Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 49141 - 49160 of total 52597 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 17, 2014 - 07:22pm PT
No, John

We all already are very aware that you agree with citizens

What I would like to read is you personally advocating against Citizens

we both went to law school, John...

pretend you were appointed the attorney to ready and present the case against.....

why am I asking this?

because I just would like to believe that you are capable of forming opinion first without bias
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Jan 17, 2014 - 07:57pm PT
Whether or not correctly decided Citizens has had a massive and unprecedented effect on our politics. Even pre-Citizens I've never bought into the "spending money = speech" argument. How can it be that having more money equals more "free speech" if we all have the same rights? If that is in fact what the first amendment requires then it should be amended. I know I am in the minority but I think the first amendment is read far too broadly.
Byran

climber
San Jose, CA
Jan 17, 2014 - 08:06pm PT
Corporate campaign contributions are not a matter of freedom of speech. They are bribes paid to the candidates, which are then repaid as special considerations after he/she wins the election.

For example,

Three of the top five campaign contributors to John McCain in 2008 were:
Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co

Now you could say that these banks are just trying to get the word out about their boy McCain, about how great a president he'll be and how you should vote for him. It's freedom of speech and all that, right? Wrong! They don't give a fuk what McCain does with the money, and they don't give a fuk if he wins the election. How do we know? Well because...

Three of the top five campaign contributors to Barrack Obama in 2008 were:
Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co

It's a bribe, plain and simple.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 17, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
Rush Limbaugh should be throwing a sh#t fit with a Supreme court justice having the final say on Citizens United but since it was a conservative appointee making the call and benefitting Rush's sponsors , he'll take the 5th...
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 17, 2014 - 08:26pm PT
as a general rule, republitards are shameless, baffling, and out of touch with reality…


Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 17, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
Credit: Cheesegraphs
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Credit: cockroach in amber
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 17, 2014 - 10:09pm PT
Norton, as a civil libertarian from way back (I was even [gasp] an ACLU member until they decided that enumerated civil liberties took a back seat to liberal politics) I would refuse to represent the side trying to uphold McCain-Feingold.

If I were writing a law school exam asked to discuss its constitutionality (before the Citizens United decision) I would certainly discuss (but ultimately demolish) the following arguments:

1. Paying money to air a campaign ad is not speech. This has no merit whatsoever, though, because even commercial messages have been recognized as "commercial speech" almost from the beginning. If nothing else, the holding in Bates v. State Bar recognized advertising as speech, protected by the First Amendment. (For the non-lawyers, Bates overturned an Arizona ban on lawyer advertising on First Amendment grounds).

2. McCain-Feingold constitutes a reasonable time, place or manner restriction. The right to free speech does not imply a right to say anything anywhere. In particular, the government has a right to prohibit actions that interfere with the intended use of public spaces. For example, it does not violate the First Amendment to ban speaking in the middle of a roadway, or to prohibit a sound truck from passing through a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night with its speakers blaring.

The problem with this argument, however, is that McCain-Feingold attempts to limit information transmission to prevent its content from being heard, but information transmission's object is to transmit content. I am aware of no case upholding content restrictions on time, place or manner grounds.

3. McCain-Feingold is a justified regulation of the election process, whose fairness is foundational to a free society. While this has a do-gooder appeal, First Amendment jurisprudence has rejected it at every possible instance, except for sedition during wartime, and even then, decisions since at least the 1920's -- and continuously since -- have rejected even the sedition notion of speech restriction.

Because each of the above arguments are non-starters, the dissent was forced to rely on the argument articulated, viz.

4. Freedom of speech is an individual right. The Constitution does not grant that right to corporations, but only to individuals. It is clear that the framers of the Constitution could not have contemplated the sorts of corporations, with the control of enormous amounts of money, that exist today. The amounts of money in control of corporations can dwarf resources available to individuals, making the individual right of free expression, which is the core of the First Amendment, meaningless. In any case, the text of the Constitution mentions only the words "freedom of speech" without defining whose speech. Corporations are not individuals and do not have the rights of individuals. McCain-Feingold properly limits the influence of these non-individuals to guaranty meaningful freedom of speech to the individuals, to whom it belongs. Invalidating McCain-Feingold on First Amendment grounds would extend protections to corporations that were never in existence before and upset centuries of precedent.

As I've stated ad nauseum, though, that reasoning suffers from the following flaws:

1. It limits the abilities of people to pool their resources to disseminate their ideas. Since Constitutional jurisprudence has long respected freedom of association, this argument, in effect, nullifies that freedom.

