| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:24 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
It's old news, but I just found out about California trying to kill off all the dogs and cats in the state. I am so glad I moved out of that Hell hole, words cannot do it justice. The first version failed, but they are trying again.
I think if you have a pet and you don't plan to actually breed it, getting it spayed or neutered is a good idea. But to mandate it? Hell no. It doesn't matter if the new version is less draconian, the entire concept should be utterly denied.
Californians, do the responsible thing. Have your politicians spayed or neutered.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]
Last edited by Death Mage on Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:28 pm Post subject: 2 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
Californians, do the responsible thing. Have your politicians spayed or neutered. |
As much as I like the thought of that, it's too late.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:45 pm Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| I was born in California, and moved to ND as a kid when my father got a job here. |
You should thank your father every day of your life! Our daughter and her family just moved here from Salinas, California. They love it here....no crime, no gang fights, city services that actually work, people going to church (I'm not one of them), families doing things together.....
What it lacks in natural beauty and good weather, it more than makes up for in values.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:11 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
| Oh, goddamnit, Scott Brown won. Now how is my grandma gonna afford her life-saving rectum surgery? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| JDTAY wrote: |
| Oh, goddamnit, Scott Brown won. Now how is my grandma gonna afford her life-saving rectum surgery? |
Maybe if you got off your rectum and got a job, you could help her.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AZu*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:02 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| JDTAY wrote: |
| Oh, goddamnit, Scott Brown won. Now how is my grandma gonna afford her life-saving rectum surgery? |
Maybe if you got off your rectum and got a job, you could help her. |
To be more precise, maybe if she got off her rectum and got a job, she could help herself.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
Anyone else reminded of Pablo's sig?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:16 am Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Hurray! We are climbing the cliff! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:49 am Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| I'd prefer a logarithmic scale, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:15 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
Anyone else reminded of Pablo's sig? |
Those damn tax cuts for the rich!
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:51 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
President Obama has officially declared his assault on the First Ammendment today.
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama launched an extraordinary attack on the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, saying a ruling on corporate donations to political campaigns this week "strikes at democracy itself."
Obama's broadside was triggered by a 5-4 ruling by the court's justices on Thursday that removed long-standing campaign finance limits and allowed corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress. In the ruling, the court's conservative majority said the limits had violated corporations' constitutional right to free speech.
[..]
Obama said he had instructed his administration to work immediately with Congress to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to the ruling.
"We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," he said. |
For Obama's reference:
| The U. S. Constitution 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. |
That includes political speech, even stuff you don't like, Mr. President.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
He has been for campaign finance reform since he was first running for senate. This should not come as a surprise to you unless your head has been in the sand.
Do you really think that letting corporations buy politicians (that is, even more than they already do) is a good idea? It isn't free speech when only the wealthy get access to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
Surprised? No. But he's a bit blatant about it.
| Zag wrote: |
| Do you really think that letting corporations buy politicians (that is, even more than they already do) is a good idea? It isn't free speech when only the wealthy get access to it. |
This isn't a difficult concept.
| Quote: |
| Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press |
It doesn't say "unless someone else objects". It doesn't say "except when it hurts the incumbent's chances for reelection". It's really simply, unmistakable, perfectly clear, unless you're a lying douchebag who needs to twist it for an agenda.
It doesn't say you have the right to an audience. It doesn't say you must be given a podium to speak from. It's saying the government can't tell you you can't say it. Why is that hard for you to understand?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AZu
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:42 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| Has anyone read the ruling? How are political donations connected to freedom of speech? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
| Does it say it applies to corporations or people? Or is there some lack of clarity in this regard? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
Do you really think that letting corporations buy politicians (that is, even more than they already do) is a good idea? |
This is clearly not a healthy situation, but I'm not sure it is the corporations that are the problem here. It is not only corporations that buy politicians, it is other politicians. Who was it that bought Ben Nelson's vote? Could it be that maybe the (crooked, corrupt) politicians are the issue rather than the corporations? Hmmmmmm?
Maybe if politicians weren't so involved in every aspect of our lives, there wouldn't be much to buy.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| AZu wrote: |
| Has anyone read the ruling? How are political donations connected to freedom of speech? |
How does the government have the right to tell a private citizen or corporation what to do with money they rightfully earned? Where in the Constitution does that power of government come from?
