Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 1231 of 1485 (711432)
11-18-2013 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1229 by Coyote
11-18-2013 5:26 PM


More Gish Gallop from Coyote
You were going to point to statist policies, remember?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1229 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2013 5:26 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 1232 of 1485 (711493)
11-19-2013 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1228 by RAZD
11-18-2013 4:05 PM


Re: when anyone equates socialism and communism they don't know them
Especially as any "communist" countries we've seen are really oligarchies ... and they have indeed failed.
Combined with dictatorships. What is ironic is that one of the things that kept things somewhat 'afloat' in communist countries was the black market, as it fostered at least some level of bartering in exchange for certain services.
Most companies, especially the large multi-nationals, are also oligarchies.
Which is one of the things that Karl Marx mentioned. Not that I am any fan of his, it is a concern in a capitalist system in that a few corporations become so large, they actually begin to squash competition and absorb anything that might be a threat. And if either of those fail, they leverage their influence to push politicians to ratify their agenda. (Koch Brothers)
Guess that essentially demonstrates that if you are 'Too Big To Fail', it means you are TOO BIG.
Too be fair, it's not like this situation is unique to the United States. It just seem more pervasive nowadays as the lobbying engine has grown to ridiculous proportions in recent years, combined with that asinine Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1228 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2013 4:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1233 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 6:29 PM Diomedes has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 1233 of 1485 (711512)
11-19-2013 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1232 by Diomedes
11-19-2013 3:03 PM


Citizens United does suck, but ...
... that asinine Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court.
The Citizens United ruling does suck. It blows big time. In effect it turns our election financing and advocacy scheme over to the largest, richest and, already, most powerful corporations in the country at the expense of the smaller corporate entity, and, more importantly, at the expense of the private citizen, the voting public.
To a lot of people the Court blew it. But there is a problem. SCOTUS had no choice, unless we want to consider scraping the First Amendment as some viable alternative.
Nowhere in our constitution are there any rights of government to curtail political speech in any way. There is no distinction between private (voting) citizen and corporate (non-voting) citizen (yet).
Who’d a’thunk that a SCOTUS ruling upholding the integrity of unfettered political speech in this country could be seen as wrong?
Who’d a’thunk that
quote:
When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
would be a bad thing to hear from SCOTUS?
Either we uphold the First or we don’t. Until We The People put free speech limits on certain segments of our society by legal, rather than by emotional, means we are stuck with the First Amendment’s protection of free political speech for our entire society.
Good god. We’re talking about allowing government to limit free speech rights in this country. Makes my head turn!
The remedy, unfortunately, is the long hard slog of Constitutional Amendment. Amend the First (what?) to, if not prohibit, curtail corporate largess into the election financing function and severely limit corporate advocacy through the media.
Then what do you do with the media corporations whose business is political advocacy? No more editorials in the Sunday papers? No more political blogs on NBC, FOX, Washington Post, NY Times websites?
OK. So we can piss and moan about the effect Citizens United has on our politics. But we cannot blame SCOTUS for doing exactly what it was created to do limit the power of government and safeguard our rights.
The fault is not with our court but with our law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1232 by Diomedes, posted 11-19-2013 3:03 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1234 by jar, posted 11-19-2013 8:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 8:46 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1236 by Diomedes, posted 11-19-2013 9:52 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1237 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-19-2013 9:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1246 by nwr, posted 11-20-2013 1:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1261 by Omnivorous, posted 11-21-2013 6:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1234 of 1485 (711513)
11-19-2013 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by AZPaul3
11-19-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower thunk it. Both warned against ever giving a franchise to business or allowing corporations to influence legislation or elections.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 6:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1239 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 10:41 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1235 of 1485 (711514)
11-19-2013 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by AZPaul3
11-19-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
In effect it turns our election financing and advocacy scheme over to the largest, richest and, already, most powerful corporations in the country at the expense of the smaller corporate entity, and, more importantly, at the expense of the private citizen, the voting public.
Turns it over? Haven't the rich always been the most politically influential? Like, since the beginning?
They're the ones who've turned the financial wheel, haven't they always been the ones who've "made" the policies?
ABE:
In hindsight, don't take this a position of advocacy.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 6:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1241 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 10:52 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 1236 of 1485 (711516)
11-19-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by AZPaul3
11-19-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
The remedy, unfortunately, is the long hard slog of Constitutional Amendment. Amend the First (what?) to, if not prohibit, curtail corporate largess into the election financing function and severely limit corporate advocacy through the media.
My suspicion is attempting to ratify any such amendment would be an exercise in futility. My suggestion is to attack the cancer directly, which would be to severely curtail the lobbying of congress. How that could occur exactly, I am not certain. But ultimately, the lobbying of members of congress directly causes far more damage than a few billionaires like that asshat Sheldon Adelson, trying to sway an election by donating to a Super-PAC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 6:29 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1237 of 1485 (711517)
11-19-2013 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by AZPaul3
11-19-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
SCOTUS had no choice ...
Now I'm no lawyer, but surely stare decisis is always an option.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 6:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1238 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 10:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1238 of 1485 (711525)
11-19-2013 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1237 by Dr Adequate
11-19-2013 9:55 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
Now I'm no lawyer, but surely stare decisis is always an option.
Sure. But they decided to go with the First Amendment instead.
Go figure, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1237 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-19-2013 9:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1239 of 1485 (711526)
11-19-2013 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1234 by jar
11-19-2013 8:41 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower thunk it. Both warned against ever giving a franchise to business or allowing corporations to influence legislation or elections.
And they were right in not trusting mega-corps with political policy in those areas. But they never thunked about the First Amendment implications. If they had, maybe, just maybe, they could have done something, legally binding on the constitution, to stop it. They didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1234 by jar, posted 11-19-2013 8:41 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1240 of 1485 (711527)
11-19-2013 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1238 by AZPaul3
11-19-2013 10:35 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
SCOTUS had no choice ...
Now I'm no lawyer, but surely stare decisis is always an option.
Sure. But they decided to go with the First Amendment instead.
.
they decided
That would be the choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1238 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 10:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1242 by AZPaul3, posted 11-19-2013 10:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1241 of 1485 (711529)
11-19-2013 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1235 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2013 8:46 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
Haven't the rich always been the most politically influential? Like, since the beginning?
Sure have, as individuals with the right to free political speech . Now it looks like the multi-national, multi-billion dollar mega-corps are taking over. And right now, they also have this same right ... as per the constitution ... which neither the congress nor the court has power change on it's own volition.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 8:46 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1242 of 1485 (711531)
11-19-2013 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1240 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2013 10:41 PM


