debunked over and over. All you are offering are 47 smears of a clown, a pathetic Beckerhead of a clown. You have apparently pushed the adults away with your sleazy, stupid childish flame war and ruined yet another web page with your dumb-ass, self-righteous nonsense.

          • Todd A Scheller

            1) You do not debunk fact with empty assertion.
            2) Not all of the twelve are in the list of 47 lies Victor.
            3) You can’t make a claim that the NY Constitution says something when the word balanced never appears in the entire document.

    • Guest

      That is only your opinion – that it is better. You say that only because it aligns with your views.

  • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too
    • Todd A Scheller

      How well is keeping your profile private working for you Victor?

      • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

        1) You edited this comment to lie about who is flaming on this page.

        2) Flaming: “Deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, is carried out by individuals known as flamers, who are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation.”

        3) You point out that you traced me here. You are engaged in deliberate flaming (as you have been for three years), and you hypocritically accuse me of “deceitful edits.”

        4) Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand hypocrisy, and you are deluding yourself about your flames which fall down this page of comments like garbage piling up on a landfill.

        Like Victor’s Punishment above deceitfully attacking me, you are literally projecting your flaming tactic and trollish nature onto me. This topic is dear to me while you find in this page another reason to post your list of stupid smears, your childish insults and your arrogant, ignorant assertions.

        SOS; DD.

        • Todd A Scheller

          1) I edited it the same day it was posted, not days later, like you HYPOCRITE.
          2) FLAMERS don’t use facts, I do, moron. Flamers use short response laced with vulgarity, wait, that would be YOU, hypocrite.

          3) You claimed you were hiding from me, I sought you out, do you not remember how to play Hide and Seek?
          4) Once again you demonstrate how you are a hypocrite, and prove that it is you that does not understand hypocrisy.

          For the third time, what does saving your sinking ship have to do with anything?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            “FLAMERS don’t use facts, I do, moron.”

            Todd, you did it again. Not only did you screw the pooch with your flawed punctuation (“facts” should be followed by a semicolon, not a comma), but you name-called, a non-factual, ad hominem attack along the lines of how flamers function.

            You sought me out: hide and seek (note lack of capitalization) is a game for children, just like your childish flame war. At least you admit it.

            The ONLY demonstration of hypocrisy here is coming from you. An ethics professor from Cornell could come on here and convey this to you, and you would simply deny it, name-call, insult and extend your silly, childish flame war to him or her. You are, as Westlake conveyed below, hypocrisy personified.

            The only “ship” that’s “sinking” is your credibility, and that was lost long ago when you began defending Beck’s lies, when you ignore Beck’s serial hypocrisies, when you cannot resist using ad hominem insults as a matter of personal style.

            SOS; DD.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Victor, speaking of semi colons why the one in a ACRONYM that you have wrong? No, facts should not be followed by a semicolon.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            It’s two acronyms Toady. Keep demonstrating your shallow ignorance.

          • Todd A Scheller

            The proper acronym is SSDD, so keep proving you are a moron.

    • Victor’s Punishment

      Gadamer too, above, is a dull witted old fart who thinks he has intellectual capability beyond the reach of mere mortals, but he proves with his arrogance and lack of any social grace that he falls short of the mark. Most narcissists like him go around in life ridiculing others when he can’t reason the common sense they use in their approach to life. He loves to brand people “Beckerhead”, “reactionary”, and “flame warrior” when he loses an argument or fails to make his point and is called out on it.

      Had he paid more attention in class, and had the brains to put the education he paid for to good use, he might be considered intelligent, but we are in no danger of that ever happening. He simply grabs onto the nearest left wing liberal topic, stance, talking point, or concept and acts like he is the authority on the subject. If you don’t agree – or openly disagree with him, he will subject you to all sorts of vile, vulgar, (and if you are female), misogynist insults to attempt to distract you and everyone else from the fact that he has in a sense run out of gas.

      He is simply not up to the task of cogent thought, but his narcissism will not allow him to be shown up by someone else that he deems of a lower social ranking than himself.

      Basically, Victor Tiffany, (his real name), is a troll and nothing more.

  • Facefarts

    Lolz, worst article evar.

    • Luke

      FF- I believe you make the same comment about every piece you do not agree with. Is that right?

  • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

    How Citizens United helped give the United States a more corrupt system of government. Defend THIS Mr. Kairey.

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/montana-mans-scheme-to-support-own-campaign-59592259994

    • Todd A Scheller

      So Citizens United made sure that corporations (and Unions) from BOTH sides could have free speech, and yet it made for a more corrupt government? You really are not attached to reality are you?

      • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

        Professor Lessig can explain what I mean by corruption. He explores corruption from the perspective of the Framers. I hope your ADD doesn’t get in the way; the video last more than five minutes.

        • Todd A Scheller

          I don’t have ADD. But the again you have never proven to be smarter than a fifth grader. The video you linked to is 53:52 long. Even a first grader can read time. Did it really take you three days to find this video?

          Corruption has one meaning Victor.

          As to your source, where is the progressive promise in the Constitution? I bet it is in the same place that Corporations are in the same document. Like you the Constitutional Accountability Center thinks the United States is a Democracy, and they really want to tell us what the Constitution says?

          Sen. Warren arguing about Regulatory reform before she was a Senator?Justices sitting on the Court are more conservative than the ten conservative Justices over the last 50 years? Maybe progressives should do a better job of electing Progressives that nominate Justices. The same woman that wants to know why Minimum Wage is not $22? Where does that appear in the Constitution Victor?

          Professor Lessing as a LAWYER should understand that SCOTUS can overturn its own decisions. Maybe that is why they stated: [W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.” —Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944). The court is not bound by previous decisions that it has made when they feel they can correct error. Without this possibility cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, Adler v. Board of Education, Bowers v. Hardwick, Pace v. Alabama, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (I wonder what case overturned this one), Wolf v. Colorado, Dred Scott v. Sandford, would still be the law of the land. As a matter of fact SCOTUS overruled itself 130 times from 1946 until 1990.

          You understand that the Constitution only discusses Corruption of Blood, not other corruption right? It does discuss bribery as a reason for impeachment.

        • Todd A Scheller

          Why the need to guest your post Victor>?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You won’t believe me flame warrior, but this was an accident.

            Your question is fundamentally dishonest; you are stalking me. You know this. That is why all comments, going forward, have to be deleted (Guested).

            Why do you need to stalk me flame warrior? Why the criminal harassment?

          • Todd A Scheller

            No Victor I am not stalking you. I am proving your statements to be false with facts. Like I proved the you did not coin the term “Yellow Propaganda” and the New York Does not have a balanced budget. Or that 23 Southern Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
            Prove that facts are flames Victor, you stuck on lying your way out of your lies, not me.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            There’s another lie Todd! You certainly ARE stalking me. You announced it when you found me here, how making my profile “private” didn’t stop you from finding me. It’s in your comment history. Your comment history is all that the administrators here need to see to understand exactly what your mission is: character assassination by flame.

            You can keep twisting the facts around to make them look “false,” but you are smearing me. Everyone one of your claims are a smear. The only thing you have proven is that you’re too stupid to distinguish a mistake from a lie. Why is that? I have debunked your smear about yellow propaganda three dozen times, but you keep lying about it. Your mission is simple: lie, smear, deceive and assassinate the character of Glenn Beck’s critic.

            Fact is, you are not qualified to criticize anyone. You like Glenn Beck! No one who likes Glenn Beck has any understanding about truth, lies, fictions, mistakes, false claims, errors, etc. If you could detect a lie with any degree of accuracy, you’d join me in criticizing Mr. Beck and his yellow propaganda. Instead, you’re a tool of Beck who is a tool of the corporate elite.

          • Todd A Scheller

            How am I stalking you if you keep replying to me you fool? doing a internet search for you, is not stalking. But then you have never had your facts right in the last three years.

            Prove that I am twisting facts Victor, empty assertions do not an argument make. You are the one that likes to twist facts about Beck, even when he admits to his errors you do not let go of your empty assertions, yet you want us to stop identifying your leis after you admit to them. Hypocrisy much there Victor?

            At least I am not a tool for the progressive elite that think they know what is best for everyone. You and Paul enjoy that distinction. So where do you get of criticizing others for doing EXACTLY what you have done? If you don’t like having your tactics used against you Victor, get better tactics. Funny ho I keep proving how little you know about truth, lies, fictions, mistakes, false claims, errors, etc. You make far more than Beck does. I just pick and chose which ones I add to your list.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Tell it to Marvin Plumley Todd.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Please call him. I dare you.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            You didn’t have to “dare” me Todd, despicable representative of the W.Vir. DOC. I had already called him and got a return call. He’s not working today, but the message will be forwarded to him and other officers involved with miscreant corporals like yourself.

            Done playing softball with you Todd, the criminal agent of W. Vir’s DOC. My next visit, at the recommendation of the officer who got back to me, is the FBI to lodge a criminal complaint.

