Tuesday, October 05, 2010

U.$. Chamber of TRAITOR$!


The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.

America and its democracy are being sold by the GOPsters to the highest bidders foreign and domestic and there is ZERO transparency.


Nemo said...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Who is the traitor sean, those that choose to speak or those that would try to suppress speech?

4 Weeks :)

Sean Cranley said...

You Nemo, who believe that corporations owned by foreign governments should weigh in on American elections, are a traitor

Nemo said...

To be called a traitor after quoting the first amendment? Heh.

3 Weeks 6 Days :)

Sean Cranley said...

I know you're enjoying the results of the gross judicial activism, which I'm sure you would abhore were you not a complete hypocrite. What's happening is a perversion of the first amendemnt.

I notice you weren't able to bring yourself to answer with a simple "yes" on the first amendment rights of religious freedom for Muslims over on Free Racine. More hypocrisy from Nemo, such a surprise.

Nemo said...

Are you saying that suppressing speech, subjugating women, and murder are constitutionally fine as long as they are performed under the guise of religion?

3 weeks, 6 days :)

Sean Cranley said...

Oh look, another attempt by Nemo to distort my argument and my intent, displaying both his dishonesty and the weakness of his positions by the need to resort to this tactic.

The question was "Do support their (muslims) constitutional right to peacefully and lawfully practice their religion in the U.S. and to build their places of worship in any location where a church, synagogue, etc. could be built?"

Yes or no?

Nemo said...

Yes, of course they have the constitutional right to build it, but you are missing the point. I have the constitutional right (for now) to burn the Quran. Despite this right, I believe it would be wrong to do so. It would be hurtful to many. For similar reasons, I believe it would be wrong for the Saudis (well Saudi money anyway) to build that mosque so close to the Twin Towers sight.

Nemo said...

Almost forgot...3 Weeks, 5 Days :)

Sean Cranley said...

So you're equating the CONSTRUCTION of a civic center building by a decent person with the intent of bringing people together with the senseless DESTRUCTION of a book by a nut job with the intent to offend, split people apart and get cheap publicity?

That's par for the course for your twisted and poisonous logic Nemo.

And here comes the hypocrisy part again. You have a problem with Saudia money helping fund the Muslim center in Manhatten. But you don't mind that the same Saudi Prince is the number two owner, behind Australian Rupert Murdick of the foreign owned GOPropaganda outlet Fux Snooze!

Furthermore, you have no problem with the U.S. Chamber of Traitors to Democracy funneling money from foreign corporations, some of them state owned, into OUR elections to pick OUR representatives.

Your complete and repeated hypocrisy is mind blowing to say the least. Go f get thee hence!

Nemo said...

sean, can't you see where people who lost loved ones to that horrible attack on 9/11 by radical muslums (mostly saudis) might be offended? Are you blind to the driving apart of people by the proposed construction?

If Islam was truly the "religion of peace" it claims to be, it would handle this the same way the Catholics did when faced with a similar problem.

Nemo said...

As long as you're bringing up the mosque thing again, just one more thing...

3 Weeks, 4 Days :)

Sean Cranley said...

Thank you Nemo for, in your last post, providing me with the rope to hang you with. The author of the article you linked opposes the Manhatten mosque because:

As I wrote in my next syndicated column, "The resulting national furor that has anguished and enraged opponents of the mosque [has also] alarmingly increased hostility toward American Muslims in general—including those who reject violent jihadism. . . . As someone affected for years—most threateningly as a boy in a Boston Jewish ghetto by anti-Semitism in this country, I can understand the anxiety of a considerable number of Muslims."

"Around this country, the exploding furor over Imam Rauf's choice of location has now ignited fierce and bigoted opposition to existing mosques."

So he opposes the mosque because of the reaction of hostile bigots like you! Did you even read the article before you linked it?

As for your previous post. Yes I can understand why some might be offended, wrongly I believe. And again, there is no constitutional protection against being offended by the peacefyl and lawful actions of others.

Nemo said...

Did you miss the
"We are handing al-Qaida a propaganda coup, an absolute propaganda coup" part

or the "It is difficult to think of somebody who has done more harm to the causes he purports to represent than Faisal Abdul Rauf—the so-called Ground Zero Imam. He claims he wishes to improve the standing of Muslims in the United States, to build understanding among religions, and to enhance the reputation of America in the Muslim world. . . . He has set back all three of his goals" part?

Much in the VV piece had not occurred to me before. I fear that many of the arguments that Nat gives to be to sophisticated and subtle for you to grasp. Sorry for posting the link and confusing you.

In the future I'll try to remember to find more blunt and ugly sources so you can understand them. Something like "Mosque bad, cause pain" should do it, eah?

Sean Cranley said...

Too subtle? On the contrary Nemo, I've made the exact point before at Free Racine about handing Al Qaeda a propaganda coup, and the coup is you! The coup is that Al Qaeda can point to fierce reactionary bigots like you and say "See American's hate Muslims and it really is a holy war!"

I guess you missed that not so subtle point when I made it AND when the author did. Your reaction and those like yours are playing right into their hands.

I honestly don't give a rip if it gets built or not, there or elsewhere. I guess the Imam should have been more aware that we have a sizeable number bigoted extremist like you to give Al Qaeda exactly what they want. wat to go man!

Nemo said...

sean, what have I ever said that makes me a "bigoted extremist"?

3 Weeks, 6 Days, 9 Hours

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo, you've painted a voluminous swath of extremist rhetoric ever since you emerged on the blogs. You and your cohort over at Free Racine have gone to great pains to demonize the people who want to build the mosque and to paint with a broad brush the entirety of islamic people with the actions of a few. That is bigotry. Have a nice day now.

Nemo said...

It used to be called "speaking truth to power". It used to be virtuous to point out injustice. Refusing to remain quiet in the face of evil used to be morally justified. Now it's referred to here as bigotry. Think of changing the name of the blog to Burlington Area Orwellian Progressives.

Thanks for lumping me in with Denis. I'm loving the rhetorical beating he is currently dishing out over at crazy kay's. Heh.

2 Weeks, 6 days, 12 hours :)