Secrets of the City

Matt was an intern for Senator Dayton. He got paid.

I already live in the 6th, so I am already Bachmann’s bitch.

Mein gott, in the head, please! Mein gott!

Or am I her boss???

Wait a minute…

Yeah, but after six months, that intern is going to be a fabulous employee and is going to go on a trajectory where he’s going to be making so much money, we’ll be borrowing money from him.

By the way, I accidentally dropped the second ‘n’. In her name, so I’m sorry.

By the way, I accidentally dropped the second ‘n’. In her name, so I’m sorry.

Okay, seriously, I’m having a bad grammar/spelling day. Hooray for midterms!

Matt was an intern for Senator Dayton. He got paid.

That seems fair since Dayton bought his senate seat.

Is there some other way of obtaining them that I’m not aware of? Or do you mean literally, as in, it was purchased from whoever owns it? I’m sorry maz, you’ll really need to further explain this particular conspiracy theory.

Maz is so distraught over the death of Thomas Eagleton that he’s become delusional over how elections are won.

That seems fair since Dayton bought his senate seat.

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

Wait, he didn’t take a salary and he paid his interns?

The nerve!

MNspeak looks so silly in Google Reader for mobiles.

Before we poke any more fun, let’s thank Michele Bachmann for her conservation efforts, at the very least. Her environmental stance may not be great, but she does so much work to carry the torch and propogate the common loon.

Wait, he didn’t take a salary and he paid his interns?

The nerve!

You’re right. After dropping 12 million bucks to “win” that seat, his banker was wondering where he’d get the money to pay his huge pharma bill.

Maz, do you think it is any less ethical or noble to pay for a campaign oneself than to peddle influence or shake down big business/labor/whomever for the money?

You’re right. After dropping 12 million bucks to “win” that seat, his banker was wondering where he’d get the money to pay his huge pharma bill.

You do know that poor people don’t get elected to congress anymore, don’t you?

Yeah. But most politicians, even rich ones don’t use their own money. It’s considered buying your seat if you do. It’s especially tacky if the source of your fortune if from the sweat of your daddy’s brow and not your own. Ask your poli-sci professor about it.

Besides Bixby, my congressperson isn’t rich. Ironically, the last real job she had was as a clerk at a Dayton’s department store. heh

Yeah. But most politicians, even rich ones don’t use their own money. It’s considered buying your seat if you do.

No, they just use their rich friends’ money.

It’s especially tacky if the source of your fortune if from the sweat of your daddy’s brow and not your own. Ask your poli-sci professor about it.

Should I also ask my prof. if it is tacky if the source is from the sweat of your daddy’s brow that is from the sweat of his daddy’s?

Ok. Just to clarify. You do think it is more noble to peddle influence than to self-finance?

The pol-sci prof I had in college would vehemently disagree, and actually quit politics because of that very issue.

I think it speaks volumes when you get elected through the help of thousands of $1,000 donations. That being said, I opposed the McCain-Feingold bill on principle. I don’t think there should be any limit on the amount of money a person receives for their campaign or from any one person and that any law that restricts this is a violation of the first amendment. And I’m not alone in this. When Eugene McCarthy ran for president back in 1968, he was bankrolled by basically two rich guys. In his later years he defended it under the same first amendment argument.

I think it speaks volumes when you get elected through the help of thousands of $1,000 donations.

And wouldn’t it be nifty if that’s how campaigns were actually financed, instead of selling influence to big oil/big pharma/Haliburton/the NRA/tobacco companies/labor unions/lawyers/the AMA/whomever the highest bidder? Seriously. Wouldn’t that be nice?

I don’t think there should be any limit on the amount of money a person receives for their campaign or from any one person and that any law that restricts this is a violation of the first amendment.

Unless the money comes from your own or your family’s wealth?

When Eugene McCarthy ran for president back in 1968, he was bankrolled by basically two rich guys. In his later years he defended it under the same first amendment argument.

As opposed to Dayton who was bankrolled by basically one rich guy (dad) and one rich woman (mom)?

I don’t think self-financing should be illegal. I just think it’s tacky and screams desperation.

Yeah, zenrhino pretty much covered everything in that last post.

I just think it’s tacky and screams desperation.

That’s pretty much the state of national politics in general.

What’s tacky or desperate about saying, “I believe in public service so much that I’m willing to spend millions of my own dollars to try to make America a better place?”

