Outrageous Outrage of the Day!

Wingnuts • Views: 3,255

It’s getting more and more difficult to keep up with the brain-dead outrageous outrages firehosing out of the strange echo chamber known as the wingnut blogosphere on a daily — sometimes hourly — basis. It’s a non-stop cavalcade of crazy.

Today’s OO is one of the stupidest and most transparently deceptive ones yet. Apparently started by World Net Daily, then picked up by Alex Jones and prisonplanet.com, then by Fox Nation, then spreading like wildfire across the dimbulb hate blogs like “Weasel Zippers,” they’re all shrieking and hyperventilating over a quote by Elena Kagan. The talking point they’re mindlessly parroting: Kagan argued that “certain types of speech could be disappeared.” It proves she’s a dangerous commie radical!

The idiocy. It burns.

The quote from Kagan that these morons are posting on their own blogs shows how dishonest and/or stupid they’re being. Here’s what Kagan said:

“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

Not only is this statement completely uncontroversial, it says the exact opposite of what they’re shrieking.

“Uncoerced.” Is this an obscure word? Maybe we should take up a collection to buy the wingnuts dictionaries.

Jump to bottom

548 comments
1 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:41:16am

This reminds me of people who scream that their first amendment rights are being violated when someone tells them to shut up.

2 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:41:32am

I’m still downstairs on the actual outrage of the day…that video that SJ posted.

3 euphgeek  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:41:47am

Today’s OO is one of the stupidest and most transparently deceptive ones yet.

Isn’t that true about each one?

4 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:42:03am

Grasp of the English language has never been a hallmark of rabble rousers.

5 darthstar  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:44:01am

You’d have to be at least as smart as a wise Latina to understand what ‘uncoerced’ means…obviously, the wingnuts aren’t. I can’t wait until some fucktard from the GOP tries asking that at her appearance before the Judiciary Committee.

6 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:45:01am

re: #5 darthstar

Oh please. I hope they do. I don’t think they realize who they are dealing with. This woman is not easily spun.

7 Locker  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:45:03am

This isn’t even outrage. It’s just static purposely created to confuse the faithful and bog down the exchange of ideas based on actual reality

8 webevintage  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:47:14am

Yes, yes and the Constitution was perfect and without flaws in its original form.
/

When did being a fucking moron become something to aspire to in this country?

9 wrenchwench  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:47:17am
“Uncoerced.” Is this an obscure word? Maybe we should take up a collection to buy the wingnuts dictionaries.

First it’s dictionaries, then it’s reading lessons, then attempts at reason…it never ends. Might as well give up now.

10 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:49:57am

This one reminds me of my favorite quote from Pinky and the Brain: “Pinky your inability to grasp the sublime maybe the sublimest thing of all” - The Brain

11 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:50:57am

or maybe we can buy a thesaurus, or maybe an online speller. Their ignorance is disturbing to me in that it gets whipped into a frenzy by Glenn Beck at alia, who remain unaccountable so far.

12 Ojoe  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:51:29am

Kagan is proposing a Boy Scout value here, “a Scout is Kind.”

Gotta like it.

13 jaunte  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:52:32am

This site has a link to Kagan’s original (in pdf form):

1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”
[Link: www.cnsnews.com…]
14 Locker  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:53:11am

re: #12 Ojoe

Kagan is proposing a Boy Scout value here, “a Scout is Kind.”

Gotta like it.

A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

15 simoom  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:53:17am

Here’s the essay this quote is from (first paragraph, second sentence):
[Link: judiciary.senate.gov…]

16 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:53:23am

I cannot imagine getting through grad school nor could tons of others like me by making brash, unsupported, over-the-top comments or writings. Imagine the cold stare of a law professor or thesis committee…..How in Gods name do they get away with it?? the whole pack mob of them

17 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:54:01am

I did a quick online search and could not find “uncoerced” used in a Bible, nor does it appear in my spell check, therefore the word has no meaning.

Further, since a sentence is nothing but the sum of the meanings of its words, having a word mean nothing (0) means it has no impact on the sentence itself. Therefore the sentence really reads:

“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

No can you geniuses see why the Idiocracy is so angry?

18 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:54:57am

re: #15 simoom

Goddamn, the very next sentence:

I do not take it as a given that all governmental efforts to regulate such speech thus accord with the Constitution.

The wingnuts are intentionally lying, or they haven’t bothered to look at the quote in context.

Assholes.

19 Ojoe  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:55:24am
20 Romantic Heretic  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:56:20am

What use would a dictionary be? They’re functionally illiterate. Or so crazy that they literally can’t read what is in front of them.

Example: Barack Obama is President of the United States.

They’ll read: Barack Hussein is a socialist foreigner who isn’t the same color as us who has cheated his way into the Presidency to destroy America.

You can’t talk to people that badly damaged.

21 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:57:51am
22 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:58:00am

I really used to resent this song, but the more of this crap I see the more I come to agree….

23 Locker  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:58:13am

re: #17 Jeff In Ohio

I did a quick online search and could not find “uncoerced” used in a Bible, nor does it appear in my spell check, therefore the word has no meaning.

Further, since a sentence is nothing but the sum of the meanings of its words, having a word mean nothing (0) means it has no impact on the sentence itself. Therefore the sentence really reads:

No can you geniuses see why the Idiocracy is so angry?

Baby Powder: Bitch better be out here checkin’ my motherfuckin’ money.
Baby Wipe: Don’t cuss when I’m tryin’ to listen to the Word. The Lord don’t like that.
Baby Powder: What did I say?
Baby Wipe: You said “bitch,” and “bitch” ain’t in the Bible.
Baby Powder: I know, bitch, and neither is motherfucker.” So drive this motherfuckin’ car. And you an assistant pimp. You ain’t even a real pimp. So you supposed to be cosigning to the shit that I say. You wanna lose your job, I will pull your motherfuckin’ application.

24 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:58:26am

re: #2 EmmmieG

I’m still downstairs on the actual outrage of the day…that video that SJ posted.

If you can prove that the teacher or parents voted for Obama, the wingnut cavalcade might be interested.

25 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:58:28am

re: #14 Locker

A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

I can do that on command because my troop (XXXX we bring rain, the farmers blessing and the campers bane!) taught it to us to the tune of the Macarena.