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AZu
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:07 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| AZu wrote: |
| Has anyone read the ruling? How are political donations connected to freedom of speech? |
How does the government have the right to tell a private citizen or corporation what to do with money they rightfully earned? Where in the Constitution does that power of government come from? |
I would tend to disagree with you. However I was not disagreeing with the ruling (nor agreeing). The right or lack of to do whatever you want with the money you have (rightfully earned is quite loaded and assumes a political stance similar to yours) and whether the rights of corporations are the same as those of private citizens, are not as far as I can see freedom of speech issues. Again not disagreeing, just not seeing the connection between political donations and freedom of speech. Would love to be enlightened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:53 am Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| AZu wrote: |
| Again not disagreeing, just not seeing the connection between political donations and freedom of speech. Would love to be enlightened. |
I wouldn't go too far to make this point, as I don't see a real need to. Whether or not political donations are "free speech", I don't see a constitutional way to limit them, at least on the donor side.
But OK, I'll take a shot. Some (maybe most) extend "speech" to mean "expression" and making a donation is akin to expressing a political preference. I admit it's a bit of a stretch, but to me, the burden is on the government to justify limiting, not on the corporation (or individual) to justify doing.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:56 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| But OK, I'll take a shot. Some (maybe most) extend "speech" to mean "expression" and making a donation is akin to expressing a political preference. I admit it's a bit of a stretch, but to me, the burden is on the government to justify limiting, not on the corporation (or individual) to justify doing. |
This would be a stronger argument if a large number of corporations didn't donate money to multiple candidates in the same election.
The justification is fairly straightforward; the government feels that corruption or the perception of corruption is a significant public demerit that it should be able to limit speech in this instance.
And yes, the government can limit speech if there is a significant demerit for allowing that speech; that's why we can actually have laws allowing for libel/slander lawsuits, and why the "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" restriction exist. Until this decision, the last 40 years or so of the Supreme Court agreed that trying to remove corruption/the appearance of corruption was such a valid reason for restricting speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:33 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| Until this decision, the last 40 years or so of the Supreme Court agreed that trying to remove corruption/the appearance of corruption was such a valid reason for restricting speech. |
And in those 40 years do you think the appearance of corruption has diminished? No? Good think they struck it down then. It was a COMPLETE failure on that aspect.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:03 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| Thok wrote: |
| Until this decision, the last 40 years or so of the Supreme Court agreed that trying to remove corruption/the appearance of corruption was such a valid reason for restricting speech. |
And in those 40 years do you think the appearance of corruption has diminished? No? Good think they struck it down then. It was a COMPLETE failure on that aspect. |
The current version of campaign finance reform they struck down were only a few years old. And as far as I can tell, they never actually mentioned the precedent of the last 40 or so years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:45 pm Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| zag wrote: |
| He has been for [massive government control]since he was first running for senate. This should not come as a surprise to you unless your head has been in the sand. |
You see what I did there?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: 24 |
|
|
I read most of the ruling (insomnia for the...win?). The main thing here is that it overturned the (94?) Austin precedent. Not only did they reverse the ruling of lower courts they invalidated the Austin ruling (and tangentially much of McCain Feingold). It is extremely rare for SCOTUS to disregard cere decicis. IMO if it were not for that factor the ruling would have been gained at least Breyer or more (you'd never get Stevens--who wrote the dissent). Be that as it may it is telling that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (if you follow this stuff).
However I think the CJ really nailed it in this tidbit in his concurrence:
| The CJSCOTUS wrote: |
| The Government [lower court] urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. |
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And yes, the government can limit speech if there is a significant demerit for allowing that speech.... |
No. It can't. You're completely misunderstanding and overextending the theater analogy. There is a world of difference between saying: If you say something and it causes people to get hurt we'll punish you AND We're not gonna let you say something because it might hurt someone.
The former is rational, the latter is anathema to the first amendment.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| AZu wrote: |
| Has anyone read the ruling? How are political donations connected to freedom of speech? |
This wasn't about donations. It was about airing a show (on cable mind you) critical of a candidate.
The basis for shutting it off was that it was funded by a "corporation". The court's ruling here is just common sense. It doesn't matter where the message comes from or from whom. The government's job is only to police things that are clearly deleterious (libel, slander). And that depends on the message. Not the messenger.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
The justification is fairly straightforward; the government feels that corruption or the perception of corruption is a significant public demerit that it should be able to limit speech in this instance.
|
D'oh! And all this time I've been blaming the government for our loss of liberties. Obviously, the government isn't forcibly taking our freedom away; rather we are voluntarily giving it up, citizen by citizen.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JFake*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
Samadhi and Pablo,
You should be very wary of this. In the strict libertarian community, where a politician has little (or nothing) to give, this would not matter. However, just as the populace can vote themselves "bread and circuses", now so can the corporations. And the corporations are much better positioned to take advantage of a government that is set up to spend our money (and their own printed dollars) endlessly.
