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

[ClosedCaption]

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.



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.

No one is claiming to know how money influences vs others. Thats like asking how long is a piece of string.

Spending money how they see fit isnt the point either.

So you keep quoting me talking about shit no one else is then say you dont have time to explain. OF COURSE YOU DONT. You cant explain nonsense.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Appeal to Authority

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

No, my position is based on the observation that politics is one big game of deception and that individual voters are generally ignorant and therefore easily swayed by soundbites and rhetoric. I have no problem with free speech, or the decision carried down by SCOTUS about CU. My personal opinion of the ruling is tied to the growing ignorance in voters, not in the ability of others to conduct free speech. I even agreed with Avatar that the responsibility falls on the voter to use critical thinking and be well informed of their decisions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Damn, Dante has discovered something no one else on the planet has ever seen.

Funny thing, corporations are throwing lots of money at PACS, even though they have it, and don't know about your theory. They haven't been doing it in California, even though there has never been any limits on the amount of money corporations can spend that way in the state.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are not the first person to figure this out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, my position is based on the observation that politics is one big game of deception and that individual voters are generally ignorant and therefore easily swayed by soundbites and rhetoric. I have no problem with free speech, or the decision carried down by SCOTUS about CU. My personal opinion of the ruling is tied to the growing ignorance in voters, not in the ability of others to conduct free speech. I even agreed with Avatar that the responsibility falls on the voter to use critical thinking and be well informed of their decisions.

You are still wrong, live with it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

No, my position is based on the observation that politics is one big game of deception and that individual voters are generally ignorant and therefore easily swayed by soundbites and rhetoric. I have no problem with free speech, or the decision carried down by SCOTUS about CU. My personal opinion of the ruling is tied to the growing ignorance in voters, not in the ability of others to conduct free speech. I even agreed with Avatar that the responsibility falls on the voter to use critical thinking and be well informed of their decisions.

You are still wrong, live with it.

Well, considering Im the one who corrected others for saying that, will go with mistaken identity in that accusation. It's either that, or your reading comprehension needs serious remediation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, my position is based on the observation that politics is one big game of deception and that individual voters are generally ignorant and therefore easily swayed by soundbites and rhetoric. I have no problem with free speech, or the decision carried down by SCOTUS about CU. My personal opinion of the ruling is tied to the growing ignorance in voters, not in the ability of others to conduct free speech. I even agreed with Avatar that the responsibility falls on the voter to use critical thinking and be well informed of their decisions.

You are still wrong, live with it.

Well, considering Im the one who corrected others for saying that, will go with mistaken identity in that accusation. It's either that, or your reading comprehension needs serious remediation.

I am not mistaken about your identity, you are saying Citizens United is bad for the individual, you are wrong. Rich people could always dump millions into spending in opposition to, or support of, a candidate. The only change is now, when people who aren't rich want to do the same thing, and the government forces them to form a corporation, they can still do it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, you editd your post, so I didn't respond to that anyway. Regardless, a persons opinion on something, is just that - their opinion. Claiming i'm "wrong" about my opinoin of the CU ruling is like saying Im wrong about liking Cheerios.

 

[ClosedCaption]

this is funny

 

[Spoonman]

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.

You're dishonest or stupid (both need to be ruled out). Do you know what a correlation is? Apparently not. I stated it is my opinion that Propaganda is a science and money was given to professional propagandists to flood the airways and print against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry in California. Was some of that money provided by an organized religion? Of course it was, but no study of which I'm aware correlated what percentage of voters were convinced to vote against the rights of other citizens by any organization.

Avatar has no right to define marriage; S/he has every right to offer his/her opinion as to what he or she believes marriage ought to be, but not to define it for the rest of us.

yet you liberal retards somehow feel you have the right to define what is ok for everyone else. not too hypocritcal of you

 

[TakeAStepBack]

this is funny

More like a travesty.

 

[ClosedCaption]

this is funny

More like a travesty.

I love seeing you two duke it out. Its one non point after another. Just a lot of what things arent

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no duking it out. Dude made false assumptions, turned my position on its head, then changed the post where he claimed i was lying about it, like I was lying about saying that CU gives unlimited funds to politicians.

So, you have one thing correct, it's been one non-point after another for the last page.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is no duking it out. Dude made false assumptions, turned my position on its head, then changed the post where he claimed i was lying about it, like I was lying about saying that CU gives unlimited funds to politicians.

So, you have one thing correct, it's been one non-point after another for the last page.

Like I said this is funny...he gave you a dose of your own medicine.

 

[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.

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

Good luck with that.

Good luck with editing my comment and getting away with it. I framed that remark based on every post of yours I've read, sufficient evidence you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as critical thinking is not your forte.

The rest of my response which made my point clear was that your comment ( "Speech is good. More speech is better' ) is ridiculous when said 'speech' can be delivered anonymously and paid for by China (Bamboo Curtain) or Russia (Iron Curtain). References you left out as a means of censorship to make your thread look sensible.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no duking it out. Dude made false assumptions, turned my position on its head, then changed the post where he claimed i was lying about it, like I was lying about saying that CU gives unlimited funds to politicians.

So, you have one thing correct, it's been one non-point after another for the last page.

Like I said this is funny...he gave you a dose of your own medicine.

Yeah, no.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Totally. It was like watching to dogs with no teeth fight it out.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[eflatminor]

You're an idiot.

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

Good luck with that.

Good luck with editing my comment and getting away with it. I framed that remark based on every post of yours I've read, sufficient evidence you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as critical thinking is not your forte.

The rest of my response which made my point clear was that your comment ( "Speech is good. More speech is better' ) is ridiculous when said 'speech' can be delivered anonymously and paid for by China (Bamboo Curtain) or Russia (Iron Curtain). References you left out as a means of censorship to make your thread look sensible.

Right, because only you are capable of determining what speech is worthy for others to hear...'cuz you know what's best for everyone else. Yea, pass.

 

[eflatminor]

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.



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?

When you're ready to make a cogent point, let us know. Until then, I will stand against the banning of speech that YOU don't like...or anyone else for that matter. Got it, Dante? Does Dante understand now? What say you Dante?