http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance

 

 

What do you guys think, good idea, or bad?

This is a step in the wrong direction. Why would they do this? Do we really need another Dubya? The man won with his money alone in 2000. Campaign financing needed to be reformed and financing needed to be capped. This is putting more money into campaigns.

 

Look at the facts. Who owns NBC CBS NBC MSNBC?

 

Large corporations.

 

Hmm, that's weird, so some corporations were allowed to push their agenda, but other corporations that didn't own large broadcast companies... They were limited on their input in elections.

 

Remember, Obama just won as a centrist candidate. And some knew he was a serious leftist, but other than fox news, they were ignored.

 

The MSM owned by the left controlled the message, just like they are doing with Kevin Jennings. If the public knew what this guy was about, they would be outraged.

 

All this does is allow corporations (run by private citizens) to spend THEIR own money as they see fit.

 

Which is called FREEDOM. If they spend too much trying to manipulate and push their agenda they will go out of business (air america?...)

 

Why should Obama be allowed to accept internet donations without proof of "who" was donating? That is much worse than this, as it was breaking the "rules" and winning an election by getting his union friends, and internationals who wanted to influence to donate online where it wouldn't be tracked.

 

Now there is a fair balance.

 

 

But, many of you don't like it...

 

Guess freedom of speech is only for views you like, as usual.

 

Silence the critics.

 

 

 

That isn't an American viewpoint...

 

Here is a good article about the ruling and effects.

 

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/16339 - http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/16339

 

I'm glad that the SCOTUS got this one right, this is "change" we can believe in. This will make the playing field level. And that will mean the truth will start to come out, instead of the spin that the campaigns put out that is parroted by the MSM.

 

This will have more of an effect on politics than anything in our lifetimes. I can see why Obama hates this ruling, and wants to stop it. Imaging if all the back room deals he has made in the past year and payouts to his causes became public knowledge...

 

holy cow...

 

 

 

 

one and done.

 

How exactly do you imagine that letting large corporation's take over politics is going to expand upon our freedoms? Obviously they wont spend all of their money to get someone elected, causing bankruptcy. On the other hand, its an investment. They'll pull for whatever candidate is going to benefit business and profits, and thats the bottom line.

 

Also... This gem

 

If someone is attacking your country they are an enemy combatant. If the terrorist had blown up the plane, (full of people he didn't know, but was attacking the USA). Why would you give him AMERICAN rights?...

 

He should be tried in military court. Period. Anything else damages America's ability to protect itself, as they have to put out there for anyone to see exactly how they "keep us safe"...

 

All of that should be kept private for obvious reasons.

 

This is a different issue. The left wants to silence the right, if you are saying you don't believe that, then what was all the "fairness doctrine" about?

 

Do you really think that PBS is fair and balanced?

 

How about MSM?

 

Remember, I have posted the actual studies that prove my position many times...

 

 

All this does is level the playing field. Instead of the left silencing the critics like they are so apt to do (kevin jennings...) this stuff will get out to the general citizen where they can make a decision based on two sides of an arguement instead of being spoonfed only ONE side...

 

Kind of like your education, where they focused everything on evolution, while ignoring and belittling Creation...

 

As of right now, Obama has taken over GM, and Chrysler. He has restricted their pay, and given the unions stock ownership of Chrysler. He has given the banks money, and now he wants to control those banks...

 

He is using feigned "public outrage" over the income of these bankers to destroy their business.

 

They have no where to turn. They make money off the market by buying and selling stocks, which they use that income to offset things that don't make them as much money.

 

Like your free checking account.

 

Why do you think the bank does that? Because they love to give stuff away?... Nope, they want more customers, and figure that by doing that for free, you might get your next loan from them. They offset the cost of these free checking accounts by the money they make off the stock market.

 

But, if Obama gets his way and forces them to shut down those investment institutions. Guess what. Your free ride will end, and you will start paying the actual cost of that checking account. (around $24 a month).

 

 

That is the "cost" of doing business, which currently is offset by the business system they built.

 

 

Which our "great" leader is trying to destroy. Guess what. NOW they can put ads on tv telling you the truth about this takeover attempt.

 

 

 

 

And this isn't the only one. We are about one major decision away from all of our college loans, and grants coming from the government... Control, deciding WHO gets loans and grants for education... I would love to see what criteria that will turn to in the future...

 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924128,00.html - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924128,00.html

 

wake up and smell the liberal takeover, and destruction of your rights, while opening up our country to more attacks from terrorists... Where exactly is the "hope and change"?...

 

More like "Hubris and Control".

 

My point was more general, as most people are public educated, at some point in their lives. Plus the fact that just about every show on tv takes evolution as fact, and refers to it in any discussion pertaining to history.

 

"Well, Billions of years ago..."

 

As a human, I find it humorous that humans are arrogant enough to say without doubt that things are much older than the human race. When the weren't there so how can they know? Especially when they put so much stock in rocks, that can be generated in a few hours time during a volcanic eruption that when tested "prove" that, the rock is millions of years old, instead of the truth that it is a new rock.