            Want to keep the criminal harassment up Todd? I dare you.

          • Guardian

            Oh my, how scary you are Vicky. The old FBI threat again? You never learn. Your attempts at intimidation are hilarious. However, had you really contacted Mr. Scheller’s superiors at his workplace as you claimed to have done in the past, you would now have 2 incidents against yourself. Someone’s workplace or home is not the same as a public forum where people put themselves out in public. You might want to be a little more careful about how you go about harassing people in their private life.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Guardian: one comment in your profile. You created a new profile to come on here, show how immature you are (calling Victor “Vicky”) and spout utter BS about how it’s OK for Todd to be such a despicable representative of the WV DOC. It’s not OK. This end here.

            Where did you and Todd discuss this latest development, in your fascist friends center again? You Beckerheads are systematically, criminally harassing me. You are a piece of work. At least you’re not stupid enough to ID yourself and put your place of employment on your Facebook page. For all of the insults of IQ that Todd issues, it’s ironic that he’d convey where he works for the public to see.

          • Guardian

            One comment – the beginning of many? Have to start with the number one – can’t skip to two. That sort of fantasy is reserved for your world.

            Now, show me where I said any such thing about Todd? What I did say was not “utter BS”. It happens to be the truth – a little thing called reality that is so lacking in your thought processes.

            Reality: I did not discuss anything with Mr Scheller. I certainly am not a “Beckerhead” whatever that is. You are so busy pointing that finger and hurling that nickname at people that it may be that you are this “Beckerhead” yourself “Vicky”. I have seen that nickname Vicky used by your other friends so often that I wouldn’t think of changing it – it so fits you.

            As for Mr Scheller revealing where he works on his FB page – it doesn’t matter as long as he doesn’t fear any reprisal. He certainly doesn’t seem to be afraid of the likes of you, or anyone else for that matter. However, you have in the past excoriated people for revealing this sort of personal information about yourself on forums, yet here you do it. What does that make you? . . . . Can you say HYPOCCRATE ? Because that is what you are. Much? Oh, very very much!

          • Todd A Scheller

            Funny, I will be doing the same thing with the FBI as you carried out your threat in violation of Federal Law. let me know what the FBI has to tell from the evidence you have. Oh, wait you have no evidence of a crime, I do.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I’m going to let the FBI let you know what they determine. I was going to let the whole thing blow over if you were mature enough to just stop, cease and desist, but you have not. From now on, this is going to follow every comment you reply to me:

            Todd Scheller, despicable representation of the WV Dept. of Corrections, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Warden: Marvin Plumley — (304) 335-2291.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Victor, again you demonstrate your lack of intellect. One of the required components of Cyberstalking is a threat, you threatened to call my boss, and report my off work activities to them. AND NOW YOU CLAIM YOU DID.Who again has evidence of a crime here?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            Todd Scheller, despicable representative of the WV Dept. of Corrections, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Warden: Marvin Plumley — (304) 335-2291.

            Todd, I told you to cease and desist. If you do not, I will take this over Plumley’s head. I will take this to the W. V. Statehouse if that’s what it takes to get you and all of your Beckerhead flame war allies to leave me the phuck alone.

            One more comment, ONE MORE COMMENT, and I will contact Plumley’s boss. That’s NOT a threat, you moron; that’s a promise.

            I’ll let the FBI determine if there’s evidence of criminal harassment or not.

          • Guest

            Victor aka Gadamer, what you are dong here is called extortion. It is a criminal offense.

            Don’t bother to modify your comment as I have made a copy of it already Jing!

            Your threats have been duly noted and this copy will be made available (along with past documentation of your threats to Todd and others) to authorities should they make the mistake of taking your nonsense seriously.

            As you sow, so shall you reap

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            What you are doing here is criminal harassment, an ongoing campaign the extends back over the last three years.

            I have enough of Todd’s harassing comments Jing copied to see him end up on the other side of the prison bars he stands next to.

            Why don’t you ID yourself coward?

          • Guest

            That is nonsense Victor aka Gadamer. While you were obsessed with Jing copying Todd, you were under surveillance. Your activities did not go unnoticed, or uncopied. Your obsessions about people who disagree with you and refute your claims are well known. Your vile, vulgar, profane retorts to their forum comments just because you don’t like their views have been well documented, as have the conflicts you have initiated by attacking them personally, as well as the threats of bodily harm you have made to them.