How much influence do you want Black Water (or whatever they're called now) to have? How about Halliburton? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
I don't want them to have much, but the way to limit them is to limit government. The bigger and more powerful (and intrusive) government gets, the more influence these corporations have...the corporations who have no competition. The problem you suggest will not be solved by government creating limits or restrictions on liberty.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
Don't you get it, Pablo? All corporations are over-sized, evil, corrupt entities that will do ANYTHING to get ahead, whereas all governments only care about the people, have everyone's best interests in mind, and only do bad things when they're forced to by those greedy corporations.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| I don't want them to have much, but the way to limit them is to limit government. The bigger and more powerful (and intrusive) government gets, the more influence these corporations have...the corporations who have no competition. The problem you suggest will not be solved by government creating limits or restrictions on liberty. |
Okay, limiting government is the correct answer, we agree on this.
However, given the amount of power our government has in terms of spending, should we unleash the corporations influence now, or after the government has limits in place?
Remember that government is the usual cause of unjust monopolies and distorted markets. And this is caused by unfair advantages being given to specific corporations. Do you think this problem will improve with the new ruling? My initial thought is 'no, it will get worse'. However, I haven't thought this through a generation or two down the road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: 32 |
|
|
I think, Johny, what you don't realize is that your question is completely irrelevant.
| The U.S. Constitution wrote: |
| Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press |
There is no time, period, in which congress should limit what private people or companies can say. Your argument is completely moot. The U.S. government isn't ALLOWED to limit them in this manner, whatever the reason. And since this discussion is specific to the U.S. government, prompted by the Supreme Court's ruling and the President's response, you're just wasting everyone's time.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
I think, Johny, what you don't realize is that your question is completely irrelevant.
| The U.S. Constitution wrote: |
| Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press |
There is no time, period, in which congress should limit what private people or companies can say. ..... you're just wasting everyone's time. |
I didn't mean to waste your time, but can you show that the 1st amendment applies to companies?
I believe there are several laws governing the advertisements of companies, just ask the cigarette companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
Show me where the Constitution differentiates between one person and a group of people.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:27 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| Show me where the Constitution differentiates between one person and a group of people. |
I did write quite a lengthy response to this, but then realised that it wouldn't make the slightest difference, since it largely depends upon what someone understands by the term "the people" which is sufficiently vague as to mean whatever the SCOTUS decides it means at various different times.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:35 pm Post subject: 36 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| Show me where the Constitution differentiates between one person and a group of people. |
I don't need to. A company is not a group of people. A group of people may work for a company. A company may be owned by a group of people. However, a company is not a group of people. Companies are restricted by countless laws, many of which would be unconstitutional if applied to individuals, or even groups of people.
As mentioned earlier, laws regarding advertising would certainly be unconstitutional if applied to people. Such laws would certainly make it more difficult to pick up women in bars.
Does the constitution mention anywhere that the rights apply to anything but individuals, or people (as opposed to institutions, companies, not-for-profit organizations, etc.)? I can't imagine that the document intended for these legal entities to have the right to bear arms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:58 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
As mentioned earlier, laws regarding advertising would certainly be unconstitutional if applied to people. Such laws would certainly make it more difficult to pick up women in bars.
|
You mean companies can't use chloroform?
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johny Fake
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:07 am Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| Poisonium wrote: |
| Johny Fake wrote: |
As mentioned earlier, laws regarding advertising would certainly be unconstitutional if applied to people. Such laws would certainly make it more difficult to pick up women in bars.
|
You mean companies can't use chloroform? |
Not without a license. GOB's "forget-me-nots" are okay though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:06 am Post subject: 39 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
I believe there are several laws governing the advertisements of companies, just ask the cigarette companies. |
I'm not at all convinced that all laws are constitutional.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:33 am Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| Johny Fake wrote: |
| Do you think this problem will improve with the new ruling? My initial thought is 'no, it will get worse'. |
I don't. Rulings and laws won't help anything. The answers to our current problems are not found in "legislation" but in a revision of our social structure. We need less government and more productivity. Instead of 20 million government workers and 100 million private sector workers, we need about 5 million government workers and 200+ million private sector workers. I'm just picking numbers out of the air and I don't know if they're optimal, but if we could get to my numbers, just about every problem we face would be reduced or solved.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
