The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 2:20 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:36 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Diamondeye wrote:
It's informative that even the liberal justices didn't get up and clap for that remark. That was the low point of the speech IMO. You don't, if you're the President or Congress "come out strongly" against a point of law the Supreme Court has ruled upon. That's their purview. It was essentially a tantrum that separation of powers resulted in something he didn't like.


Aren't they supposed to not clap or something, to demonstrate impartiality?


Edit: You know what would be awesome? If they issued a memo saying he was in contempt of court.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Vindicarre wrote:
Khross wrote:

I also think President Obama has finally destroyed all credibility as a "Senior Lecturer" on Constitutional Law: the Supreme Court defended the First Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutionality. I'm sorry that his politics don't allow for the reality of that decision, because it was the right decision vis-a-vis the First.


It appears someone else agrees with you:

[youtube]4pB5uR3zgsA[/youtube]


I like the little wince he throws out right before that. Like "Oh god, I can't believe he just said that."

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
The problem with that comment is that it demonstrates contempt for the Rule of Law and a very sad ignorance of the actual matter of law discussed. Justice Stevens makes a compelling argument against the majority opinion. Justice Thomas concurs and dissents with elements of the majority opinion. It was a truly split panel, which I think speaks more to the delicacy of the situation than most consider. That said, the ruling issued is one on First Amendment grounds. It is the right ruling, in my opinion, because the First Amendment is absolute.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
No law is absolute.

I'm just getting a chance to listen to the address now. So far I like what I hear by and large, however what has struck me more than anything is that Congress needs to really shut the **** up, stop clapping at every pet idea they like or dislike and make this speech be 30 minutes instead of 1 hour.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:36 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Aizle wrote:
No law is absolute.
You are sorely mistaken. The Constitution of the United States of America is the highest law in the land. It has provisions for its alteration. Unless those provisions are met, change cannot be made. And if you want the First Amendment changed, then the vehicle by which you can do so exist. So, I'll post the First Amendment for you again, since you seem to think it's some muddy piece of text subject to interpretation:
The First Amendment wrote:
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.
What part of Congress shall no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... needs clarification in its fluidity, Aizle?

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Last edited by Khross on Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 889
it seemed to me, too, that mentioning that SCOTUS ruling was something he should not have done. But then, I think he should not have been elected President, either. *shrug*


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:49 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
To be fair, a number of justices on the Supreme Court have argued or at least agreed that "No Law" doesn't necessarily mean "no Law" -- see New York Times Co. v. United States.

(here's the counter argument of course... I'll have to dig up the dissenting opinion)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 13_ZC.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:08 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Khross wrote:
Vindicarre:

The irony of that statement is that President Obama has read neither of the opinions in question. The prohibition on direct corporate contributions remains in tact.


The NY Times had an interesting opinion piece that pretty definitively (IMHO) counters their earlier take on the ruling.

Quote:
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.
[My underline.]

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:10 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
I thought it was amusing that he said they made tax cuts, then later bad mouthed the tax cuts under Bush. Not that I really believe they made any tax cuts this year.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 396
He's going to give tax credits to small business, that hire new employees. But going to increase taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year. Who does he thinks owns those small business's. Where does the money to hire those employees, and fund those small business's come from.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:15 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
John Stewart comicly ripped Obama's SotU address to shreds tonight. I can't get at your comedy network links, but i think you guys can find it online easily enough.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:58 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Haha, "THEY"RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU IN THE CAR!"

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
I didn't need to watch that abomination to know the "State" of this Union.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Khross wrote:
I found the speech ineffectual and filled with empty rhetoric,


I am shocked. Shocked!!

Quote:
but at least it is a sign of change. While most sitting Presidents have used it to levy some criticism at their political opposition, Barack Obama turned it into a cudgel. Obama used the speech to politicize the situation on Capital Hill and absolve himself of guilt for his mistakes and failures.


You were clearly not watching the same speech I was watching.

Quote:
He invoked the Bush Shield or the Obstructionist Republican Shield or the "Whatever It Takes For This To NOT Be His Fault" Shield


Except for the parts where he very clearly took responsibility for his own part in things.