Re: Citizens United does suck, but ...
That would be the choice.
Hyperbole on my part, CS.
Think. Stare decisis on unconstitutional past decisions versus the First Amendment.
You really think that's a "choice"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 1243 of 1485 (711537)
11-19-2013 11:57 PM


Hi guys, this is an interesting debate. Thanks.
I know that you're probably sick of answering my questions, but as an interested alien (what happens in the US affects the whole world), can I ask a few questions?
1. Is it currently possible to change the US constitution (if yes, how)?
2. Is it currently possible to change the amendments (if yes, how)?
3. Is it currently possible to add more amendments (if yes, how)?
This might sound as these are ridiculous questions as some amendments have been passed years ago, but bear with me as I don't always trust what's written on Wiki. You guys seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject.
Thanks in advance!
Edited by Pressie, : Moved the comma in second paragraph

Replies to this message:
 Message 1244 by AZPaul3, posted 11-20-2013 7:13 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 1245 by jar, posted 11-20-2013 8:55 AM Pressie has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8493
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 1244 of 1485 (711545)
11-20-2013 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1243 by Pressie
11-19-2013 11:57 PM


1. Is it currently possible to change the US constitution (if yes, how)?
2. Is it currently possible to change the amendments (if yes, how)?
3. Is it currently possible to add more amendments (if yes, how)?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
The process is the same for all three.
In the Constitution of the United States Article 5 deals with amendments.
Basically, Either Congress, by 2/3 super majority in both houses, submits proposed amendments to the states for ratification
or
2/3 of the states ask congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments that the convention would submit to the states for ratification
Then
If 3/4 of the states, their legislatures or by state ratifying conventions, ratify the proposed amendment it is entered into the constitution.
Source
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : changed constitution url. Better display

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1243 by Pressie, posted 11-19-2013 11:57 PM Pressie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 1245 of 1485 (711549)
11-20-2013 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1243 by Pressie
11-19-2013 11:57 PM


Constitutional Convention
One issue with the Constitutional Convention route is that there would be no limits on what such a body could consider.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1243 by Pressie, posted 11-19-2013 11:57 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024