Latest Topics

[CrimsoNation713]

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

That's interesting.  The parliamentarian at the time didn't see it that way.  He claimed that tax cuts fell outside the limit of reconciliation; Trent Lott fired him and installed a parliamentarian who ruled differently.

Again--let's not pretend that the Republicans are somehow above twisting the rules for their own benefit. Given the obstructionist attitude of the GOP over the past several years, I'm surprised that the democrats haven't used it more often.

They all suck JT.

[NextYearIsHere]

nova, on 06 April 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

So I take it you're in the camp that can't read the plain language of the first amendment?

Or are you in the related camp that thinks you forfeit your speech rights by excercising your assembly rights?

Inquiring minds would like to know the answer...

Funneling an unlimited, unaccounted for mountain of money to a political candidate is just like yelling "Fire" in a movie theater, both are not covered as freedom of speech. If you want to give millions to a candidate, fine. But it should be accountable and regulated. Otherwise our politicians are all going to be in the pocket of the biggest lobbyist group.

Sorry, but the White House should not be a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon-Modible/ Bristol-Myers Squibb

KneesInTheBreeze, on 06 April 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

This Socialist prick is a Chavez wannabee.

You wouldn't know a real socialist if he punched you in the face

[CrimsoNation713]

Kind of like it being the "United States of Goldman-Sachs" right now.

[nova]

NextYearIsHere, on 09 April 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Funneling an unlimited, unaccounted for mountain of money to a political candidate is just like yelling "Fire" in a movie theater, both are not covered as freedom of speech. If you want to give millions to a candidate, fine. But it should be accountable and regulated. Otherwise our politicians are all going to be in the pocket of the biggest lobbyist group.

If that's your real beef then you should have no issue with the citizens united decision because it had absolutely nothing to do with campaign contribution limits. All it did was remove restrictions on what speech a private entity can engage in and when. When the solicitor general answers the question "can this law be used to block publication of a political pamphlet" in the affirmative you know said law isn't long for this world...

Secondarily I disagree with your contention that spending money on political advocacy is the equivalent of the harmful lie that is fire in a crowded theater. The very idea is ridiculous on several different levels.

Edited by nova, 09 April 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Haymaker]

nova, on 09 April 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

If that's your real beef then you should have no issue with the citizens united decision because it had absolutely nothing to do with campaign contribution limits. All it did was remove restrictions on what speech a private entity can engage in and when. When the solicitor general answers the question "can this law be used to block publication of a political pamphlet" in the affirmative you know said law isn't long for this world...

Secondarily I disagree with your contention that spending money on political advocacy is the equivalent of the harmful lie that is fire in a crowded theater. The very idea is ridiculous on several different levels.

no shit huh? dude is in his own pink world

[nova]

Haymaker, on 10 April 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

no shit huh? dude is in his own pink world

It's another one of those funny things.  The left in this country had no problem with unions and other groups that support their causes spending massive amounts on independent political advocacy.  It was only when people that did not support them wanted a say that they had a shit fit and tried to squash it.

Using the law to squash people that disagree with you is exactly the sort of thing that the BoR is designed to protect us against.

Edited by nova, 10 April 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[NextYearIsHere]

nova, on 09 April 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

If that's your real beef then you should have no issue with the citizens united decision because it had absolutely nothing to do with campaign contribution limits. All it did was remove restrictions on what speech a private entity can engage in and when. When the solicitor general answers the question "can this law be used to block publication of a political pamphlet" in the affirmative you know said law isn't long for this world...

Secondarily I disagree with your contention that spending money on political advocacy is the equivalent of the harmful lie that is fire in a crowded theater. The very idea is ridiculous on several different levels.

I have no beef with political pamphlets, but corporations are not people and should not be allowed to give hundreds of millions to super-PAC's without any accountability or regulation.

nova, on 10 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

It's another one of those funny things.  The left in this country had no problem with unions and other groups that support their causes spending massive amounts on independent political advocacy.  It was only when people that did not support them wanted a say that they had a shit fit and tried to squash it.

Using the law to squash people that disagree with you is exactly the sort of thing that the BoR is designed to protect us against.

Good job trying to frame the issue in a false light. I am just as against a union buying a candidate as I am Exxon doing so. If a cop or teacher want to give $100 to a campaign, fine. If a Wall Street trader or oil baron want to give $500,000, that is fine by me too. But people have a right to see who and where that money is coming from. Right now, a Saudi price could funnel millions into a super-PAC to slime a candidate and you and I would never know

[nova]

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

I have no beef with political pamphlets, but corporations are not people and

Corporations are not people but it matters not for the purposes of the first amendment.  You keep rehashing that argument over and over and it's no more correct now than it ever has been.  There is no mention of people or persons or anything else in the first amendment and to read them in when convenient, seriously undermines the protection of our liberties in ways I don't think you fully comprehend.