And how is that more tacky than saying, “I want a seat in the Senate and I want it so badly that I will in essense sell my votes in the Senate to whomever will finance my campaign?”

Would it be equally tacky to be elected but to have been held forth as a candidate only because of the “brow sweat” of one’s father and grandfather? I think we can easily find a few good examples of that.

I love it when rich guys pour tons of money into their own campagns … and then lose. Makes my day, regardless of party.

What’s tacky or desperate about saying, “I believe in public service so much that I’m willing to spend millions of my own dollars to try to make America a better place?”

The fact that no one would believe you. There are many more ways to perform public service with millions of dollars than to buy TV ads electing you to a body where you are only one of 100 and have no power to change anything to speak of. What piece of legislation or law did Paul Wellstone ever get passed?

Contrary to popular belief, people can’t be influenced by a campaign contribution, even democrats. People do get elected by representing the views of people whom they agree with who then donate to the campaign to help them get elected. That happens. Tim Penny would disagree with your charge, I’m sure.

And those presidents you mention certainly had an advantage over their opponents. But they still had to get elected by a majority of the people voting.

I agree, Maz. It is pretty funny. I also think a candidate should be able to receive as much many from any source as possible. I think it would broaden the candidate pool and we wouldn’t have to accept “presumed” candidates like Clinton or Guiliani.

many=money

Ignoring the various and sundry strawmen (and there are a few in there), let’s hit the high points.

I think plenty of people believed Dayton. Enough to get him elected. And Mike Bloomberg and John Edwards and a few others, I’m sure.

Are you seriously saying that politicians can’t be swayed by campaign money? Even the most cursory google search shows clear examples otherwise. (And if you like I’m sure we can find examples that excoriate the Dems just as easily) But wouldn’t it be nice? While we’re dreaming, I’d like a pony.

If candidates got elected by representing their constituencies then there would be no out-of-district money coming in. And again, it would be nice if that were the case. It would be really great if the elections were truly for and by and financed through the people in the district. And if you want to work to make that a reality, please have at. Let me know your plan, because I’ll dig in right next to you and help.

I agree totally with the notion to make contributions from the district (for congress) or state (for u.s. senate) only. But such a rule would also be in violation of the first amendment I’m afraid, so it would have to be strongly encouraged and any politico who violated the spirit of the “rule” would be severely criticized in the press (ha!, never happen) to discourage them from doing it. When Wellstone was sneaking out to Hollywood to attend fundraisers for him at the homes of rich liberals, it was only printed in the conservative press. We’d need more honesty from the press for it to work (ha!).

Dems get by on their interest groups, which balance the public interest against the extremely more powerful private interests.

Repubs=money, and money already gets its way so why elect a Repub?

Dayton’s inheritance, which he practically used up on his senate seat, is a little different than either. It was money he chose to use up to serve his country, rather than buying a yacht.

And to drag this back to the topic (and to once again deftly avoid the strawmen), since Dayton self-financed that means that 100% of the money he spent came from his home district, which in your above post, you say you totally agree with.

Yay, zenrhino!

Can I work for Bachmann without being baptized? Will she drag me down to the river and do it herself? God, that would kill on YouTube.

I hope you all saw Lizz Winstead’s post on Bachmann at the Huffington Post.

It was money he chose to use up to serve his country, rather than buying a yacht.

Yeah, I suppose spending his dad’s money to buy a senate seat is a little more honorable than spending the money that your wife inherited from her dead republican husband like John Kerry did. I mean, I think the Dayton brothers were democrats at least.

I’m just hoping she decides to make out with Condi Rice next time.

Now THAT would kill on YouTube.

I’m waiting for the threesome: Joe Lieberman, Michele Bachmann and George W. Bush. As Paris Hilton would say, “That’s hot.”

I hope you all saw Lizz Winstead’s post on Bachmann at the Huffington Post.

Yeah, those filthy rich hollywood liberals sure know how to ridicule the religious rubes, don’t they? They’re hilarious! And so classy too.

Classy like Ann Coulter?

Maz, I just re-read the article and couldn’t find any references to Bachmann’s religion. Could you point that out because I must have missed it.

No, the comments don’t count because those people might not be filthy-rich Hollywood liberals.

I opposed the McCain-Feingold bill on principle. I don’t think there should be any limit on the amount of money a person receives for their campaign or from any one person and that any law that restricts this is a violation of the first amendment.