26 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:58:53am

re: #3 euphgeek

Today’s OO is one of the stupidest and most transparently deceptive ones yet.

Isn’t that true about each one?

No, this one is pretty good. I mean, there actually was a Mao ornament.

27 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:59:08am

Is inequality the same as discrimination?

28 Locker  Thu, May 13, 2010 10:59:36am

re: #25 jamesfirecat

I can do that on command because my troop (XXX we bring rain, the farmers blessing and the campers bane!) taught it to us to the tune of the Macarena.

Laugh there was no Macarena around when I learned that song. If we had chosen a song it would have been something like “Shake, Shake, Shake. Shake your booty. Shake your BOOOty, OWWWW.”

29 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:01:06am

Holy shit:

If you read the essay, she’s counseling that legal efforts to shut down hate speech and pornography are often encroachments on first amendment rights, and that there must be approaches that are successful but don’t violate first amendment rights.

Her main concern that she states in the essay is the violation of rights. She is attempting to keep any such laws constitutional. She argues that regulation of pornography and hate-speech is often a failure at the same time as it violates rights.

It is, so far, an excellent essay with a nice, slightly insouciant, style. It is essentially pragmatic; it takes it a commonly agreed-upon-problem and attempts to examine the various approaches to regulation of it in terms of their constitutionality.

For any reasonable conservative, this should be a testament to her being an excellent nominee concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of laws.

30 SpaceJesus  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:01:52am

re: #21 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Can we get SpaceJesus to put this on the planetary loudspeakers?

ive already got something way better

[Link: www.inquisitr.com…]

31 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:02:27am

re: #29 Obdicut

Too many complex words and thoughts, not enough Bible references. Makes the puzzler hurt.

32 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:02:32am

re: #6 Fozzie Bear

Oh please. I hope they do. I don’t think they realize who they are dealing with. This woman is not easily spun.

the senate questioning has become a set-up, where one lonely very smart person gets to pwn an entire half of the legislature en masse.

i love it.

33 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:03:04am

re: #27 Spare O’Lake

Is inequality the same as discrimination?

I would hardly use one to replace the other. Inequality is a word I would use to describe a situation. As in… “There used to be considerable inequality towards left handed people in catholic schools.” While I would use “discrimination” to describe a particular person “That nun discriminated against me and told the entire class I was using an evil hand because I was a southpaw.”

Though this is just my “gut check” answer rather than one from the dictionary.

Why do you ask?

34 wrenchwench  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:03:57am

re: #29 Obdicut

For any reasonable conservative…

What’s that? Are they extinct?

35 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:04:20am

re: #34 wrenchwench

What’s that? Are they extinct?

They’re pining.

36 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:04:47am

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They’re pining.

For the fjords?

37 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:05:16am

Allow me to help. I had four years of Grammar I, and won my 6th grade class’s spelling bee only to be destroyed by a fourth grader for the school championship. I think that qualifies me to speak to the folks who are at this intelligence level…

Uncensored means not censored.
Ungreased means not greased.
Unhappy means not happy.
Uncoerced means not coerced.
Unraged is a word I made up yesterday. But it means not raged.

38 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:06:09am

re: #15 simoom

Here’s the essay this quote is from (first paragraph, second sentence):
[Link: judiciary.senate.gov…]

Thanks very much for posting that.

39 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:06:31am

re: #12 Ojoe

Kagan is proposing a Boy Scout value here, “a Scout is Kind.”

Gotta like it.

What a bitch. How dare she propose morals in public life? I have every right to be mean, bigoted and unjudicious without anyone trying to make me feel bad about it.

//

40 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:07:03am

Thank you, Wingnuts, for prompting me to read this frankly fascinating paper by our next Supreme Court justice. I probably wouldn’t have bothered, otherwise.

Whatever else she is, this woman is A) smart and B) really into the US constitution.

I’ve found the next outrage contained inside it— she looks at the way that Canada regulated obscenity/pornography and suggests it might be viable in the US. The reason for recommending it is that it helps to remove ‘taking offense’ from consideration about speech rights— a nice libertarian principle that will be swallowed up as they scream “Oh noes looking at foreign law is bad!”

Seriously, if you have the time, read the essay. It’s very damn good.

41 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:07:10am

re: #29 Obdicut

Holy shit:

If you read the essay, she’s counseling that legal efforts to shut down hate speech and pornography are often encroachments on first amendment rights, and that there must be approaches that are successful but don’t violate first amendment rights.

Her main concern that she states in the essay is the violation of rights. She is attempting to keep any such laws constitutional. She argues that regulation of pornography and hate-speech is often a failure at the same time as it violates rights.

It is, so far, an excellent essay with a nice, slightly insouciant, style. It is essentially pragmatic; it takes it a commonly agreed-upon-problem and attempts to examine the various approaches to regulation of it in terms of their constitutionality.

For any reasonable conservative, this should be a testament to her being an excellent nominee concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of laws.

I agree with you.

42 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:07:38am

re: #37 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I placed second in the spelling bee in second grade. The girl who beat me was the tallest kid in the class, awkwardly taller than all of the boys. She looked a lot like Vanna White in high school - blonde, blue eyed, total knockout.

43 The Curmudgeon  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:07:55am

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

44 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:08:12am

re: #17 Jeff In Ohio

I did a quick online search and could not find “uncoerced” used in a Bible, nor does it appear in my spell check, therefore the word has no meaning.

Further, since a sentence is nothing but the sum of the meanings of its words, having a word mean nothing (0) means it has no impact on the sentence itself. Therefore the sentence really reads:


No can you geniuses see why the Idiocracy is so angry?

Yes, they’re mad that she said that racism and sexism mar our society. They think that racism and sexism don’t exist, or if they do, it’s against men and white people, or if they do, it’s the liberal’s fault for talking about it, and also, American society is perfect.

45 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:08:24am

For Oiled Wildlife, Dawn Cleans Best

in the 50’s and 60’s, “different substances were applied to the feathers of oiled birds, some of which were: mascara remover, butter, lard, powdered chalk, waterless hand cleaner, acetone, detergent and various oils.” None worked very well, which led to one not-so-bright idea in the early 70’s. At that time, oiled birds were covered with warmed mineral oil and then corn meal, thought to absorb the oils.

“That was not what happened,” Holcomb said. “The end result of this process was a bird resembling a giant corn dog!”

