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

[ClosedCaption]

Citizens United doesn't allow for direct contributions. Those are banned for federal elections from unions or corporations. CU is about allowing electioneering communications. While the ruling isn't favorable from an individual perspective, it does n't allow for the "buying of elections". That's simply incorrect, propaganda nonsense formulated by Dimocrats in the 2010 electino cycle to make their losses about CU. Which, was another failure of LOlberals.

You talk alot about what it doesnt do. Tell everyone what it DOES do.

It allows anyone to put UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of Politicians.

Using your own thoughts. Why is this good? Dont start up with "Liberals think blah blah" try talking about what you believe for a change

No one on this planet has unlimited funds. Even if the entire Fortune 500 list put every penny they have into one politician's pocket the rest of the world would still have more money than that one person.

Cool shit bro

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I see your IQ is at least in double digits.

Tell me something, how does giving someone who is already in office access to free postage and the ability to raise money for years, and then telling someone who wants to run against him that he is not allowed to do the same thing, help the individual voter? How does telling a group of veterans that have an issue with a particular candidate that they cannot get together and tell others about their issues help the individual voter? How does making it illegal to even mention anyone by name if they are running for office help the individual voter?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

STRAW MAN's ass sure got kicked in this video.

Yup, that straw man is hurtin for sure.

Meanwhile Citizens United is effectively turning a democratic republic into a fascist republic.

Think that fascism and republic are muturally exclusive events,do ya?

REad the history of the ROMAN REPUBLIC.

That was a fascist republic from the get go.

Tell me, specifically, what is worse now than it was before.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To level set, the finding held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The case came about after Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Citizens United - YouTube

Speech is good. More speech is better.

You're an idiot. I write that based on the body of your work posted on this message board and your claim the CU v. FEC is about free speech. It is not. It's about five justices deciding that anonymous sources may spend money & make claims on issues to be decided in an election.

Speech is good, but not given behind a curtain, and that curtain may very well be iron or bamboo.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding the opinion of Romney and others. They, as well as political action committees of every size and shape are amoral, and have one and only one concern - their own well being.

Suggesting money does not buy elections is absurd, even the most dishonest partisan knows that it has and can. Sadly some partisan - like you? - lie and claim otherwise.

Do you really want to allow our nation to become a Plutocracy, one where the rich make all the rules? Not most of them as is done today. It really is time to take our government back, from the Plutocrats in Congress and in boardrooms across the nation.

Of course it isn't about speech, even though the law actually told people they couldn't talk about candidates during an election. It was, obviously, about national security and the children.

Do you post simply 'cause you need attention? Since you seem desperate, allow me to give you some. Your post is stupid as are most of your written comments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

His position is based on on a belief that it is better to restrict free speech than allow people to say nasty things about politicians, even if they are true. Yours is based on the delusion that money that cannot be given to politicians is given to politicians. Frankly, his position, even though it is fundamentally wrong, at least makes sense.

 

[ClosedCaption]

STRAW MAN's ass sure got kicked in this video.

Yup, that straw man is hurtin for sure.

Meanwhile Citizens United is effectively turning a democratic republic into a fascist republic.

Think that fascism and republic are muturally exclusive events,do ya?

REad the history of the ROMAN REPUBLIC.

That was a fascist republic from the get go.

Tell me, specifically, what is worse now than it was before.

Citizens United Ruling

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

LMAO. So much for teachers.
Fuck you. And here I thought you weren't as stupid as I first thought. Then I will be damned if you don't post up right away and prove once again how fucking stupid you are. Ah well, who gives a flying fuck. I was just making conversation.

But nice of you to prove once again that you can't fix stupid. And make no doubt about it, you are stupid.

If teachers could educate people who don't educate themselves then everyone in school would know everything the teacher does, and no more. It is the innate ability to educate ourselves that allows real people to surpass their teachers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

His position is based on on a belief that it is better to restrict free speech than allow people to say nasty things about politicians, even if they are true. Yours is based on the delusion that money that cannot be given to politicians is given to politicians. Frankly, his position, even though it is fundamentally wrong, at least makes sense.

You really don't get it. That's sad.

 

[eflatminor]

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

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

Wrong. It ensures people can come together and organize their speech as they see fit, which has exactly the opposite of what you claim to be worried about.

You cool with the government banning books and movies? After all, that's really what the ruling was about...an organization's movie that government suggested could not be shown near to an election.

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 am neither a D nor R. And no, big picture, I do not believe they represent the people.

To the extent politicians are in the pocket of the rich, it is only so because those same politicians meddle in areas outside of their strictly enumerated powers...the very same politicians YOU support. Oh the irony!

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.

Ah yes, another ad hominen attack...always a good call.

In retort, I never said money has no influence, but I certainly support the right of people to organize and spend their money as they see fit. I realize that concept clashes with your central planning ideals.

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.

WalMart spends TONS of money advertising, yet I really don't shop there. So while I never said money means nothing, some of us are grown up enough to make our own minds up about those attempting to influence our decisions.