I’ve always thought this was a shoddy (albeit common) reading of the first ammendment. Unlimited campaign contributions are no more protected by the first ammendment than bribery is. Can Maz quote the part of the first ammendment that guarantees unlimited campaign contributions.

The solution is of course not that hard. Have public financing of campaigns and limit spending on campaigns to 3 months (or whatever) before the actual election. Elections would be less annoying and we wouldn’t have to have arguements over whether or not someone is a flipflopper or an exaggerater as it would be much more difficult for the opposing party to build a narrative about each candidate. Right now we basically have a mild form of sanctioned bribery. A bit of common sense would make it much better.

Given that the supreme court has already ruled that limits on campaign spending is a violation of free speech, it’s probable that they’d also rule that limits on campaign contributions would be also.

I’m in!

She’s Michele-iscious!

More like Michele-on-earth.

Public financing is nothing more than forcing someone to support (financially) a candidate that they may choose not to support. If the government can’t tell me who to vote for, they can’t tell me who to contribute to.

If the government can’t tell me who to vote for, they can’t tell me who to contribute to.

You already do contribute to the salaries of people you didn’t vote for. We all do.

I’m not saying that public financing is the best fix (I really haven’t thought about it that much) but it seems like it would mitigate many of the problems with the current system.

I’m well aware of the Supreme Court’s opinion on campaign contributions as free speech, but their logic is about as tortured as the Court gets. I’ve never been able to understand how money equals free speech. The constitution protects your right to say whatever you want but it is a strained reading to say it protects your right to collect money to say what you want to the biggest audience money can buy. The latter is anti-democratic in my opinion. Perhaps you can share the logic behind money equalling free speech.

As for public financing forcing you to support a candidate, I don’t understand your logic here either. You are supporting the democratic process not a candidate. It’s like any other tax supporting a government function. Presumably you believe in the government collecting and spending your money in a way that makes the community and the society a better place to live. Public financing of campaigns would make Politics better, fairer, and quite obviously more democratic since my support is suddenly worth as much as the guy with an extra $2000 kicking around. Or perhaps you prefer the anti-democratic psuedo bribery scam we have now in politics.

To Bachmann: Try Ann Coulter if you want help in your office.

You already do contribute to the salaries of people you didn’t vote for. We all do.

Paying their salaries once they’re in the job is not the same as being forced into helping them get that job. Forget public financing. I can tell you right now that this SCOTUS would rule against it. And I would agree with them.

Well kdukart, it’s like this: There’s no limit to political speech. The first amendment doesn’t say that you only get to speak for 60 minutes, then shut up. You can speak for as long as someone is willing to listen to you. Longer even. The soap boax doesn’t have a height restriction, the newspapers don’t have a limit on the number of barrels of ink they can buy, and the political candidate shouldn’t have an artificial limit on his means of speaking either, meaning dollars with which to buy ads.

I oppose public financing because I believe in free markets. The government has no role in deciding winners and losers in the marketplace (telling you to buy coke instead of pepsi) and neither should it have a role in deciding winners and losers in the political arena. Like in any marketplace, the candidate or party who is most worthy deserves your support, financial or otherwise. The government should butt out of the political marketplace the same way it should butt out of any marketplace.

Public Financing is possible as evidenced in Arizona and Maine. It just needs to be an opt in system. You can’t force candidates to take part. The government can however create a matching system that makes private financing a stupid move. Public Financing is certainly a possibility and as with most Progressive ideas, as soon as people try it, they like it. I guarantee the Politicians will love it as it frees up half their week they spend fundraising. What’s not to love? Personally, I’d pay a little for a more responsive Democracy that frees up my congressman to do the people’s work.

The government should butt out of the political marketplace the same way it should butt out of any marketplace.

I’m sorry but this is sort of a comical statement. Do you see any irony in this? You can certainly model politics after the marketplace if you are one of those crazy conservatives who thinks the market knows all but there is no such thing as the politcal marketplace. Politics is government. Government is politics. It makes no sense for the government to keep its nose out of politics. They are one in the same. Funny stuff here.

