Politics and Religion

So you would ban “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, “Matt?
marikod 1 Reviews 711 reads
posted

After all, a corporation funded that movie just as much as Citizens United funded “Hillary.” Jimmy Stewart was pretty damn critical of members of Congress, just as CU was critical of Hillary.

        Mr. Smith was fiction. Who funds Jon Stewart? Gulp- it is  a corporation. Is he pure comedy, or partly satire? I’d say he is mostly satire. Satire is political speech.

      If you reverse Citizens United, both Stewarts could be banned by the government.

        Are you sure you want to do that? I have a better idea of dealing with dark money. Why not a federal law requiring full disclosure of donors to corporations and other organizations who engage in political advocacy whether in the form of attack ads or satire. You could do that without running afoul of the First Amendment. That way, if China is funding Jon Stewarts and Colbert’s satire of Republicans, we at least would know.

      There was in fact a federal bill called the Disclosure Act that tried to this. But the Republicans tacked on an amendment that excluded the NRA. That is right, the NRA gets a lot of money from foreigners to fund its political advocacy arm and does not particularly want to disclose who they are. They want to make it look like American citizens are the ones who oppose all gun control.

 
The bill died. Now, we have to guess how much foreign money is fueling those NRA attack ads.

        Citizens United was correctly decided. You can’t ban political speech. Rich guys don't lose their FA rights just bc they are rich. And guys who associate together to form a corporation shouldn't either.  But we can deal with some of the problems created by some tough disclosure laws

Let's look at the reality of it.  

The Koch Brothers have made it very clear they plan to spend $1 BILLION dollars to put Conservative candidates they approve of in office. If they annoint Jeb , then their money combined with Bush coffers could prove insurmountable in the General election. Whoever gains their ultimate favor, the Kochs will have an impact on our political landscape, and it does not give me comfort.

Sheldon Adelson support being tied to a pro-Israel position means his money will not make a difference in the General Election, no matter how many Jewish ZOG conspiracies meinarsche aspires to promote. The schism over Obama's Iran deal will negate much of what has in the past been seen as a strong Democratic leaning demographic. More like 55-45 instead of the 80-20 of previous elections. Too bad the American public can't stomach the idea of a Jewish President.  

Donald Trump can and will spend $1 Billiion of his own money. We know this is true because he says so. (o_O) But until Trump actually does release his tax returns and financial documents, and until he is prepared to put ALL his assets into a blind trust (as the laws require), I'm simply not taking him seriously, but give him credit for being VERY entertaining and providing compelling television. It's a reality show in the making in case you haven't figured it out yet.

The Clinton Super PACS probably have immediate and promised capital of close to $1 Billion of their own. It's Hillary's last best chance to get into the Oval Office. If only she had Bill's approval ratings.

Holy Fucking Are You Kidding Me???

While some of you are jumping out of your skin over Trumps current polling stats, while some of you are spilling Benghazi bilge all over Hillary comments, and did Graham really invoke Monica in New Hampshire? Do you KNOW how lame that is!?

You should REALLY not pay attention to the preliminaries... the clown car parade doesn't really mean shit till the low hanging fruit drops off, much like in March Madness, nobody really cares until the Quarterfinals.

Look at where the money is flowing and from which sources, and that's where you will find who's likely to be driving the clown car come Convention Season.

Until then, its a dog and pony show for ambitious politicians and business people hoping for enough attention to get them their next job in the private sector, or an advance on their book.

How do you follow dark money. As far as we know the Chinese can be funding a candidate to the tune of big bucks enough to have him or her elected. Something has to be done to reverse Citizen's United.   ;)

But, I do agree with you about not taking much of the clown car drama's seriously.

Reversing Citizens United should be the top priority for people who genuinely care about democracy.

Posted By: mattradd
How do you follow dark money. As far as we know the Chinese can be funding a candidate to the tune of big bucks enough to have him or her elected. Something has to be done to reverse Citizen's United.   ;)  
   
 But, I do agree with you about not taking much of the clown car drama's seriously.

