Daniel McCarthy: Origins of the Corporate State

[Winehole23]

Origins of the Corporate State (http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/2010/02/24/origins-of-the-corporate-state/)

Posted on February 24th, 2010 by Daniel McCarthy


(http://digg.com/)
As I mention below (http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/2010/02/24/carl-oglesby-was-right/), Ralph Nader is not altogether wrong about what the doctrine of corporate personhood has led to. As Felix Morley explains, abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment to nationalize rights, for corporations as well as individuals, enabled the federal government to extend its powers tremendously, first in the name of laissez faire and later in the name of labor. But regardless of which ideology or which interests tried to use centralized power for their own benefit, it was power itself that benefited most — which would ultimately give us big business and (for a time) big labor prospering in collusion with and subordination to big government. The loser in all of this was the idea of a constitutional federation:

The Fifth Amendment had stipulated that “no person” shall be deprived of property “without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment repeated this, but with the provision directed specifically against “any State.” Now the ingeniously simple formula was to define a corporation as a “person,” whose property under the Fourteenth Amendment was then not subject to deprivation by any State without due process of law. In practice this meant that any regulatory action by the states could be appealed to the Supreme Court, which thus gradually replaced them as guarantors of property rights. As described by Charles A.Beard: “before the end of the nineteenth century the once almost sovereign powers of the States over property and business within their borders were reduced to mere shadows of their former greatness.”


By a logical extension of the corporate person argument the railroads, again for instance, soon found it expedient to apply to national instead of State courts, under the interstate commerce clause. That procedure brought the granting of injunctions against strike action, the violation of which in turn resulted in summary imprisonment of labor leaders, without jury trial, for contempt of court. Thus the national development of industry on the one hand, and of trade unionism on the other, led through the channel of the Fourteenth Amendment to the nationalization of governmental power and the resumed weakening of federal structure. Business leadership, too “practical” to theorize on politics, welcomed this centralization of power as long as it seemed to favor laissez-faire at the expense of labor organization. There was all too little anticipation that, in the name of democracy, this favoritism would eventually be reversed.”
That’s taken from Morley’s Freedom and Federalism. His chapter “The Fourteenth Amendment” elaborates the story. Morley is not, of course, arguing that he’d like to see businesses or individuals deprived of their property or rights in a lawless fashion at any level. But the structure of government matters as well as its content, and the combination of a liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment with the concept of corporate personhood wrought tremendous changes in the way governments works, in its scope and machinery. Power fled the people in the states and was absorbed and amplified by the institutions of the federal government — first by the Supreme Court, to a lesser extent by Congress, but ultimately and to the greatest extent by the executive branch, whose agencies, in the name of rights, can now seize property (the DEA), kill (the CIA), interfere in business (the FTC), censor communications (the FCC), and manipulate elections (the FEC) with nary a thought to “representation” or the legislative process. The corporate state turns out to be the executive state — which probably in the end becomes the military-security state. We’re not there yet, but we’re well on our way.

[SouthernFried]

lol...too funny.

Govt grows, always has...always will. History prooves it over..and over...and over...and over again.

...and this idiot actually thinks it has to do with the 14th amendment and the so-called granting of personhood to "corporations."

Lose the fucking agenda, and take a clear look at the history of the world. This is what Govts do, not corporations.

Blame it on Lincoln if you want, he's the one that really increased the fed govt power over the states. Or, Blame it on FDR...blame it on whoever you want. Hell, blame it on the 14th amendment if it makes you feel intellectual and suits your agenda.

The problem is with none of them and all of them.

The problem is the people who take power, always wanting to increase that power and control. 14th amendment didn't lessen or increase that power grab. Hell, just the "welfare" and "commerce" words alone were enough for these assholes to do whatever they want.

It all boils down to a bunch of fools trying to find out why Corporations have the "freedom" to advertise during an election. How can this be? Why is this allowed? Corporations are evil, donchaknow...they're not people, they're Corporations. It's a corporate state now! They are going to murder, rape and pillage us all...and it's because of the 14th amendment!! They are a deterrent from us having it our way...they can advertise against us! And the 14th amendment gives them that right!!

lol

Focusing on the 14th amendment is just inane, and for inane at heart. But, it gives these blithering idiots something to blame for their world view being turned upside down by the SC.

Corporations are people too...live with it.

...and so it goes.

