SC Slaps Down McCain-Feingold

[CockySOB]

Libs are a strange bunch

Nobody is forced to listen to Rush or Sean. Nobody holds a gun to anyones head and forces them to tune into Fox News

However, when people choose NOT to listen to Air America, or run ads AGAINST Dem candidates - libs have a meltdown

To liberals, since a majority of people make the wrong choices. they are to stupid to make the correct choice - so the government must make their choices for them

Fascism in a bottle, eh? Sounds like most of the librulls I know of.

 

[Larkinn]

Ah, so if for example a gay rights advocacy group wanted to run political advertisements in the days running up to an election you'd want them kept off the air as well, despite the fact they might have organized and gathered enough financing to put their message promoting civil unions/gay marriage as a viable societal construct in the public view? Do you hate homosexuals or something?

Yes I would. And yes, its obvious that that means I hate homosexuals.

Frankly this ruling not only helps issues like anti-abortion/pro-choice advocacy groups keep their message in the public eye prior to an election, but other groups as well. But then I guess you would want to pick and choose which messages you approve of and which you don't, right? How very fascist of you, Larkinn....

No, I think that only campaigns should be able to run political ads and that their funds should either be limited, or matched by the public.

Don't try and tell me what to think, you aren't very good at it.

Right. Donate your time and money to be the advocate for those people. Pay for their television and radio time. Pay for the radio station to broadcast their opinions and thoughts. Just try not to steal money from the Boys & Girls Clubs this time around, please.

Ah yes, I'll donate my time and money to be an advocate for these people. Sorry, but I don't have the resources that any of these PAC's do. Neither do you.

Tell me boy genius, exactly how did McCain-Feingold do anything to prevent our political system from being run by money? That's part of my problem with it (the myriad of holes part, just so you don't get confused)

It didn't, but claiming that its unconstitutional, instead of its real problem which is that its ineffective, is a silly way of getting rid of it since if its unconstitutional they can't set up another similar program without all the loopholes.

Perhaps you would like to brush up on your English before trying to teach it to another person.

Inconsistent means that two things you are not consistent...i.e. have different beliefs at different times. Contradictory means that you hold two beliefs that are directly opposite. They are similar, but the difference lies in their logical meanings, which it is no surprise a dictionary does not make a difference between.

LOL! What a moron! You get your ass handed to you and then resort to deflection and sophistry to try to win an argument. Sounds like another pissant I remember from my days elsewhere.

You have never, ever, handed my ass to me in an argument Cocky. I remember you as being a halfway decent guy. I guess my memory decieved me.

Because the left believes that people should be forced to listen to their minority viewpoint in direct contradiction of the First Amendment

Ah yes the minority viewpoint.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070709&s=perlstein

There you go, that should get rid of that old bird.

Because the left believes that people should be forced to listen to their minority viewpoint in direct contradiction of the First Amendment. That's why the left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - it's the only way they can hope to get their message to the masses. Most people by choice, will avoid the message of the far left and the left has finally figured that out.

Ah, so when the right puts crap on the airwaves via money its ok because nobody is forced to listen, but when the left wants to put crap on the airwaves its bad because they will "force people to listen".

What happened to being able to turn off the radio/tv/etc?

Liberals are just "smarter" and more "compassionate" then us dumb ass racist, selfish and ignorant non liberals. They would , if they could take away any right or privalege we are promised in that effort to "protect" us from ourselves. They do not lose elections, they are stolen from them. Laws do not apply to them because those laws were meant to protect the idiots, not the "enlightened". Voting is only good when a majority agree with them. You want to see this country become a dictatorship? Vote in a Liberal and give him or her a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. You can kiss your freedoms goodbye if that happens.

What a cute, and entirely incorrect, generalization.

If people have a choice to listen - why the hell are libs so upset?

If people have a choice to listen to what would be put on the air under the fairness doctrine, why are you so upset?

 

[CockySOB]

Yes I would. And yes, its obvious that that means I hate homosexuals.

So you're all for silencing people who want to speak out on a topic, eh? How very fascist of you.

No, I think that only campaigns should be able to run political ads and that their funds should either be limited, or matched by the public.

So you want to leave it solely to the campaigns to discuss the issues? Why would you deny the public at large their right to comment on the topics at hand, and restrict their right to get their message out - including messages supporting a particular candidate?

Ah yes, I'll donate my time and money to be an advocate for these people. Sorry, but I don't have the resources that any of these PAC's do. Neither do you.

Irrelevant. I don't need a PAC to make my views known, nor to empower me to publish my opinions. Perhaps you do, but that would just indicate to me that your position is untenable.

It didn't, but claiming that its unconstitutional, instead of its real problem which is that its ineffective, is a silly way of getting rid of it since if its unconstitutional they can't set up another similar program without all the loopholes.

