Democrats & Liberals Archives

General Motors for President

Do you like any of the current Republican president-wannabe’s, such as Romney and Pawlenty? Or do you prefer the great Teabagger Sarah Palin? None of these or other conservative people under consideration for the most important job in America are remotely as capable as General Motors.

General Motors has all the requirements for running for president. General Motors is a person who was born in the United States and he (she) is more than 35 years old.

General Motors is a true American and an outstanding Republican. Everybody knows that "what's good for General Motors is good for America." General Motors would unify the party like no one else can. He (she) would make sure that taxes would be cut for all corporations and for entrepreneurs and industrialists. He (she) would reduce government so it would occupy the proverbial bathtub. An austere bathtub.

General Motors will place emphasis not on costly government but on the free market, about which he (she) knows a lot about. He (she) even knows how to get a bailout from the government when he (she) screws up.

Up until today, General Motors had to be satisfied with the measely sums he (she) contributed to various election campaigns. But now the U.S. Supreme Court has seen the light, and concluded that General Motors is a person and is entitled to contribute as much money as he (she) wishes to campaigns. This put the exciting and mind-boggling idea in my mind that General Motors would be a great president.

Wow! Not only will General Motors be able to smooth out the American economy, he (she) would have tremendous influence over foreign affairs. After all, a good part of him (her) is foreign.

Strike up the band. The Republicans have a true American in General Motors. General Motors has lots of money (most likely because of the Democratic bailout, but who cares). With the money he (she) has, General Motors will destroy Obama and the Democrats in the next presidential election and then go on to become one of America's greatest presidents.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 29, 2010 7:14 PM
Comments
Comment #294768

Yeah, and then GM could could use genetic modification to patent all Americans so we couldn’t reproduce without paying a fee.

Thanks for the psychotic break brought to you by your friendly neighborhood SCOTUS acolyte, Sam Alito.

Posted by: gergle at January 29, 2010 8:30 PM
Comment #294770

You all ought to be happy GM is a Democrat.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2010 8:54 PM
Comment #294773

Paul

Isn’t Obama the de-facto owner of GM? It seems more of a Democratic place, run by government and all.

Posted by: Christine at January 29, 2010 9:16 PM
Comment #294777

Maybe you should have chosen Ford, at least they’re independents.

Posted by: KAP at January 29, 2010 10:29 PM
Comment #294778
General Motors is a person and is entitled to contribute as much money as he (she) wishes to campaigns.

Except that isn’t actually factual. Corporations cannot donate to a candidate, before OR after the decision. They just can’t be limited on spending money to buy advertising, make movies, books, etc…

But it makes a great partisan rant to get the troops going! Who cares if it steps all over our most basic of rights…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2010 11:03 PM
Comment #294779

So, do foreign citizens have a right to free speech in this country?

What about gay people? If we decide we don’t like them having any say in our elections, should we prevent them from having it?

Do Colbert and Stewart have a ‘right’ to their political views before an election? Their views are being paid for by a large corporation… I don’t think anyone is going to defend them as ‘journalism’ now, are they?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2010 11:40 PM
Comment #294784

Where do these goons come from?

See: DNC Double Naught Goon School

I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at www.igormarxo.org

Posted by: Igor Marxomarxovich at January 30, 2010 1:39 AM
Comment #294800

It’s hard to believe there are some people that still believe Obama wasn’t born here. Incredible, and they vote.

Posted by: jeff at January 30, 2010 11:12 AM
Comment #294802

Or think that the governmnet blew up the WTC. Oh wait, they vote Democrat and are a larger number, so we won’t talk about them…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #294806

yes Rhinehold, them too.

Posted by: jeff at January 30, 2010 12:45 PM
Comment #294816


Can General Motors still run for president after he/she moves to China?

Posted by: jlw at January 30, 2010 5:24 PM
Comment #294837

Carol,

Ah, lovely Illinois politics.

I think corporations are clearly “it’s” rather than he/she’s. Of course, that brings up the entire issue of bestial marriage.