2. It has already been rejected, sub silencio for at least 50 years in the First Amendment context. As Justice Brennan stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan First Amendment jurisprudence respects "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.. ." upholding the freedom of the press of a corporation.

3. It proves too much. If corporations have no First Amendment rights because they are not parties the Constitution intended to protect, do they then lack, say, Fifth Amendment rights against takings without due process and just compensation, Fourteenth Amendment rights, etc.? Not even the dissent would go that far.

I'm sorry, Norton, but the debate on Citizens United has been so intellectually one-sided, I cannot pretend that the dissent is anything but a naked attempt to silence a political faction. As soon as we give the government the power to determine who can and cannot disseminate messages intended to influence elections, we've given up any meaningful freedom of speech, and repealed the First Amendment protection.

John

Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 18, 2014 - 11:36am PT
I thought dems wanted to grow government?
I thought republitards wanted to shrink government?







 red states are bringing this country down. They need to secede…..
rSin

Trad climber
calif
Jan 20, 2014 - 08:25am PT
Cancer is Capitalist Violence
by BRIAN McKENNA


It’s been two decades since the publication of Martha Balsham’s landmark study, “Cancer in the Community: Class and Medical Authority (1993).” Balshem, a hospital-based anthropologist, documented how a Philadelphia “lay community” rejected medical advice to stop smoking, eat fruits and vegetables and schedule regular screening tests. The working class community of Tannerstown (a pseudonym) instead blamed air pollution from highway traffic and nearby chemical plants, as well as fate, for their cancers.

“Why did the dog get cancer?” a resident protested, “The dog didn’t smoke [or] eat an improper diet.”



http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/15/cancer-is-capitalist-violence/
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jan 20, 2014 - 08:30am PT
"What is no longer debatable is the body of evidence in intelligence channels that groups directly linked to core-al Qaeda in Pakistan have been coordinating operations with each other across North Africa and that the Benghazi attack is Exhibit A, according to ABC News intelligence sources and government reports."




nghazi-al-qaeda-dead-americans-emerging-threat-212302320--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=AwrTcdOZTt1SFX0ArBEPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Jan 20, 2014 - 11:20pm PT
Credit: philo
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2014 - 09:48am PT
Note to Conservatives and the Media: Most of Us Still Don't Give a Sh#t About Benghazi:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

It's getting sad, really. There's Lindsey Graham, in a familiar position, on his knees in front of Benghazi, whose got his pants down. Graham is desperately trying to get Benghazi hard, just sucking and jerking, trying to get Benghazi's flaccid c*#k to have some lift off. Over in the corner, Hillary Clinton's Presidential Ambition is getting bored. Sure, the Right-Wing Conspiracy locked her in this room with Benghazi, promising that he'll f*#k HCPA in the ass at some point, but there's been nothing, even after months and months and months of one conservative lawmaker or pundit coming in here, with Darrell Issa massaging Benghazi's balls, Sean Hannity offering vigorous analingus and a prostate fingering, and Marco Rubio showing him Libyan porn (which Ted Cruz ended up jacking off to). The best Benghazi's managed is a half-hearted barely-semi-erection back at the end of 2012. Now Lindsey Graham has told everyone to step aside, and he's gonna show how you get a dick throbbing. HCPA just rolls her eyes, biding her time.

Dear, sweet Republicans and Fox "news," truly, really, speaking for the vast majority of the nation that doesn't watch Bill O'Reilly after dinner or listen to Rush Limbaugh while driving or have Glenn Beck on in the background while boning a blow-up doll, we don't give a happy monkey f*#k about Benghazi. Beyond "Man, that was a bad thing that happened. Let's try to stop it from happening again," there is nothing there. No cover-up. No one had any heads up. There were a few tragic errors in judgment on security that, had they not been made, might have prevented sh#t from going south. That's it. If you read the actual Senate intelligence Committee report, what comes through is the dude who f*#ked up a great deal on boosting security was Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the attack on the consulate. He was asked repeatedly if he needed more military in Benghazi, and he declined. Sorry if that f*#ks up the fun narrative, but truth will do that every time.