 

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating - http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating

 

 

Not even close...

 

Maybe 40 years ago, that could be said, but no way today. There is so much evidence that man is much younger than first thought, with the exception of "dating" methods. So do they look at that evidence? Nope, they have to stay in the box they created about how we just happen to exist without the influence of God.

 

Sorry, that doesn't float. I have studied evolution (all through school, as I was public educated) and after in college.

 

I have also studies Creationism extensively, and based on what I have learned the foundation for evolution is very weak, especially when compared to the other examples you stated. Every day it becomes weaker. DNA proves that species don't change from fish to man... It isn't in their DNA code. And even if it was, and "evolves" into something else, guess what. That part it came from would die off, ending the "evolving" nature... Based on evolution we should be able to adapt quickly, but we know that isn't the case based on history.

 

We also know that over time the human gene code gets worse, not better. As the first humans were perfect, and each generation after that degrades.

 

That is completely contrary to evolution. But, a scientific fact.

 

 

Most in liberal education and science state what you stated, but that is just spin, and doesn't back up with science.

 

 

It's just like the church in the dark ages, who were controlling the people by controlling knowledge. Same is true today.

This ruling allows ALL aspects of an arguement to be presented to the public, instead of just one side...

 

 

Which is freedom after all. Freedom to make decisions based on ALL the facts instead of a few cherrypicked facts...

 

That is completely contrary to evolution. But, a scientific fact.   Most in liberal education and science state what you stated, but that is just spin, and doesn't back up with science.   It's just like the church in the dark ages, who were controlling the people by controlling knowledge. Same is true today. This ruling allows ALL aspects of an arguement to be presented to the public, instead of just one side...   Which is freedom after all. Freedom to make decisions based on ALL the facts instead of a few cherrypicked facts...

Also:




-------------
BU Engineering 2012

 

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2010) — Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation."

 

 

 

Will this pan out, and hold up to review... I think not, but that is the amazing thing about science, what is true doesn't always become the standard.

 

Look at the time period that believed the earth was flat, or the sun revolved around the earth...

 

a brand new article that hasn't had peer review yet (although we know how peer review failed in the man made global warming issue, huh) doesn't discount the "widely held scientic theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating."

 

 

Does your link count as my citation? since it answered your question?

 

 

Exactly...

 

Just take this test. Who is whining about this ruling? and what kind of coverage do those who are whining get from the media...

 

 

Nope, it will take the good AND bad of both parents. You are welcome to try and disprove this, but in limited gene pool environments the proof of this phenomenon is clear.

 

If you really want to learn more about this, this is a good resource.

 

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml - http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml

 

Genetic anthropology is an emerging discipline that combines DNA and physical evidence to reveal the history of ancient human migration. It seeks to answer the questions, "Where did we come from, and how did we get here?"

DNA studies indicate that all modern humans share a common female ancestor who lived in Africa about 140,000 years ago, and all men share a common male ancestor who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago. These were not the only humans who lived in these eras, and the human genome still contains many genetic traits of their contemporaries. Humanity's most recent common ancestors are identifiable because their lineages have survived by chance in the special pieces of DNA that are passed down the gender lines nearly unaltered from one generation to the next. These ancestors are part of a growing body of fossil and DNA evidence indicating that modern humans arose in sub-Saharan Africa and began migrating, starting about 65,000 years ago, to populate first southern Asia, China, Java, and later Europe. Each of us living today has DNA that contains the story of our ancient ancestors' journeys.

Now, I don't agree with the times that they claim... But, I do agree with the findings that we all come from Adam and Eve (Eve being the common female ancestor) and then Noah being the "common male ancestor ".

 

 

Yes...  Exactly.

 

"Trust no one"... Anyone who puts their trust in man will be disappointed. I put my trust in God.

 

Religion has tried to control man, and now we have "science" trying to do the same thing...

 

For the greater good of course...

 

 

From you... That is a very nice compliment.

 

 

Thank you!

I have also studies Creationism extensively

I'd like to see the science behind the first claim and creationism, if you don't mind.

DNA proves that species don't change from fish to man... It isn't in their DNA code.

Indeed they don't, and indeed it isn't. Good thing neither of those things are claims made by respectable biologists.

And even if it was, and "evolves" into something else, guess what. That part it came from would die off, ending the "evolving" nature...

Not quite. Migration or displacement of a part of a population, or local climate change affecting only one part of a population, would allow the chance for one group to adapt to new conditions and change so they are more fit to survive in their new habitat while the other group remained largely unchanged because there was no need or benefit to adaptation.

Based on evolution we should be able to adapt quickly, but we know that isn't the case based on history

We also know that over time the human gene code gets worse, not better. As the first humans were perfect, and each generation after that degrades.

Two problems: first, where do you have the scientific evidence for this claim? And if something degrades, how can it be said to be perfect? Doesn't the idea of perfection necessarily exclude something like degradation, and doesn't something like degradation necessarily exclude perfection?

