keenwesh Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 aaron is spitting the truth, now if everyone could see the light... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenwesh Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 awww fuckit they never will, I'm just going to go climbing. if ron somehow gets elected I'm moving to canada. jesus, it is depressing to listen to all the greeners falling under his spell. idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 jesus, it is depressing to listen to all the greeners falling under his spell. idiotic. who can resist the siren call of a Bonnified Lost Cause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 it is depressing to listen to all the greeners falling under his spell. idiotic. I feel the same way about Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) In 2011, 196 individual donors provided nearly 80 percent of the money raised by super PACs. awesome link, thanks. I'm not sure I can even give the ACLU any money anymore after the citizens united debacle. Ie, you're blaming the wrong folks. Well, it's always a balancing act, isn't it? You're never going to find an organization you agree with 100%. Ending the drug war, gay marriage, Citizens United. The latter was the only responsible decision SCOTUS could have made that wouldn't have trashed the 1st Amendment. Do you really want a government that can shut down free speech without bothering to prove any harm? McCain Feingold did just that, and SCOTUS rightfully struck it down. SCOTUS also left that avenue wide open: When congress wants to do the necessary work of proving a harm before restricting campaign contributions (as the state of Montana just did), you can have restrictions of corporate contributions...constitutional ones this time. Edited February 18, 2012 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenwesh Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 it is depressing to listen to all the greeners falling under his spell. idiotic. I feel the same way about Obama. Yeah but you're just the token repub on this site, no one really cares what you have to say in terms of politics, yer just wrong. greeners are the exact opposite of what paul stands for, but they need someone to latch on to who isn't obama. I'm not really that excited for his second term. I wish there was a viable republican candidate who wasn't bat shit insane, I'd love to vote for someone new, but obama is the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Umm keenwesh, I'm not sure how to classify Kevbone but he ain't the only poster on the site who supports republican candidates or general principals now and then. Please try and pay attention Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenwesh Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 feck of course you're right, it was with a hint of sarcasm that I wrote that. After moving to MT my political leanings have shifted to the right. Like for example I don't have that big of a problem with the wolf hunts, and I think that gun control laws don't need any more restrictions. As for this crop of republican candidates... I'm starting to worry about the GOP, that's seriously the best they could come up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 uh oh! i think coldfinger just called for a group hug Well, be wary and stay on your guard, they don't call him "cold finger" for nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Based on today's news looks like the Supremes may have buyers remorse on Citizens United. With good reason. Two Supreme Court justices suggested Friday that the court reconsider its controversial 2010 decision that allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. The suggestion came as the court blocked a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a century-old ban on corporate campaign spending in the state. The Montana ruling seems squarely at odds with the court’s 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited corporate spending. The U.S. Supreme Court majority had said such independent spending did not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. In Friday’s order, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer said the upheaval in the world of campaign finance since the Citizens United decision does not bear out the majority opinion. “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ” Ginsburg wrote. “A petition for certiorari [from those challenging the Montana court’s decision] will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.” The U.S. high court’s action Friday does not necessarily mean that it will hear the Montana case; it could later summarily reverse the Montana court’s decision. There is no timetable for such action, but Friday’s stay probably means that corporations will be able to spend money on state and local races in Montana this year. In Friday’s order, Ginsburg appeared to refer to the vast amounts of money spent by super PACs that have flourished in the aftermath of Citizens United and subsequent decisions by lower courts and the FEC. Corporations and wealthy individuals have contributed millions of dollars to super PACs supporting individual candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. Altogether, super PACs have spent twice as much on television advertising as have the candidates’ campaigns, according to estimates by Kantar Media/CMAG, an ad tracking firm. The Montana court’s action has given rise to the first challenge of the Citizens United decision. By a 5 to 2 vote, the state court upheld Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits certain political spending by corporations. The Montana court acknowledged the conflict with Citizens United, but Chief Justice Mike McGrath said the state was especially vulnerable to “continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I don't think you want to debate the .000001% that are hard-core Ron Paul supporters. They're small in number (inconsequential really...), but rabid in their devotion. There's no point in engaging them. They are not a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 uh oh! i think coldfinger just called for a group hug Well, be wary and stay on your guard, they don't call him "cold finger" for nothing! Yeah he PM'd me after I posted that. Said that he was actually just wanted a hug from kevbone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I don't think you want to debate the .000001% that are hard-core Ron Paul supporters. They're small in number (inconsequential really...), but rabid in their devotion. There's no point in engaging them. They are not a factor. Yeah I saw them today downtown. There were so many of them that traffic continued to move smoothly and a few people turned their heads and noticed them standing on street corners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Minx, still waitin' for your tour date appearance at the new Stone Gardens on the east side... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I would love to but the tour ended after one date when my shoulder went straight to hell. Feeling very very very frustrated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The latter was the only responsible decision SCOTUS could have made that wouldn't have trashed the 1st Amendment. Do you really want a government that can shut down free speech without bothering to prove any harm? McCain Feingold did just that, and SCOTUS rightfully struck it down. SCOTUS also left that avenue wide open: When congress wants to do the necessary work of proving a harm before restricting campaign contributions (as the state of Montana just did), you can have restrictions of corporate contributions...constitutional ones this time. Funny how Montanans knew that flooding the electoral process with corporate cash leads straight to plutocracy in 1912 but the supreme couldn't find any evidence of it in 2010. Quit drinking the cool-aid Tvash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.