51
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  7  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 10:50 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
What is 'wrong with that' is that making union membership heterosexuality a requisite for working for federal money marriage is granting a benefit to unions straight people that is not available to anybody else homosexuals. It is the same abuse of federal powers as was inherent in the 'cash for clunkers' program--one industry was favored while manufacturers of other products were not able to participate and were likely harmed by the initiative.

I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

Foxfyre wrote:
I do not object to 'gay marriage' in any sense. I object to changing a non discriminatory definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and thereby changing the institution into something entirely different from what it is. I do object to any kind of special rights for gays as much as I object to any kind of special rights for anybody. I am 100% in favor of new rules/laws that would meet important needs of gay people along with all other people who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry and such new rule/law should be as uniform and administered in a non discriminatory way as the marriage laws now are.

You forgot to mention that some of your best friends are gay.

Foxfyre wrote:
Uniform rules for administration of marriage do not advantage any special interest group. Requiring union membership absolutely advantages a special interest group.

Not according to you. The rules regarding marriage and working on government construction projects are the same for everybody. How can the latter discriminate but not the former?

Foxfyre wrote:
Requiring union membership advantages a special interest group. It is immoral and a violation of individual rights for the Federal government to force somebody to advantage a special interest group in order to work. Not only is it immoral and a violation of rights, but it opens the door for the Federal government to require union membership to work anywhere and thereby hand almost unlimited powers to the unions.

You may not see a problem with that. I do.

I can't imagine why. A non-union worker has the same options as a union worker: join the union or else not work. Likewise, a homosexual has the same options as a heterosexual: marry someone of the opposite sex or don't marry at all. Why do you have a problem with the former but not with the latter?

Foxfyre wrote:
M.O. - if you can't rebut a point, ridicule it?

Some things don't deserve being taken seriously.

Foxfyre wrote:
Question: Would you object to the government requiring you to join and contribute to the Republican Party before you would be eligible to work? Why or why not?

Of course I would, but then I also object to the government requiring homosexuals to join the heterosexual party before being eligible for marriage. After all, if I took contrary positions on those issues, I'd be a hypocrite.

Foxfyre wrote:
What difference would there be between that and a government requirement that you join a union?

Again, my position isn't in question here. Remember, I'm the one being consistent. It's your inconsistent position that requires some explaining.

Foxfyre wrote:
A government powerful enough to gradually take over the means of production of a nation or control what citizens can or cannot work can do pretty much what it wants to do to anybody.
Quote:
Oh brother!


I take it you disagree. But I guarantee you can't competently rebut the principle.

What "principle?" That the government can go from instituting a rule favoring unions in federal construction projects to taking over the means of production? That's not a principle, it's a paranoid fantasy.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:12 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So you do not believe in the "right to work" laws?

It has been a long time since I've looked closely at federal labor statutes, but, in general, I'm not a big fan of "right to work" laws.


Perhaps you should look into the subject a little more than you have.

Absent a "right to work" law in a state, the existence of a NLRB approved union in a company or industry means that membership in the union - and the forced deduction of dues for the union from employee pay by the employer is indeed a prerequsite of employment. An employee can object, but he cannot escape union membership and the payment of dues.

Unions are a great business - you get a government sanctioned and enforced monopoly and you don't even have to invoice your customers - they are forced to collect the money for you.

The financial transparency required of public companies is substantial, but still able to be manipulated by management - as we have recently seen. The situation with respect to local and national unions is far worse. There is virtually no transparency or accountability to either the union members or the public. The list of financial frauds perpetrated by union managers is very long indeed.

Much of the Federal government was unionized a couple of decades ago. Indeed the current head of the AFL/CIO, John Sweeney is the former head of the Government Employees Union - then the largest union in the nation. Government employment is subject to unique laws and I'm not sure that union membership can be escaped by employees of agencies that are unionized - an interesting question. The revenue potential for organized labor unions is huge - that's what the fight over forced unionization of the then new Department of Homeland Security was all about. Revenue for Unions = contributions for Democrats.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:18 am
@parados,
Parados, I do not "argue money is 'security'".

I argue, PRINTED MONEY are one kind of SECURITIES.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:39 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Absent a "right to work" law in a state, the existence of a NLRB approved union in a company or industry means that membership in the union - and the forced deduction of dues for the union from employee pay by the employer is indeed a prerequsite of employment. An employee can object, but he cannot escape union membership and the payment of dues.

Why is that a problem? The union acts on behalf of all employees in a collective bargaining unit, whether they're members of the union or not. When it comes time to negotiate the collective bargaining agreement, the union member who works on the assembly line gets the same compensation as the non-union member who works beside him. Requiring membership in the union addresses the free-rider problem inherent in a situation where an individual can get the benefits of belonging to a group without having to bear any of the burdens of membership.

georgeob1 wrote:
The list of financial frauds perpetrated by union managers is very long indeed.

As long as the list of frauds perpetrated by employers?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:41 am
@parados,
I do not remember posting that 'only things that are EXPRESSLY in the constitution are constitutional." I remember posting that if a power is not delegated by the Constitution to the feds, then the feds do not have that power. And, I remember writing that was based on the 10th Amendment.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


However, I've even forgotten how good my memory use to be! So if I did write what you allege I wrote, that was a mistake. Please provide me a reference to the post where I wrote that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 11:47 am
@joefromchicago,
We can actually expand that to most companies and individuals.

I remember studies done when I worked that most employees took home supplies and other things from their jobs that they never returned. We also know of all those "big" companies that perpetrated fraud against not only their employees but also their investors. Many lost their life savings.

We can also include in the fraud category all those bankers, traders, finance companies, and the likes of Madoff and Sanford who through greed was responsible for the loss of a huge portion of our 401ks and retirement funds - and the resulting recession we are now experiencing that are hurting the job market.




0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:07 pm
@ican711nm,
A dollar bill--or a multidollar bill--is PRINTED MONEY. From the following definitions, a dollar bill--or a multidollar bill--is PRINTED MONEY and is one kind of note and therefore is one kind of security.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged
Main Entry: 3note
...
3 d ...(3) : a bank note or other form of paper that is current money

...
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=securities&x=30&y=10
Main Entry: 1se·cu·ri·ty
...
2 a : something given, deposited, or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation (as the payment of a debt) : property given or serving to make secure the enjoyment or enforcement of a right
...
3 : a written obligation, evidence, or document of ownership or creditorship (as a stock, bond, note, debenture, or certificate) giving the holder the right to demand and receive property not in his possession ...
...
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 02:25 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Dems are now calling dissent "unpatriotic" or "unamerican", yet the insisted the exact opposite when the repubs controlled the WH.

You're mixing fruits.

What the Bush administration said was that protesting the war was unpatriotic. It was the act of protest itself regardless of it's content.

What we see now is not an objection to protest, but rather an objection to the arguments being made being unpatriotic.

I think we are all smart enough to see the difference in anti-war protests vice that of the "birthers" (for example).

The right can't be satisfied in disagreeing on the direction to take the country, they must make things like health-care reform into the tipping point of marxism, socialism, communism, or nazism. Such extremes! Oh, and don't forget impeachment being necessary.

We are suddenly being flooded with propaganda about "death panels" and other right-wing phantoms.

The bottom line is this: We have a system in this country for representation. The republican's lost their dominance in that representation, and now what do we see? We see that system is suddenly broke in their eyes. Now they are oppressed by... well everyone; anyone. The GOP has not been the champion of free speech and if they think that everything they say should be simply accepted as fact, too ******* bad. That's not the left censoring them or quieting dissent, that's the right demanding privilege/entitlement.

When the left uses it's right to organize a war protest, it was never unpatriotic. When the right organizes a protest against ultra ******* evil health care reform, it's not unpatriotic.

However, when we have people making suggestive speech about states breaking off, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, wearing guns to intimidate people at rallies, waving racist signs, refusing state documents that uphold the legitimacy of the presidency and demands that the president must be impeached for anything and everything he does, then perhaps it's time to accept that the propaganda has got out of control.

I don't think that the GOP is unpatriotic, I just think their so ******* full of themselves, they forget that they don't decide what it is to be American. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachman, Dick Cheney, Pat Roberson, the birthers, the tenthers, the candlestick makers* and Mrs. Sarah "you betcha I quit" Palin spread hate and fear in this country, of this country.

If the final outcome of HC reform is that it passes, and then does terrible, you know who on the right will have wasted time crying "Communism!" when they should have been offering logical arguments, and I'll know who on the left wasted time saying ti will have worked.

Maybe that's it for me. The right has lost all credibility. Perhaps I'm missing some messages in there, but can you blame me? I don't care to sort through a countless amounts of bullshit to get to something practical.

If, and this is a big if, the right has something left to offer this country, it needs to be ideas, not the fear of new ideas.

T
K
O
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 02:33 pm
@Diest TKO,
They can begin by stopping their fear-mongering of anything and everything. They flood the country with fear-mongering, then they complain they're not being heard in Washington.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 02:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Fear mongering? Why are their so many and growing fast?
Quote:


Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:00 pm
@ican711nm,
Ironic that the 9/12 movement claims to be about bringing people together (by reminding them of one of the most terrible things that ever happened to us) and yet they are so extremely polarizing.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:00 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

I have some questions for all of you that are blaming conservatives for the debate and acrimony regarding health care.


all i can do is offer an opinion.


mysteryman wrote:

IF that were true, then why have the dems behaved so badly.
We have had a dem representative order a man removed from a meeting because he asked her a question, and he didnt have the right ticket to allow him to speak.
(Carol Shea-Porter D-NH was the guilty dem)



rather than just accept a spin piece from townhall.com reprinted in usa today, let's look at the video and see what happened.
what questions about healthcare reform or even campaign finance reform do we hear being asked? what relevant question was asked by the fella who was removed ?






mysteryman wrote:
We have had another dem talk on the cell phone while being asked a question at a meeting, claiming she had to "multi-task".
(Sheila Jackson-Lee is the dem I am talking about)


here's a vid of the jackson - lee episode;

gotta say, this is one stupid politician. at first, i thought there must be more to the story. but i haven't been able to find footage that actually shows j-l even giving a response. there is a clip from van sustern's show with the woman who was asking the question. according to her, she didn't get a direct answer. whatever that means..




mysteryman wrote:
We have had a liberal attack a dem politicians office, then the dems blamed it on repubs.


this is a really goofy one. the attack was carried out by an avowed anarchist. i categorize anarchists in their own genre, and not simply as liberals. according to michelle malkin (speaking of an unbiased source. Very Happy ), the liberal tag is assigned because the anarchist apparently received some cash from a 527 of indeterminable party association. the org does however share the same accountant as what they called "democratic leaning" pacs. that's not very satisfying in terms of a known quantity.

here's what i think happened. this anarchist had a beef with the dem and went haywire on the windows. considering the violent mood of the townhalls, the dems "assumed" that it was done by a radical right type. guess they were wrong. **** happens.



mysteryman wrote:
Dems are now calling dissent "unpatriotic" or "unamerican", yet the insisted the exact opposite when the repubs controlled the WH.
(Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in USA Today newspaper)


inflammatory words. from nancy pelosi. giving a little bit back to the right for the verbal beatings they dispensed so easily and often over the last 8 years or so. am i supposed to be surprised? how many times have i used the phrase "that sword cuts both ways" on this forum over the years? i don't know either, but i've used it a lot.

see why ? not to mention, now it's the dems being called nazis. and the wheel goes 'round.

however, i'm not convinced it's a great strategy.


mysteryman wrote:
Now it seems to me, that if the dems really are the better behaved and the more openminded, none of the things I listed would have happened.
Why are they?


the answer could lie in part that the republicans over the last 8+ years were quite selective regarding who could or could not be admitted to their events. also, i don't recall the republicans throwing these kind of townhall events. the election stuff yeah. but a plethora of events like this? no. i don't remember the republicans doing it. so there's not a clear comparison to be made.


here's something to think about. after a month or so of all of this hoopla and hollerin', i cannot say that i know even one more thing about the actual healthcare plan.

but don't we all love the circus?







ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:11 pm
@ican711nm,
http://www.the912project.com
The 9/12
http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/
The 9 Principles

1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

September 2, 2009

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily ."

- GEORGE WASHINGTON

Read more from the Founding Fathers here.
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=714
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:24 pm
@ican711nm,
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=730
The Founding Fathers' Economic Bailout

Given Recent Headlines on Government Bailouts and GSE Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the Founding Fathers Offer an Interesting Conversation on National Banks, Regulating Commerce, and Erecting Corporations

Congress has been busy the last few months passing legislation to help bailout and stimulate the economy. Financial enterprises and automotive companies show up on the doorsteps of the Capital looking for help. The largest owners of mortgages in the United States, Government-Sponsored Enterprises Fannie May and Freddie Mac helped cripple the housing market and subsequently needed assistance from the government. Each debate on helping the respective entities contains fierce arguments for and against the assistance packages, leaving many confused whether the government “needs to” and is “responsible for” helping these corporations and our economy.

Nearly 220 years ago a similar discussion took place in the United States. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were a few of the major participants in the discussion centering on the need for a National Bank.

In 1781, under the Articles of Confederation, The Bank of North America was established acting as a fiscal agent for the Government. Following the Revolutionary War the Articles of Confederation were abolished and replaced with the United States Constitution during the summer of 1787. Being a child of the Articles of Confederation, The Bank of North America soon disappeared.

The ratification of the Constitution was extremely sensitive. No mistakes would be permissible if the Constitution was to be ratified. While many desired to have a National Bank outlined in the Constitution, most knew it would only hinder its possible ratification. Secretary of Treasury (1788-91) Alexander Hamilton (who advocated a strong central treasury) reflected, “Some, again, allege that it was disagreed to because it was thought improper to vest in Congress a power of erecting corporations. Others, because it was thought unnecessary to specify the power, and inexpedient to furnish an additional topic of objection to the Constitution.”

“Robert Morris proposed to give Congress a power to establish a national bank. Gouverneur Morris opposed it, observing that it was extremely doubtful whether the constitution they were framing could ever be passed at all by the people of America; that to give it its best chance, however, they should make it as palatable as possible, and put nothing into it not very essential, which might raise up enemies; that his colleague (Robert Morris) well knew that ‘a bank’ was, in their State (Pennsylvania) the very watch-word of party; that a bank had been the great bone of contention between the two parties of the State, from the establishment of their constitution, having been erected, put down, and erected again, as either party preponderated; that therefore, to insert this power, would instantly enlist against the whole instrument, the whole of the anti-bank party in Pennsylvania.”

Feelings toward government-sponsored corporations were so feared that many states proposed amendments against them: “FIFTHLY, That Congress erect no Company or Merchants with exclusive advantages of Commerce.”

It was only a short time later in 1790 Alexander Hamilton proposed a new bill to Congress outlining a National Bank to be erected. Hamilton argued that it would provide “short term credit” to the government and an instrument that will help “strengthen the economy.” James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (both key organizers of the Republican Party in opposition to the Federalists Party) lobbied President George Washington to veto the bill if passed by Congress.

In opposition to the “Bank Bill,” Thomas Jefferson (who then was the Secretary of State) wrote a lengthy letter to the President that neatly summarized each of the Bill’s proposed benefits and then aggressively tore apart each point. He said, “The incorporation of a bank, & the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution,” and feared, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people’ to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless feild of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Jefferson also discussed in this same letter that “to erect a bank, & to regulate commerce, are very different acts,” and “a bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorised by this phrase.” He concluded by emphasizing, “The Negative of the President is the shield provided by the constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature 1. the rights of the Executive 2. of the Judiciary 3. of the states & state legislatures. the present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the states & is consequently one of those intended by the constitution to be placed under his protection.”