The reason I mock the propensity for conservatives to blame Clinton for everything from 9-11 to the financial crisis under Bush is that it's all a bunch of hogwash. There are things that Clinton is responsible for (like allowing Glass-Stegall to be effectively repealed), but most of it is not his doing or the doing of his administration.

The same cannot be said about the Bush administration unless we decide to ignore the facts, and history. As for the "Obstructionism shield" -

Image

Quote:
... The speech demonstrates his failure as a leader.


And then Khross goes into his typical and entirely unsupported acid spewing about Obama.

Quote:
I also think President Obama has finally destroyed all credibility as a "Senior Lecturer" on Constitutional Law: the Supreme Court defended the First Amendment.


No, they didn't. They overturned over a century of legal precedent and changed speech from something that has effect on it's merit to something that has effect based on it's bankroll.

And the rest of this post is just more of a sad tirade about the guy you don't like.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:14 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Montegue:

Since you obviously didn't read or listen to the State of the Union Address, here's the play by play breakdown of your Glorious Leader's failure.
Quote:
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
No, it has not. The United States is still in a liquidity crisis and pursuing bad economic policy. Foreclosures continue rise month to month, growth statements are falsified, as you will note that the 0.7% Growth in October has been revised downward 3 times, to a 0.2% loss in January. More importantly, unemployment continues rise as the labor force contracts. The BLS is overtly manipulating workforce numbers, such that people still on unemployment are filtered into the discouraged workers count after 4 weeks of collecting benefits. Conservative estimates of the underemployed account for 20% of the total work force, while real unemployment is pushing 20% nation wide (and higher in some areas). The Savings Rate is being attacked by government policies, such as Cash for Clunkers, while real capital generation is still negative. The fallout from Commercial and Industrial real estate financing is just beginning. The stimulus package failed.
Quote:
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
Here is the first time he blames partisanship, but the implication is that it is not his fault. Operating with a 60 vote Super Majority in the Senate and a solid majority in the House, nothing legislatively prevented Obama from enacting every policy decision he wanted to enact. Yet, it didn't happen. So is it partisanship when his own party doesn't support his policies? It's not his fault for proposing policies that legislators and the public would not support? Whose fault is it? Where does the responsibility go for such things? Obama doesn't think it belongs to him, as the rest of the speech evidences.
Quote:
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.
And, yet, President Obama fails to mention that the banks paid back their loans with interest. And he blames the banks for a systemic failure of economic policy at the government level. Government manipulation of financial industry created the demand for Collateralized Debt Obligations. The Federal Reserve Board is not blameless, nor, for that matter, is the SEC. So, once again, the problems are someone else's fault, but not the government's. And he has no hand in the blame right, despite voting for TARP? I wonder why he hated something he voted for ... if it was so odious at the time, then why did he vote Yes? Why did he disburse the funds? And where's the mention about him threatening those banks with more taxes and more fines and more fees for doing their due diligence and paying back the tax payers money? Where's the honesty about the cash sink that is General Motors or the tax-payer dollars lost in the dismantling of Chrysler? This is the President not taking responsibility for his actions and his policies.
Quote:
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
And now it's a fee? They can pay a fee for being bailed out, even though they paid interest in the first place? We can punish them more for being private business? What business of his is it how compensation packages work in the private sector? Incidentally, the industry is neither more accountable nor more transparent. All of the sector reforms have failed pass or failed to appear for vote and approval in either house of Congress. How can he take credit for something that has not happened?
Quote:
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans, made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.
What tax cuts? Wait, aren't tax cuts bad? And here he outright lies. He didn't cut any taxes. He didn't extend any tax cuts; unless, of course, you count letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire in due course as cutting taxes. And Tax Credits are not tax cuts. No, this is just a fabrication; it is an outright lie to attempt to make good on a promise he hasn't kept. Good LEADERS do not need to lie to their people.
Quote:
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.
And this is also false. Capitals Gains Taxes are taxes on income generated from the capitalization of investments. Capitals Gains Taxes have been altered and risen. The highest marginal tax bracket was raised to 39.6% from 35.0%. I guess people who make more than $129,000 a year are not persons or people. But, I guess it's ok for the President to lie to the American people and Congress. Real leadership would be Nancy Pelosi holding him in contempt of Congress for this tripe.
Quote:
Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy, 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we're on track to add another one-and-a-half-million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
And then, after all the controversy over how we was tracking "jobs saved" and "jobs created", he highballs numbers already proven to be false and inflated? When is this "Leader" going to stop lying to me? When is he going to stop "misrepresenting" the reality of his first year in office? Why doesn't he get up and say, "I have failed this Country as its President?"
Quote:
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its work force because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
And now we have unverifiable anecdotes followed by a claim of job growth? Really? After the worst December in 40 years, he's claiming job growth? You know, the December where permanent jobs lost exceeded temporary seasonal hires by 185,000?
Quote:
We should start where most new jobs do -- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession, and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pa., or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country, even those that are making a profit.
And then he gets foolish. They need more credit? We're in a Depression caused by a black hole of a liquidity crisis and the problem is contracted credit? Businesses are struggling to rebuild real capital and equity, but the solution is more loans? Now he's just getting laughable. A real Leader, Montegue, would know better than to suggest the hair of the dog as the cure for our financial woes.
[more in a post or two]...

