The Citizens United case...Armageddon, not so much

[zeke]

Citizens United (what a strange title) is simply plutocrats doing what plutocrats do. Rigging things in their favor.

We need to vote for benevolent plutocrats. Is there such a thing? Or quit voting all together.
Which is about where I am.

 

[Darkwind]

Yep, and I do complain about it. But that's because I'm honest and not a lying partisan hack like you. Look at my signature! The CU v. FEC ruling was the death knell for our democratic republic.

Of course the Plutocrats and their fellow travelers - witted, dim or half - want to change democratic republic to constitutional republic, while deciding the 'real' meaning of every phrase written within the law of our land to fit within their ideology.

First complaint I've heard from you. And you calling other people partisan hacks is absolutely

Because I disagree with almost everything the right supports does not make me a partisan hack. Now, what do I support?

Equal rights for all citizens
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Universal preventative health care, cradle to grave
The United Nations
Progressive taxation
Immigration reform
Labor rights (i.e. collective bargaining)
The Line-Item Veto for the POTUS
A comprehensive employment and training act
Rational gun control
Repeal of CU v. FEC
A Code of Judicial Ethics, applicable to the US Supreme Court
a Dollar and two-dollar coin to replace paper money.
Fiscal sanity.
Repair, rebuild, renew the nations infrastructure.
Criminal sanctions for libel and slander against public officials.

Pretty much a radical and extreme position. There is no room for you in America.

 

[zeke]

First complaint I've heard from you. And you calling other people partisan hacks is absolutely

Because I disagree with almost everything the right supports does not make me a partisan hack. Now, what do I support?

Equal rights for all citizens
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Universal preventative health care, cradle to grave
The United Nations
Progressive taxation
Immigration reform
Labor rights (i.e. collective bargaining)
The Line-Item Veto for the POTUS
A comprehensive employment and training act
Rational gun control
Repeal of CU v. FEC
A Code of Judicial Ethics, applicable to the US Supreme Court
a Dollar and two-dollar coin to replace paper money.
Fiscal sanity.
Repair, rebuild, renew the nations infrastructure.
Criminal sanctions for libel and slander against public officials.

Pretty much a radical and extreme position. There is no room for you in America.

LMAO. You think (I use the term loosely) that what was posted represents a radical position? Wow.

But if given a choice between booting you out of the country or booting Wry, you would've been gone a while ago.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You havent heard what is wrong with it? It give people with money more value to their "speech" than others.

So do PACs and unions. What is the difference? Are you advocating we outlaw those as well and only allow individual political donations?

Of course to you Repubs and Dems are representing the people, right? They arent in the pockets of the monied class....Let me hear you say it.

I agree, but there is no way you're ever going to stop that. People with money will always have more power and influence than those who have less. It's one of the perks of being rich by default.

But you wont, because to pretend money has no influence and UNLIMITED money has NO Influence you would have to be either a retarded fool or a foolish retard.

Go ahead, tell everyone how money means nothing. When you refuse to do it then you'll know the problem with Citizens United and unlimited contributions to Politicians.

The appropriate way to deal with it is to amend the Constitution prohibiting corporate money in politics, not to reinterprate the First Amendment to mean what ever you want it to mean today.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Every response is "So does this person" or "its not this" but not one of the defenders will actually defend Citizens United. They just disagree with the peoples opinions but never have their own. Unless they start it with "liberals think" and toss straw all over like a horse barn

Then Takeastep says:

It's a bad decision for the individual voter.

Really? No shit Sherlock. Thats what we've been saying the entire time

 

[Avatar4321]

So Obama bought the last two elections and you're not complaining about it?

Yep, and I do complain about it. But that's because I'm honest and not a lying partisan hack like you. Look at my signature! The CU v. FEC ruling was the death knell for our democratic republic.

Of course the Plutocrats and their fellow travelers - witted, dim or half - want to change democratic republic to constitutional republic, while deciding the 'real' meaning of every phrase written within the law of our land to fit within their ideology.

LOL Seriously Wry you crack me up! Oh wait... you're serious?

 

[Avatar4321]

keeping incumbant politicians from controlling money and restricting people from speaking out against them doesn't hurt the political process. Quite the opposite.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Really? No shit Sherlock. Thats what we've been saying the entire time

Yeah. Except you turds are using erroneous arguments about it to say so. Which, is ignorant and downright fucking annoying fella.

My reason for it being a bad decision is clearly different from the fantasy you put forth of, and I quote, "UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of politicians".

Thats not what this decision did. It's not what it does, and frankly, you should be a-fucking-shamed for speaking out about it when you clearly do not understand it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Really? No shit Sherlock. Thats what we've been saying the entire time

Yeah. Except you turds are using erroneous arguments about it to say so. Which, is ignorant and downright fucking annoying fella.

My reason for it being a bad decision is clearly different from the fantasy you put forth of, and I quote, "UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of politicians".

Thats not what this decision did. It's not what it does, and frankly, you should be a-fucking-shamed for speaking out about it when you clearly do not understand it.

