Some are more equal than others...

[Padawanbater2]

Citizens United:

The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

Neither I, nor NLSX are Anthony Kennedy.

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts & Alito are wrong and you're hiding behind the guise of "Supreme Court said so" because you can't develop an original thought about it or explain in your own words why you think the citizens united ruling was right. If "more money equals more speech" like CU says, those with more money have more speech (political influence), which is inconsistent with every voting amendment in the Constitution.

Got news for you, the Supreme Court is not infallible, your argument requires them to be, so you really don't actually have an argument

When CU is overturned, will you be singing this same happy tune?

 

[Padawanbater2]

"these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs"

Then why wasn't political speech restricted in media for the 100 years before the CU ruling?

 

[desert dude]

Then why wasn't political speech restricted in media for the 100 years before the CU ruling?

You really need to read up on CU. CU overturned BCRA. BCRA was enacted in 2002. You are only off by 90 years or so.

Being self-righteous and wrong is no way to go through life, son.

 

[UncleBuck]

Being self-righteous and wrong is no way to go through life, son.

tell us again about this "hiatus" which the IPCC never speaks of and which isn't actually happening in any way.

after that, you can get to telling us about how the white supremacy group you joined was actually a "free speech" group, where you exercised your free speech to talk about "how hitler failed" and "politically incorrect songs and videos" and about how michelle obmaa is a wookie and obama is a kenyan muslim homo.

then you can regale us all with the cherry on top about how you don't have a hateful bone in your body.

 

[Red1966]

No I didnt Quote it.

Actually. I already did. " Redemptorist's voucher cohort would be the second-worst in the state," You even replied to it, so you knew I did. Just being a liar again?

 

[Red1966]

You are the one wrapped up in rhetoric. *Our* public school system is failing to educate *Our* children yet somehow you feel the need to defend it beyond it's reasonable death.

I want parental choice. I want parents to be able to choose where their kids go to school. If they want them to go to the public school then they can. If they want to make some other choice then they can. If they want to home school then they can. Which part of that is wrong? Which part of it is anti-parental choice?

Cheesy, you are all over the place. You accuse the rich of being the problem with illiteracy and then cannot defend the platform. It doesnt make you a bad person, it doesnt make you evil and it doesnt even make you wrong. What it does mean is that you havent thought it through. You are far less liberal than I am and you fail to see it... LOL!!!

I want parents to have a choice where their kids go to school - Parental choice. I want a woman to have the choice of what they want to do with their body. Consequently I also want a man to have the same right. That means all drug use should be legal with a doctor's consult. It means the government should not make any decisions regarding abortion, gay marriage, and a hundred other issues.

You just want the government to run people's lives the way you feel is right rather than who you feel is in opposition to you.

Maybe one day you will see the charade for what it is and stop thinking there are 2 sides.

I have to disagree with you. Cheesy, indeed, is a bad person, evil and wrong.

 

[londonfog]

I have to disagree with you. Cheesy, indeed, is a bad person, evil and wrong.

so says the fire-starter

 

[Red1966]

But Unions are evil.
They support pro labor candidates none of which seem to be Republican
ACORN was evil as well. They actually registered poor people to vote

Only Job Creators are good and pure and know whats best for America. Becuase they have our best interests in mind.

That is why we must eliminate the Department of Education which keeps religion out of schools, has the audacity to try and improve education and supports public schooling that is infested with Unionized teachers that think for some reason 5+ years of education and accredidation somehow relates to more than 25000 dollars a year salary

It only takes 6 months to be accredited as a teacher. Teachers generally come from the pool of those who went to college but had such poor grades or lack of ability that they couldn't get a job in their field, or they have a degree in Humanities, or Basket Weaving, or Art Appreciation, or some other worthless trade. Let's not pretend these are highly qualified people. Remember, public education and union contracts almost guarantee the incompetent can't be dismissed.

 

[Red1966]

so says the fire-starter

So says the lying cheat who doesn't honor his bets.