I personally think foreigners including foreign animals have rights as persons to speak in this country. Once the ASCME and China have spoken so eloquently with large piles of cash, we will all live in Utopia. It’s there you know, in Illinois. I’ve seen it on a map.

Posted by: gergle at January 30, 2010 10:36 PM
Comment #294845

KAP&Christine


GM a Democrat? Then why have the consistently given three times as much to Reps than Dems? Most Dems I know would not do that. I am afraid they are one of yours. But ,is GM gay?

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/01/10/gm-voluntarily-reports-2007-political-contributions/

Posted by: bills at January 31, 2010 6:52 AM
Comment #294847

bills
But in 2009 BHO took I think it was 60% of the stock therefore making it DEMOCRAT. I guess you forgot about the GM bailout.

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2010 9:10 AM
Comment #294876

KAP
That was the people of the United States of America that took the stock.BHO is the president. We do not have a dual presidential system,one for Republicans ,one for Democrats. He is YOUR president and the constant backbiting while he has to make tough,unpopular decisions to salvage an economy nearly destroyed by the at best incompetant former president of all of us is not helpful.

Posted by: bills at February 1, 2010 12:58 AM
Comment #294880

bills

Woah, wait a sec… So when Bush and the Republican Congress did something, did you view it the same way?

Obama (Democrat) and the congress (Democrat) bailed out GM and nearly every Republican voted against this action, and now you want everyone to be responsible for it?

So the Democrats are equally responsible for the Patriot Act? Guantanamo? Iraq?

Did you EVER say that Bush wasn’t YOUR president, or that he wasn’t president because he ‘stole’ the election, etc?

Just curious…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2010 1:48 AM
Comment #294886

RH
But..is GM gay?

Posted by: bills at February 1, 2010 3:25 AM
Comment #294890

Bills,

Well, I did see this guy using a soapy sponge like thing on his GM car. I’m not saying it was Sponge Bob Squarepants, but we all know he is gay….

Posted by: gergle at February 1, 2010 5:36 AM
Comment #294894

And to add to Rhinehold’s comment bills BHO did infact appoint a CEO to head GM. I think your Gay remark is uncalled for.

Posted by: KAP at February 1, 2010 8:30 AM
Comment #294905
But..is GM gay?

All I can say to this question is WTF?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2010 12:02 PM
Comment #294909

I vote this as the strangest thread of the millennium.

Posted by: gergle at February 1, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #294912

Rhinehold-
If we’re going to allow them to spend unlimited amounts on commercials without restraint, just how is the restriction against direct corporate donations going to hold up? Please explain.

As to the GM being gay question?

I guess if we’re talking about GM being a legal person, it’s a legitimate question.

The question is whether we can really talk about a right to corporate free speech, or whether that right should default to the real person.

There is an interpretation of the first amendment possible where we considere corporations legal entities only in the original, financial sense. But of course, then the problem becomes whether people lose free speech rights for assembling and whatnot.

But of course, if somebody where to say that the amount of the donation was irrelevant to whether a person’s free speech rights were honored, and then limited corporate donations accordingly, we could say they got their free speech, and still protect America from their ability to make their voice disproportionate to everybody else’s.

The ability to pay for commercials and specials can be compensated for with a return to the fairness doctrine. Then the broadcasters themselves would limit the amount of time they would allow for such partisan programming and advertising, or at least let others get their views across as prominently

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2010 3:03 PM
Comment #294917
If we’re going to allow them to spend unlimited amounts on commercials without restraint, just how is the restriction against direct corporate donations going to hold up? Please explain.

Um, it is illegal to donate money to a candidate.

See how easy that is? Dontaing TO someone is not speech. Making a special IS.

If they agree with a candidate and want to advocate on their behalf, shouldn’t they be free to do so? I guess I am not scared of corporations who cannot force me to do anything I don’t want to do… I think fearing an entity that CAN do that is more reasonable.

