homeless people exist.Does their existence cramp any poster’s living style?IMO the “haters of conservatives” have no respect for “rights” for anyone above their own income level.-America has always been the Land of Opportunity and people want to live here so much they come illegally over our borders. The “Opportunity” is for historical poor immigrants working and succeeding and at least their children have more education and a better lifestyle than they would have had if the parents stayed in the land where they were born!-The richest Americans have no more duty to help the poor than any of us who have enough to provide homes and necessities with a little left over. That is why we have organizations working with the poor that we can all donate to.Government programs certainly have not been the answer, they are part of the problem of keeping people poor.-And politics and support of conservative organizations are important and no one should be limited in choosing which ones to help and which ones to refuse to help elect the wrong candidates. (Democrats and Liberals that got us into this miserable economy
Typical liberal deception. The court did NOT change the limit, $2,600.00, that any person can give to a candidate, or the amount a person can give to a political party $32,400. What they decided was that the maximum limit of contributions violated the 1st amendment by limiting the number of candidates a person can donate to.
According to the previous law it was like saying you can only comment on 5 websites. The SCOTUS said you can comment on all the websites you want, you’re still limited to x number of characters per site.
Many who are concerned about the implications of this ruling (and the previous “Citizens United” ruling) don’t understand what the Court really said. For a long time, I didn’t either. The court didn’t give corporations a new civil right to free speech. That would have been too easy to remedy with a constitutional amendment. The Court was really protecting our right as citizens to hear the speech. That is, our right to hear all the misinformation money can buy. See? It’s all good.
The people trying to repeal “corporate person-hood” should re-read the decision. It’s not going to be that easy… if a constitutional amendment can be called “easy” anyway.
I often wish I had a “Twilight Zone” power that would insert some people for just one week into the role of a homeless person. Having been involved for several years in Catholic Charities work, I am saddened by the extreme disdain many people have for the poor and disadvantaged, as if they deserve to be punished..I am also amazed at the increasing worship we have for rich people which, I suspect is purposely crafted and fed by their PR consultants. It’s as if well-off people know that really bad times are coming and are grabbing as much as they while they can. Does anyone still take the lesson from the parable of Dives and Lazarus?
And, they are going to keep right on doing it until we stop them. We are the 99%—- that means we have the votes to elect people who will actually represent middle class workers and provide a safety net for those who are trying to get into the middle class.We all need to know who is supporting the candidates. That is who they will be working for. They have no choice if they want to stay in office. You have to do the bidding of whoever is paying your way, just the same as we all do in our jobs. So, before going to vote, look it up on the internet. Open Secrets is a good site, but there are plenty. If the candidate is getting their money from small donors or from unions, they are going to be working for middle class working people. If their donations are from corporations or from 1%ers, don’t figure they are going to go against them and do anything for the middle class.It would be political suicide.
cmsears about 10 years ago
this strip says it as it is!
braindead Premium Member about 10 years ago
Obviously, if those people had any initiative, they would go out and inherit a billion dollar business.
kline0800 about 10 years ago
homeless people exist.Does their existence cramp any poster’s living style?IMO the “haters of conservatives” have no respect for “rights” for anyone above their own income level.-America has always been the Land of Opportunity and people want to live here so much they come illegally over our borders. The “Opportunity” is for historical poor immigrants working and succeeding and at least their children have more education and a better lifestyle than they would have had if the parents stayed in the land where they were born!-The richest Americans have no more duty to help the poor than any of us who have enough to provide homes and necessities with a little left over. That is why we have organizations working with the poor that we can all donate to.Government programs certainly have not been the answer, they are part of the problem of keeping people poor.-And politics and support of conservative organizations are important and no one should be limited in choosing which ones to help and which ones to refuse to help elect the wrong candidates. (Democrats and Liberals that got us into this miserable economy
pstier01 about 10 years ago
Typical liberal deception. The court did NOT change the limit, $2,600.00, that any person can give to a candidate, or the amount a person can give to a political party $32,400. What they decided was that the maximum limit of contributions violated the 1st amendment by limiting the number of candidates a person can donate to.
According to the previous law it was like saying you can only comment on 5 websites. The SCOTUS said you can comment on all the websites you want, you’re still limited to x number of characters per site.
Jeff1159 about 10 years ago
excuse me I have to sneaze….. a…..a……..a………….bananarepublic.
hippogriff about 10 years ago
The way to end corruption: bribery is no longer a crime.
mdblanche about 10 years ago
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
Anatole France
Yontrop about 10 years ago
Many who are concerned about the implications of this ruling (and the previous “Citizens United” ruling) don’t understand what the Court really said. For a long time, I didn’t either. The court didn’t give corporations a new civil right to free speech. That would have been too easy to remedy with a constitutional amendment. The Court was really protecting our right as citizens to hear the speech. That is, our right to hear all the misinformation money can buy. See? It’s all good.
The people trying to repeal “corporate person-hood” should re-read the decision. It’s not going to be that easy… if a constitutional amendment can be called “easy” anyway.
emptc12 about 10 years ago
I often wish I had a “Twilight Zone” power that would insert some people for just one week into the role of a homeless person. Having been involved for several years in Catholic Charities work, I am saddened by the extreme disdain many people have for the poor and disadvantaged, as if they deserve to be punished..I am also amazed at the increasing worship we have for rich people which, I suspect is purposely crafted and fed by their PR consultants. It’s as if well-off people know that really bad times are coming and are grabbing as much as they while they can. Does anyone still take the lesson from the parable of Dives and Lazarus?
evodevo Premium Member about 10 years ago
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges. Anatole France
Diane Lee Premium Member about 10 years ago
No New Wars almost 10 years ago
Is homelessness really an issue in USA? (As opposed to the tradition of bums on railways.)