Your reading of the first ammendment is interesting considering how often conservatives attack liberals for reading whatever they want into the constitution i.e. activist judges. In reality, no one believes in absolute free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater as has been said. But that’s probably even beside the point. By limiting campaign contributions or replacing them with public financing you are not stopping anyone’s free speech. They can still say whatever they want. They simply can’t amplify it. It is quite a strained reason to say the first ammendment protects your right, not only to say what you want, but guarantees a right to spend other people’s money to tell everyone in the nation. As citizens we may well want to grant that right through our lawmakers but to think of it as an unalienable right is a bit bizarre.

Sorry must check out for the night. It’s been fun.

Like in any marketplace, the candidate or party who is most worthy deserves your support, financial or otherwise.

Unless they’re spending their own money in their own expression of free political speech, of course. Because backing up what you believe with your own money is just tacky and desperate.

There are lots of limits on political speech. You can’t run ads on election day. You can’t wear buttons or t-shirts to the polls. Pawlenty can’t do the radio show when he’s on the campaign trail.

Also, the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold. And the Wellstone Amendment attached to it.

You are aware that Lizz Winstead is a native Minnesotan, aren’t you, Maz?

Because backing up what you believe with your own money is just tacky and desperate.

But it’s not illegal.

Politics is government. Government is politics.

Baloney. The state supreme court justices who have to run for election would disagree with you.

In reality, no one believes in absolute free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater as has been said.

The purpose of the first amendment is to protect what? That’s right, political speech. Yelling fire in a theater isn’t political speech.

“The constitution protects your right to say whatever you want but it is a strained reading to say it protects your right to collect money to say what you want to the biggest audience money can buy.“

– - -

It’s in one of those pesky Amendment thingies, separate from the main body, so I can see your confusion:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . “

In our society, to speak to many people, you need to buy the services of the media. If I am free to speak, and to speak as much as I want, to as many people as I want, then to limit my ability to pay for those media services abridges that freedom of speech. If I as a voter want to help Candidate A by helping A spread his message to voters, then to limit my ability to use my money to help get that message out limits my own freedom of speech. It doesn’t say “except, you can’t do it for pay”, or “you can’t collect money for speech.” It says Congress shall (significant word there in the legal world) make no (another one of those big words) law abridging the freedom of speech.

This one wasn’t even hard. If it’s constitutional to limit money in campaigning like this, why couldn’t one party in power decide that no campaign money can be collected from _____ industry (fill in the blank with the other party’s main contributor.)

- – -

In an unrelated point, the unabashed uncivil intolerance for other viewpoints here would be scary, except it’s probably okay because you all know for sure you’re right.
.

The purpose of the first amendment is to protect what? That’s right, political speech.

Well, that and other speech. And, you know, the free expression of religion.

This one wasn’t even hard. If it’s constitutional to limit money in campaigning like this, why couldn’t one party in power decide that no campaign money can be collected from _____ industry (fill in the blank with the other party’s main contributor.)

Actually, the anti-tobacco campaign was cranked up in part to destroy the tobacco industry who was a big contributor to the republican party. This was Bill Clinton’s biggest political accomplishment in my opinion, although he would deny he ever thought of it.

Also, how would the newpaper industry feel if the government tried to limit the number of pages a paper could publish in a given edition?

“Well, that and other speech.“
– - -

No. Not the same. Con caselaw, since the caselaw began, establishes different classifications of speech, and gives them differing levels of protection. Commercial speech gets less protection than most, and political speech get the absolute highest forms of protection.

I should add – it’s all moot, and topical. Two weeks ago, the briefs for all sides were filed for the SC challenge to McCain-Feingold. Watch for “FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life.” Ironically, the law is going to get reviewed in the context of Senator Feingold trying to use it to shut down ads against himself.

It says Congress shall (significant word there in the legal world) make no (another one of those big words) law abridging the freedom of speech.

So if I collect a few million dollars, print up 1 billion flyers and drop them from planes all over the U.S., are you saying congress has no right to prohibit such speech? As a nation, we certainly do have the right to limit how speech and to what extent speech is disseminated. We have determined that certain words are not acceptable and can’t be disseminated. As someone else mentioned we limit campaigning on election day. We limit contributions to a couple grand per year per candidate. I could go on. If “Congress shall (significant word there in the legal world) make no (another one of those big words) law abridging the freedom of speech,” how do you explain all the laws Congress has made that abridge your very broad definition of speech?

how do you explain all the laws Congress has made that abridge your very broad definition of speech?

