Byrd of WV dead at 92

Quite right. I haven't worked in years and if it weren't for your assistance, I would never have constructed this marvel of electronic circuitry.

My neighbours are amazed and it's all I can do not to take all the credit. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, Arch...

mike

Unless there's something new that I don't know about, the prez said "BP really ought to put a bazzilion dollars into escrow" and BP said "OK" -- i.e. BP caved before there was even an order to do anything.

In fact, I recall reading late last week that there's a shareholder lawsuit brewing against BP precisely for doing that.

And I'd be a lot less worried about the DISCLOSE act if it were even-handed between unions and corporations -- I'm not nearly as concerned about big unions vs. big corporations as I'm concerned about big anything vs. little ol' me. Big corporations are where innovation goes to die, big unions have no purpose without big corporations, and we'd all be better off if we didn't have these corporate entities (corporations _and_ unions) growing ever larger and taking over the world.

The older I get the less far-fetched and paranoid I find the science fiction that posits a future world that's controlled by corporations, not governments.

You really have no chance of recovering your lost honor here.

I'm sure a pair of rubber gloves and forceps will suffice. Spread 'em, you little fouled mouth Twinkie, you...

mike

JA > The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property JA > without due process of law, yet we just did.

Due process would be the 6th Amendment. Right against self incrimination is 5th Amendment.

Tim Wescott wrote in news:q5adnVNVssIP4bTRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@web-ster.com:

"corporations" are just groups of people. Like Citizens United;they make no product,provide no services for sale,but are a group of people who merged their funds to make a movie that was blocked by the McCain-Feingold law.

OTOH,unions are well-known for their violence and oppression,like SEIU. you must not be very informed about today's unions.

No, I'm quite sure...

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." --Fifth Amendment

though Obamacare violates the 5th Amendment right against self- incrimination too, in my view, since you have to report yourself annually to the IRS. If you lie that's perjury, if you don't answer that's a crime, and if you don't have "insurance" that's a crime too.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Thank you Mr. "the KKK doesn't exist any more".

to

Because the "clearly labeled" procedure is onerous, onerous enough that the unions demanded exemption, and the NRA got one too.

The Democrats aren't afraid of big corporations--that's a ruse. They already get the bulk of contributions from, for example, Wall Street. And, besides, big companies can't afford to take political positions-- would Kentucky Fried Chicken want to alienate half its customers? No, of course not.

They fear--especially this election--the wrath of small business owners, and of citizens groups who happen to be incorporated, esp. many of the Tea Party chapters. (They're usually "non-profit political advocacy organizations," and incorporate under IRS 501(c)(3) as required by law for various activities, like fund-raising.)

Grassroots organizations who get any corporate contributions for TWO years prior have to have the CEO(s) of the contributing corporations personally appear in their ads, identify themselves, and say "I'm Joe xxxx of ABC, and I endorse this message."

The effect is to gobble up all your ad time, to where you've got no time to say anything. IOW the government is telling you what you must say, in the brief time that your precious dollars have paid for.

Most liberal outfits are exempted by design, including unions. The law applies even if you merely print up flyers on your own printer, so that Thomas Paine's revolution-inspiring "Common Sense" would not have been permitted.

The idea that it's encouraging greater disclosure is simply false--the various information is already required to be disclosed to the FEC in regular filings.

The measure was written by the two Democrats--Chris Van Hollen and Chuck Schumer, in charge of the Democrats' re-election efforts in the House and Senate respectively, in direct contradiction to and deliberate defiance of the Supreme Court's recent "Citizens United" decision.

It's lawless.

The bill itself was another one of these recent affairs conducted completely behind closed doors, then amended with a giant extra load of junk two hours before the vote, then crammed through without discussion or disclosure. "Disclosure?" Indeed.

Astonishingly, many Democrats have said quite plainly that they know it's unconstitutional, but that it'll last long enough to get them through the next election or two. That's all they need, they say.

IOW, the party controlling Congress has brazenly muzzled opponents, whilst exempting their supporters, all in hopes of perpetuating their power in the next election.

It's quite ghastly.

James Arthur

I find it interesting that any time I try to present a balanced view I'm immediately piled upon by wingers. Mostly right wingers these days, because the left wingers are more likely to just hang back and sneer to each other, but wingers from both sides none the less.

With just one exception every friend of mine that I know has been in a union but isn't any more has been threatened with violence for working too hard. So you're quite wrong about what I know about unions and violence -- I guess since you haven't heard Rush or Glenn say something like what I said above that you can't believe that it could possibly be true, and since you've been listening to Glenn and Rush you feel that the only way to respond to sensible argument is to start flinging cow pies.

I assume, then, that when you see old newsreels that show Pinkerton security personnel beating the hell out of strikers at Ford plants you have some smooth weasel words to blame everything on the union people? Those guys _deserved_ to be beaten until their bones broke? Please go into lengths on that, if you will.

And it is, of course, impossible for you to believe that there could possibly be sin on both sides? Union people climb up from the depths of hell, but corporate management is just visiting earth from Heaven, spreading goodness and light while they're here? It's just totally impossible that _any_ time you get a bunch of people together in a closed group -- like a union or any other corporate body -- that the bad behavior will feed on bad behavior and just get worse and worse?

And for your "just groups of people" -- well, what's a government but "just a group of people"? The Holocaust was "just" one "group of people" going after certain individuals in their midst. The recent financial meltdown was "just groups of people" who decided to stray from their stated purpose to make big bundles of money. The KKK whose existence Jim wants to deny is "just a group of people". Al Qaeda is "just a group of people". Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes were "just groups of people".