Why do you think this is good?

That is NOT what it says, or even alludes to.

 

 

Lets look at this thought for a minute. Say we have a written history passed down from generation to generation that states that early man lived 1,000 years... Would that human be more or less perfect than man today?

 

We do have a written history and it does say that... And even science is starting to realize that the timeframe that the bible suggests is accurate. So they are going to have to change the science books...

 

again...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34880397/ns/technology_and_science-science/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34880397/ns/technology_and_science-science/

 

I am friends with one of the guys that was one of the scientists to study this artifact as well as many other ancient texts.

 

 

Obama came to my state today. While our unemployment went to 10.9 percent (not including all the people that have taken much lower paying jobs, or quit looking for work). I would bet the real number is closer to 20%...

 

Anyway, here is the article, and Obama's response to this ruling.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-22-obama-ohio_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-22-obama-ohio_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

 

"Officials are tinkering with a revamped Obama message in the face of a potentially disastrous political shift that, on Tuesday, elected http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/States,+Territories,+Provinces,+Islands/U.S.+States/Massachusetts - Massachusetts   http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Political+Bodies/Republican+Party - Republican state Sen. Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in a seat long occupied by http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/U.S.+Senators/Edward+Kennedy - Edward Kennedy .

Obama looked to Ohio to reset his record with a campaign-style day, complete with a tour of a wind turbine plant and visits with local leaders. He also sought to harness the energy of the campaign trail that he mastered during his two-year campaign for the presidency.

At the White House on Thursday, he stridently challenged Wall Street and urged Congress to limit banks' size and practices.

"If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have," Obama said.

His reaction to a Supreme Court decision rolling back limits on campaign donations by big business was stern. He charged that the decision would allow wealthy special interests to "drown out the voices of everyday Americans" and promised a "forceful response."

It was not the way Obama wanted to mark this week's first anniversary of his presidency. Nonetheless, a chastened but determined White House team, populated with campaign-seasoned aides accustomed to stark setbacks, began to grapple with the implications and chart a path forward after the Brown victory."

 

He has NO clue, the country is tired of the democrats destruction of our free enterprise system. The government has no business trying to RUN business.

 

But, you can't tell him, that. His arrogance that the supreme court is wrong and he is better at understanding the constitution is laughable.

 

But, typical of this man, look at the polls, America doesn't want this.

 

America wants a small government, that runs efficiently. Not this bloated mess that can't handle anything in a budget and yet has the hubris to tell us how much money we are "allowed" to make.

 

Its crazy the way he is attacking different businesses, and pretending like everyone is outraged at them making money...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100121/pl_bloomberg/a8uii1bcrdmy - http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100121/pl_bloomberg/a8uii1bcrdmy

 

He loses a major seat in Mass, and then immediately says he will go after the banks and finance industry... Causing the market to drop in the biggest losses since march...

 

DUH!...

 

I can't believe that people thought he was a good choice... THE most liberal senator, no wonder he hates business.

 

Its all about taking control of everything. I am curious how you more liberal minded people see him now that he has made it clear he is going to go after the supreme court for this decision, by using new law to overturn the courts decision.

 

 

Guess we don't need 3 parts to our government anymore, since we have such a brilliant man as our president...

 

lol...

 

I told you guys Obama would massively overreach.

 

I was right.

 

http://web.me.com/benvoth/Ben_Voths_World_of_Rhetoric/Blog/Entries/2010/1/23_Massachusetts_Miracle_on_Ice.html - http://web.me.com/benvoth/Ben_Voths_World_of_Rhetoric/Blog/Entries/2010/1/23_Massachusetts_Miracle_on_Ice.html

 

 

I happen to have a lot of friends. Get over it. Ben (the guy who wrote the blog) has been to my house many times, as our kids were close and we went to the same church and small group for many years when he was a professor at Miami University next to my house.

 

 

Actually slacker, you could learn from Jesus Character.

 

Here is a good example.

 

Matthew 21

 

Jesus at the Temple

 ¹²Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. ¹³"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' #fen-NIV-23838e - e ]'>[ #fen-NIV-23838e - e ] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.' #fen-NIV-23838f - f ]'>[ #fen-NIV-23838f - f ]"

 ¹⁴The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. ¹⁵But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

 ¹⁶"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
      "Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
   " 'From the lips of children and infants
      you have ordained praise' #fen-NIV-23841g - g ]'>[ #fen-NIV-23841g - g ]?"

 ¹⁷And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

 

 

Besides, you still owe me $5.00 unless your word is worthless...

 

 

here, let me help you...

 

 

You have to start a thread where people can demean you and throw verbal rocks at you, all to make themselves feel better about their lives, and try to ignore the truth.

 

And then whine about it...

 

That's good for a few pages at least.

 

 

Mix in some tolerance comments, once the attacks get really venomous.

 

 

wax on, wax off.

 

Wait, huh?

 

 

Oh, yeah!

 

WHAT DID HE KNOW AND WHEN!!!