Do you really think that all the laws that congress has passed are constitutional?

You are aware that Lizz Winstead is a native Minnesotan, aren’t you, Maz?

To be fair, I think we should note that Maz is the most native Minnesotan on this thread. That said, it doesn’t give him a pass when he says crazy stuff like this:

“Actually, the anti-tobacco campaign was cranked up in part to destroy the tobacco industry who was a big contributor to the republican party. This was Bill Clinton’s biggest political accomplishment in my opinion, although he would deny he ever thought of it.”

First, the ALA has been taking on tobacco for more than 50 years. Second, the tobacco companies are equal opportunity contributors to political candidates. Fewer candidates of any stripe will accept tobacco money now, I believe, but former President Clinton is not a factor in any way.

What have you been smoking, maz?

Bob: it’s been 18 months since the sacred native tobacco has touched my lips. When are you guys going to demonize your next religious symbal, like perhaps, communion wine or something. (just kidding)

From the text of the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007, Maz:

“Traditional Native American ceremonies. Sections 144.414 to 144.417 do not prohibit smoking by a Native American as part of a traditional Native American spiritual or cultural ceremony. For purposes of this section, a Native American is a person who is a member of an Indian tribe as defined in section 260.755, subdivision 12.”

Take a good hard look at the last bullet item on this fact sheet, Dennis, and tell me who is wearing the black hat in this western.

“As smoking declined among the white non-Hispanic population, tobacco companies targeted American Indian/Alaskan Natives by funding cultural events such as powwows and rodeos to build its image and credibility in the community.”

What?! That’s outrageous in its falsehood. I attend several powwows every year and I’ve NEVER seen an presence of a tobacco company at them, either overtly or covertly. Total nonsense. Makes you wonder about the veracity of the rest of the stuff on that list.

So you’re saying former Navajo Nation President Albert Hale is a liar?

I have no doubt that this moron thinks he can cash in with a John Edwards-like lawsuit to make some money. All I know is what I’ve seen at the dozens of powwows I’ve been to. They’re paid for by the casinos and/or the tribes, or in some cases like at the Univ of MN, St. Thomas or Macalester, facilities are used via arrangements with their cultural anthropology departments. Tobacco companies are not involved. Period.

This would be like saying that catholic mass services are paid for by wineries to build their image and that alcoholic catholics should sue these wineries for compensation for their addiction.

Furthermore, tobacco companies have bought silence among some of the groups through sponsorship and heavy advertising activities.

The Surgeon Generals Report on Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups notes that the tobacco industrys long history of providing support to some racial/ethnic groups may undermine tobacco prevention and control efforts. The Report lists some of the range of activities and festivals tobacco companies have supported, including: Mexican rodeos, American Indian powwows; racial/ethnic parades and festivals; Chinese New Year festivities; Cinco de Mayo festivities; racial/ethnic minority dance companies; and activities related to Black History Month, Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, and Hispanic Heritage Month.[v] As a result of this kind of support, some communities have come to rely on tobacco companies patronage.

Outrageous lies. And the Pope is in cahoots with Mogan David. When will the wasichu learn that tobacco is a sacred religious symbol in our culture?? We don’t need anyone to coerce us to us it! duh! This borders on racism. I’ll settle for religous ignorance.

Just because you don’t see them, doesn’t mean they are not there, maz. At every hearing on the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007, a tobacco company lobbyist is in the room, usually sitting with Sue Jeffers.

A guy on the tobacco payroll testified against an earlier statewide smoking ban bill without disclosing he had accepted tobacco cash. This group, of which Sue was a prominent member, also took the money.

Settling for ignorance always seems to be your approach.

I try to be kind. Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is for life.

You realize that comments such as those are self-damning, don’t you?

And you have no real history of trying to cure ignorance on this site. I’ve never seen anyone who has so relentlessly been proven to have no possession of facts nonethless feel so secure in the their opinion.

Apparently, whatever damned opinion twitters into Maz’s addled brain must, a priori, be correct, especially if it somehow makes liberals look bad while lionizing conservatives. When faced with evidence that his opinion is entirely manufactured and baseless, Maz will say he’s being oppressed, that liberals are mean, and that there is no tolerance for opposing opinions on MnSpeak, and then will disappear for a week.

It’s so true. Stupidity is for life.

whatever, max. Now go apologize to simpleton.

