Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1291 of 1485 (711816)
11-22-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1284 by AZPaul3
11-22-2013 10:50 AM


Re: Amendment XXVIII
Alright, I think I get it. It just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 10:50 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1293 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 4:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1292 of 1485 (711823)
11-22-2013 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1285 by jar
11-22-2013 11:03 AM


The Death of The Green Stars
OK, clean it up.
1. California's budget problems are keyed to Prop 13 passed in 1978 well after Reagan's term. Howard Jarvis wrote the anti-tax proposition in response to the public outcry after a nearly quadrupling of property tax rates in the prior few years not due to any Moral Majority push which hadn't yet been formed. Californians have had ample opportunity to rid the state of Prop 13 and its supermajority requirement for passage of any new taxes but have refused. That is what is dismantling the state's tax and spend culture, not Reagan or any Moral Majority.
2. Carter created the Iran situation when in the midsts of the Iranian rebellion he allowed the hated and deposed Shah Razi Pahlavi sanctuary in the US. Reagan had nothing to do with the crisis or in its continuation. But Ayatollah Khomeini did. The taking and holding of American diplomatic hostages united the revolution allowing Khomeini to consolidate his power. He had warned Carter well prior to the embassy seige that giving sanctuary to Pahlavi instead of returning him to Iran for trial would cause great enmity in Iran. When the Shah died Khomeini vowed to not release the hostages until Carter was removed from office.
3. Iran-Contra was nearly a decade after the hostage release and had to do with the USA's surreptitious supply of arms, meant for the rebels in Nicaragua, given over to Iran in violation of an arms embargo in place.
Since then the Republican faction has succeeded in:
4. removing the Fairness Doctrine - which was no longer necessary or effective since the airwave expansion and the new technologies that used them created a surge of media outlets expanding the political voice of the country. Since congress had never legislated the Fairness Doctrine to begin with (it was the sole invention of the FCC in 1949) it had no force of law. And on top of that the Fairness Doctrine did not end until 2011 under a Democrat administration.
5. remove limits on media outlet ownership - The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a Democrat initiative under a Democrat administration.
6. removing the Chinese Wall between news and advertising - which did not exist in law but was a self-imposed division by broadcasters which collapsed under the weight of increasing media outlet competition.
7. erasing the distinction reporting and editorial comment - which also did not exist under law and never did exist in reality.
8. defunding Public Broadcasting - which Nixon first attempted and failed. There is indeed an ideological move by Republicans to defund CPB. While cuts in funding have taken place, at the same level as most other federal programs, defunding of CPB has not happened.
After all those "attaboys" for being right you have just hit a big "awshit". The slate is cleared. No more green stars.
Edited by AZPaul3, : title
Edited by AZPaul3, : oops

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1285 by jar, posted 11-22-2013 11:03 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1293 of 1485 (711824)
11-22-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1291 by New Cat's Eye
11-22-2013 1:52 PM


Re: Amendment XXVIII
Alright, I think I get it. It just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
That's OK. You are so entitled. I value your opinion as much as anyone else's, which, since they are not mine, is not all that much.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2013 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1294 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2013 4:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1294 of 1485 (711825)
11-22-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1293 by AZPaul3
11-22-2013 4:20 PM


Re: Amendment XXVIII
I value your opinion as much as anyone else, which, since they are not mine, is not all that much.
So you're telling me that you value my opinion...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1293 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 4:20 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1295 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1295 of 1485 (711826)
11-22-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by New Cat's Eye
11-22-2013 4:30 PM