            Why don’t I ID myself? So you can harass me? So you can contact my family at home like you did to Todd Scheller’s and intimidate them? So you can threaten me like you did Todd? So you can try to extort me like you are trying to do to him? If I ID myself, you will just commit another criminal act. Don’t take this to mean that I am afraid of you Victor, because I am not. I just don’t want the annoyance you will create, especially bothering my family, and the resulting aggravation I will have from taking you to court..

          • Anonymous

            “One more comment, ONE MORE COMMENT, and I will contact Plumley’s boss. That’s NOT a threat, you moron; that’s a promise.”

            You can call it a promise if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is in deed a threat. You also do not have the right to shut Todd up on this public forum that does not belong to you. If you don’t like him responding to your comments (that is what this board is for) then don’t comment. You don’t make the rules here.

          • Anonymous

            Victor aka Gadamer, what you are dong here is called extortion. It is a criminal offense.

            Don’t bother to modify your comment as I have made a copy of it already Jing!

            Your threats have been duly noted and this copy will be made available
            (along with past documentation of your threats to Todd and others) to
            authorities should they make the mistake of taking your nonsense
            seriously.

            As you sow, so shall you reap

          • Todd A Scheller

            Got any proof that I am a despicable representative of the WVDOC?
            What gives you he right or the authority to insist that I cease and desist exercising my First Amendment rights? Take it where ever you like Victor, the result will be the same as all the other lies in your list, failure on your part.
            Contact Pulmey’s boss, because it is a threat, regardless how you want to make it. His name and number are in my profile.
            There is evidence of criminal harassment Victor, on your part, the comment above is EVIDENCE.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            “Cyberstalking involves the use of information and communication technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group to harass, intimidate and cause you fear . Common abusive behaviors that occur with the use of technology include monitoring communications with others, making false accusations….

            You don’t have 1st Amendment rights to harass and libel someone on or offline.

            If I were a character assassin with a long history of libel and my victim had a direct phone line to my boss, his boss, human resources and the Commissioner’s office, I’d quickly issue an apology and promise to leave my victim alone. Then again, you’re not phucking bright enough to spell your own boss’s name correctly; so I don’t expect you to be smart enough to grasp how I’m on the verge of destroying your career unless you do apologize and promise to cease and desist with your smear campaign against me. I have tomorrow off, so I PROBABLY won’t be getting to a Fax machine or to the FBI office (recommended by an officer in Plumley’s office BTW) until Tuesday at the earliest.

            I’ve documented lots of proof and have it ready to go out in a FAX to 304-558-5367 and 304-558-8084. A LOT of proof. I’ve been busy this weekend taking screen shots of your comments over the last few months to provide all the proof that the WV DOC needs.

            How many chances do I need to give you to back off before this escalates further and you very possibly lose your job?

          • Todd A Scheller

            I did not harass you by proving your statements false Victor. You are attempting to “intimidate and cause fear” so who is the one not smart enough here? My profile is open to PUBLIC viewing Victor, there is no need to take screen shots. Your profile is not. You also spent a lot of time this weekend removing your screen name for m some of your postings. How is that going to work out for you?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I am asking you to leave me alone, but you won’t. You leave me no choice then but to escalate my efforts to have you cease and desist from your campaign of character assassination and libel.

            Remember writing: “So if you are on vacation how again do you get work done? Lying much there Victor?”

            I can’t get work around the house done while on vacation? You didn’t “prove my statement false,” Todd; you twisted my words (I didn’t write the word “work”) and then accused me of “lying.” You turn mistakes, typos and facts that you personally haven’t experienced in to “lies.” That, Todd, is character assassination and libel. Your campaign against me is criminal harassment, and you leave me no choice, since you won’t apologize and stop your campaign, but to send out my faxes of your deceitful insults, smears and character assassination attempts to the Commissioner of the WV DOC.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Please post his 47 greatest hits list again! We can all use a good laugh, and he should be exposed as the fraud he is at every opportunity. He’s been a world class hypocrite since day one, and he has never tried to portray himself otherwise.

            You are absolutely correct – his statement/question is not just an implied threat, it is an overt effort to threaten and intimidate you, and the reason he is resorting to that kind of low brow move is he has run out of other options, and he is desperate not to be a failure. The worst part for him is he was a failure before his first post.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            “You also spent a lot of time this weekend removing your screen name form some of your postings.”

            Why do you think you can get away with making false claims? This is simply untrue. YOU ARE LYING!