The IBRRC and other groups next tried certain solvents and cleansers, most of which were difficult to rinse out and were irritating to the skin and feathers of the animals, and bothered the human staff as well. IBRRC founder Alice Berkner and her team then started to try out “off the shelf” dishwashing detergents and “one, and only one, had us jumping up and down,” according to Holcomb.


“Dawn dishwashing liquid was a standout!” he exclaimed. “Oil seemed to fall off the feathers! Rinsing was easier than we thought possible. Once we started using Dawn on live birds, we did not see the irritated skin we had encountered with the previous detergent.”

Marie-Laure Salvado, a spokesperson for Procter & Gamble (P&G), the parent company of Dawn, told Discovery News that the liquid detergent was designed to “provide powerful degreasing action while still being mild on human hands.” That benefit wound up extending to birds, since she said the soap, when diluted to about 1 percent with water, “is gentle enough to be used on delicate feathers.”

46 Stanghazi  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:08:50am

When all they can come up with are fake outrages, well, things are looking good.

47 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:09:00am

re: #40 Obdicut

Whatever else she is, this woman is A) smart and B) really into the US constitution.

Which makes her a nerd, which is kinda what you want on the Supreme Court. Instead of a shrieking harpy.

48 researchok  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:09:23am

Thanks for posting this, Charles.

I take no issue with disagreeing with a particular point of view, whatever that might be. Kagan will be- and should be subjected to confirmation process examination and question.

To deliberately concoct and fabricate unwarranted hysteria is about as low ball as low ball gets.

49 SteveMcG  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:09:57am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

She says “a society”, not “the” society.

50 charlz  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:10:36am

re: #40 Obdicut

Thank you, Wingnuts, for prompting me to read this frankly fascinating paper by our next Supreme Court justice. I probably wouldn’t have bothered, otherwise.

You might be interested in EJ Dionne’s column today, too.
The Elena Kagan you won’t see

51 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:12:25am

Yeah sure “Uncoerced” sound all innocent until you realize that it is just a code word used by the insidious, sekrit muslim, nazi, socialist, one world government, types to mean forced re-education and brainwashing in their Fema death camps!

Buy Gold
Buy Guns
Buy more Bullets
Buy Survival (non-hybrid) Seeds.

You have to be ready for when the “Blue Helmets” invade and try to enslave us all into following the evil European socialist/Homo agenda!

///

52 Interesting Times  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:12:26am

re: #29 Obdicut

Wingnut reading comprehension is doubleplusungood.

53 wrenchwench  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:12:38am

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

Hee hee. Nice combo. 17 seconds.

54 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:13:25am

re: #29 Obdicut

For any reasonable conservative, this should be a testament to her being an excellent nominee concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of laws.

pretty much…

reasonable conservatives ought to be glad that Obama didn’t nominate Liu…Kagan is a godsend by comparison.

55 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:14:02am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon
The word ‘uniquely’ in that sentence is inserted by you, and you alone.

OUTRAAAAAAGE

56 engineer cat  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:14:04am

re: #20 Romantic Heretic

What use would a dictionary be? They’re functionally illiterate. Or so crazy that they literally can’t read what is in front of them.

Example: Barack Obama is President of the United States.

They’ll read: Barack Hussein is a socialist foreigner who isn’t the same color as us who has cheated his way into the Presidency to destroy America.

You can’t talk to people that badly damaged.

Fox Nation:
President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, argued certain forms of speech that promote “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared.”

Kagan:
The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

Kagan says that government is also prohibited from treating two identically harmful speakers differently. To do so, she argues, would be to violate what she views as the principle of equality — making the unequal restriction unconstitutional.

57 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:14:09am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

Try reading the whole damn essay instead of poring over it for signs and portents.

It’s a really, really good essay, and it’ll inform you a lot about our next Supreme Court Justice.

58 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:14:17am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

That’s your own false and contrived inference, not her implication.

59 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:14:27am

re: #51 ausador

Yeah sure “Uncoerced” sound all innocent until you realize that it is just a code word used by the insidious, sekrit muslim, nazi, socialist, one world government, types to mean forced re-education and brainwashing in their Fema death camps!

Buy Gold
Buy Guns
Buy more Bullets
Buy Survival (non-hybrid) Seeds.

You have to be ready for when the “Blue Helmets” invade and try to enslave us all into following the evil European socialist/Homo agenda!

///

Uncoerced my ass.

60 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:14:29am

Speaking of shrieking: Pam Geller is going to be on the Hannity radio show today at 16:00 EDT.

In case anyone needs an aural emetic.

Or, one could call in and call her out on her crazee.

61 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:15:03am

re: #39 SanFranciscoZionist

What a bitch. How dare she propose morals in public life? I have every right to be mean, bigoted and unjudicious without anyone trying to make me feel bad about it.

//

as long as you don’t receive federal funds….as long as you are not state supported it’s OK. Privately you may do as you please

62 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:15:27am

re: #51 ausador

Yeah sure “Uncoerced” sound all innocent until you realize that it is just a code word used by the insidious, sekrit muslim, nazi, socialist, one world government, types to mean forced re-education and brainwashing in their Fema death camps!

Buy Gold
Buy Guns
Buy more Bullets
Buy Survival (non-hybrid) Seeds.

You have to be ready for when the “Blue Helmets” invade and try to enslave us all into following the evil European socialist/Homo agenda!

///

heh. the unfortunate truth is that the blue helmets couldn’t overpower a small battalion of 3rd graders…

63 Jadespring  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:18:55am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

How do you read that into it?

64 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:18:55am

The article was written in 1993.
It would be nice if there was something more recent from her on the subject.

65 webevintage  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:19:10am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

Thanks for playing….

66 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:19:24am

I can remember being in a Catholic school in the 7th grade and not being able to attend the state spelling bee, becuase we had one (1) black kid in our class. I was stunned. I was a great speller. Discrimination was alive and well in the 60s.

67 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:19:42am

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

The article was written in 1993.
It would be nice if there was something more recent from her on the subject.

Why would someone that smart go over old ground just to please you?

68 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:20:15am

re: #58 goddamnedfrank

That’s your own false and contrived inference, not her implication.

Why isn’t it fair comment?

69 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:20:33am

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

I don’t think that the satisfaction level of Canadians factors much into the next Supreme Court Justice pick.

