ivan

simple as well - were those limits worth fuckall? should that movie have been obstructed?

gee prole, why don't you answer your own fucking question? could it be b/c you come across as a dislikable asshole? that arguing w/ you is fucking aggravating?

okay then, watson, you appear to be admitting that money IS speech - do you want then to delve into the specifics now of how you are going to limit political speech? what's the max dollar/decibel level? how does you idea ultimately translate into a meaningful and enforceable and constitutional law?

but it takes money to speak! wether it be a bullhorn, a bus-ticket to reach the park where you plan on spewing free-crazy to the masses, the computer to type up your manifestoes on cc.com, whatever - to speak in the political sense requires money, and giving money to a cause your passionate about is speech too - it says "i love this shit X much"

"the power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy predispositions where it is almost superflous" - ed gibbon, famous nerd

there's a big old crack right behind the scrap (the upper part of dod's jam that NO ONE ever does (and for good reason) - i'm sure a motivated person could get a camera in/up there and it would be quite weatherproof Exactly, the crack behind the scrape would make the camera invisible and protect it from the weather. i'm sure nasa has a multi-billion dollar solution if you're inthe market

'cuz the Man would get pissed about it beatard?

dood, NOBODY can kill these guys!

indeed - i see those fuckers everywehre in the gorge and believing they're endangered is as hard to swallow as marmots being on the block

than your opposition to this decision is schizophrenic, as that is ultimately what courts have to do: rule on the exact situation in front of them, not make the world the way they think it oughta be. they should have been allowed to play their suck-ass movie Wasn't there a dissenting opinion? i have not read it, but would appreciate an analysis similiar the aclu one for the majority i know enough about the law to know i don't know a damn thing about how it actually ends up working - like msot, i begin w/ a sense of how things SHOULD be, then feel frustrated by a general inabilty to clear understand how it all gets fucked up in the actual implementation

whatever, next your gonna tell me tutsis AREN'T cockroaches?!?

than your opposition to this decision is schizophrenic, as that is ultimately what courts have to do: rule on the exact situation in front of them, not make the world the way they think it oughta be. they should have been allowed to play their suck-ass movie

i betcha $700 billion that we'll find WMD in iraq too

there's a big old crack right behind the scrap (the upper part of dod's jam that NO ONE ever does (and for good reason) - i'm sure a motivated person could get a camera in/up there and it would be quite weatherproof

nice to see that at least ONE species of rodent is capable of being eradicated

at any rate, is this really a suprising opinion coming from the aclu? seems there're pretty much famous for pissing EVERYBODY off w/ their devotion to the bill o' rights - for chris'sakes, they were on the side of the illinios nazis!

did you read the analysis? yeah, my gut tells me microsoft and gm and ge, etc. shouldn't be able to buy whoever they want w/ their speech, but the same gut tells me its b.s. to gag planned parenthood, the aclu, etc. b/c those are corps that are specifically established to magnify the speech of private, concerned citizens perhaps there is a way to distinguish between mega-business corps and non-profit political corps - but then, w/ everythign, there's a thousand loopholes...

it's worth your $ to buy sweet adjustable daisies! you might well do some clean aid routes 'fore you go buying a shit-ton of metal didn't see a fifi on your list, you got one already?

crawling in oak today - seems like its only winter in the gorge when my skin turns to zombie-flesh

is this like the 100 flowers campaign? were you planning on going first?

good post pat, though finding myself mid-sip re-reading some lines more than twice i've no doubt absorbed it all the masses, and no doubt my own, initial reaction to the decision was certainly more an expression of the frustration at the inequities of wealth than the exact legal minutiae of the case - christ, what normal human being can parse a scotus decision? the gut feeling is that corporations own our asses, and so anything that even looks to involve the subject makes us antsy so it's all going to be okay then?

i'm sure you'll find it (in july )

if the tiger woods thang blew up b4 obama, obama wouldn't have happened?

because they have small japenese penises?

the bagman man - i can't drive, talk on the phone and hold the money all by myself