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

should not be allowed to give hundreds of millions to super-PAC's without any accountability or regulation.

Anonymous policitical speech has a long and storied history in this country and has helped us far more than it has ever hurt.  Anonyminity allows you to speak your mind without being subject to political and legal intimidation.  Ohhh, so you funded ads that weren't favorable to me, guess it's time for my congressional comittee to investigate you long and hard.  Maybe haul you in front of congress and intimidate you Mr. CEO.

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Good job trying to frame the issue in a false light. I am just as against a union buying a candidate as I am Exxon doing so. If a cop or teacher want to give $100 to a campaign, fine. If a Wall Street trader or oil baron want to give $500,000, that is fine by me too. But people have a right to see who and where that money is coming from.

You're oh so right except for being completely and utterly wrong.  Nothing we're discussing has anything to do with donations to campaigns or parties.  Donations to campaigns and parties by corps are still just as illegal as they've always been.  Quit muddying the issue up.

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Right now, a Saudi price could funnel millions into a super-PAC to slime a candidate and you and I would never know

What exactly do you have against information?  If the information being presented is factually correct, WTF exactly do you care who's paying for it?  If it's not factually correct, you've got a pretty good case to get it shut down now don't you, since lies really aren't protected speech.

And the answer to the second question is you really don't.  What you really have an issue with is the fact that somebody period is paying for the information to be put out in public.  Specifically information that's probably just not favorable to your line of thinking...

Edited by nova, 10 April 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[NextYearIsHere]

nova, on 10 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Corporations are not people but it matters not for the purposes of the first amendment.  You keep rehashing that argument over and over and it's no more correct now than it ever has been.  There is no mention of people or persons or anything else in the first amendment and to read them in when convenient, seriously undermines the protection of our liberties in ways I don't think you fully comprehend.



Anonymous policitical speech has a long and storied history in this country and has helped us far more than it has ever hurt.  Anonyminity allows you to speak your mind without being subject to political and legal intimidation.  Ohhh, so you funded ads that weren't favorable to me, guess it's time for my congressional comittee to investigate you long and hard.  Maybe haul you in front of congress and intimidate you Mr. CEO.



You're oh so right except for being completely and utterly wrong.  Nothing we're discussing has anything to do with donations to campaigns or parties.  Donations to campaigns and parties by corps are still just as illegal as they've always been.  Quit muddying the issue up.



What exactly do you have against information?  If the information being presented is factually correct, WTF exactly do you care who's paying for it?  If it's not factually correct, you've got a pretty good case to get it shut down now don't you, since lies really aren't protected speech.

And the answer to the second question is you really don't.  What you really have an issue with is the fact that somebody period is paying for the information to be put out in public.  Specifically information that's probably just not favorable to your line of thinking...

Getting ready to head out so a longer rebuttal will have to wait, but democracy dies when oligarchs can buy what they need from a candidate. We already live in a time of whisper campaigns, swift boating, and Rove-ain tactics and now we will have lobbying to an unlimited degree. The will of the people is silenced when 1 man can donate more than 150 million people can and you know it

Edited by NextYearIsHere, 10 April 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[nova]

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Getting ready to head out so a longer rebuttal will have to wait, but democracy dies when oligarchs can buy what they need from a candidate.

It's not much of a democracy when the .gov gets to decide who can speak and when and about what now is it.  Oh yes comrade you have total freedom of speech.  You can say anything you want as long as it supports the party.  Isn't freedom great comrade?

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

We already live in a time of whisper campaigns, swift boating, and Rove-ain tactics

Variations of which have been going on forever.  Don't be so naive as to think these are recent inventions in politics.  Ever since Washington went back to Mt. Vernon, politics has been a dirty dirty business in this country.

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

and now we will have lobbying to an unlimited degree.

Again, what we're discussing has nothing to do with lobbying.  Citizens United changed nothing about the lobbying laws and regulations.  All it did was invalidate the portion of McCain-Feingold that said third party political advocacy efforts could not mention a candidate by name within 60 days of an election.  That's it.  Nothing more.  

And the only way people get to be anonymous in donating to these PACs is if the PAC is a 501©4, a non-profit who's primary purpose cannot be political advocacy.  That's a status that can be challenged if you think the terms are being violated.

NextYearIsHere, on 10 April 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

The will of the people is silenced when 1 man can donate more than 150 million people can and you know it

And you know that what you're really concerned with is that finally after 80 years the virtual monopoly on mass speech that the left has had from the media, labor unions and other groups is being challenged.  No longer can a left wing politician just say something and have it be accepted as gospel truth because it gets repeated 10,000 times without challenge.