70 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:21:25am

re: #68 Spare O’Lake

Every comment is “fair”. Some of them are just stupid as well.

71 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:21:46am

re: #69 Obdicut

I don’t think that the satisfaction level of Canadians factors much into the next Supreme Court Justice pick.

wait, was that comment an example of discrimination or inequality/

72 iceweasel  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:21:52am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

That’s a bit of a stretch.

73 Jadespring  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:22:24am

re: #68 Spare O’Lake

Why isn’t it fair comment?

Because her words don’t imply that at all.

74 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:22:26am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

Reading used to be fundamental. These days anyone can pretend to have read something and make any inane comment he likes. As you have just shown.

And by the way, I’m the curmudgeon-in-chief around here.

75 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:22:43am

re: #70 Fozzie Bear

Every comment is “fair”. Some of them are just stupid as well.

heh. speech is free, but cogency is earned…

76 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:23:03am

re: #29 Obdicut

For any reasonable conservative, this should be a testament to her being an excellent nominee concerned first and foremost with the constitutionality of laws.

Reasonable conservatives don’t play the outrageous outrage game.

77 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:23:42am

re: #67 Cato the Elder

Why would someone that smart go over old ground just to please you?

Sorry, I didn’t realize that the subject was closed in 1993.

78 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:24:40am

re: #69 Obdicut

I should hope not!

79 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:24:47am

re: #72 iceweasel

That’s a bit of a stretch.

To say the least.

80 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:24:56am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

I think you have to really, really reach to get the idea that she thinks we are the only society so marred.

81 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:25:22am

This is why I don’t even look into outrageous wingnut headlines anymore. They simply aren’t true and it’s not usually even worth the effort to read their links.

82 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:25:46am

our society is still marred by inequality and getting worse as judged by the Lehman Bros and Goldman Sachs debacles. The super rich are getting richer.

We are not all equal these days. I think America has sadly crossed the line, based upon money. This is one reason we need financial reform.

83 darthstar  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:25:51am

re: #28 Locker

Laugh there was no Macarena around when I learned that song. If we had chosen a song it would have been something like “Shake, Shake, Shake. Shake your booty. Shake your BOOOty, OWWW.”

My wife says “Shake, shake, shake” to me all the time…and when she does, I stop whatever I’m doing and shake my booty. Airport, grocery store, wherever.

84 webevintage  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:26:40am

OT:
For anyone interested the Senate is voting on a slew of fin reg amendments today.
Franken’s one on credit ratings passed 64-35.

85 iceweasel  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:27:22am

re: #79 Cato the Elder

To say the least.

Link doesn’t work. :(

Off to the Museum of Natural History! Have fun folks, see you later.

86 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:27:33am

Can’t you people see? UNcoerced! Look at the first two letter my fellow Americans!

United
Nations
C
O
E
R
C
E
D

Kagan is clearly the Manchurian candidate for the supreme court exclusively chosen by the internationalist, new world order, world Enviro-Communist cabal.

It’s in the first two letters: “u” and “n.”

United Nations-coercion people!

//

87 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:27:46am

re: #56 engineer dog

Fox Nation:
President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, argued certain forms of speech that promote “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared.”

Kagan:
The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

Kagan says that government is also prohibited from treating two identically harmful speakers differently. To do so, she argues, would be to violate what she views as the principle of equality — making the unequal restriction unconstitutional.

The poor bastards. If only she had said something about a wise Jewish lesbian, they wouldn’t have to scrabble like this.

88 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:28:09am

re: #80 SanFranciscoZionist

I think you have to really, really reach to get the idea that she thinks we are the only society so marred.

Exactly. My guess is that if she meant that, she would have said that.

89 Ojoe  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:28:21am

re: #80 SanFranciscoZionist

Actually, even to look at the mars is better than many societies do, many societies feature and reinforce the mars.

We try to get rid of the mars, so there will be no more life on the mars.

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:28:25am

re: #59 Spare O’Lake

Uncoerced my ass.

What does that mean?

91 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:28:42am

re: #56 engineer dog

Fox Nation:
President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, argued certain forms of speech that promote “racial or gender inequality” could be “disappeared.”

Kagan:
The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

Kagan says that government is also prohibited from treating two identically harmful speakers differently. To do so, she argues, would be to violate what she views as the principle of equality — making the unequal restriction unconstitutional.

FNDS!!!!!

92 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:29:04am

re: #62 Aceofwhat?

heh. the unfortunate truth is that the blue helmets couldn’t overpower a small battalion of 3rd graders…

“There are parts of New York I would advise the Reich not to attempt to invade…”

93 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:29:25am

re: #68 Spare O’Lake

Why isn’t it fair comment?

Because there could easily be many such societies that are marred by such talk with the US being only one of them.

94 wrenchwench  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:29:41am

re: #89 Ojoe

Actually, even to look at the mars is better than many societies do, many societies feature and reinforce the mars.

We try to get rid of the mars, so there will be no more life on the mars.

Marvelous!

95 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:29:48am

Paulians and Beckistas take heed!

UAE unveils world’s first gold bar vending machine

The world’s first gold bar vending machine has been unveiled at Emirates Palace.

The Gold To Go machine, itself covered in 24-carat gold, dispenses one, five and 10 gram bars as well as one ounce bars of gold, the National reported on Thursday.

Six gold coins of varied weights and engraved with symbols of gold-producing nations Canada, Australia and South Africa, are also dispensed by the machine.

96 Jadespring  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:29:50am

re: #86 Gus 802

Can’t you people see? UNcoerced! Look at the first two letter my fellow Americans!

United
Nations
C
O
E
R
C
E
D

Kagan is clearly the Manchurian candidate for the supreme court exclusively chosen by the internationalist, new world order, world Enviro-Communist cabal.

It’s in the first two letters: “u” and “n.”

United Nations-coercion people!

//

So…um… how does UNited States of American fall into that theory?

Woah…does the NWO conspiracy go back to the founders? Were they in on it too?

///

97 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:29:58am

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

The article was written in 1993.
It would be nice if there was something more recent from her on the subject.

OK, now you’re really reaching. I’m sure other writing of hers is out there, read some of it if you want a better sense of this woman.

98 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:30:43am

Lawrence Lessig has been close to Kagan for a long time, and he hinted in an interview that Kagan was against the ruling in Citizens United. So she is at least in favor of some speech restrictions.