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:17 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Monte wrote:
No, they didn't. They overturned over a century of legal precedent and changed speech from something that has effect on it's merit to something that has effect based on it's bankroll.
This is an outright lie by the President of the United States. As noted, the prohibition on direct contributions by businesses and unions remains in tact and was not questioned by the Citizens United ruling. I guess if you repeat it enough, it becomes truth, right? The Precedent in question was setup in 1981. It was only 29 years old, Montegue. The Precedent in question had little to no opportunities for challenge until this case. But, I guess, ignoring the real history of the question at hand defeats your argument. The President LIED. He LIED on this matter as baldly as anyone could LIE. Leaders don't need to lie.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Last edited by Khross on Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:22 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Monte wrote:
As for the "Obstructionism shield" -

Image


It's interesting that you use a chart, then don't link where the chart came from...
You do know what a "cloture motion" is right? It's called to end debate on a subject, it is not a filibuster, as you are wrongly implying.
Norman Ornstein wrote:
To be sure, Majority Leader Reid has been more confrontational than accommodating, frequently trying to short-circuit this process by invoking cloture at the start.


Are you trying to say that the Senate Majority Leader invoking cloture from the start as an attempt to cut off debate is somehow the fault of anyone but the Senate Majority Leader?

Khross wrote:
I also think President Obama has finally destroyed all credibility as a "Senior Lecturer" on Constitutional Law: the Supreme Court defended the First Amendment.


Monte wrote:
No, they didn't. They overturned over a century of legal precedent and changed speech from something that has effect on it's merit to something that has effect based on it's bankroll.


Ummm, no they didn't. The century-old law is still in effect. You might have known this if you'd read what was posted:
Quote:
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
I don't understand why campaign donations even matter as far as regulations. If Americans are electing crooks who take de-facto bribes, isn't that an indictment of the American voter and contemporary American political attitude rather than anything to do with the system?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:30 am 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Vindicarre wrote:
Monte wrote:
As for the "Obstructionism shield" -

Image


It's interesting that you use a chart, then don't link where the chart came from...
You do know what a "cloture motion" is right? It's called to end debate on a subject, it is not a filibuster, as you are wrongly implying.


Someone needs to be schooled in parliamentary procedure.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:33 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
[continuing]
Quote:
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -- one that will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.
Yes, we need to give them credit to get the out of a crisis caused by not saving enough money and behaving responsibly in the first. By all means, let's use credit to cover the bottom line. Let's use DEBT to get us out of a problem caused by too many people not saving enough money to cover their expenses. But, wait ... here's something positive I'm sure will be broken: eliminate capital gains taxes on something? Anything? Really? We won't mention that they were raised last year. Most small businesses don't incorporate, so it can't be capital gains taxes on investing them. Most small businesses don't have the capital to invest in the current climate, so I'm not sure how this is going to help. And, contrary to Keynesian theory, investment is not savings. So, I'm not sure what this is going to do, but it's a positive point. It's a valid idea. Lowering taxes on businesses would be good, but this can't really be meaningful in the current structure.
Quote:
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Fla., where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services and information.

