The Glade 4.0

It was really more of a "State of My Presidency" address, anyways, from the ten minutes or so I heard live.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

And here is where you ignore what this law changed. Previously, they could not tell you how to vote.

The issue, you recall, was that this corporately funded group had produced an attack documentary about Hillary Clinton, and wanted to run it right before the election, in order to try and tip the scales. Basically, run it at a time when she would have had no time to respond to whatever the content was. This ruling changed that. Now, corporations can spend as much as they want whenever they want in whatever way they want when it comes to election advertising. Smear ads, negative ads, and "documentarys" like the one about Clinton, will be be how corporations influence elections and strong arm politicians in the future. It's toxic to our democracy. No one can compete with that kind of corporate money.

Saudi Arabia is already chomping at the bit for the influence they will now have over our politicians and elections. WTG SCOTUS!!!

_________________


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

Montegue:

I'm not ignoring what Citizens United changed at all. The President lied on the matter. There was not a century of law or precedent affected by the decision. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was 29 years old. So, where does the century come from? Hyperbole isn't going to cut it as an excuse. He attempted to represent the ruling as a change to the ban on direct contributions.

_________________

I have started watching msnbc a bit more than I used to; watching liberals froth at the mouth is so entertaining.

Except... they still can't tell you how to vote.

And why are you worried about it? It doesn't affect you one bit. You're still going to be the enlightened savior of the most holy voting right. And, as you have already stated, your vote is not for sale.

Unlike myself, who would gladly take a thousand dollars to vote for El Cremadoro DelHumpington in the New Mexico governor's election.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

But there are laws that prohibit one from saying whatever they want, whenever they want. Regardless of the reasoning behind them, it specifically is curtailing their first amendment rights.

Slanders laws are another example.
FCC broadcast regulations are yet another. (****, Piss, ****, Cock, ****, **** and Tits)

Fact is, laws are not absolute. Even the First Amendment.

Also, fart, turd and twat.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I have a shirt with well over 200+ of them on there, but I wasn't gonna type all that.

Perhaps the Congressional Research Service will state it plainly enough that even you can understand it (let me know where they mention filibuster):



As if your chart showing cloture votes proves that? Try again.


Good thing you're not a Constructionist, eh, otherwise you'd be appalled, or something.
Since Rule 22 was adopted in 1917 to require a 2/3 vote to end debate, hence "cloture", and Woodrow Wilson a Democrat president urged a Democrat majority in Congress to pass it, saying:" A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” The Senate, he demanded, must adopt a cloture rule." Damn "Republicans".
In 1975 Rule 22 was amended to an even 60 votes when the Senate has a full compliment, at the time, a Democrat majority held both houses of Congress. More damn "Republicans" to blame there.


I'd suggest reading something other than "Thinkprogress.org", perhaps even the Congressional Research Service. Happily I've quoted it for you above.



Sorry, my argument's been made, my facts have been presented, and my sources documented. Whereas, you've presented your opinion and a chart that you've willfully mischaracterized.


Try saying that three times and clicking your heels together, it'll accomplish the same thing.


Why would you bring up Section 313? Just pissed that the Healthcare Monstrosity is so far removed from a budget bill that it can't be considered because of the limits Section 313 place on reconciliation? Oops.


Sorry, there's your "Thinkprogress.org" education showing again.


Oh, the wonders of projection.
Here's a helpful hint:



Sorry, I know you've been told "It's not your fault" quite often in life, but when it comes to your willful ignorance, don't be fooled: It is your fault.

_________________
"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

Minor point of order, but wasn't Ford a Republican?

Absolutely, thanks.

_________________
"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

Correct me if I'm wrong, then, but did your previous post not identify Ford as a Democrat? Minor mistake, but it should be corrected, unless I am mis-reading the post.

*edit* Ahh, looks like you fixed it already.

*edit 2* You're welcome. You made some great points in that post and didn't need the distraction.

Free speech has never been constructed as the ability to "[say] whatever [you] want, whenever [you] want." Were it constructed by the courts or Constitutional Law in that manner, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, since you're making a strawman in order to avoid losing the argument you already lost, I'm not sure what more you want.Libel and Slander are both civil matters, as such nothing prevents you from engaging in either. The consequences of your actions, should they be taken to court, are arbitrated by a jury or panel of judges for damages, but not criminality.Beyond being another example of a civil proceeding, FCC Broadcast regulations are a touchy and much debated subject even in the Court. That said, you can now say Tits, ***, Hell, ****, Damn, and quite a few other words previously considered obscenities on the air wave. "*** nudity" has been allowed on multiple occasions, as well. However, broadcast television runs across certain public morality/obscenity provisions set in place by an executive entity that is not subject to Congressional oversight, which complicates the matter further. In most cases, even as recently as Bono's "****" during the Grammy's, the Court found against the FCC on Free Speech grounds.Except when they are. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

_________________

Owned on so many levels. I'd go into hiding if I were Monty.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Assuming he won't continue arguing even though he's been proven wrong. Remember, truth is negotiable when bashing Republicans. Or so it seems to me, at least.

I was under the impression they could pretty much do that already through a PAC.

_________________
The Dude abides.

PAC's did have limits prior to this ruling.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

All this does is level the playing field and the libs hate it. Now they don't have the edge with all their Union backers(something Monty STILL hasn't addressed, as I'm sure we all know why.)

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

When I click on the link in your sig I get this message - "This video contains content from WMG, who has decided to block it."

Haven't looked at it in a while, thanks for the heads up.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Foreign organizations may still not contribute directly to political campaigns. That part of the law was untouched.

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

So the Maryland legislature is working on a bill to require a corporation obtain a 2/3 majority from its shareholders before it can spend any money on a campaign. This applies to corporate entities only, and would not apply, of course, to unions.

They don't even bother hiding their corruption in this state anymore.

I just fail to see that the SotUA is really relevant in the day of the 24-hour news cycle. Politicians are pretty notorious at pandering - so why give this one instance more weight than it deserves?

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

I thought this was a really good opinion piece on the subject:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaChar ... arteresque

I usually find myself in agreement with her opinions, at least those I have seen.

History lesson for Nitefox and Vindi, since they seem to be the tag team of ignorance in the thread.




I want you guys to look closely at the graph here. I assume you can read a graph? Good. Now, where do the lines spike at? And, what party was in the minority during that time? If you answered "Since 2006" and "Republican", you get a gold star.

Here is the actual definition of Cloture as it pertains to the US Senate -



If you, Vindi, are trying to argue that cloture votes happen outside of a filibuster, you are patently incorrect. Cloture is invoked in response to a filibuster, and for no other reason.

Republicans broke the all time filibuster record in 2008 when they forced a cloture vote on the 62nd bill that session. They held the previous record in 2001-2002 when they were once again in the minority.

In fact, the filibuster has become a routine tactic used by Republicans in the Senate. Senate rule 22 allows them to effectively say "we're filibustering" without having to actually stand up there and read Moby Dick until they fall over.

Trying to separate cloture from the filibuster is stupid. You both fail, miserably. In 2007-2008 the Republicans forced 112 cloture votes. 112!!! That was damn near double their previous record.

This has never happened. Not since the very founding of our country has a minority party felt so entitled to power that it would stop so much legislation.

So yeah. Stop trying to pretend this isn't happening. I know reality for republicans is fluid, but the numbers don't lie. The Republicans have been using the filibuster more than any other party in history, at any time in history.

_________________


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