And, btw, how is it "less democratic" for the SCOTUS to side with the First Amendment? If we are going to err, shouldn't it be in favor of the bill of rights rather than against it?

GaGambler408 reads

but blew it on this issue?

In your defense, the righties seem to be claiming the exact opposite, that the SCOTUS got it right on this issue and blew it on ObambaCare and Gay Marriage.

Personally, I think they blew it on  two of the three cases. I am with you on this one. I don't think that putting elections up to the highest bidder is in our best interests, but the irony is not lost on me that the same people who have been telling us that SCOTUS has spoken and that ObamaCare is now the "law of the land" and we need to just accept it, now believe the Court has blown it because they disagree with the ruling in this case.

For the record, I am not sure the Supremes were on solid legal ground on any of the three decisions, even the one I agree with, but I will admit I am happy that gays can now be just as unhappy as straights.

Did you see my post about the 7 toss up senate seats in 2014?

...You can agree or disagree with the actual decisions, but the Court still has the right to decide the cases.  

Righties scream "judicial activism" when the Court decides cases about rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (abortion).  That's because they believe in "originalism" or "strict construction" - if it's not in the four corners of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case.  At least that's what they say when they don't agree with the ruling.

Righties are hypocrites and remain silent when the Court decides that corporations are people and their money = speech.  That's not in the Constitution yet righties don't tear their hair out and scream about judicial activism over the Court's decision when the Court rules in their favor.

Take the Second Amendment...please!  Righties think it's holy and cannot be interpreted, even though we're no longer using single-shot, inaccurate muskets and single-shot pistols.  Both took a long time to load and can't compare to today's automatic weapons.  Righties say that doesn't matter - you can't interpret the Second Amendment other than the way it was written 225 years ago.

But the First Amendment - that's a different story.  The First Amendment clearly applies to people only, yet righty S.C. justices have found somewhere in the First Amendment that corporations are people too and have First Amendment rights just like people.

But you can't be surprised by their hypocrisy.  These are the same family value thumpers who are out screwing hookers as much as any lefty.

GaGambler503 reads

The court had to go so far as to defend the "intent of the law" instead of the "letter" in it's last ruling, but ruled originally that the law was a "tax" when supporting it the first time, despite the Administrations earlier insistence to the contrary until it became obvious that it was the only way to save it. Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

As for the 2nd amendment, it can be argued the founders "intent" was for the citizenry to be armed on a par with the government in order for Government to always be in fear of the citizenry and not the other way around. Somehow the concept of government working for us as opposed to ruling us seems to have gotten lost over the last 225 years ago.

My point is, lefties are every bit the hypocrites they claim the righties are. I am not defending righties where it is plain they are indeed hypocrites, just pointing out that they hardly have a monopoly where it comes to hypocrisy.

Posted By: GaGambler
As for the 2nd amendment, it can be argued the founders "intent" was for the citizenry to be armed on a par with the government in order for Government to always be in fear of the citizenry and not the other way around.
In the late 18th century there were people that owned field artillery pieces. When not in service they took them home for storage.  

The case can be made that it was government over-regulation vis-a-vis prohibition that gave rise to criminal gang violence which in turn gave rise to the first ban and regulation of automatic firearms. I'm not suggesting anyone be allowed to own a nuke but the Second Amendment's intent HAS indeed been distorted.

Examine the evolution of free speech vis-a-vis technology:
During the 18th century the circulation of free speech (i.e. it's volume and speed) was restricted to how loud a person could yell or how fast a horse could run with printed material. The intent of the First Amendment's frees speech clause has survived the advancement of the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV and the internet. People do try to argue that basically too much (communication) technology in the hands of the "wrong" people is bad for society. Really no different logic than that which HAS been applied to 2nd Amendment.