[Winehole23]

Focusing on the 14th amendment is just inane, and for inane at heart. But, it gives these blithering idiots something to blame for their world view being turned upside down by the SC.

Corporations are people too...live with it.The OP had nothing to do with Citizens United and everything to do with the federalization of power and the corresponding decline of the power of the states over the last 100 years. You missed the point.

[EVAY]

The OP had nothing to do with Citizens United and everything to do with the federalization of power and the corresponding decline of the power of the states over the last 100 years. You missed the point.

Ya think?

[Winehole23]

Ya think? Some posters are more focused on flaming other posters than they are on the topic itself. If SF wants to discuss the OP I'm open to that. If he just wants to put others down that's fine too.

[SouthernFried]

The OP had nothing to do with Citizens United and everything to do with the federalization of power and the corresponding decline of the power of the states over the last 100 years. You missed the point.

I don't even have an idea who "Citizens United" are. And I don't care. Seems important to you tho.

My entire post was in response to this idiot and his moronic view of how corporations have been "peronalized" by the 14th amendment...and how that will lead to tyranny and murder. And I said, Lincoln had more to do with Fed power increase over the states.

The guy is a moron with an agenda against corporations, trying to explain his paranoia using the 14th amendment. It ain't the 14th amendment and corporations that have increased the power of the fed. It's the natural order of things...the fed has been increasing power since its inception. Trying to focus on the 14th amendment to get at corporations is as much idiocy...as it is an agenda by fools like this.

Seriously...this guy really is a fool.

And who the fuck is Citizens United? And why should I care?

[Winehole23]

And who the fuck is Citizens United? And why should I care?The search function is your friend. I think you'll find numerous posts by yourself in the relevant thread.

[SouthernFried]

The search function is your friend. I think you'll find numerous posts by yourself in the relevant thread.

Why would I want to search who Citizens United are? Why would I care about them?

[Winehole23]

My entire post was in response to this idiot and his moronic view of how corporations have been "personalized" by the 14th amendment...Haven't they been?


and how that will lead to tyranny and murder.Not in the OP. Is this hyperbole?


And I said, Lincoln had more to do with Fed power increase over the states.After reconstruction, and until Grover Cleveland, US presidents got weaker.

How did they get stronger again? The process wasn't "natural" as you suggest, but historical and political. Extending 14th amendment protections to corporations was part of the process that hollowed out the powers of the states, relegating them to the judiciary.

[Winehole23]

Why would I want to search who Citizens United are? Why would I care about them?You seemed to when you were bloviating about it before. Appearances can be deceiving, I guess.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
Americans Rise Up Against the Supreme Court Decision to Create Corporate Frankensteins

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
Posted on February 25, 2010, Printed on February 26, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/145804/


As you've probably heard, corporations are now "people" -- humanoids that are equivalent to you and me. This miraculous metamorphosis happened on Jan. 21.

Accompanied by a blinding bolt of lightning, and a terrifying jolt of thunder, five Dr. Frankensteins on the Supreme Court threw a judicial switch that endowed these pulseless paper entities with the human right to speak politically.

Never mind that inanimate corporate constructs have no tongue, brain, heart or soul -- the five judicial fabricators breathed unprecedented legal life into corporations, decreeing that the vast wealth held in their corporate treasuries is their voice. With a cry of "Shazam!" the court ruled that, henceforth, every corporation -- from Wal-Mart to Wall Street -- is entitled to "speak" by spending unlimited sums from their treasuries to elect or defeat candidates for any and all public offices in our land, from city council to the presidency.

By a bare five-to-four majority, the justices created an artificial, uber-wealthy, political monster that will overpower everyone else's voices. For example, just the 100 largest corporations have assets totaling more than $13 trillion. No combination of human people's political organizations can amass even a tiny fraction of that spending power.

With their ruling, five unelected guys in black robes have subverted our people's sovereignty with a semantical perversion that twists special-interest things into "people" and money into "speech." In so doing, the Supreme Five have substituted their personal political views for the clearly-expressed wisdom of America's founders, every Congress since Teddy Roosevelt's time, 22 states, dozens of cities, the court's own precedents and the People themselves.

Bizarrely, the five court corporatists seemed to think that their sneak attack on America's democratic ideals was so cleverly done that it would be meekly accepted by the public and even widely applauded. Hardly. The ink of their signatures on this absurd opinion wasn't dry before the justices were pelted with ridicule. "Hey," demanded one blogger, "it's time to reinstitute the draft."