Only a fool fights against bad legislation using a single argument when multiple arguments exist as to why it should be removed. In this case the Constitutional issue could override the effectiveness issue, but that does not invalidate the effectiveness issue on its face.

Inconsistent means that two things you are not consistent...i.e. have different beliefs at different times. Contradictory means that you hold two beliefs that are directly opposite. They are similar, but the difference lies in their logical meanings, which it is no surprise a dictionary does not make a difference between.

Sorry bucky, but I cited two different and legitimate references which show "inconsistent" as being synonymous with "contradictory." Perhaps you meant something else, but that would indicate a failure on your part to be precise in your terminology.

You have never, ever, handed my ass to me in an argument Cocky. I remember you as being a halfway decent guy. I guess my memory decieved me.

If this is the Larkin I used to know, send me a PM on the other board. Your posting style here reminds me more of a waste of bandwidth known as ninja than the poster I knew as Larkin.

Ah, so when the right puts crap on the airwaves via money its ok because nobody is forced to listen, but when the left wants to put crap on the airwaves its bad because they will "force people to listen".

What happened to being able to turn off the radio/tv/etc?

If people have a choice to listen to what would be put on the air under the fairness doctrine, why are you so upset?

If the left finances the crap it wants to put on the airwaves, no problem! I expect the right to finance their programs, and I expect the left to do the same. Hell, I expect everyone to do that!

 

[Larkinn]

So you're all for silencing people who want to speak out on a topic, eh? How very fascist of you.

I'm not for silencing them, merely taking money out of the equation. They are still welcome to have their speech and wander around street corners preaching whatever.

So you want to leave it solely to the campaigns to discuss the issues? Why would you deny the public at large their right to comment on the topics at hand, and restrict their right to get their message out - including messages supporting a particular candidate?

Because I think it is of utmost importance that our elections not be financed by money and that our politicians represent the people, and not who has the most money.

Irrelevant. I don't need a PAC to make my views known, nor to empower me to publish my opinions. Perhaps you do, but that would just indicate to me that your position is untenable.

Well if you are competing with someone like Rupert Murdoch, who has all of those things, your opinion would lose. That is the sad reality of the world we live in today. I am fully able to publish my opinion, but what matters is how many people those opinions reach. Mine, and yours, will never reach the scope of Murdoch's opinions. Not without bucketloads of cash.

Only a fool fights against bad legislation using a single argument when multiple arguments exist as to why it should be removed. In this case the Constitutional issue could override the effectiveness issue, but that does not invalidate the effectiveness issue on its face.

Feel free to use multiple arguments, but if you believe that money needs to be taken out of politics (which you have both implied that you agree with and disagree with), then some of those arguments will make it impossible for that to happen in the future. If the point is to get rid of a law that does not work in favor of one that will work, arguing that it is unconstituional is not a very intelligent way to do it, especially when the problem isn't that the law is misguided, rather that it leaves many many loopholes.

Sorry bucky, but I cited two different and legitimate references which show "inconsistent" as being synonymous with "contradictory." Perhaps you meant something else, but that would indicate a failure on your part to be precise in your terminology.

They can be synonymous in particular definitions of each word, but they are not the same word, nor do they mean the same thing.

If this is the Larkin I used to know, send me a PM on the other board. Your posting style here reminds me more of a waste of bandwidth known as ninja than the poster I knew as Larkin.

No. Either you can respect me based on what I've posted here, or not. My posting style here is no different than elsewhere, I am just dealing with a lot more hatred of me based on nothing more than the generalization of the left. I am the same Larkinn from PC&A, and I am definitely not Ninja, but your view of my posting style is coloured by your view of liberals and this hatred of the left that seems to have been magnified since you left.

If the left finances the crap it wants to put on the airwaves, no problem! I expect the right to finance their programs, and I expect the left to do the same. Hell, I expect everyone to do that!

Why are those with money the only one who have that particular type of "freedom of speech"?

I have a problem with linking our freedoms to financial well being.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think the right to life is important.

The Roberts court

Three Supreme Court rulings this week show the difference President Bush's two pivotal court appointments have made. It is easy to lose sight of the difference in the current political climate. With the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito in 2005 to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative majority became a working reality on a great many current and future issues. This dividend of the 2004 presidential election — and, we should mention, this dividend of the conservative revolt against the nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005 — is likely to rank as Mr. Bush's most lasting achievement once his eight years in the White House are concluded.

Each ruling in its own fractious way — Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation and Morse v. Frederick — demonstrates a conservative jurisprudence which could not have come into existence in the pre-Samuel Alito Supreme Court. It is not the conservative jurisprudence of Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. But then, even if not as bold or ideological as many conservatives would prefer, it is markedly different from what preceded it, in a good way, and the strident, even angry dissents from the court's liberal justices confirm that.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070627/EDITORIAL/106270009/1013

 

[red states rule]

I think the right to life is important.

Pres Bush did make two great appointments to the Court