So you're right -- we shouldn't worry about international corporations with more money than any government any more than we should worry -- or should have worried -- about Al Qaeda, Nazi Germany, or the Mongol hordes.

Thanks for straightening that out!

d up

n!

whole

They first accused BP criminally, when Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's Attorney General, announced opening a criminal investigation into BP. (That, BTW, is never announced--it's considered prejudicial and unethical to do so. There are lots of quotes from Mr. Holder saying exactly that.)

Then they proceeded to bash BP, to berate and vilify them.

And then they had a meeting.

It's been widely reported and confirmed that in the meeting Joe Biden told BP "You've got no choice. If you don't do it, we'll force you."

So, that's coercion, of the crudest, sort.

Your instincts are right. The fact that unions needed an exemption should tell you the DISCLOSE Act is a heavy burden, it's not just disclosure.

As I wrote Joel, the people who wrote the bill are afraid of small corporations, esp. the Tea Party movement.

You're not wrong, but they're one and the same. Big Government needs and nurtures Big Companies. Big Government wields the power, Big Companies comply and produce the goods, the money, and the political funds Big Government craves, in return for conditions they need to thrive--regulations locking out competitors and newcomers.

Worse, Big Government is the biggest company of all, a company that takes from you as it will, that you can't sue for redress, and whose products you are compelled to buy.

It's a bad dynamic.

Cheers, James Arthur

You're neglecting to mention that Big Unions, while opposed to Big Companies in all the details, only have reason to exist in the presence of Big Companies. So it's not two Bigs propping each other up -- it's three.

Think of the cold war -- the US and the Soviets were each made bigger and more powerful by having a clearly identified opponent. When Regan realized that the whole thing had turned into a giant mutant potlatch ceremony and maneuvered the Soviets into outspending themselves both sides took a blow. I think the Soviet Union could still be here, teetering on the brink of collapse, if Regan hadn't figured out how to undermine them 30 years ago.

(It was pretty clear to me when I was in high school in the 70's that the Soviet Union was going to collapse. So I wasn't surprised that it did. What astonished me and delighted me was getting to see it as a young man, not a wrinkled old greybeard.)

(Of course, it was pretty obvious that with the resulting easing of tensions between the Big Two that the world would resume its normal state of semi-anarchy between nations, and that has certainly happened. The Soviets lost their ability to keep a lid on the powder keg, and we lost a lot of our interest and excuses. Somehow Regan never took pains to point out what would be coming down the pike as a result of the wall coming down.)

Better still, the Big Unions now work for Big Government. Having mostly killed off their private-sector hosts, unions have merged with the government itself, which works to secure their interests. That's California's problem, and apparently New Jersey's too.

Yep.

ISTM the anarchy's getting a bit out of hand lately. Lots of nations are emboldened, and acting boldly.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

It is *not* an escrow.

"Caved" being the operative word. The extorted often "cave".

Good.

Everything is already disclosed. This isn't about disclosure, it's about censorship of political speech.

It's a common phobia.

Tim Wescott wrote in news:COWdnXmGdOcPh7fRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@web-ster.com:

This tells me that your view is not exactly "balanced". Then you turn to demonization with the use of the term "wingers". A sure sign of a failed argument.

You obviously didn't read about the guy who had SEIU appear outside his house while he was at work,scraringe the out of his children who were hoome at the time. Or the union drive for non-secret ballots(Card Check),so they can intimidate members who don't vote their way.

I believe you either are woefully uninformed or have blinders on,or even both. You're CLUELESS if you think there's not union violence going on today.

I bet you have NO IDEA what Citizens United v FEC was actually about.

Again you expose your ignorance,as -international- corporations are STILL prohibited from making contrtibutions.The recent SCOTUS ruling did not change that.

But to you,only SOME groups of people get to voice their opinion politically. Select gruops.

You're hopeless. You have no common sense.

Yes, but enforcing the insurance mandate is a problem. From what I read, IRS can only collect non-paid health insurance premiums from refunds due, so anyone not getting a refund is home free.

"While the IRS can impose liens or levies, seize property or seek jail time against people who don't pay taxes, it's barred from taking such actions against taxpayers who ignore the insurance mandate. In the arsenal instead: the ability to withhold refunds from taxpayers who decline to pay the penalty, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said this month.

Still, compliance with the health reform law will be largely voluntary, says Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. "By taking criminal sanctions and liens and levies off the table, the IRS' hands are tied, to a considerable extent."

The IRS is "being put in a position where it will be sending notices that will annoy people" and not much else, says James Maule, professor of law at Villanova University and author of the tax blog MauledAgain. "It's basically designed for failure."

-Bill

Dude, check the text again:=20

workers

Bah, pikers both, try the tobacco lobby. There are still subsidies to grow it.

Nothing in the law stops the IRS from taking those measures. Their hands aren't tied, they're just holding them behind their back, for now. USA's headline and story is simply wrong.

Obama's mandatory insurance purchase law treats itself as any other tax. Not paying is the same as evading your income tax. The mode of enforcement is an administrative policy decision that can be changed at any time. I'd take cold comfort in that.

Your article goes on to say that Massachusetts has 98% compliance, but that they enforce penalties. How long before IRS simply changes its policy?

USA Today doesn't mention that Massachusetts' insurance rates have zoomed ever since enacting their plan. Tennessee dabbled with something similar a ways back, for poor people only, and it nearly broke the whole state.

But not to worry, with Kagan on the SCOTUS we'll soon all be eating healthier. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked yesterday if a law requiring Americans to eat 3 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables a day would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. That is, "can the government force you to eat vegetables?"

You'd think the answer would just be "No." She had several chances. Her answer? Bobbing and weaving...she dodged it.

James Arthur