And having a right to walk down the street with a machine gun are two fundamentally different propositions.

You need to retread the prefatory clause and see how it qualifies the operative clause of the second amendment.

If you are right, the safe act would be unconstitutional on its face.

Your attempt to put words in mouth is par for your course.

I wasn't attempting to be "right" about anything in today's time reference. It was a discussion regarding original intent that GaG brought up. I merely added supporting facts to his notion or assertion. Your extrapolation of the idea into today is meaningless as the SCOTUS has for decades already distorted the original intent, which I also did address a portion thereof regarding there support for outlawing civilian automatic weapons 80 years ago.

Another example of distortion of the 2nd Amendment that is closer to today is the present fact that an ACTIVE DUTY, ON DUTY (2 separate things) Army officer or NCO is not allowed to even take his SEMI-AUTOMATIC sidearm back and forth from his own on-base home to/from his daily workplace (unless he his Military Police or assigned to specifically and actively engaged in the protection of something. (paraphrased in case you look it up).

So you see...even the title of your own post (that you seem to classify as a fundamentally sound position) is ILLEGAL today. And not just for a militia member but for an active duty officer that is on duty. I did inject the use of the word "sound". Maybe you'd like to clarify.

...the Constitution - that's judicial activism.  I said you could agree with the decision (Obamacare) or disagree (Citizen's United).  Righties scream "judicial activism!" when the Court rules against them but remain mum when the Court "interprets" the Constitution in their favor without a shred of support in the Constitution.  That's hypocrisy.

BTW - it's fucking hard to type the word "Constitution."

Or joining an organization? The SCOTUS simply said they shouldn't.

The answer to others free speech isn't less speech, it is more speech.

They sided with the First Amendment.  

That's a good thing, all things considered.

After all, a corporation funded that movie just as much as Citizens United funded “Hillary.” Jimmy Stewart was pretty damn critical of members of Congress, just as CU was critical of Hillary.

        Mr. Smith was fiction. Who funds Jon Stewart? Gulp- it is  a corporation. Is he pure comedy, or partly satire? I’d say he is mostly satire. Satire is political speech.

      If you reverse Citizens United, both Stewarts could be banned by the government.

        Are you sure you want to do that? I have a better idea of dealing with dark money. Why not a federal law requiring full disclosure of donors to corporations and other organizations who engage in political advocacy whether in the form of attack ads or satire. You could do that without running afoul of the First Amendment. That way, if China is funding Jon Stewarts and Colbert’s satire of Republicans, we at least would know.

      There was in fact a federal bill called the Disclosure Act that tried to this. But the Republicans tacked on an amendment that excluded the NRA. That is right, the NRA gets a lot of money from foreigners to fund its political advocacy arm and does not particularly want to disclose who they are. They want to make it look like American citizens are the ones who oppose all gun control.

 
The bill died. Now, we have to guess how much foreign money is fueling those NRA attack ads.

        Citizens United was correctly decided. You can’t ban political speech. Rich guys don't lose their FA rights just bc they are rich. And guys who associate together to form a corporation shouldn't either.  But we can deal with some of the problems created by some tough disclosure laws

working towards regulating political speech on the Internet, in what seems to be heavy handed ways and generally against their present opposition.

Their plan was shelved last year but I read recently (can't find the link) that the Democrats on the FEC are still looking for ways to regulate Drudge, etc.

I know many have proposed that Mr. Obama sign an executive order that guts Citizen's United but he has so many EOs going it is hard to keep count. Not sure how they could regulate the content of the Druge Report beyond the existing exceptions to FA doctrine.

This is a radio discussion between the single Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai and liberal talk show host Alan Colmes.

Pai was relating some inside information he'd gained in talking to Democrat people he knows at the FEC.

As I am 100% in favor of what you are saying and advocating on this topic.

Good post.

Just keeps getting higher and higher. Only Those who can raise lots of it can play.

Register Now!