Others raised an intriguing constitutional conundrum that the Court obviously failed to contemplate. Since the 13th Amendment bans slavery, which is the ownership of a person, the newly born corporate "persons" cannot legally be bought and sold. Thus Wall Street -- now a slave market -- must be shut down! Let us all join hands and march for this new civil rights cause, chanting, "Free the Corporate Slaves!"

Meanwhile, Americans of all political stripes have risen in overwhelming opposition to the court's contortion of both the Constitution and common sense. In a Washington Post-ABC poll published last week, 85 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and -- get this -- 76 percent of Republicans reject this act of gross judicial overreach.

So, with eight of 10 Americans decrying the decree and nearly as many demanding that it be reversed, we can expect swift and decisive action from Congress. Right?

Uh ... no. First, Republican leaders (who've consistently proven to be tail-wagging kowtowers to corporate power) flatly say they will oppose any legislation to restrict the ruling.

Second, Democrats have designated Sen. Chuck Schumer to lead their effort to undo the decision. Schumer is a notorious CEO-hugging Democrat who serves as the party's chief shaker of the corporate money tree, so sending him into this battle is like going lion hunting with a flyswatter.

Sure enough, Schumer has started by declaring that he wants a reform that can get "bipartisan support" in the Senate, and he is not even considering anything as bold or effective as a constitutional amendment to force these corporate behemoths out of our elections. Instead, he's lamely offering a patchwork of regulatory fixes designed to cover up this theft of political power from actual people -- fixes that corporate lawyers and lobbyists will riddle with loopholes.

To get remedies that work, We the People will have to take direct grassroots action. Already, three major national coalitions have formed to retrieve our democratic authority from the court and its corporate clients: MoveToAmend.org, FreeSpeechForPeople.org and FixCongressFirst.org. Let's get connected and get moving.

=======

Southern Fried, "live with it"

[MaryK]

Not in the OP. Is this hyperbole?


You tell me, it's your piece...



liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment with the concept of corporate personhood wrought tremendous changes in the way governments works, in its scope and machinery. Power fled the people in the states and was absorbed and amplified by the institutions of the federal government — first by the Supreme Court, to a lesser extent by Congress, but ultimately and to the greatest extent by the executive branch, whose agencies, in the name of rights, can now seize property (the DEA), kill (the CIA), interfere in business (the FTC), censor communications (the FCC), and manipulate elections (the FEC) with nary a thought to “representation” or the legislative process. The corporate state turns out to be the executive state — which probably in the end becomes the military-security state.



How did they get stronger again? The process wasn't "natural" as you suggest, but historical and political. Extending 14th amendment protections to corporations was part of the process that hollowed out the powers of the states, relegating them to the judiciary.

Lincoln kicking the shit out of the states had quite a bit more to do with the increase of federal power over the states...than anything the 14th amendment did.

FDR's nationalized SS and Medicare systems had TONS more to do with increased fed power over the states...than anything the 14th amendment does.

This is HISTORICALLY how govts increase their powers. It's natural because it's ALWAYS how it happens, even our founders wrote about it..."the natural order is for govt to gain power..." etc.

It's politically how it happens, it's historically how it happens, and its naturally how it happens.

The 14th amendment and its effect on the "personification of corporations" is just a sideshow.

And it's basically a sideshow for those who are proponents of the natural, political, and historical power grabs by centralized govt. Those that usually abhore "corporate" anything...almost universally support increased fed power for such things like health care, SS, Medicare...etc.

Corporations are deemed the enemy by those looking to increase the power of the fed.

So, it's natural, political, and historical that these people trying to gain power...blame corporations for their own power grab.

It's how it has worked, and always worked.

Interesting, eh?

...sig

[Winehole23]

Lincoln kicking the shit out of the states had quite a bit more to do with the increase of federal power over the states...than anything the 14th amendment did.Why then did federal power wane after the Reconstruction?


FDR's nationalized SS and Medicare systems had TONS more to do with increased fed power over the states...than anything the 14th amendment does.Sure. The whole New Deal panoply of programs was a revolution within the form (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html), like Garet Garrett said.

Still, 14th Amendment jurisprudence is hardly inconsequential wrt to the growth of federal power.