            Since you made it clear that you know how to find, stalk and attack me with lies and character assassins, even with my profile private, I have been deleting comments I make around the Internet to keep you and your band of childish flame warriors from searching, finding and attacking them with smears and personal attacks. That has been going on for a week or so, and the advice I’ve gotten from your employer and others reading my explanation for “Guesting” my comments is that I should go to law enforcement to report this criminal harassment.

            You also asked ANOTHER dishonest question because I don’t harass or libel anyone.

            Your 47 smears are a joke that I could destroy in a court of law and just might if it gets that far. If you were honest, you’d remove the mistakes that I’ve admitted to, but you are not honest. You keep pushing the yellow propaganda smear (and lying about the three day lapse) even though I have admitted that even though I independently derived the phrase, it had, indeed, been used before in different contexts. A mistake is not a lie, and your insistence that it’s a lie makes you a character assassin. Hell, I’ve admitted that I was wrong about Kennedy not citing corporate rights case law on this page, but that has not motivated you to remove it from your list of sleazy smears.

            FYI: The man who returned my call identified himself as an officer.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Because I have found the posts where you removed your name from Victor. So who is it making false claims?

            Your post with your screen name removed Victor.

            Another of your posts that you removed you screen name from.
            Got any proof that I am making false statements? Or are you going to admit that you lied again Victor?

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            I thought that you had finally realized how dumb is it for you to continue to harass me when I have a FAX of your smears ready to go out to the Commissioner of WV’s DOC. Apparently, you have not.

          • Todd A Scheller

            What part of your THREATS means it is you that is actually violating the cyberstalking law do you not understand? Apparently all of it. To bad for you I can prove they are TRUE, there for protected by the First Amendment.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            The only thing you “prove” is what a phucking worthless a$$hole and character assassin you are. I’m not issuing a “threat,” Toady. If you’re going to assassinate my character, I’m going to destroy your career, which according to the FBI is perfectly legal. Since you won’t back off, you seem fine with this. Have it your way.

            And you’re ignorant as hell to boot. It’s “too bad;” not “to bad.” Your “Hint #3 above was after the period I was citing:

            “In March 1854, members of the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant American Party, better known as the “Know-Nothings,” stole the Pope’s stone as a protest and supposedly threw it into the Potomac. Then the Know-Nothings conducted a fraudulent election so they could take over the entire Society. Congress immediately rescinded its contribution. The Know-Nothings retained control of the Society until 1858, adding 13 courses of the masonry to the Monument, all of such poor quality that it was later removed. Unable to collect enough money to finish work, they increasingly lost public support. The Know-Nothings eventually gave up and returned all records to the original Society, but the stoppage in construction continued into, then after, the Civil War.”

            Many of your links are dead. You’re not even competent creating anchor texts, and you didn’t address your proven lie. It wasn’t this weekend that you’re pointing to; it was Tuesday. Oh, and as promised, this follows every one of your sleazy, idiotic, childish attacks:

            Todd Scheller, despicable representative of the WV Dept. of Corrections, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Warden: Marvin Plumley — (304) 335-2291.

          • Todd A Scheller

            The only thing you have proven is that you can not formulate a cogent argument and have to go to vulgarity.

            None of my links are dead, but nice try.

            Using your own source that you quoted above.

            Construction resumed in 1879 under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Lincoln Casey of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Casey redesigned the foundation, strengthening it so it could support a structure that ultimately weighed more than 40,000 tons. He then followed the society’s orders and figured out what to do with the commemorative stones that had accumulated. Though many people ridiculed them, Casey managed to install most of the stones in the interior walls — one stone was found at the bottom of the elevator shaft in 1951. One difficulty that is visible to this day is that the builders were unable to find the same quarry stone used in the initial construction, and as a result, the bottom third of the monument is a slightly lighter shade than the rest of the construction.

            What again do I have wrong there stupid? As your own source proves, the KNOW-NOTHING PARTY gave up control of the Washington Monument Society in 1858, and construction did not resume until 1879, under GOVERNMENT control. So who is the LIAR here Victor, certainly not me, since your own source proves you WRONG stupid.
            You are so stupid that you think an EMBEDDED LINK is called Anchor text.

          • Guest

            Victor, Todd has every right to reply to your comments. This is a public, open forum. You choose to post here, to put yourself out in the public (chosing to put yourself up for whatever comes your way) and thus agree to the terms of use here. If you post something that another user disagrees with – they can respond to your comment. If you don’t like the responses that is your problem. You have a choice – post here and put up with what you expose yourself to, or don’t post here. This is not your private site, or your Facebook page, or whatever where you can chose who you can block from commenting.