Bob, you seem to think people act in defense of smokers because of the money. Is anyone paying you for your position? or are you doing what you do purely out of principle?

Sometimes you also respond with jokes. Sorry to forget an important, if delightful, example of your pattern of behavior.

This was Bill Clinton’s biggest political accomplishment in my opinion, although he would deny he ever thought of it.”

I’m going with Trade Normalization with China heavily benefetting Arkansas-based discount retail behemoth Wal-Mart.

I’m going to go with balancing the budget. It seems like such a simple thing, and yet our previous and succeeding Republican presidents have made it clear that fiscal responsibility isn’t a priority.

I guess I stand corrected. There. How’s that?

Great.

One of the reasons we love you here, man.

google George Will and Campaign Finance.

He makes some interesting arguements that will challenge your preconceptions.

if money = free speech, does this mean poor people have lost their right to free speech?

actually wait, duh, it seems to be the case already.

also, shut the fuck up about the ‘free market’
how many times do you have to be told that it doesn’t exist? it’s a fictional and theoretical construct that does not exist in any form in reality, and all the crap you constantly spew justified by the idealized version of reality has no place in actual reality. if you want the closest thing in existence to the free market, check out the arms trade. there’s your precious unregulated capitalism at work.

Russ: contrary to popular opinion (on this site at least), government regulation is not your friend.

Look wayne, the only people who don’t recognize the very form of economy they grew up in, despite an avalanche of evidence everytime they go to their beloved Lunds store and spend a half hour deciding which breakfast cereal to choose from, are those who probably only recently began earning a paycheck. Oh wait …

That’s right, Wayne. Only us oldn’s know enough about this here economy what we got on to comment on it, y’hear! Never mind that the very same cereal Maz is talking about is heavily subsidized in every step of its production by the government. It’s a durn free market!

If it weren’t a free market, your choice of breakfast cereal would be Karl’s Krispies and … that’s it.

Oh, I see. So a free market is however you define it, and not how economists define it. Well, then, yes, your right. It’s a free market. And trees are actually unicorns.

It is all about choice, max.

and I’m the pope!

well, let’s be realistic. Archbishop maybe.

Sorry maz, you never really have complete freedom of choice in the marketplace. All goods of a type are not equal and interchangable. And investors are not always rational (actually they seem to be getting less so these days).

It’s a goddamned fairy tale. Most people stop believing in those when they get older.

That would explain the Mogen David in the fridge.

God I feel sorry for people who would rather believe the lies of their leftist professors than their own eyes and personal experiences. But, that’s why the left preys on the young. They’re stupid. (oops, I suppose I shouldn’t have been so mean)

I was a religious studies major, in the classics department. Not exaction a bastion of liberalism.

God I feel sorry for people who would rather beleive in the lies of their rightwing news commentators than their own brain and common sense. But, that’s why the right preys on the old. They’re senile (oops, I suppose I shouldn’t have been so mean)

The archbishop is a flaming liberal.

Archbishop Harry Flynn?

The right doesn’t prey on the old. The right is the old. And experienced. My views on economics are based on working in the private sector for over 40 years, including starting two businesses. My views on parenting, youth and culture are based on raising two kids to successful adulthood. My views on national defense are based on having served 8 years in the submarine service. etc.

Now you give me some personal examples or life experiences that support your views. (hope that wasn’t too mean)

Yup, old Harry Flynn wrote an op-ed piece a while back strongly suggesting that the state raise income taxes.

Just because you’ve managed to create a life for yourself that reinforces your biases doesn’t mean the biases are correct.

Imagine that, a christian that believes in helping the less fortunate? Blasphemer! Christianity is all about putting money in the collection plate and hating fags and arabs so God will make you rich! Jesus had a machine gun and a dixie flag on his pickup!

Experience can’t compensate for being totally fucking insane, unfortunately. Plus it’s possible to have lots of experiences and never learn the right lesson from them. Especially if you’re crazy.

Jesus never advocated for government programs. Christians are supposed to help the less fortunate through personal acts of kindness and charity, not government edicts. Harry Flynn abdictated the church’s responsibility to the government. Jesus would not have approved.

Jesus never rejected government programs either, Maz.

But, that’s why the left preys on the young.

You seem to have “the left” confused with “Catholic priests.”

Chuck ought to put together a “Max & Maz Show” for the vlogsphere & Public Access TV. Sure to be a reliable source of comdey conflict and consternation. I nominate Bobby B as moderator.