The 14th amendment and its effect on the "personification of corporations" is just a sideshow.I disagree.


And it's basically a sideshow for those who are proponents of the natural, political, and historical power grabs by centralized govt. Those that usually abhore "corporate" anything...almost universally support increased fed power for such things like health care, SS, Medicare...etc.I don't.


Corporations are deemed the enemy by those looking to increase the power of the fed. More strawman and association fallacy.


So, it's natural, political, and historical that these people trying to gain power...blame corporations for their own power grab.

It's how it has worked, and always worked.

Interesting, eh?Whose power grab?

You relied on strawmen for the whole chain of reasoning, rather than taking note of the source, the author or the work cited.

Weak!

[SouthernFried]

The author is a fool. He's not trying to understand why Federal power has increased. Any idiot can see that. If you think Federal Power decreased after Lincoln kicked the shit out of the states...your just simply wrong.

If you think Federal Power decreased after FDR implemented nationalized SS and Medicare...your just wrong.

What this guy is trying to do is blame all those increases in federal lpower... on the 14th amendment and the "personification of corporations."

It's an agenda driven argument coming because of the recent SC decision. A knee jerk sorta thing to justify a current event.

It's disengenous at best. At worse, it's an attempt to find a way to attack corporations, free markets and capitalism. "It's the damn 14th amendment that's giving business's power."

Basically, it's just plain bullshit.

It is what it is...sig

[Winehole23]

The author is a fool. He's not trying to understand why Federal power has increased. Any idiot can see that. If you think Federal Power decreased after Lincoln kicked the shit out of the states...your just simply wrong.What explains the institution and persistence of Jim Crow laws in the face of the reconstruction amendments?


If you think Federal Power decreased after FDR implemented nationalized SS and Medicare...your just wrong.I said -- or meant to say -- just the opposite. The link to Garet Garrett is a clue.


It's an agenda driven argument coming because of the recent SC decision. A knee jerk sorta thing to justify a current event.The recent SC decision in Citizens United highlights the theme elaborated in the OP, but the theme is hardly mistaken on that account.

Are you familiar with McCarthy, Felix Morley and Amconmag?

Whose "agenda" are you referring to? Please be specific if you can.


It's disengenous at best. At worse, it's an attempt to find a way to attack corporations, free markets and capitalism. "It's the damn 14th amendment that's giving business's power."There are no free markets, and capitalism is now backstopped by the public.

Cui bono?

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Morley

[Winehole23]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy-arch.htmlb

[Winehole23]

Incorporation (of the Bill of Rights) is the American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) legal doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) are applied to the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) through the Due Process Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Interpretation_of_Due_Process_Clause_i n_U.S._Constitution) of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion), although some have suggested that the Privileges or Immunities Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause) would be a more appropriate textual basis.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29#cite_note-0) Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore) that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), still held that the First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29b

[Marcus Bryant]

Great article. After big business found that an expansive federal state was not to its advantage, it began to make it so, again. Some have confused individual liberty with that of our corporate masters.

[SouthernFried]

unfuckingbelievable.

Why the fuck do I wanna read about some idiots with stupid opinions you might think are ever so grand?

When all this is about is some lefty statists being pissed off about the PEOPLE, who happen to be in a Corporation, being able to advertise during an election?

And make no mistake... that IS what this is all about....



Origins of the Corporate State (http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/2010/02/24/origins-of-the-corporate-state/)

Posted on February 24th, 2010 by Daniel McCarthy


(http://digg.com/)
As I mention below (http://www.amconmag.com/mccarthy/2010/02/24/carl-oglesby-was-right/), Ralph Nader is not altogether wrong about what the doctrine of corporate personhood has led to. As Felix Morley explains, abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment to nationalize rights, for corporations as well as individuals, enabled the federal government to extend its powers tremendously....

..... liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment with the concept of corporate personhood wrought tremendous changes in the way governments works, in its scope and machinery...

.... can now seize property (the DEA), kill (the CIA), interfere in business (the FTC), censor communications (the FCC), and manipulate elections (the FEC) with nary a thought to “representation” or the legislative process. The corporate state turns out to be the executive state — which probably in the end becomes the military-security state. We’re not there yet, but we’re well on our way.

Idiots trying to find a way to circumvent what the SC ruled, that PEOPLE in Corporations have the same rights as you and me...and that includes speech.