Not that this has anything to do with the outrageous outrage.

99 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:30:53am

re: #83 darthstar

My wife says “Shake, shake, shake” to me all the time…and when she does, I stop whatever I’m doing and shake my booty. Airport, grocery store, wherever.

is your booty tight, hot, and round?

100 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:31:38am

re: #68 Spare O’Lake

Why isn’t it fair comment?

Because it’s not what she said, nor is it a reasonable inferrence.

101 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:31:50am

re: #96 Jadespring

So…um… how does UNited States of American fall into that theory?

Woah…does the NWO conspiracy go back to the founders? Were they in on it too?

///

Our damnation is predestined!

Run for the hills! The end of the world Republic is near!

//

102 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:32:00am

re: #90 SanFranciscoZionist

What does that mean?

It’s a sarcastic and humourous summation of the comment to which I was responding.
Obviously lost on you…sorry.

103 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:32:35am

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, now you’re really reaching. I’m sure other writing of hers is out there, read some of it if you want a better sense of this woman.

Actually, Spare O’Lake has a point here. There are not that many writings of hers out there.

104 wrenchwench  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:32:55am

re: #95 Shiplord Kirel

Paulians and Beckistas take heed!

UAE unveils world’s first gold bar vending machine

Does it have a slot where you insert your non-hybrid seeds to make a purchase?

105 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:33:10am

re: #77 Spare O’Lake

Sorry, I didn’t realize that the subject was closed in 1993.

It wasn’t. Please, explain why you’re concerned Elena Kagan has turned on free speech in the past seventeen years.

106 darthstar  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:34:28am

re: #99 elektramourns

is your booty tight, hot, and round?

Yes, yes, and yes…okay, okay…the first yes isn’t as yes as it used to be.

107 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:35:00am

re: #89 Ojoe

Actually, even to look at the mars is better than many societies do, many societies feature and reinforce the mars.

We try to get rid of the mars, so there will be no more life on the mars.

Damn skippy. Americans do not settle for the less just society, and call it ‘tradition’.

108 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:35:10am

re: #84 webevintage

OT:
For anyone interested the Senate is voting on a slew of fin reg amendments today.
Franken’s one on credit ratings passed 64-35.

Thanks. Good to know.

109 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:35:15am

re: #106 darthstar

Yes, yes, and yes…okay, okay…the first yes isn’t as yes as it used to be.

it’s the internet…we all have hot asses!

110 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:35:18am

OT: Now we know why talking heads and their guests sit behind tables for their talkfests.

They’re not wearing pants.

111 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:35:21am

re: #104 wrenchwench
Oh good hell!
They rip ATM,S out of the concrete!
Where’s this thing??
Note to self… (I need to by bigger CHAINS!)!;-)

112 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:35:50am

re: #95 Shiplord Kirel

Paulians and Beckistas take heed!

UAE unveils world’s first gold bar vending machine

Ummm. why?

113 aurelius  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:36:05am

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

114 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:36:07am

re: #109 Aceofwhat?

it’s the internet…we all have hot asses!

Well. After I turned 40 I realized that I may in fact be related to Hank Hill.

/

115 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:36:27am

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

Ummm. why?

Because the best whores in UAE only take gold?

116 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:37:37am

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, now you’re really reaching. I’m sure other writing of hers is out there, read some of it if you want a better sense of this woman.

I thought that article was brilliant, but in case you missed it one of the questions being posed about Kagan is the relative paucity of her published material…which prompted my comment.
Why so defensive SFZ?

117 aurelius  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:37:45am

I’ll say it again.

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

How clear is that, wingnuts? It doesn’t mean she is throwing out the 1st amendment. It simply means that she will decide the societal value of your speech.

Now STFU.

118 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:37:55am

re: #103 Nimed

Actually, Spare O’Lake has a point here. There are not that many writings of hers out there.

Yeah, that is a frequent complaint in regards to Supreme candidates. I assume there’s something since 1993, though.

119 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:38:12am

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

…Is that a GOLD bar in your pocket or just glad to see me??
//

120 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:38:59am

re: #113 aurelius

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Also known as “Fire” v. Crowded Theater.

121 webevintage  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:39:25am

re: #110 Cato the Elder

OT: Now we know why talking heads and their guests sit behind tables for their talkfests.

They’re not wearing pants.

Heh.
I just saw that on Wonkette.

122 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:39:38am

re: #116 Spare O’Lake

I thought that article was brilliant, but in case you missed it one of the questions being posed about Kagan is the relative paucity of her published material…which prompted my comment.
Why so defensive SFZ?

I was trying to be helpful. I can always stop…

123 aurelius  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:39:45am

God these wingnuts piss me off. Take it to them Charles. Why shouldn’t we trust Kagan to decide the value of our speech? Who else is going to do it? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck? Please.

124 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:40:00am

re: #105 SanFranciscoZionist

It wasn’t. Please, explain why you’re concerned Elena Kagan has turned on free speech in the past seventeen years.

It’s basic cross-examination 101. Was it not a natural question?

125 Irenicum  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:40:51am

Hi gang. Just checking to make sure I’m still here. Apparently my email and my blogs have been hacked and been deleted. This should be fun. At least they haven’t taken this account over. I have expected to find myself banned for some “I hate you daddy” flounce. Now to figure out who the butthole is who took over my other accounts.

126 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:40:59am

re: #124 Spare O’Lake

It’s basic cross-examination 101. Was it not a natural question?

I’m sure it was.

127 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:41:03am

re: #123 aurelius

It is absolutely crystal clear at this moment that you haven’t read and comprehended Kagan’s article.

128 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:41:12am

re: #117 aurelius

I’ll say it again.

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

How clear is that, wingnuts? It doesn’t mean she is throwing out the 1st amendment. It simply means that she will decide the societal value of your speech.

Now STFU.

Which we already do with regards to protected speech. Those societal costs are measured with regards to fighting words, obscenity, incitement, threats, etc. This is especially true with regards to obscenity or pornography.

129 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:41:55am

re: #117 aurelius

I’ll say it again.

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

How clear is that, wingnuts? It doesn’t mean she is throwing out the 1st amendment. It simply means that she will decide the societal value of your speech.

Now STFU.

actually, i find that quote a little more meaty than the first one. much more slippery.