Or Mark Foley.

Er, not as moderator.

can I play too?

Wayne’s harder core than I am.

Speaking of public access, I’m told that I am on an episode (#40) of “I on Minneapolis,” talking about — that which we shall not name — filmed almost a year ago at the Stadium Village Marriot. Anyone seen it? I haven’t. Always makes me nervious to film in front of a green screen. You never know what will end up over your shoulder.

I’m a hard core surrounded by soft nougaty goodness.

Wayne and Max versus Maz. Yeah, I suppose that’s fair.

Maz vs. himself proves amusing daily on MNSpeak.

I think you mean Wayne and Premack Award-winning journalist Max vs maz.

maz can have bud jr. just for extra WTFage.

I asked Maz and others “how do you explain all the laws Congress has made that abridge your very broad definition of speech?”

This was the reply, “Do you really think that all the laws that congress has passed are constitutional?”

I’m not very satisfied, so I’ll ask a direct question. Do you think the constitution protects the following forms of speech and why or why not:

I collect a few million dollars, print up 1 billion flyers and drop them from planes all over the U.S.

I sign a contract with Steve Jobs that I will replace all government computers with Macs if elected President in exchange for a one million dollar donation to my campaign.

I yell “Bush for President” over and over again at a city council meeting disrupting the event for a couple hours.

Being new to the board, I’m starting to get the idea that Maz is sort of the board jester. Perhaps he’ll prove me wrong.

he’s like a bill o’reilly that can’t cut your mic

like an ann coulter that ate a sammich

like a stephen colbert that’s not being ironic

Wayne’s on a roll. Jason’s on hiatus. I’m climbing a tower Saturday.

Later, I’ll offer some ways MNspeakers can can make a nearly fifty, overweight duffus with asthma suffer. If I get $60 in pledges, I’ll climb the whole damn whole thing. I’ll repeat my challenge to my MNspeak family, live, on WCCO-AM at 7:35 a.m.

Bob, you do it all (picture at the top, natch) and I’ll kick in $60 on top of whatever the MNSpeakers (MNSpeakites? MNSpeakae? Surely there has to be a better word than MNSpeakers. Maybe an award-winning journalist or two can help out here?) send you.

Damn.

Oh, well, I made the the bet, so it’s a deal, zenrhino, and thank you. I will post the photo, if I survive. If not, that figure lying in the stairwell is me.

What the heck was I thinking?

Attention everyone:

Today, I am no longer a presumed DFL’er. I went to my party caucus tonight to voice my concern as being a citizen of Saint Paul; apparently, I was shut out by the powers that be, as well as the elite members of the party that did not want to push forward on original resolutions that I proposed at the meeting. Yet, I was indeed being used as a guinea pig and my independent voice from the third party perspective was strongly been hijacked by obsolete snobs and dishonest intellectuals within the caucus ranks for which the DFL in this state are more concern with party image than self-moral conscious among the general voting public. To that reason whatsoever, I simply made a clear mistake for even joining the DFL, roughly due to blind faith and disillusion with their politics. Hence, the DFL is no more better than the neo-cons within the GOP and I strongly disavowed any involvement the DFL’s presumed activities in the near future; I refused to endorse any candidate to public office or give them any contribution money as well. Therefore, the DFL, in contrast to the national party in Washington D.C., is a lost cause and thus, they cannot be trusted to enact the process in a true democratic representation of our government. And yet, this is why I became a libertarian than a liberal or a social conservative in my view as a young voter.

FYI: Hence, I formally resign my loyalty with the DFL for good reasons since I cannot fight my passion with the current issues that agree with me and my own political philosophy, which is in contrast against them. These people however do not LIKE anyone from the third party and they will discriminate you, based on your own political beliefs and personal righteous. Yet, I strongly urge everyone not to joined the DFL or the other mainstream party because none of them have any true ideas for the sake of our future. The two parties in this state are a damn joke and neither of them serves the public interests.

Uh, who shot who in the what now?

if you’ve gone libertarian then the dfl party probably didn’t offer you much to begin with.

I don’t think I even belong to a political party anymore. That makes me independent, right?

ps, political parties ruined politics anyway

Money does not in any way equal the freedom of speech as our forefathers saw freedom of speech. Money as free political speech is a perversion that came along afterwards.