You?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because being able to talk about the government in anything but positive, glowing, terms is going to RUIN EVERYTHING.

Looking in the mirror and confusing the guy you see for someone else again?

 

[eflatminor]

To level set, the finding held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The case came about after Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Citizens United - YouTube

Speech is good. More speech is better.

You're an idiot.

Yes, yes, we all know that ad hominen attacks are the best you're capable of.

Good luck with that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're an idiot. I write that based on the body of your work posted on this message board and your claim the CU v. FEC is about free speech. It is not. It's about five justices deciding that anonymous sources may spend money & make claims on issues to be decided in an election.

Speech is good, but not given behind a curtain, and that curtain may very well be iron or bamboo.

Corporations are not people, notwithstanding the opinion of Romney and others. They, as well as political action committees of every size and shape are amoral, and have one and only one concern - their own well being.

Suggesting money does not buy elections is absurd, even the most dishonest partisan knows that it has and can. Sadly some partisan - like you? - lie and claim otherwise.

Do you really want to allow our nation to become a Plutocracy, one where the rich make all the rules? Not most of them as is done today. It really is time to take our government back, from the Plutocrats in Congress and in boardrooms across the nation.

Of course it isn't about speech, even though the law actually told people they couldn't talk about candidates during an election. It was, obviously, about national security and the children.

Do you post simply 'cause you need attention? Since you seem desperate, allow me to give you some. Your post is stupid as are most of your written comments.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

STRAW MAN's ass sure got kicked in this video.

Yup, that straw man is hurtin for sure.

Meanwhile Citizens United is effectively turning a democratic republic into a fascist republic.

Think that fascism and republic are muturally exclusive events,do ya?

REad the history of the ROMAN REPUBLIC.

That was a fascist republic from the get go.

Tell me, specifically, what is worse now than it was before.

Citizens United Ruling

You call that specific?

 

[eflatminor]

...but not one of the defenders will actually defend Citizens United.

Citizen's United ABSOLUTELY had the right to show that movie whenever they wished to do so.

There you go. I've defended them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

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

Wrong. It ensures people can come together and organize their speech as they see fit, which has exactly the opposite of what you claim to be worried about.

Nice, you didnt even ID what I said that was wrong

You cool with the government banning books and movies? After all, that's really what the ruling was about...an organization's movie that government suggested could not be shown near to an election.



I am neither a D nor R. And no, big picture, I do not believe they represent the people.

To the extent politicians are in the pocket of the rich, it is only so because those same politicians meddle in areas outside of their strictly enumerated powers...the very same politicians YOU support. Oh the irony!

Again, no point just assumptions about me.

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.

Ah yes, another ad hominen attack...always a good call.

Now you're against ad hominem in the middle of your ad hominem. Thats rich

In retort, I never said money has no influence, but I certainly support the right of people to organize and spend their money as they see fit. I realize that concept clashes with your central planning ideals.

AGAIN! HERE IS YOU AGREEING WITH ME AND DISAGREEING WITH SOMEONE WHO ISNT IN THIS THREAD.

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.

WalMart spends TONS of money advertising, yet I really don't shop there. So while I never said money means nothing, some of us are grown up enough to make our own minds up about those attempting to influence our decisions.

You?

So it does influence but it doesnt influence grown ups. I'm guessing you mean money doesnt influence grown ups but again you just said YOU WONT SAY MONEY DOESNT INFLUENCE BECAUSE....IT DOES you duplicitous whore.

QW entire agruement goes: I'm not saying money doesnt influence it can, but it doesnt everyone, not all the time, but it does.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens United doesn't allow for direct contributions. Those are banned for federal elections from unions or corporations. CU is about allowing electioneering communications. While the ruling isn't favorable from an individual perspective, it does n't allow for the "buying of elections". That's simply incorrect, propaganda nonsense formulated by Dimocrats in the 2010 electino cycle to make their losses about CU. Which, was another failure of LOlberals.

You talk alot about what it doesnt do. Tell everyone what it DOES do.

It allows anyone to put UNLIMITED funds into the pockets of Politicians.

Using your own thoughts. Why is this good? Dont start up with "Liberals think blah blah" try talking about what you believe for a change

No one on this planet has unlimited funds. Even if the entire Fortune 500 list put every penny they have into one politician's pocket the rest of the world would still have more money than that one person.

context


at some point an amount of money is spent that is just throwing good after bad. at what point has the message machine saturated the market so much that nothing else can penetrate?

ask the right wingers in the GOP primaries of 2012 who went with Mitt Romney because of all the "limited" funds spent

 

[eflatminor]

To level set, the finding held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The case came about after Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Citizens United - YouTube

Speech is good. More speech is better.

This is so moronic of an OP post it is difficult to find a place to start...

Yet ANOTHER collectivist that can't form a cogent retort without an ad hominem attack.

How sad.