130 wrenchwench  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:43:11am

re: #125 Irenicum

Hi gang. Just checking to make sure I’m still here. Apparently my email and my blogs have been hacked and been deleted. This should be fun. At least they haven’t taken this account over. I have expected to find myself banned for some “I hate you daddy” flounce. Now to figure out who the butthole is who took over my other accounts.

Two words.

Sigma X.

OK, one word and one letter.

131 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:43:18am

re: #116 Spare O’Lake

I thought that article was brilliant, but in case you missed it one of the questions being posed about Kagan is the relative paucity of her published material…which prompted my comment.
Why so defensive SFZ?

Here’s some more info on her: [Link: volokh.com…]

And here: [Link: www.talkleft.com…]

132 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:43:33am

re: #120 goddamnedfrank

Also known as “Fire” v. Crowded Theater.

also known as “no blasphemy in Ireland”.

i’m sure that’s not what she means…but i wouldn’t use that quote of hers in her defense. it’s probably more vague than her true opinion.

133 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:43:46am

re: #128 Gus 802

Which we already do with regards to protected speech. Those societal costs are measured with regards to fighting words, obscenity, incitement, threats, etc. This is especially true with regards to obscenity or pornography.

Anti-porn provision sinks Dem jobs bill

“…amend legislation — contained language prohibiting federal funds from going “to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography, including child pornography, on a federal computer or while performing official government duties.”

[Link: thehill.com…]

134 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:43:55am

re: #129 Aceofwhat?

actually, i find that quote a little more meaty than the first one. much more slippery.

It’s certainly more meaty, but I think it’s hard to argue that she isn’t describing accurately the balance we’ve always struck with the benefits and dangers of entirely free speech.

We start to get into the mushy ground near the slippery slope with any restriction on speech, but it does exist in the law.

135 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:44:03am

re: #130 wrenchwench

Two words.

Sigma X.

OK, one word and one letter.

no, no, it’s Bagua/

136 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:45:10am

re: #133 Walter L. Newton

There’s nothing like re-illegalizing the already illegal.

/facepalm

137 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:45:17am

re: #125 Irenicum

Even if I were a big enough shitheel to wish that on anyone…
It would be purely an accident……PC Retardo at your service!!
LOL I think…….

138 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:45:19am

re: #135 Aceofwhat?

no, no, it’s Bagua/

That guy! Always hacking someone’s account. Stealing their Twitter followers. Causing outbreaks of cattle disease.

139 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:45:26am

re: #118 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah, that is a frequent complaint in regards to Supreme candidates. I assume there’s something since 1993, though.

Well, I’m sure there’s something. But the compaint is not that frequent. Kagan has managed to avoid expressing a written opinion on almost all the most controversial rulings in the past decade, which is relatively rare for a SC nominee. Her proponents admit as much.

140 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:45:32am

re: #129 Aceofwhat?

It’s not slippery. It’s a statement of fact.

141 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:46:15am

re: #139 Nimed

Well, I’m sure there’s something. But the compaint is not that frequent. Kagan has managed to avoid expressing a written opinion on almost all the most controversial rulings in the past decade, which is relatively rare for a SC nominee. Her proponents admit as much.

She does seem very deliberately closed-mouth. Then again, you can sort of see why.

//

142 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:46:32am

re: #140 Obdicut

It’s not slippery. It’s a statement of fact.

Well, it’s both. It’s the big gray zone.

143 Irenicum  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:46:39am

re: #130 wrenchwench

The thought did cross my mind that it might have come from a disaffected X member of LGF. I just hope blogger can get me back up and reboot all of my material. Very frustrating.

144 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:46:43am

Gotta go.

145 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:47:07am

re: #136 Fozzie Bear

There’s nothing like re-illegalizing the already illegal.

/facepalm

Shouldn’t that read…”ESPECIALLY CHILD PORN”?

146 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:47:16am

re: #122 SanFranciscoZionist

I was trying to be helpful. I can always stop…

Sorry, please don’t ever stop.
I guess I’m the one who’s being defensive.

147 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:47:24am

re: #134 SanFranciscoZionist

It’s certainly more meaty, but I think it’s hard to argue that she isn’t describing accurately the balance we’ve always struck with the benefits and dangers of entirely free speech.

We start to get into the mushy ground near the slippery slope with any restriction on speech, but it does exist in the law.

no question. and i wouldn’t read anything more than that from it. it’s just that the snipped Charles posted was SO unambiguous…it stands on its own.

148 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:47:25am

re: #138 SanFranciscoZionist

That guy! Always hacking someone’s account. Stealing their Twitter followers. Causing outbreaks of cattle disease.

Including brucellosis and tularemia!

//

149 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:47:37am

re: #142 SanFranciscoZionist

It’s a statement of the fact that it’s slippery.

150 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:48:14am

Child porn is not protected speech.

Saying you want to kill the president is not protected speech.

“Fighting words” are not protected speech.

Plotting to overthrow the government is not protected speech.

What category of speech does the whackjob right fear Kagan will add to the list? Has she given any indication of what speech she would like to unprotect?

151 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:48:47am

re: #145 reloadingisnotahobby

Shouldn’t that read…”ESPECIALLY CHILD PORN”?

I think just for good measure they should make sure the amendment specifically mentions that raping babies on top of government computers is also illegal. Because, you know, you can never be too careful.

152 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:49:22am

re: #136 Fozzie Bear

There’s nothing like re-illegalizing the already illegal.

/facepalm

Really… like the current laws have stopped it?

153 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:49:54am

re: #151 Fozzie Bear

Lots of loop holes!!!//

154 euphgeek  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:50:02am

re: #26 SanFranciscoZionist

True, but it seems to me that each outrage gets more ridiculous than the last.

155 The Curmudgeon  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:50:24am

re: #74 Cato the Elder

And by the way, I’m the curmudgeon-in-chief around here.

Great. You can have all my downdings.

156 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:50:51am

Peekaboo.. I see you..

Image: morsa3.jpg

157 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:50:52am

re: #136 Fozzie Bear

There’s nothing like re-illegalizing the already illegal.

/facepalm

smart, actually. parliamentary maneuver, not any more or less moral than Reid pulling the financial bill out for a vote while Shelby was still cooperating on it.

forcing the other party’s hand is a time-honored, bipartisan tradition.