          • Guest

            Victor, Todd has every right to reply to your comments. This is a public, open forum. You choose to post here, to put yourself out in the public (chosing to put yourself up for whatever comes your way) and thus agree to the terms of use here. If you post something that another user disagrees with – they can respond to your comment. If you don’t like the responses that is your problem. You have a choice – post here and put up with what you expose yourself to, or don’t post here. This is not
            your private site, or your Facebook page, or whatever where you can chose who you can block from commenting.

          • Ellen

            Flagging my comment doesn’t help you.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            PRESS CHARGES! This should be good – I’d love to see his lying and ignorant rump being grilled in Federal Court!

          • Victor’s Punishment

            He lacks the guts to – his threats never materialize in reality, he’s nothing but a big fat loser windbag that talks game, but does nothing.

            He is a fool, narcissist, bully, and a moron. That’s a whole lot of idiot stuffed into a Victor suit.

          • Guardian

            Vicky may be just dumb enough to do it…. LMAO!

          • Victor’s Punishment

            What he fails to recognize is that progressive elite will grind him under their wheels as soon as the need arises. He thinks he has favor within their ranks, but the truth is they always cannibalize themselves.

            He is so stupid it hurts his grandma.

          • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Gadamer too

            This year’s “budget also closes a $1.3 billion spending gap. Cuomo has succeeded in narrowing a budget gap that was around $10 billion when he took office in 2011.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-state-budget-new-york-idUSBRE92S09D20130329

            Like I wrote: you’re not interested in FACTS; you’re engaged in criminal harassment and character assassination.

            This is no longer a silly and childish flame war; what you’re engaged in is criminal, libel and defamation of character. “Criminal harassment is a direct attempt at a person’s dignity and security, including physical and psychological integrity.”

            And it’s “you’re stuck,” not “you stuck.” I’m defending myself against a semi-literate fan of Glenn Beck.

          • Todd A Scheller

            Closing a gap does not mean balanced Victor, their debt is still growing. From $333 BILLION when we first had this conversation to $347 BILLION today. How are those facts working for you?

            You are the one that fails to understand facts as they are written or you try to use them Victor. “closes a $1.3 Billion spending gap” can also mean that this year it is only $987 Million spending gap. It does not say CLOSED the gap, or BALANCED Budget. The only valid claim by the article is that they passed the budget on TIME.
            You’re stuck on stupid. As you suck as a Master Grammarian.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            The only thing he ever mastered was bait.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            According to Victor if you are present anywhere on the internet you are stalking him. He fails to account for his own narcissism which leads him to make such flawed observations and extrapolations. He needs the poison to feed his addiction and he feeds it to himself by the gallon. He is his own toxic waste Superfund site.

            The EPA, FDA, DEA, and CDC won’t go near him – he is a roving hot zone for toxic lies.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Be vewy vewy quiet – he’s hunting wabbits.

  • pewestlake

    When the pro-corporate government neo-cons realize they’re losing the argument, they start flagging all the opposition comments. Real mature, fellas. LOL

    • Todd A Scheller

      When the people that are advocating for PROGRESSIVEISM realize they are losing the argument they post things like:
      “You’re an idiot…” -pewestlake
      Or start curing like Victor Tiffany (Gadamer Too).
      Hypocrisy much? Seems you progressives have been flagging posts too.

    • Todd A Scheller

      When the people that are advocating for PROGRESSIVEISM realize they are losing the argument they post things like:
      “You’re an idiot…” -pewestlake
      Or start curing like Victor Tiffany (Gadamer Too).
      Hypocrisy much? Seems you progressives have been flagging posts too.

      • pewestlake

        I haven’t flagged a single post. And I called you an idiot only after you’d directly insulted my intelligence more times than I care to count. The proof is right here in this thread.

        And for the record, the United States is and has always been a liberal creation. Even with its focus on property rights, the U.S. Constitution was the most liberal civil document of its time. Combined, the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution represent the first modern iteration of the public sector since the Roman Republic. The structure they replaced was private sector power in the form of a monarch and the monarch’s chartered imperialist corporations, like the East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company.

        Right wingers were called Tories during the Revolution and they supported the King. They were called Democrats and Confederates during the Civil War and they supported slavery. And today they’re called conservatives and libertarians and they mostly self-identify as Republicans who support dismantling the public sector and replacing it with private sector corporations unfettered by constitutional restrictions.