This motherfucker agrees then disagrees at the same time. Ok, then argue with yourself because I agree with your other personality

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are a partisan hack, Dullard. Now, if you want to remain on topic, that would be great. I'd love to show everyone how ignorant you are about the CU ruling.

Please feel free. Start with my edification on the issue of propaganda. I believe it has become a science, and the money paid by religious institutions to influence voters to deny basic rights to American Citizens (a real world event which impacted Prop. 8 in CA) is not a good thing.

In my "ignorance" is simply assumed that the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence applied to all. Please do provide for my moral improvement & guidance.

They are entitled to their opinion. The "money paid"" by such groups in electioneering communications or independent expenditure means little to nothing more than advocating that opinion. The same would be true of any other group that put forth capital to advocate their beliefs/opinions. Still, it really does not mean that CU has any bearing on such actions.

It doesn't mean it get legislated either. Nor does can any direct ciorrelation be drawn to infer such. It's one of those kookie LOLberal conspiracy theories where there is this big backroom game going to bank role "the plutocracy".

Your anger effects you spelling, or at least your keyboarding ability, calm down and think (for a change).

The money provided a means to deny American Citizens of a basic right, to marry. IMO religious orders do not have the right to spend money to influence elections, but that is only my opinion; it is a slippery slope to deny gay and lesbians the right to marry to taking away the rights of Catholics to marry Jews; blacks to marry whites, or New Yorkers to marry Texans. Certainly as slippery as any attempt to pass any law to control the sale of guns.

No doubt you oppose any form of gun control and claim the 2nd A as the sole and only arbitrator. I simply point to the Declaration of Independence, another hollowed document, certainly as well respected as the Federalist Papers used to justify the 2nd A, in defending the right to marry. Most Americans agree rights should be protected for all, yet a majority voted to deny that right to a select set of citizens. A direct result - again IMO - of money spent by forces opposed to this right for a minority of our citizens.

But I digress, the simple answer is obvious in my comment above. Propaganda is a science and one man's voice cannot withstand the onslaught of hundreds of radio/TV/print produced partisan ads. It makes the playing field unleveled as do long lines and ridiculous demands for proof of identification on election day.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a bad decision for the individual voter. Who in this country, is generally completely ignorant of all things politics. So, adding additional communications via ads and soundbites, will only help foster that level of ignorance since all politics is about deception.

I mean, just look at all the money Obama supporters spent on electioneering communications and independent expenditures.

The ruling is bad becaiuse the majority of voters are already ignorant. This can help, from any side, fuel that ignorance and generally cloud of muck up the real issues.

Sort of like the last cycle where we had to hear about Romney's fuckin' dog and other dumb shit that was about as useful as most LOLberal ideas.

Whose fault is that though? It's the individual voters. We all have a responsibility as citizens of this great nation to educate ourselves. We have a duty to know what's going on and to act based on wisdom instead of soundbytes.

If we fail to live up to our responsibilities, we get what we deserve.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The money provided a means to deny American Citizens of a basic right, to marry.

No, it did not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a bad decision for the individual voter. Who in this country, is generally completely ignorant of all things politics. So, adding additional communications via ads and soundbites, will only help foster that level of ignorance since all politics is about deception.

I mean, just look at all the money Obama supporters spent on electioneering communications and independent expenditures.

The ruling is bad becaiuse the majority of voters are already ignorant. This can help, from any side, fuel that ignorance and generally cloud of muck up the real issues.

Sort of like the last cycle where we had to hear about Romney's fuckin' dog and other dumb shit that was about as useful as most LOLberal ideas.

Whose fault is that though? It's the individual voters. We all have a responsibility as citizens of this great nation to educate ourselves. We have a duty to know what's going on and to act based on wisdom instead of soundbytes.

If we fail to live up to our responsibilities, we get what we deserve.

Absolutely. I do not disagree there at all. The problem is, that politicians LOVE to deceive and use ignorant voters to their advantage. Being that the State and Statism have grown to such extents that most people, on a mass scale, completely neglect critical thinking and being well informed in favor of snake oil salesmen that polish turds that these folks happily buy and consume, it simply creates an even murkier atmosphere politically.

But, you're right. it's the individuals responsibility to be well informed and use their thinking skills.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Really? No shit Sherlock. Thats what we've been saying the entire time

Yeah. Except you turds are using erroneous arguments about it to say so. Which, is ignorant and downright fucking annoying fella.

My reason for it being a bad decision is clearly different from the fantasy you put forth of, and I quote, "UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of politicians".

Thats not what this decision did. It's not what it does, and frankly, you should be a-fucking-shamed for speaking out about it when you clearly do not understand it.

This motherfucker agrees then disagrees at the same time. Ok, then argue with yourself because I agree with your other personality

The motherfucker is pointing out your false premise.. Regardless as to whether or not the motherfucker agrees with your conclusion. I realize this is advanced thinking. Like, college level. So, your inability to properly comprehend this isn't really surprising.

 

[Avatar4321]

The money provided a means to deny American Citizens of a basic right, to marry.

No, it did not.

You'll have to forgive him. He doesn't realize everyone has the right to marry. Just not the right to redefine marriage.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah. Except you turds are using erroneous arguments about it to say so. Which, is ignorant and downright fucking annoying fella.