Dante ended up supporting much of the Citizens United argument after the case was decided. He changed his mind to support of the ruling after gaining much info, but fools like you mistake what is legal for what is good to the polity. What is legal is not always what is best for the nation. You belittle a very serious discussion in America by looking to score cheap and sophomoric points.

First, referring to yourself in the third person is more than a little creepy. Just sayin'

Second, I'm going to say without reservation that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THE NATION. Sorry, you just don't.

Banning books or movies because you think you know what's best is wrong...and illegal.

Look at the 2012 GOP primaries. Mitt Romney was the LEAST favored candidate in most state primaries, yet wingnut nation was convinced to go with Romney. Why?

Billions of dollars spent by the few

end of story

And yet, even with all that money, he lost.

Thanks for disproving your own point!

Further, the CU case made no difference in how money was spent on that election. There was no statistical difference between smaller donations and "the few".

then again, I love how screwed the right has been after being convinced to support Citizens United without fully comprehending wtf it is they were supporting

Yea, standing against government banning books and movies is just..."screwy"

 

[eflatminor]

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

Wrong. It ensures people can come together and organize their speech as they see fit, which has exactly the opposite of what you claim to be worried about.

Nice, you didnt even ID what I said that was wrong

You cool with the government banning books and movies? After all, that's really what the ruling was about...an organization's movie that government suggested could not be shown near to an election.



I am neither a D nor R. And no, big picture, I do not believe they represent the people.

To the extent politicians are in the pocket of the rich, it is only so because those same politicians meddle in areas outside of their strictly enumerated powers...the very same politicians YOU support. Oh the irony!

Again, no point just assumptions about me.



Ah yes, another ad hominen attack...always a good call.

Now you're against ad hominem in the middle of your ad hominem. Thats rich

In retort, I never said money has no influence, but I certainly support the right of people to organize and spend their money as they see fit. I realize that concept clashes with your central planning ideals.

AGAIN! HERE IS YOU AGREEING WITH ME AND DISAGREEING WITH SOMEONE WHO ISNT IN THIS THREAD.

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.

WalMart spends TONS of money advertising, yet I really don't shop there. So while I never said money means nothing, some of us are grown up enough to make our own minds up about those attempting to influence our decisions.

You?

So it does influence but it doesnt influence grown ups. I'm guessing you mean money doesnt influence grown ups but again you just said YOU WONT SAY MONEY DOESNT INFLUENCE BECAUSE....IT DOES you duplicitous whore.

Wow...reading comprehension problem?

Once again, I'm not claiming to know how money influences some vs others. I don't care. What I do care about is that people should be able to spend their money as they see fit. So did the Supreme Court. Sorry if that burns your ass.

And thanks again for proving your inability to avoid ad hominen attacks. Really, really pathetic.

QW entire agruement goes: I'm not saying money doesnt influence it can, but it doesnt everyone, not all the time, but it does.

If that's how your mind works, well, I don't think I can help you.

Good luck.

 

[eflatminor]

Earl Warren and darling-of-the-Left FDR understood this issue. Worth a read, if you have even a modicum of open mindedness...

Citizens United Decision Fulfilled Earl Warren's First Amendment Vision - Reason.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To level set, the finding held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The case came about after Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, which ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

Nearly six years after the ruling, we have yet to see the disastrous results predicted by so many around here, not to mention the President, when he said "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".

I have yet to hear a cogent argument that justifies restriction of first amendment rights. And all that "corporations are now people" talk? Pure bullshit. Bottom line, the ruling did NOT result in our elections being bankrolled by foreign entities nor any of the other end-of-the-world predictions made around here.

An interesting clip...5 things you man not have know about the case:

5 Things You Didn't Know About Citizens United - YouTube

Speech is good. More speech is better.

This is so moronic of an OP post it is difficult to find a place to start...

Yet ANOTHER collectivist that can't form a cogent retort without an ad hominem attack.

How sad.



First, referring to yourself in the third person is more than a little creepy. Just sayin'

Second, I'm going to say without reservation that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THE NATION. Sorry, you just don't.

Banning books or movies because you think you know what's best is wrong...and illegal.

Look at the 2012 GOP primaries. Mitt Romney was the LEAST favored candidate in most state primaries, yet wingnut nation was convinced to go with Romney. Why?

Billions of dollars spent by the few

end of story

And yet, even with all that money, he lost.

Thanks for disproving your own point!

Further, the CU case made no difference in how money was spent on that election. There was no statistical difference between smaller donations and "the few".

then again, I love how screwed the right has been after being convinced to support Citizens United without fully comprehending wtf it is they were supporting

Yea, standing against government banning books and movies is just..."screwy"

(yawn) ad hominem attacks serve a purpose

Dante changed his mind as he studied more...changed from against to for.


The case is not that money can elect a candidate, it is that it corrupts and poisons the system so that most people turn against it. You actually miss the point, but hey...par for the course

Standing against the government? You?




you mistake your being a misanthropic troglodytre with principle?