        The friends of authoritarianism have always been among us, always playing the victim and pretending to represent the “real” America. No matter how much they wrap themselves in the flag, claim that God is on their side and accuse others of being traitors, they will never fool people who are paying attention. Never.

        You can follow this comment with your usual invective, insult my intelligence and call me a liar until the cows come home. I’m 100% comfortable with my statements here and my position as a true patriot. Mine is the same fight against entrenched power waged by the Founding Fathers. We ARE the Framers, all of us. You included. You can have the decency of treating that responsibility with the reverence it deserves or you can revert to provocation over substance. People notice. Choose wisely.

        • Todd A Scheller

          I never said you specifically flagged a post.
          The Democrats of the South were not right wingers, Tories were a political party in England prior to the Revolution.
          Where are Republicans advocating for dismantling the Public Sector? You are allowed your own opinion Paul, not your own facts.
          Who is trying to be the authoritarian here? Me bay allowing groups to have free speech the same as individuals, or you trying to use a group to tell other groups that they can’t have free speech together? You do understand the freedom of assembly right?
          Neither you or I or any living person is a FRAMER, they all died by 1836, who happened to be Madison. You are not fighting against entrenched power, you are trying to create entrenched power.
          Let me know when you make the choice not to act like those things I have called you, and you have in turn called me, hypocrite.

      • pewestlake

        [Replying to this comment because I can't reply to one awaiting moderation. I don't care to fight about who's doing that.]

        Grover Norquist, one of the ideological leaders of the right wing,
        said he wants to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub, and then drown it. Nobody on the right side of the aisle has openly disagreed with that position.

        You may not realize what you’re siding with — the people really trying to create entrenched power like Freedomworks, Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, Heritage Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, ALEC, etc — but that’s what those people are all about. All of them are deeply disappointed that the government shutdown didn’t last longer or become permanent.

        It’s not about the speech. It’s about the spending. Just because the Supreme Court has conflated the two doesn’t mean they’re really the same thing. They’re not. I don’t want to take away the NAACP’s right to speak. I want to empower Congress to limit the amount they can spend to amplify that speech in a way that can pass muster under the Equal Protection clause.

        As the Founders wrote, the legislative power is “incapable of annihilation.” If the government gets “drowned in a bathtub,” the groups with the most wealth and entrenched power will take over. That’s the way it has always worked throughout world history. Republican democracy is a wonderful respite from the usual might makes-right history of human societies. We can’t throw that away. As Lincoln said, we must ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

        All you can do is contradict everything I write. But every time you insult me without cause, you only make yourself look smaller and smaller. I only respond to you when it makes sense to lay out what I believe to be a conservative and libertarian philosophy that has gone missing in the sea of corporate propaganda that labels collectives as individuals. Corporations are collectives. Authoritarian, top-down hierarchical collectives but collectives none the less. Corporate socialism is all around you. You just have to be willing to see it for what it really is.

        • Todd A Scheller

          Once again I am not the one that is a member of a group of people trying to tell groups of people what they cannot do. That would be you and Victor.

          Grover Norquist also had a sentence prior to the comment about drowning the government in the bathtub, that you seem to forget. “I don’t want to abolish government.”
          So what is next tell people they can’t spend more than $15,000 on a car? CU v. FEC says they can spend as much as the want INDEPENDENT of a candidate, as long as they are not working in-cahoots with the Candidate. CU was produced a MOVIE with their money, which is Speech. What is wrong with the current set up? So who is the one that needs to see it for what it really is?

          • pewestlake

            When the Constitutional Convention ended, there was no Bill of Rights. It was added only when the states pushed back and threatened to vote down ratification of the new Constitution if protective provisions were not added. The Founders did not include any of the amendments when they first proposed the Constitution and most of them would have been happy without the Bill of Rights. So, no, the Bill of Rights does not, and was never intended, to cover everything that has happened since.

            You absolutely are part of a group trying to tell other individuals and groups of people what they cannot do. You’re trying to tell us that we can’t use the democratic process to regulate commerce. And you’re doing it with a lot of anger. You seem like a very angry person.

          • Todd A Scheller

            I did not quote the Bill of Rights, I quoted the Preamble, which did exist after the Constitutional Convention. So maybe you should study your Constitutional History a little more. The Bill of Rights was written by the founders to persuade the Anti-Federalist (who were happy with the failed Articles of Confederation), by James Madison in the 1st US Congress which began March 4, 1789, the first date that the Constitution was in effect. They were proposed AFTER the Constitution was ratified (June 21, 1788) by eleven of the thirteen states. Wow, you really have forgotten a lot of history relevant to this discussion.