Desperately trying to damage Hillary Clinton pre-2016, especially now that Macy's balloon Chris Christie has been punctured, conservatives are out in force, trying to pin the blame for the attack on Clinton, even though the report does nothing of the sort. Besides the completely nonsensical comparison between Christie's bridge problem and Benghazi, we have every other Republican with presidential ambitions jumping in to try to show their conspiracy-theory cred to the nutzoids in the base. Rubio promised more hearings. The always-high Rand Paul slurred something incomprehensible. Ted Cruz said obvious Ted Cruz-like sh#t.

Look, unless you've got evidence of a deliberate cover-up, unless you've got video of Hillary Clinton personally slitting Stevens' throat while Barack Obama f*#ks his ass as al-Qaeda militants ululate and fire their rifles into the air in praise, the vast majority of us in the United States, the ones who aren't the delusional GOP primary voters, simply don't care.

But, hell, that never stopped the GOP before.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jan 21, 2014 - 10:05am PT
the "REST OF US" are well aware the whacko leftys DONT CARE ABOUT: Benghazi, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria , IRS, NSA, NDAA 2013, rampant govt spying on citizenry , failure of the ACA, and quite possibly the MOST LIE and scandal presidency, etc etc etc...

DocF would endorse TED BUNDY if he were a democrat running for the president.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2014 - 10:52am PT
You're an idiot Rong
You have no idea How stupid you come as, do you?

We care!
We just hate to see you F-ing Hypocrites Politicize a Tragedy with nothing but Right Wing Lies and Propaganda

Credit: Dr. F.

Who started The NSA Spying Program? Bush and the Republican Congress
Who has the authority to shut it down? Congress, Not the President
Who will do nothing about it? Republicans
Nor will they do anything about the economy, NDAA 2013, and the rest you are yammering about nonsensically.

Every single word in your above post is based on pure BS

You want Change? Vote your Right wingers out, they are the direct cause of EVERYTHING YOU HATE
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jan 21, 2014 - 11:01am PT
I'm really much more concerned about political lies that result in the deaths & well-being of thousands of Americans...
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jan 21, 2014 - 11:06am PT
Why is it that jerkwad Repugs like Rong only really seem to get their panties twisted about 'lies' when their Party is not in power?

Not only do they get awful quiet when their Party lies their way into pointless wars, they actually vote for the same poli-dickwads in the next election!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jan 21, 2014 - 11:08am PT
translation for Doc,,, ITS OK if we vote TED BUNDY in because there have been other mass killers. Just LOVE you analogy's and comparison of obama to bush.. TELLING,, very telling..


and apoogee,, WHY DO YOU CONTINUALLY LIE ABOUT ME?

I wasnt in this forum during the bush years. YOU HAVE NO CLUE AS TO WHAT I SAID about him during his second term DO YOU??? Thast answer of course is NO..

So take your lying and crapola elsewhere. You are such a simpleton that you think anyone against obama was automatically a bush supporter.


You a loud liar.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2014 - 11:12am PT
What the hell are you talking about Rong?
I voted for a person that Saved millions of Lives,
unlike Romney who put millions into unemployment and stole away their pension
Who Was the Better Choice??
I can assure you I made the right choice.

Millions saved by the New Obamacare Insurance plan, which you call a failure (and I call your mind a failure, get it checked), 1000s not killed from lies and other right wing incompetence

There were only 2 choices, can you understand that Rong?
Obama or Romney, check


I'm sure you whined about Bush as well
Is that all you do, whine about the Government?
But does it matter?
No, because all the whining you do about Obama is straight out of the right wing media propaganda spewed wide and loud all over America, so therefore it is fuel for us to beat you over the head with, like the deserving idiot you portray yourself as.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jan 21, 2014 - 11:21am PT
You voted for a person that has droned. That has said "mission accomplished in Afghanistan" yuk yuk. You voted for the guy who increased executive powers more than any before him har har. You voted for the guy that was chomping at the bit to bomb Syria and GIVES MONEY TO AL QUAY-DUH THERE.
You voted for the guy that LIED through his teeth about BENGHAZI. You voted for a guy that lied through his teeth over the ACA. You voted for a guy who gave a "that could have been me " speech ( pathetic)..

You voted for a guy That backed the same al quay-duh dypshyts in Egypt and had to have the citizens and army there correct that travesty..

You voted for a guy that CLAIMED he knew nothing about the IRS, NSA, etc etc. The most "unknowing president" of my times ever.


apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jan 21, 2014 - 11:25am PT
BBBBBEEEEEENNNNNNNGGGGGGHHHHHHHAAAAAAZZZZZIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11169
Messages 49141 - 49160 of total 52597 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews