|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Awesome Republican Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Alright, I think I get it. It just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Ah ... yup.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You are conflating political speech and political money. See message 1301 above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The SCOTUS is now a mini-legislature with little respect for precedent. Especially when that precedent conflicts with the constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3977 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
the Omnivore writes:
To recycle a joke from another thread, that's only because canines don't live to voting age. That's because canines, like corporations, cannot be citizens. (Maybe corporations should be able to vote after eighteen years in business - one corporation, one vote.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024