158 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:51:37am

re: #131 recusancy

Here’s some more info on her: [Link: volokh.com…]

And here: [Link: www.talkleft.com…]

Thank you for posting those interesting links.

159 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:52:04am

re: #150 Cato the Elder

Child porn is not protected speech.

Saying you want to kill the president is not protected speech.

“Fighting words” are not protected speech.

Plotting to overthrow the government is not protected speech.

What category of speech does the whackjob right fear Kagan will add to the list? Has she given any indication of what speech she would like to unprotect?

She is probably against the ruling in Citizens United.

160 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:53:06am

re: #140 Obdicut

It’s not slippery. It’s a statement of fact.

the devil is in the details, of which she gives none. that doesn’t mean we ought to assume the worst…i was only pointing out that the original quote in Charles’ post was less ambiguous than this one.

161 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:53:55am

re: #159 Nimed

She is probably against the ruling in Citizens United.

I hope she is.

162 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:54:30am

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

Ummm. why?

This way, if you’re hobnobbing with some venture capital at Emirates Palace (where the machine is located) and you get a tweet that the Obammunist/ACORN militia has started confiscating guns and rounding up Christians, you can be ready by the time you fly home.
/

163 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:54:32am

re: #113 aurelius

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Shrug. That statement says nothing about her views. Who can disagree with that?

164 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:54:38am

re: #161 recusancy

I hope she is.

yep, who needs the first amendment…

165 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:54:50am

re: #163 Nimed

Shrug. That statement says nothing about her views. Who can disagree with that?

exactly.

166 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:55:36am

re: #150 Cato the Elder

Child porn is not protected speech.

Saying you want to kill the president is not protected speech.

“Fighting words” are not protected speech.

Plotting to overthrow the government is not protected speech.

What category of speech does the whackjob right fear Kagan will add to the list? Has she given any indication of what speech she would like to unprotect?

Hollering fire in a crowded theater?

167 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:55:56am

re: #117 aurelius

“”Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

Do you understand that you are quoting from a brief in which Kagan is arguing on behalf of a client’s position?

168 Renaissance_Man  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:56:55am

I am sort of curious as to why FOX Nation and Conservative blogs actually bother using real quotes to create Outrages any more. I wonder if it gives it a ring of legitimacy, to use something that was actually said or an event that actually happened as a very loose basis for the Red Fact that is then created out of it.

Consider this example. The Outrage is over a statement that says the exact opposite of what they say it says. Anyone with an eighth grade reading skill and no preconceived emotional response can see that. Fortunately, the article is written for those with preconceived emotional responses, so they can say Black is White and none of the target audience is any the wiser.

Which leads me to wonder why they bother using actual statements and events as the basis for their conjured reality at all any more. I mean, they could have said, ‘In a 1993 brief, Elena Kagan stated that ‘America will only be perfected when all white conservative babies are murdered in the womb, as the UN decrees.’ Their article would be no less accurate. The Red Facts would be equally untrue. Their readers would be even angrier, and thus have a stronger emotional response. And it would be equally impossible to disprove, since their followers are incapable of seeing facts due to their emotional response.

Sure, there’d be interviews with some journalists where a FOX follower said something like, ‘Don’t you know the truth? The woman stated that she wants to murder babies!’ The journalist would look startled, and say something like, ‘Um, no she didn’t.’ The response from all the blogs and ‘news’ articles would be to quote themselves where they show that she did. And their followers would consider that proof, since it’s a KnownFact that the MSM is lying to promote the socialist agenda.

169 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:56:58am

re: #161 recusancy

I hope she is.

That’s a very tough call for me. In any case, it’s undoubtedly a restriction on political speech.

170 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:56:58am

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error…We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

John Stuart Mill

171 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:57:04am

Fear of a ‘racial jihad’ from Robert Rodriguez

Last month I wrote about anti-illegal immigration groups pushing a video of a rally where opponents of Arizona’s tough new law talked — in my view — like particularly ornery tea partyers. That video was the first link in a chain of videos that show pro-amnesty activists getting angry and their opponents seeing, to be frank, anti-white racism. The latest outrage is the new movie from Robert Rodriguez, “Machete,” an action film based on a fake trailer from the very fun 2007 film “Grindhouse” that pits Mexican actor Danny Trejo against white racist politicians. The ad campaign was launched with a tongue-in-cheek video of the menacing Trejo sending “a message to Arizona.” Cue the outrage, as Texas radio host Alex Jones explains.

Leaked Machete Script Confirms Race War Plot

172 elektramourns  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:57:35am

re: #166 Spare O’Lake

Hollering fire in a crowded theater?

If she against Citizens United, she would be against filthy rich corporations buying political ads.

173 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 11:59:13am

re: #164 Aceofwhat?

yep, who needs the first amendment…

re: #169 Nimed

That’s a very tough call for me. In any case, it’s undoubtedly a restriction on political speech.

Sooner or later there becomes a difference between a corporation and an individual.

174 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:00:27pm

Let’s not forget free speech and dietary supplements! //

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 10, 2005

Free Speech and Dietary Supplements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims…

Coming up next. Free speech and survival seed banks and how it applies to fraudulent advertising.

175 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:01:39pm

re: #172 elektramourns

If she against Citizens United, she would be against filthy rich corporations buying political ads.

To put a somewhat finer point on it:

“If she against Citizens United, she would be against filthy rich corporations buying an unlimited amount of unattributed political ads.”

176 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:04:40pm

re: #173 recusancy

Sooner or later there becomes a difference between a corporation and an individual.

But the 1st Amendment simply says “Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech”. A distinction between individual and corporation is not required.

177 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:05:00pm

re: #171 Killgore Trout

Fear of a ‘racial jihad’ from Robert Rodriguez

Leaked Machete Script Confirms Race War Plot


[Video]

Nah, it’s an inside job to justify an invasion of Mexico so we can build a beer pipeline directly from Milwaukee and St. Louis to Cozumel, Cancun, and Acapulco.

178 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:05:00pm

re: #172 elektramourns

If she against Citizens United, she would be against filthy rich corporations buying political ads.

but if a corporation is only making a modest profit, it would be ok?

179 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:05:18pm

re: #168 Renaissance_Man

We’re not to far from that right now.