Idiots trying to come up with something...ANYTHING...that they can try and use to oppose this SC ruling.

And one of these idolized fools comes up with the 14th amendment as possibly the root and cause of their immediate consternation...and they all hope, and Pray..."mebbe this is it?"

"We've possibly isolated the cause of people being allowed to speak if they're in a corporation...maybe we can use this??" "It's the 14th amendments fault!"...it's evil man.

And they all start jabbering away...making no sense whatsoever, and patting themeselves on the back for their intellectual prowess.

Corporations are people...and people have the right to speak. Try all you want, who knows, maybe you'll succeed in shutting them up. Maybe you can demonize the 14th amendment enough to make that your whipping boy.

Maybe...just maybe...

Nah...lol


SIG

[Marcus Bryant]

Wy duh hale dew eye wunt tew reed?

[Winehole23]

Why the fuck do I wanna read about some idiots with stupid opinions you might think are ever so grand?Did you read the Garet Garrett essay? I'd have thought you'd like it. Felix Morley, Pulitzer Prize winner, hated the New Deal, too. Didn't you notice that?



When all this is about is some lefty statists being pissed off about the PEOPLE, who happen to be in a Corporation, being able to advertise during an election?Oh, now you recall Citizens United, after having pronounced it forgotten and besides, totally beneath your interest, and now you want to say the OP was all about it.

Only, it wasn't...


And make no mistake... that IS what this is all about....Obviously, you didn't read the linked material...


Idiots trying to find a way to circumvent what the SC ruled, that PEOPLE in Corporations have the same rights as you and me...and that includes speech.The states used to regulate this. Now, there is a federal remedy.


Idiots trying to come up with something...ANYTHING...that they can try and use to oppose this SC ruling.This SC ruling is not mentioned in the OP.


And one of these idolized fools comes up with the 14th amendment as possibly the root and cause of their immediate consternation...and they all hope, and Pray..."mebbe this is it?"It's not the 14th amendment alone -- I concurred with MaryK that the New Deal was epochal for the centralization of power -- that is important, but the 14th amendment is not negligible either.


"We've possibly isolated the cause of people being allowed to speak if they're in a corporation...maybe we can use this??" "It's the 14th amendments fault!"...it's evil man.Spoken like a true apologist of the EEOC.


Corporations are people...and people have the right to speak. How postmodern. They weren't always. They're creatures of the states. But now all their remedies are federal, because they're "people".

I doubt the Constitutional Convention had the (British) East India Company in mind when it was drafting the Bill Of Rights.

[Winehole23]

I notice you dodged all my direct questions, SF. Why is that?

[Winehole23]

Same goes for you, MaryK.

[Marcus Bryant]

[FONT=Arial Narrow]Did you read the Garet Garrett essay?


Y duh hale hee gow buy duh sayme nayme tew tymes?

[Marcus Bryant]

Weeding is fer lusers. Weel muricans downt need tuh weed.

[SouthernFried]

"]

did you read the garet garrett essay? I'd have thought you'd like it. Felix morley, pulitzer prize winner, hated the new deal, too. Didn't you notice that?

no. Why would i read this guy? I'm here to talk to others that are here, not look up links to someone else. If you want me to read guys you think are so smart, have them come here. Otherwise, i suggest you form your own opinions so we can talk about them, not someone elses.




oh, now you recall citizens united, after having pronounced it forgotten and besides, totally beneath your interest, and now you want to say the op was all about it.

Only, it wasn't...

Obviously, you didn't read the linked material...

no, i don't generally read links. Look to my above reply for the reason.

And i don't "recall" citizens united. I don't know of them, never heard of them until now, and don't really give much a damn about them. Why you keep mentioning them as if i should know all about them is pretty interesting. In one breath your disassociating the above author from them (why would that be btw?), next breath your associating my "lefty statists" comment with them. Evidently they are important to you, also evidently they are lefty statists since you associated my "lefty statist" comment to them. So, while your disassociating the author from them, your trying to associate them with him. Very weird.

I don't know who they are, what they stand for (except for what i've discerned from your comments)...or why they are so important to you.