BTW, would you be in agreement that Colbert and Stewart, as well as OReiley/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow should not be on the air 30 days leading up to an election? They are being paid by corporations to expouse a political view…

How about any books? Magazines? etc…

I thought the decision was clear and accurate (and includes a ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that you call for).

Kennedy wrote: “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. … The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

He also said, “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it.”

And, “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”

In fact, I still find it incredulous that anyone disagrees with this. I think it is a great differentiator between ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’. One protects the individual by ensuring that their rights are not infringed, the other seeks to protect the individual by ensuring that they experience what the protector wants them to experience.

It’s a shame, for sure, that anyone thinks it is ok to use the police force of the government to ensure that someone doesn’t hear something that they don’t like…

And petty.

The question is whether we can really talk about a right to corporate free speech, or whether that right should default to the real person.

Yes, we can. I am for eliminating all examinations of corporations being ‘indvidual entities’. But if we are going to say they are, they must have all of the rights of those individuals. ALL

There is an interpretation of the first amendment possible where we considere corporations legal entities only in the original, financial sense. But of course, then the problem becomes whether people lose free speech rights for assembling and whatnot.

Yes, the problem comes in trying to give someone people more rights than others. I, for one, am a bit AGAINST such a notion that the progressives seem to like and take at their core of their philosophy. Somehow the Rich aren’t as needy of protection than the downtrodden, the corporation isn’t as deserving of the individual. The result is a bastardization of all that this country was founded upon…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2010 4:47 PM
Comment #294918
There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 1, 2010 4:54 PM
Comment #294938

Rhinehold,

I have to agree with your reasoning above, with the following exceptions:

1. Free speech is not the freedom to use a megaphone.

2. If you give everyone an equal megaphone, then one may consider megaphones free speech.

3. Since an abundance of megaphones would turn everyone deaf, a more nuanced ruling was reasonable and should have been entertained. It is a harmful decision, full of good intent.

Posted by: gergle at February 1, 2010 11:40 PM
Comment #294949
If you give everyone an equal megaphone, then one may consider megaphones free speech.

This is a pefect example of equality of outcome that progressives think has some bearing on reality. Beware the call for us all to be equal, we end up with the lowest common denominator in these cases, meaning less and less liberty.

The fact that the ‘news media’ was not included in the original law is a perfect example of how we ignore ‘equality’ until it meets our definition of political power and who we are ‘protecting’.

Personally, I would rather give people the freedom of opportunity, not result. If someone wants more megaphones, they should give up what others have given up to acquire them, not have them handed to them or, worse yet, taken away from those who have earned them.

People who give up time with family, leasure, etc, in order to acquire more megaphones just to have someone come along and say ‘not fair!’ and take them away is the height of conceit, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2010 2:01 AM
Comment #294965

Rhinehold,

The essence of free speech is to provide a marketplace of ideas and to protect the voice of the minority.

Excessive control of the marketplace of speech by monied interests, such as mega-corporations, threatens the concept of free speech just as monopolies threaten fair trade and competition in commerce.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2010 8:07 AM
Comment #294967

Funny people you lefty’s. 99.9% of all news papers are owned and operated by left leaning Americans; 9 out of 10 television broadcasters are left leaning with favorable stories running 70% for Obama against 40% favorable for McCain. The left have large corporation like Michael Moore and the rest of Hollywood putting together low budget low talent movies that favor the progressive viewpoint. Unions worth billions of dollars spend untold amounts each year backing political candidates but you call this is fair?Are these not large American corporations with a daily voice?

The left fears O’Reiley and Hannity, if they were such a threat why didn’t McCain win? You populists rant and rave about freedom of speech and bipartisanship, but never exhibit those attributes yourselves. I believe the agenda of the progressive movement is to silence all forms of speech accept theirs and then they’ll all be content; after all your ‘Big Brother” government knows better than any simple common man.