            The Constitutional Convention did implicitly allow for laws being passed that effected things that did not exist when the Constitution was ratified, its called the Necessary and Proper Clause found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. Hint: I was not discussing the Bill of Rights, other than the IX and X Amendments specifically.

            I am not in any way an angry person. However, you seem to be a person that wasted a lot of money on an education that taught them nothing.

          • pewestlake

            “I did not quote the Bill of Rights…”

            You referenced Amendments IX and X. That was the context.

            “So maybe you should study your Constitutional History a little more.”

            Thanks for the advice.

            “They were proposed AFTER the Constitution was ratified…”

            Officially, but the deal was brokered before ratification was complete.

            “The Constitutional Convention did implicitly allow for laws being passed that effected things that did not exist when the Constitution was ratified…”

            Of course, but that’s not the point you were making. You said Amendments IX and X accounted for everything that came after: “They also did not see the invention of the telegraph, telephone, automobile, airplane, tank, machine guns, computers, the internet, still pictures, moving pictures, corporations or many other things that we have today, but they addressed everyone of them in the IX and X Amendment.”

            Also, corporations did exist in 1787. In fact, most of the original thirteen colonies began as incorporated land grants by royal charter like The Virginia Company, The Massachusetts Bay Company and the Dutch West India Company. The American Revolution was as much a rejection of corporate monopoly as it was a rejection of taxation without representation. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against both the British East India Company’s monopoly and Parliament’s imposition of the Townshend Tax.

            “Wow, you really have forgotten a lot of history relevant to this discussion.”

            You seem to have forgotten this discussion.

            “I am not in any way an angry person.”

            Yes, you are. And your addiction to insulting me is pretty clear evidence…

            “However, you seem to be a person that wasted a lot of money on an education that taught them nothing.”

            Your insults are as tiresome as your lack of debate skills.

            Goodbye, Todd.

          • Todd A Scheller

            I referenced them, and suggested you read them. I QUOTED the Preamble.
            Since your were wrong about the History of it, yes you should study the history more.
            No, I said the NECESSARY and PROPER CLAUSE, the NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS clearly reserve rights for the states and the People, that are not EXPLICITLY given to the Federal Government.

            Try offering some prof that he deal was done before ratifcation. How did they make the deal before they were presented?

            No, Corporations did not exist in 1787 there were mainly land owners operating plantations and Sole Proprietorships. All those companies were BRITISH corporations, not American ones. Nice try though.

            No, I have not forgotten what the discussion was about, when I was proving you wrong.
            Your addiction to proving me right in those assertions is pretty clear too.
            Your lack of facts are evidence of your lack of debate skills.

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Peepee is about the dumbest troll in the box. He is only bested in that regard by Victor!

          • Victor’s Punishment

            Peepee is another case of being present in a classroom not translating into education. A lot of these college clowns think that if you sit in a room and endure boring lectures from left wing professor types you will achieve enlightenment. Most of his ilk rack up impressive student loan bills, but they lack the skills to study or assimilate the material being presented, much less discern whether that material is worth assimilating. For this kind of troll, merely stating they have degrees automatically makes them smart, despite the many times they have demonstrated otherwise.

            As always Peepee has managed to show only one thing – his money was wasted.

  • http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ Left is right; right is wrong

    Unfortunately, this debate in the comment section was hijacked by an informal team of followers of Glenn Beck. Why did they come here to attack Gadamer Too, aka Victor Tiffany, resident of Ithaca? Because he has a blog exposing their hero as a liar, a hypocrite and a charlatan. http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2013/06/the-many-reasons-why-media-should.html

    Fact is, Citizens United unleashed corporations and granted them the ability to essentially pick the candidate of their choice. That has reinforced the United States as a corporate state, not a Republic. I could point to any number of articles online, including the counter-arguments written on The Amendment Gazette by PE Westlake, to make this case. http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2013/10/29/taking-amendment-critics-part-xix-julius-kairey/

    This is another piece posted Friday in HuffPo by another activist in NYC: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pearl-korn/our-mission-is-clear-amen_b_4323463.html

    If we’re going to take the US away from the corporate elite and make the government democratic again, we need to start by overturning Citizens United and return the legal status of corporations to what is was for the first 98 years of the Republic. This is hardly a radical idea; in fact it’s downright reactionary: http://www.amendmentgazette.com/2013/06/30/the-ideologies-of-abolishing-corporate-personhood/