My reason for it being a bad decision is clearly different from the fantasy you put forth of, and I quote, "UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of politicians".

Thats not what this decision did. It's not what it does, and frankly, you should be a-fucking-shamed for speaking out about it when you clearly do not understand it.

This motherfucker agrees then disagrees at the same time. Ok, then argue with yourself because I agree with your other personality

The motherfucker is pointing out your false premise.. Regardless as to whether or not the motherfucker agrees with your conclusion. I realize this is advanced thinking. Like, college level. So, your inability to properly comprehend this isn't really surprising.

Now turn and tell yourself why you disagree with yourself.

Too much money in politics and its bad for Voters. I.E. Citizens, Americans, Everyone else.

If its bad for all of us I am against it. So are you. Stop your bitching

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The money provided a means to deny American Citizens of a basic right, to marry.

No, it did not.

You'll have to forgive him. He doesn't realize everyone has the right to marry. Just not the right to redefine marriage.

Well, that's not really what i was after. There is absolutely no correlation that can be drawn to show that A)Because religous groups ran ads regarding gay marriage, that B) gays were denied marriage.

it's another "pushing on a string" argument that can not be quantified, or qualified in the least. It's simply intolerance for others displaying publically, and advocating an opposing view.

 

[zeke]

It's a bad decision for the individual voter. Who in this country, is generally completely ignorant of all things politics. So, adding additional communications via ads and soundbites, will only help foster that level of ignorance since all politics is about deception.

I mean, just look at all the money Obama supporters spent on electioneering communications and independent expenditures.

The ruling is bad becaiuse the majority of voters are already ignorant. This can help, from any side, fuel that ignorance and generally cloud of muck up the real issues.

Sort of like the last cycle where we had to hear about Romney's fuckin' dog and other dumb shit that was about as useful as most LOLberal ideas.

Whose fault is that though? It's the individual voters. We all have a responsibility as citizens of this great nation to educate ourselves. We have a duty to know what's going on and to act based on wisdom instead of soundbytes.

If we fail to live up to our responsibilities, we get what we deserve.

To educate ourselves you say. How do you "educate" someone who is willfully ignorant?
I see people get "educated" right on this board. And I'll be damned if the person who received the benefit of the education, they come right back the next day and say the exact same shit that they got educated on the day before.

I guess in short I would say; you can't fix stupid. And we have a bunch of stupid people who vote in this country.

We have failed in our responsibilities TO EACH OTHER. We ignore the fact we have responsibilities to each other. Why do so many worship the ultra wealthy? Why do so many vote against their own self interest? Why has our literacy rates and critical thinking skills devolved?

Why you think that is?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This motherfucker agrees then disagrees at the same time. Ok, then argue with yourself because I agree with your other personality

The motherfucker is pointing out your false premise.. Regardless as to whether or not the motherfucker agrees with your conclusion. I realize this is advanced thinking. Like, college level. So, your inability to properly comprehend this isn't really surprising.

Now turn and tell yourself why you disagree with yourself.

Too much money in politics and its bad for Voters. I.E. Citizens, Americans, Everyone else.

If its bad for all of us I am against it. So are you. Stop your bitching

Make a logical fucking argument, and i wont have to point out your fallacies. I never agreed with your premise, I still do not, because it is a false one. Your conclusion, however, as broad as it is, I do agree with on CU. NOT on money in politics. My view there is vastly different from yours on multiple levels, and for entirely different reasons.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a bad decision for the individual voter. Who in this country, is generally completely ignorant of all things politics. So, adding additional communications via ads and soundbites, will only help foster that level of ignorance since all politics is about deception.

I mean, just look at all the money Obama supporters spent on electioneering communications and independent expenditures.

The ruling is bad becaiuse the majority of voters are already ignorant. This can help, from any side, fuel that ignorance and generally cloud of muck up the real issues.

Sort of like the last cycle where we had to hear about Romney's fuckin' dog and other dumb shit that was about as useful as most LOLberal ideas.

Whose fault is that though? It's the individual voters. We all have a responsibility as citizens of this great nation to educate ourselves. We have a duty to know what's going on and to act based on wisdom instead of soundbytes.

If we fail to live up to our responsibilities, we get what we deserve.

To educate ourselves you say. How do you "educate" someone who is willfully ignorant?
I see people get "educated" right on this board. And I'll be damned if the person who received the benefit of the education, they come right back the next day and say the exact same shit that they got educated on the day before.

I guess in short I would say; you can't fix stupid. And we have a bunch of stupid people who vote in this country.

We have failed in our responsibilities TO EACH OTHER. We ignore the fact we have responsibilities to each other. Why do so many worship the ultra wealthy? Why do so many vote against their own self interest? Why has our literacy rates and critical thinking skills devolved?

Why you think that is?

If you are so ignorant that you don't know how to educate yourself, then I dont know that I can help you. But i recommend starting with books. Look at facts. Learn how to think and analyze. Learn how to ask questions. Learn logic. etc Basics really.

No one can educate you. You can only educate yourself.