Posted by: MikeE at February 2, 2010 8:38 AM
Comment #294971

Rhinehold,

I have the means to buy a megaphone. Do you mind if I set up outside your home and project my point of view into your house? At what point does it become obscene, or bothersome, or detrimental to your freedom? This isn’t a hypothetical about an ideally equitable distribution of megaphones. You’ve missed the point. You are welcome to buy as many megaphones as you can afford. Will that help you avoid my megaphone?

On the internet we all have more or less equal megaphones. On the printed page, the same applies.
On the public air waves, or at a rock concert this is not true. This isn’t about a fairness doctrine.

Posted by: gergle at February 2, 2010 9:45 AM
Comment #294972

Apropos Bob Dylan quote:

Money doesn’t talk, it screams.

Posted by: gergle at February 2, 2010 9:47 AM
Comment #294975

gergle said,

(Apropos Bob Dylan quote:

Money doesn’t talk, it screams.)


So using your comments about money screaming; the Democrats must be the party with all of the money because they hold the total majority in all houses of the government.

Thank you for finaly admitting that.

Posted by: Mike E at February 2, 2010 10:14 AM
Comment #294978

Funny thing about this country that you don’t find in places overseas, the overwhelming number of radio/TV stations you can access and it isn’t even taxed to have a tv in your home YET. So if you don’t like what you hear on a station - listen to one that meets your views. Choice is great isn’t it. BTW I don’t have sat or cable tv at home either just the net.

Posted by: Kathryn at February 2, 2010 10:46 AM
Comment #294984
Do you mind if I set up outside your home and project my point of view into your house?

If I can turn off the megaphone (change the channel, not buy the book, etc) then yeah, shout all you want.

NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to listen to or agree with anything they disagree with.

This isn’t a hypothetical about an ideally equitable distribution of megaphones.

Sure seemed like it was when you started down this path.

As for the SPECIFIC case, it was about spending money on a documentary less tan 30 days from an election. If that person putting together the documentary had been NOW or SEIU and Bush had blocked it from being made, which side would you be defending?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 2, 2010 11:31 AM
Comment #294995

Rhinehold,

Fair enough. I do agree with you that it is difficult to separate money from speech. However, I do not believe they are the same thing. What I am driving at is broadcast medium is a somewhat different animal, and is driving this debate. Fair use of air waves owned by the people should not become owned by one party or the other. Former regulations about how that medium is used should be revisited. While it is certainly easy to turn off the TV, it’s effects on the masses is having disturbing trends, in my opinion.

These masses of money are tools for driving ignorant mobs, in my opinion. In my recent reading of an Adams biography, the biographer discusses Adams use of men like Patrick Henry, and Paul Revere, as well as his cousin Sam’s Sons of Liberty mob, to stir up events in Boston.

While revolution is the basis for this nation, Adams and others recognized the need to moderate radical elements. He likely overstepped with the Alien and Sedition acts, and one may reasonably argue that Shay’s rebellion where Washington used hanging low fruit, and what was likely a mentally retarded person to quell the rioters, was a bit repressive and totalitarian.

What bothers me about this decision, is the broadening of the case to allow free flow of cash from corporations. This case was about a pay-per-view movie. In that narrow item, I agreed with the litigants for the movie makers.

Posted by: gergle at February 2, 2010 1:25 PM
Comment #294996

Mike E.

A Dylan you’ll never be.

Posted by: gergle at February 2, 2010 1:27 PM
Comment #363089

Cambridge Satchel Sale in UK Cambridge Satchel Co.Here,the most fashion styles Cambridge satchels could be found in our Cambridge Satchel outlet.Young people can always order the newest style Cambridge Satchel and Cambridge bag here.We’re professional in this line for years, so,we can provide you the best Cambridge satchel leather for any purpose.If you’re a super fans of Cambridge Satchel bag,then,you’re lucky here,as 2013 Cambridge backpack and Cambridge satchel classic Sale with Free Delivery Now.

Posted by: cambridge satchel 15 at March 20, 2013 10:14 PM
Post a comment