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.
I can get behind most of this, but the rest of his speech has me in a bad moon. Keeping infrastructure competitive would keep people in work; it would provide jobs; and it would improve freight mobility and personal mobility. The problem here, however, is that infrastructure includes a lot of things he's missing. It's complicated, in a few ways, by the individual states. And it's further complicated by the geographic reality of the United States. Comparatively speaking, he's proposing our massive nation adopt technologies designed for smaller countries or places with more consolidated population centers. High Speed Trains would be awesome in the North East. Not so much in the South. Freight Trains work well enough. Clean/Green Energy products and facilities don't have guaranteed returns on investment. And while I dislike pollution as much as the next guy, there are better alternatives than the vagueries here. Still, these are good ideas, but they're a year old.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Khross wrote:
Aizle wrote:
No law is absolute.
You are sorely mistaken. The Constitution of the United States of America is the highest law in the land. It has provisions for its alteration. Unless those provisions are met, change cannot be made. And if you want the First Amendment changed, then the vehicle by which you can do so exist. So, I'll post the First Amendment for you again, since you seem to think it's some muddy piece of text subject to interpretation:
The First Amendment wrote:
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.
What part of Congress shall no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... needs clarification in its fluidity, Aizle?


This of course why laws which make it illegal to scream FIRE! in a crowded theatre are unconstitutional. :roll:

You might want to check your skirt Khross, your fundamentalism is showing...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:08 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Aizle:

My fundamentalism isn't showing at all. And screaming "Fire!" in a public theatre is not a free speech issue; it is an inciting riot and placing others in harms way issue. The crime isn't the speech; the crime is the known consequence.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Vindicarre wrote:

It's interesting that you use a chart, then don't link where the chart came from
You do know what a "cloture motion" is right?



Yes. It is a motion to cut off debate, used to end a filibuster. The Republicans have increased the number of filibusters against legislation to an unprecedented level, literally usurping the constitutional requirement of 51 votes and changing it to 60 votes. Anyone on this board that claims to be a constructionalist should be apalled by their behavior. Without a filibuster, there is no cloture vote, Vindi. You need to probably do some more research on this before you make an argument. You're just plain wrong. You don't understand what the Byrd rule is, you don't understand how the senate works, and you're really just making a fool of yourself. Seriously, go do some reading. It's not really your fault, you're just ignorant of how it works.


Khross wrote:

Ummm, no they didn't. The century-old law is still in effect. You might have known this if you'd read what was posted:


No, it's not. Unlimited and unfettered corporate spending was turned on it's ear with this ruling. Now, GE can spend billions on ad campaigns in any race they wish, should it be in their interest to do so. This is how it will play out.

"Senator, we hear you are going to vote on this pollution regulation bill before congress. If you do this, we are prepared to spend 15 million dollars on negative campaign ads in your district, and will produce a smear piece alleging you had sex with a gay prostitute while high on coke. Also, that your military record was entirely falsified. We got old guys in medals willing to agree. We have no proof, mind you, but we don't need proof. We have an *excellent* documentary ready to go, regardless. How will you vote?"

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Last edited by Monte on Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:16 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Khross wrote:
Aizle:

My fundamentalism isn't showing at all. And screaming "Fire!" in a public theatre is not a free speech issue; it is an inciting riot and placing others in harms way issue. The crime isn't the speech; the crime is the known consequence.


Indeed. It's also illegal to throw a smoke bomb or pull the fire alarm when there's no fire, for the same reason.

It's also legal to pull the fire alarm or shout "fire" when there is a fire.

It has nothing to do with free speech; the crime is inducing panic or inciting a riot.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:18 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Montegue:

Except, that prohibition was brought about in 1981 by Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. So, I'm trying to figure out how you're getting a century of precedent based on a prohibition that didn't appear until 1981. GE still cannot contribute directly to a candidates campaign. They can now, like they were able prior to 1981, run their own issues ads. Seems to me that the liberals want to conflate the issue with a law still in effect and on the books; a law untouched by Citizens United.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 297 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group