Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Why Does Romney Lie?

Andrew responds to Romney’s highly embellished anecdotes from his mission years:
 

Why would Romney go out on a limb like that – when it could easily be disproven by an enterprising reporter?
 
Why does Romney ever tell bald-faced lies? After all, this is a man who has made the non-existent “apology tour” the rhetorical centerpiece of his presidential campaign. For some reason, he even managed to say something untrue about his real first name during the national security debate last month. It’s tempting to say that he has reinvented himself so thoroughly that he can no longer remember what is true and what isn’t, and he has absorbed and appropriated so many new positions over the years that it all gets jumbled together and re-mixed according to whatever the political need of the moment happens to be. It’s easy to lose track after the fourth or fifth incarnation. More likely, he is so contemptuous of the people he tells these lies to that he never thinks he will be found out.

Mr Romney told supporters he had experienced austerity as a missionary in France, using a bucket for a lavatory and a hose for a shower. “You’re not living high on the hog at that kind of level,” he said.
 

But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as “palace”. It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants – a Spanish chef and a houseboy.

“I have to ask you, are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?”

“Yes,” Gingrich replied.

“You’re calling Mitt Romney a liar?”

“Well, you seem shocked by it!” said Gingrich. “Yes.”

I gotta give ol' Newt credit for this one. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57351153/gingrich-mitt-romney-is-a-liar/)

Eh, Newt was all for Citizens United, until the money barrel was aimed at him...funny.

ironically I told Mike this would come back to bite him. In fact, that was a big position of mine for just about any fucked up position he had... 'ya know Mike, one day the Dems will get to use this,that or the other..' "Ya know, there are liberal billionaires who can exploit this'.. blah blah blah..

what's funny is, it's Newt's own party who did it to him..

that's really got to leave a mark.

Yes but coming back to bite me wasn't the issue I was concerned about with Citizens United, the 1st amendment is.  This has always been a freedom of speech issue with me.  Even granting your worse post-Citizen's United nightmare, I still have to default to liberty.  Sorry but the first amendment is more important than one candidate or one political party.

Companies are incapable of speech. People are.

Eh, Newt was all for Citizens United, until the money barrel was aimed at him...funny.

The rapid rise and far-reaching impact of super PACs -- the well-financed non-party groups that helped carry former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to victory in the Iowa caucuses -- have persuaded some prominent Republicans that restrictions of some sort on the groups' activities may be in order.

In an interview with The Huffington Post on Wednesday evening, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge said he saw no legal way in which to limit the amount of money that these groups could spend or raise. But he said that both he and the candidate he supports, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, believed firmly that the names of the donors funding those groups should be subject to near instantaneous disclosure.

"I've talked to Jon about this and he and I are like-minded," said Ridge. "He has a modest super PAC [supporting him]. I have felt for the longest time, it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court of the United States would put financial limits on free speech. But I think it is within the power of the president and the Congress to say: 'Guess what? Any contribution in excess of $500 to $1,000 to you personally or the super PAC, it is on the Internet within 24 hours, so people can know.' Not quarterly. Transparency now, it is the best antiseptic."

Told that his proposed solution echoes the general theory behind the campaign finance disclosure legislation that Democrats failed to move through the Senate in 2010, Ridge argued that a bit of presidential leadership could do the trick. As of now, there are no plans to reintroduce the bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act.

Under current law, super PACs can chose to file the names of their donors either quarterly or monthly. If they elect to do so quarterly, then they only have to file twice during an off-year of an election cycle such as 2011.

Re-bit.

The case was about banning a movie.    Go read the comments on the muche at the time.  It was pretty good coverage.

Sure...tell that to this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZw4oBsKo8&feature=player_embedded

Gee I missed the part where he said he wanted the government to have the power to ban movies.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself on this issue.

Gee I missed the part where he said he wanted the government to have the power to ban movies.

In overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision upholding a state law that prohibited corporations from spending money on election-related messages, the Court rejected the very notion that the First Amendment allows the government to discriminate against speech by groups of people organized as corporations. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself on this issue.

I feel the need to score this:

Howey, Reason Magazine (lilMIke's favorite right wing/libertarian source), and John Huntsman (lilMike's favorite republican candidate for president) all say CU was about making corporations a "being".

Then we have lilMike saying it wasn't. Wrongo!

Hmmm...I didn't know the government banned a movie! I could swear it was shown in theatres and on DVD!

Was this about a movie that wasn't banned or was this about allowing corporations first amendment rights? Cuz your beloved Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme) thinks so!

We have me saying CU was about granting corporations a living soul, and we have you saying it was about a movie that was banned but wasn't banned*. I guess Reason and I proved you wrongo again!

Glad to see I edumacated you (again!)

*Note. Don't pull out the bullshit that Hillary: The Movie was banned by the government because it couldn't be shown on PPV cable! It clearly was a political ad running 90 minutes long and was scheduled immediately (within 30 days) of the Democratic primary and at the time was legally prevented from that by McCain-Feingold. A bipartisan law passed under Bush's regime, tyvm.

Eventually. 


I'm thinking that that you didn't read that full article from Reason.  The article was about the 1st Amendment; one of those troublesome legacies of the constitution that gets in the way of your schemes. I'm you just searched for the word corporations.  The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

I opposed that law, passed under the Bush regime, and welcomed it's demise under the Obama regime.

That is the whole point, and why I suggested you go back and reread the muche arguments about it, because you, and this subject, are a bit boring at this point because of your steadfast ignorance.  You guys seem to think the concept of corporate personhood sprung full from Citizen's United, like Athena popping out of Zeus's forehead,  instead of a being a centuries old legal concept.  Political speech is the purpose of the first amendment; not, as you guys think, for protecting crucifix's in bottles of piss being shown at public facilities.  The fact that you've exposed yourselves as opposing one of the core principles of our republic sure is revealing.

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them. You're l

Eventually. 


I'm thinking that that you didn't read that full article from Reason.  The article was about the 1st Amendment; one of those troublesome legacies of the constitution that gets in the way of your schemes. I'm sure you just searched for the word corporations.  The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

I opposed that law, passed under the Bush regime, and welcomed it's demise under the Obama regime.

That is the whole point, and why I suggested you go back and reread the muche arguments about it, because you, and this subject, are a bit boring at this point because of your steadfast ignorance.  You guys seem to think the concept of corporate personhood sprung full from Citizen's United, like Athena popping out of Zeus's forehead,  instead of a being a centuries old legal concept.  Political speech is the purpose of the first amendment; not, as you guys think, for protecting crucifix's in bottles of piss being shown at public facilities.  The fact that you've exposed yourselves as opposing one of the core principles of our republic sure is revealing.

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them. You're l

it's his cover.. that way he can feel superior to you and mock you for not liking the 1st amendment.. it's his game.  you should feel sorry for him, I mean, I do..

It's not a game, its the truth, and it applies to you as well.

But yes, I admit I do feel superior.  But why wouldn't I?  I'm defending the Bill of Rights on this board while you and Howey are trying to tear it down.  If I have to feel superior, that's a pretty damn good reason.

Good. Next time (name silly Republican here) wants to ban a book, movie, or television show (probably about those fags) because it offends his psyche we'll be standing here waiting for your post decrying the failure of free speech!

Superior? That Napoleon Complex is getting to ya, huh?

Maybe I'm right about that "going postal" comment.

Eventually. 

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them.

Yes. Eventually. After the clause was lifted. Until then, the "ban" was entirely legit.

I'll show you my law degree if you'll show me yours. I guarantee mine's "bigger".

The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

The century-old ban on corporate donations to federal political campaigns should be junked as unconstitutional, the Republican National Committee argued in a legal brief filed Tuesday that could lead to new attacks on the GOP as beholden to corporate money.
 
The GOP brief filed with a federal appeals court contends that the ban which became law back in 1908 violates the First Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, including the 2010 Citizens United decision which allowed unlimited donations to independent-expenditure groups.
 
Republican National Committee Chief Counsel John R. Phillippe, Jr., and RNC lawyer Gary Lawkowski contend that the only legitimate rationale for the corporate donation ban now is to prevent an end-run around individual donation limits and that's not an adequate basis to uphold the ban.
 
"The complete ban both is over-inclusive to this aim and artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees. It is over-inclusive because it bans all corporate donations without regard to the ability of corporate donors to attribute their donations to individuals. It artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees by forcing them to rely on aggregating small-dollar donations from individuals while allowing other political actors, such as independent-expenditure-only political action committees, to receive unlimited corporate donations," the GOP lawyers wrote.
 
The brief (which POLITICO has posted here) does not argue against all donation limits for corporations, but as a practical matter a ruling against the current ban would likely lead to such a result.

Another lie...

Of course, there's no need to hid behind a fluffy claim of 1st Amendment Rights or the horror of a book being banned by the socialist commie negro president. All pretenses (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/gop-corporate-donation-ban-unconstitutional-110364.html) have now been tossed aside.