Alexander Hamilton, upset by the logic used by his contemporaries responded with a letter of his own to the President. Hamilton countered, “Now it appears to the secretary of the treasury that this general principle is INHERENT in the very DEFINITION of government and ESSENTIAL to every step of the progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: that every power vested in a government is in its nature soverign and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the MEANS requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ENDS of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or contrary to the essential ends of political society....”

Hamilton’s Letter also highlighted “that a bank has a natural relation to the power of collecting taxes -- to that of regulating trade -- to that of providing for the common defense.”

Similar to today’s discussion on government-sponsored organizations and inefficiencies in competition due to them, Hamilton resolved, “It has been stated as an auxiliary test of constitutional authority to try whether it abridges any preexisting right of any state, or any individual. The proposed investigation will stand the most severe examination on this point. Each state may still erect as many banks as it pleases. Every individual may still carry on the banking business to any extent he pleases.”

Madison and Jefferson were unsuccessful and The First Bank of the United States was chartered from 1791-1811. President Washington approved of the charter and was pleased “they erected a National Bank.”

The Founding Fathers appear to have had a remarkable understanding of economic theory given they trailed Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” by only a few years. Many of the same arguments heard today appear to be mere echoes of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.




The Constitutional Sources Project
202-282-5490 | Contact Us | Report a Tech Problem
(c/o Winston & Strawn) 1700 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006
Powered by Verizon

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:41 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Quote:
here's something to think about. after a month or so of all of this hoopla and hollerin', i cannot say that i know even one more thing about the actual healthcare plan.


And that tells me that the dems have been Horrible at getting their message out.
How is that the fault of anyone other then the dems?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:49 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
here's something to think about. after a month or so of all of this hoopla and hollerin', i cannot say that i know even one more thing about the actual healthcare plan.


And that tells me that the dems have been Horrible at getting their message out.
How is that the fault of anyone other then the dems?


i agree that they have been horrible. and i'm way pissed that they have been cowed the way they have been.

what they have done is to once again let the republicans and big money define the thing. you'd think they would figure this **** out.. Confused

and now a question for you. can you provide any clips where someone is actually asking a pertinent question. even the woman at the s j-l event did nothing more than say " i this. i that. i don't want". not a question, but a statement. and that seems to be what i've seen.

and one more question. is it just me, or does it appear that the overwhelming majority of people showing up to yell at these things are old people? where are the young republicans or what ever?

i think that's a fair question.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 03:56 pm
Does anyone know what this is all about?

http://www.971talk.com/Pics/912project.jpg
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:12 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
http://www.the912project.com
The 9/12
http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/
The 9 Principles

1. America Is Good.


This really as far as we need to go; the first principle of this 'project' is really unbelievable.

This sort of attitude - "America is Good" - is childish in the extreme. It is a black-and-white simplification, the sort of thing which undeveloped minds sink into: 'God is Good,' 'My mom and dad are Good,' etc. It isn't a nuanced look at our situation at all.

It is practically a declaration that you are neither an inquisitive nor logical person, and you aren't interested in viewing the actuality of our situation; rather, an Ideological point becomes the basis for one's opinions. Foolish, childish, anti-intellectual, and totally, completely unsurprising.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:13 pm
@wandeljw,
Here's a link that explains it. http://www.the912project.com/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 04:37 pm
Quote:
Eleven new companies whose ads were recently seen during Beck’s program"Binder & Binder, Capital One, The Dannon Company, Discover, HSBC, ICAN Benefit Group Insurance, Infiniti, Jelmar (manufacturer of CLR All-Purpose Cleaner), Jordan McKenna Debt Counseling Network, Mercedes-Benz and Simplex Healthcare (creator of the Diabetes Care Club) "have pledged to ColorOfChange.org to take steps to ensure that their ads don’t run on Beck’s show. Fifty-seven companies have now committed not to support Beck’s show since ColorOfChange.org launched its campaign four weeks ago after the Fox News Channel host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance on Fox & Friends.


As a side note, Binder & Binder has requested that their ads be removed from the Glenn Beck show, and due to technicalities in their contract, Fox is refusing to comply. Classy of them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/24/2018 at 11:29:18