Re: Amendment XXVIII
Ah ... yup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2013 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(2)
Message 1296 of 1485 (711836)
11-22-2013 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1261 by Omnivorous
11-21-2013 6:18 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1261 by Omnivorous, posted 11-21-2013 6:18 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 1297 of 1485 (711842)
11-22-2013 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1262 by NoNukes
11-21-2013 7:02 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
NoNukes writes:
All corporations are ultimately owned and operated by humans. So curtailing corporation speech always involves curtailing some human being's speech.
Every human being involved in a corporation--directors, stockholders, miscellaneous employees--enjoys free speech, whatever limits are placed on corporate money in politics.
Money is not speech.
Now obviously the ownership and control by human beings need not be the end of the analysis, but pretending that there are no humans involved whatsoever and then claiming that you "don't see" any First Amendment issue at play is surely too simplistic.
If I had pretended no humans were involved with corporations, that would indeed be simplistic. I'm glad I didn't.
George Bush, Barrack Obama, and Bill Clinton never went on patrol with me on a submarine. So they need to shut up?
I contrasted living human beings and corporations: why ask me about contrasting human beings and human beings?
I'm suggesting that only people--not only vets--should be citizens.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Removed stupid snark, replaced with last two paras.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1262 by NoNukes, posted 11-21-2013 7:02 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 8:17 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 1298 of 1485 (711843)
11-22-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1263 by AZPaul3
11-21-2013 7:46 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
AZPaul3 writes:
The issue is not corporations. The issue is the right of the government to limit political speech. It don't exist.
You are conflating political speech and political money.
Earlier you noted that the Constitution does not distinguish between human citizens and corporate citizens; neither does it distinguish, explicitly, between human citizens and canine citizens.
That's because canines, like corporations, cannot be citizens.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1263 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2013 7:46 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1302 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 8:20 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 1305 by ringo, posted 11-23-2013 11:31 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 1299 of 1485 (711844)
11-22-2013 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1265 by NoNukes
11-21-2013 8:09 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
NoNukes writes:
Surely there are no limits on the number of voices or the volume of speech that is protected under the First Amendment. You get one vote, but you can speak all you want.
They who have tongues to speak, let them speak.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1265 by NoNukes, posted 11-21-2013 8:09 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 1300 of 1485 (711845)
11-22-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1274 by AZPaul3
11-21-2013 10:34 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
AZPaul3 writes:
Good luck with that.
It won't take long.
The SCOTUS is now a mini-legislature with little respect for precedent.
Reversal is just an appointment away.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1274 by AZPaul3, posted 11-21-2013 10:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1303 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 8:22 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1301 of 1485 (711846)
11-22-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Omnivorous
11-22-2013 7:54 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
Money is not speech.
Well, actually, officially, legally it is.
Source - a pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2013 7:54 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2013 6:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1302 of 1485 (711847)
11-22-2013 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Omnivorous
11-22-2013 7:57 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
You are conflating political speech and political money.
See message 1301 above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2013 7:57 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1303 of 1485 (711848)
11-22-2013 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1300 by Omnivorous
11-22-2013 8:02 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
The SCOTUS is now a mini-legislature with little respect for precedent.
Especially when that precedent conflicts with the constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1300 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2013 8:02 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by Omnivorous, posted 11-23-2013 10:29 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 1304 of 1485 (711866)
11-23-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1303 by AZPaul3
11-22-2013 8:22 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
AZPaul3 writes:
The SCOTUS is now a mini-legislature with little respect for precedent.
Especially when that precedent conflicts with the constitution.
The only constitution in conflict with the overturned precedents is the political constitution of the current SCOTUS.
You champion the CU decision as though it were a crystal clear exemplar of the Constitution's absolute guarantee of free speech. But our speech is limited in many ways--including the ban on direct contributions to federal candidates and campaigns by unions and corporations left in place by the CU decision.
You are, of course, free to believe that money is speech, and that corporations are citizens; and, yes, the SCOTUS has ruled it is so, and that is presently the law of the land. That fact is not in dispute, though asserting it repeatedly seems to be your primary interest here.
When you respond to an assertion that money is not speech, or that legal constructs created for conducting business are not citizens, by citing SCOTUS decisions, it is difficult to take you seriously.
The SCOTUS also decided that imposing clinic licensing requirements in the name of medical safety that both deny abortion access to millions of Texas women and have no demonstrable impact on their medical safety, imposes no undue burden on those women.
You are free to believe that, too.
I believe the conservative block on the SCOTUS is on a partisan crusade fueled by partisan loyalties and, ultimately, by religious doctrine.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by AZPaul3, posted 11-22-2013 8:22 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by AZPaul3, posted 11-23-2013 9:56 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1305 of 1485 (711871)
11-23-2013 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Omnivorous
11-22-2013 7:57 PM


Re: Cover me, Koch Inc., I'm gonna take that hill.
the Omnivore writes:
That's because canines, like corporations, cannot be citizens.
To recycle a joke from another thread, that's only because canines don't live to voting age.
(Maybe corporations should be able to vote after eighteen years in business - one corporation, one vote.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2013 7:57 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by Omnivorous, posted 11-23-2013 6:17 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024