 

[desert dude]

A profound thought for today:

In any case, it's not good enough to suggest that, on balance, all groups of people and all nations are equal in the things that count in a modern meritocratic society. It is a categorical error to search out some material fact in the universe that is consonant with our egalitarian notions. That is just too shaky a foundation. The conviction that all men are possessed of equal dignity, and therefore deserve equality before the law, must be a political — or even theological — assertion against any fact of history or science that would tempt us to think otherwise. Political equality isn't something we discover in nature; it's something we must create.

 

[Red1966]

Exact same thing they do with intelligent design, they disguise it as "free choice".. "teach the controversy and let the kids decide!", same thing NLXSK1 and DD do with the citizens united ruling, paint it up as opposition to free speech

There isn't a more transparent, disingenuous tactic

Clearly, as you have continuously demonstrated, you ARE opposed to free speech, at least for others. You even promoted jailing "climate deniers".

 

[londonfog]

So says the lying cheat who doesn't honor his bets.

so says the person who doesn't understand that Cheney exercised his stock options selling at a high point and making a nice hunk of change, but you the same guy who thinks Cheney did not profit off the Iraq war.

 

[Red1966]

Eliminating schools will not decrease classroom size, schools are majority funded by local property taxes not federal dollars

Yet you promote limiting schools.

 

[Red1966]

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts & Alito are wrong and you're hiding behind the guise of "Supreme Court said so" because you can't develop an original thought about it or explain in your own words why you think the citizens united ruling was right. If "more money equals more speech" like CU says, those with more money have more speech (political influence), which is inconsistent with every voting amendment in the Constitution.

Got news for you, the Supreme Court is not infallible, your argument requires them to be, so you really don't actually have an argument

When CU is overturned, will you be singing this same happy tune?

You keep trying to change the meaning of "speech" to "votes". They are not the same. Perhaps "the Supreme Court is not infallible", but they have the final say. Deal with it.

 

[londonfog]

If you don't understand how stock options can become stock then I really feel sorry for you.
You also claimed that you are not sure if Cheney made money off the Iraq war. What fool does not know that Cheney indeed made money off the war in Iraq. You have to be the only one.

 

[Red1966]

If you don't understand how stock options can become stock then I really feel sorry for you.
You also claimed that you are not sure if Cheney made money off the Iraq war. What fool does not know that Cheney indeed made money off the war in Iraq. You have to be the only one.

They can become stock, or not. But they aren't stock. Just as a baby can become an adult, but isn't an adult." Not sure" is a long way from "sure of the opposite" as you keep falsely claiming. You don't actually "KNOW" Cheney made more money because of the war or not. Halliburton does other things besides defense work.

 

[Red1966]

Gee, you just admitted you were trying to substitute "stock options" for "stocks", thus conceding the bet. Who's the fool?

 

[londonfog]

They can become stock, or not. But they aren't stock. Just as a baby can become an adult, but isn't an adult." Not sure" is a long way from "sure of the opposite" as you keep falsely claiming. You don't actually "KNOW" Cheney made more money because of the war or not. Halliburton does other things besides defense work.

Cheney's stock options became stock you idiot. Exercised to buy then immediately sell.
I see now why you were "unsure" if Cheney made a profit off the Iraq war. You seem pretty slow.
I wonder how many other people are "unsure" if Cheney made money off the Iraq war. You might be the only one who was "unsure".
I hope so !!!!

 

[Red1966]

They may or may not have. Either way, they were still "options" when he took office. Not "stock". You're a liar and a cheat. You can't weasel your way out of it. You still have not provided any evidence Cheney would not have made the same amount of money with or without the war. Claiming you know something when you don't is just lying. At least I had enough sense to say I didn't know. You claim you do, when you don't. That is dishonest. But what else can we expect from a lying piece of shit.

 

[londonfog]

They may or may not have. Either way, they were still "options" when he took office. Not "stock". You're a liar and a cheat. You can't weasel your way out of it. You still have not provided any evidence Cheney would not have made the same amount of money with or without the war. Claiming you know something when you don't is just lying. At least I had enough sense to say I didn't know. You claim you do, when you don't. That is dishonest. But what else can we expect from a lying piece of shit.

dishonest is saying smoke alarms were not invented before 1982. Were you ever a suspect ?