Can't say it any plainer.


the states used to regulate this. Now, there is a federal remedy.

limiting people in corporations from free speech was wrong. The sc ruling fixed that, on the federal level.


this sc ruling is not mentioned in the op.

it's just a coincidence that right after the sc ruled that corporations are people and can advertise, this moron comes up with the 14th amendment and its "personification of corporations" as the root cause of the "problem."

the sc was never mentioned directly. This article, and the morons assertion that it's the 14th amendments fault for giving corporations "personhood" is completely in response to that judgement. I know it...and you should know it. So don't play stupid...it's not the image you are trying to portray here.


it's not the 14th amendment alone -- i concurred with maryk that the new deal was epochal for the centralization of power -- that is important, but the 14th amendment is not negligible either.

well, first...maryk is my wife. She logged on here a little while back. When i use here computer, it shows her name.

Ok, how much influence the 14th amendment may, or may not have, can probably legitimately be up for discussion. I know it's negligible, but i can see where other's are looking for a scapegoat in this, and the 14th amendment "might" be used. It will be tough, because it really isn't the big issue on why fed power is so big. But, with enough lawyereeez, it might be able to be made to look that way. Especially if your really not looking to limit federal power, but going after corporations. I've seen more absurd behavior.


how postmodern. They weren't always. They're creatures of the states. But now all their remedies are federal, because they're "people".

that's right...corporations are people. I'll make it simple...corporations don't advertise. Corporations are just a sheet of paper. It's the people in corporations who advertise. When you rule that a corporation can't advertise, your not ruling against the sheet of paper...your ruling against the people in the corporation not being able to advertise.

The sc ruled right. The fact that 4 of them dissented...shows you how close the left is to destroying rights in this country.


i doubt the constitutional convention had the (british) east india company in mind when it was drafting the bill of rights.

I doubt they even thought about the british east india company when they did the bill of rights.

But, i flat out guarantee you...they thought about the people in that company...and every other company.

It's about the people...whether they be in a "corporation"...or not.[/size]

[EVAY]

WH

my recommendation is to give up trying to discuss anything with SF. It appears to me that there is something seriously wrong with the processor function there. seriously.

I have to say I thought the article was useful, and promised a good discussion. I don't think you can get it back from where he took it, though.
And, if I were you, I wouldn't want to get the MaryK personality back to the fore.

[Wild Cobra]

The OP had nothing to do with Citizens United and everything to do with the federalization of power and the corresponding decline of the power of the states over the last 100 years. You missed the point.
So you make my point that we would be better off if the South won the Civil War.

[Marcus Bryant]

WH

my recommendation is to give up trying to discuss anything with SF. It appears to me that there is something seriously wrong with the processor function there. seriously.

There's no finer an example of what conservatism, not to mention what American politics, has become. He's "here to talk to others that are here, not look up links to someone else."

The irony, of course, is that is a standard tactic of the pragmatist. Of course, that assumes that conservatism today differs any.

[Marcus Bryant]

And who the fuck is Citizens United? And why should I care?

I mean. Damn.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, at this point Garet Garrett would probably be regarded as a commie subversive by true American patriots like SF.

After all, reading and writing are commie plots.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean. Damn.
Why? Because you though you could say he was a "mind numbed robot," and he proved you wrong?

[Marcus Bryant]

Detecting irony isn't your strong suit.

[Winehole23]

So you make my point that we would be better off if the South won the Civil War.Not exactly. The OP said what it said, I said what I said, you said what you said.

The emphasis is similar but the substance is not. Civil war is not ordinary constitutional order, and just because I wish states had more power than they do now doesn't mean I wish the south had won the civil war. The link there is possible, but not necessary.

[Winehole23]

WH

my recommendation is to give up trying to discuss anything with SF. It appears to me that there is something seriously wrong with the processor function there. seriously.

I have to say I thought the article was useful, and promised a good discussion. I don't think you can get it back from where he took it, though.
And, if I were you, I wouldn't want to get the MaryK personality back to the fore.You never know unless you try.

But you also do know -- with close to 100% certainty -- that if you don't even try to talk the bare condition of familiarity will never be established for any future conversation, and even should one succeed temporarily in maintaining a topical dialogue, the war of insults would seem to be incipient at (pretty much) all times....

I doubt anything's wrong with SF's melon, EVAY. He just got cozy and satisfied in his cocoon of incuriousness, is all.

Though he did remark at much greater length than he usually does , his schtick really isn't conversation so much as smug monologues. In that category, short of fluent mastery, brevity is always preferable IMO. Here, SF's accuracy and topicality have been notably weak.