180 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:06:11pm

re: #176 Nimed

But the 1st Amendment simply says “Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech”. A distinction between individual and corporation is not required.

So commerce = speech?

Interesting.

181 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:07:18pm

re: #173 recusancy

Sooner or later there becomes a difference between a corporation and an individual.

yes. a corporation is an organizing principle for a group of individuals. my freedom of speech ought not be abrogated simply because i want to join with the other officers of the company in expressing it.

182 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:07:26pm

Good afternoon everyone! This is my first post and I want to introduce myself.
I’m a little to the right of most of you but I will try to play nice and not be annoying. I’m very pleased to be here after following this site since for the last several years.

183 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:07:44pm

re: #182 Nick Morgan

WELCOME!

184 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:07:56pm

re: #175 Fozzie Bear

To put a somewhat finer point on it:

“If she against Citizens United, she would be against filthy rich corporations buying an unlimited amount of unattributed political ads.”

Really? CU said that the political ad didn’t need to be attributed?

185 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:08:44pm

re: #180 Fozzie Bear

So commerce = speech?

Interesting.

why does the organizing principle of a group structure abrogate their right to speak in concert again?

regale me…

186 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:08:45pm

re: #182 Nick Morgan

Good afternoon everyone! This is my first post and I want to introduce myself.
I’m a little to the right of most of you but I will try to play nice and not be annoying. I’m very pleased to be here after following this site since for the last several years.

That was annoying :)

187 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:08:48pm

re: #182 Nick Morgan

¡bienvenidos!

188 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:09:11pm

re: #180 Fozzie Bear

So commerce = speech?

Interesting.

It can. For example advertising and how it relates to commerce. In the negative sense we would consider false or deceptive advertising which is not a form of protected speech.

189 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:09:23pm

re: #187 cliffster

¡bienvenidos!

This is an English only blog.

190 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:09:35pm

re: #177 Shiplord Kirel

Nah, it’s an inside job to justify an invasion of Mexico so we can build a beer pipeline directly from Milwaukee and St. Louis to Cozumel, Cancun, and Acapulco.

New World Beer Order!

191 aurelius  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:09:43pm

re: #182 Nick Morgan

so how right are we talking here… ;)

192 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:09:56pm

re: #185 Aceofwhat?

I think Stevens et. al. put it better than I ever could.

[Link: www.democraticunderground.com…]

193 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:10:10pm

re: #183 MandyManners

Thank you! I look forward to be being whacked by you (when I deserve it) !

194 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:10:13pm

I think corporations and unions should be allowed to spend as much as they want for political ads.

I also think that those ads should be taxes at 500% of their cost.

195 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:10:43pm

re: #182 Nick Morgan

How do we know you’re not really Sigma X?

196 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:10:52pm

re: #190 Killgore Trout

New World Beer Order!

oh, uhh…I guess I’ll have a sierra nevada, if you’re heading for the bar anyway.

197 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:11:32pm

re: #195 Mad Al-Jaffee

How do we know you’re not really Sigma X?

WE CAN BUILD A BRIDGE OUT OF HIM!

198 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:11:37pm

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

This is an English only blog.

maybe he pressed 2 instead of 1

(Cato just threw up in his mouth a little)

199 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:12:14pm

re: #197 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

WE CAN BUILD A BRIDGE OUT OF HIM!

heh, beat me. Throw him in the water, see if he floats!

200 Obdicut  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:12:19pm

re: #160 Aceofwhat?

She gives plenty of details in her essay.

201 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:12:26pm

re: #192 Fozzie Bear

I think Stevens et. al. put it better than I ever could.

[Link: www.democraticunderground.com…]

Fortunately, Scalia put it much better than he did.

I read the whole opinion, and the whole dissent.

202 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:12:53pm

re: #186 Walter L. Newton

re: #195 Mad Al-Jaffee

How do we know you’re not really Sigma X?

Because I don’t know what Sigma X is?

203 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:13:09pm

re: #201 Aceofwhat?

Fortunately, Scalia put it much better than he did.

I read the whole opinion, and the whole dissent.

Scalia is rather partial to the best democracy money can buy. I am not.

204 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:13:10pm

re: #197 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

WE CAN BUILD A BRIDGE OUT OF HIM!

Okay, we did the nose.

205 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:13:21pm

re: #200 Obdicut

She gives plenty of details in her essay.

ok, cool. my remark was mostly to say that the original quote (uncoerced) was more definitive than the one posted above.

206 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:13:30pm

re: #33 jamesfirecat

I would hardly use one to replace the other. Inequality is a word I would use to describe a situation. As in… “There used to be considerable inequality towards left handed people in catholic schools.” While I would use “discrimination” to describe a particular person “That nun discriminated against me and told the entire class I was using an evil hand because I was a southpaw.”

Though this is just my “gut check” answer rather than one from the dictionary.

Why do you ask?

While all men are created equal and everyone deserves a fair shot, there can be no success without failure in a free and democratic society.

207 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:13:53pm

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

This is an English only blog.

C’est vrai?

Мне нравится говорить другие Языки

Anybody know the word in Spanish for troll?

No me gusta “trolls.”

208 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:14:14pm

re: #202 Nick Morgan

re: #195 Mad Al-Jaffee


Because I don’t know what Sigma X is?

AHA! The old “I don’t know what you’re talking about” ploy.

/

209 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:14:15pm

re: #193 Nick Morgan

Thank you! I look forward to be being whacked by you (when I deserve it) !

I only *whack* the deserving.

210 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:14:30pm

re: #207 EmmmieG

Snot. Got lazy on the Cyrillic text modifying.

211 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:14:57pm

re: #202 Nick Morgan

re: #195 Mad Al-Jaffee


Because I don’t know what Sigma X is?

Whiner.

212 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:15:12pm

re: #209 MandyManners

I only *whack* the deserving.

in bed

*ducks*

213 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:15:39pm

re: #178 Aceofwhat?

but if a corporation is only making a modest profit, it would be ok?

It’s the “filthiness” which is unacceptable.

214 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:15:47pm

re: #206 Spare O’Lake

While all men are created equal and everyone deserves a fair shot, there can be no success without failure in a free and democratic society.

Horsefeathers! Every child deserves a trophy just for participating!

215 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:15:59pm

re: #203 Fozzie Bear

Scalia is rather partial to the best democracy money can buy. I am not.

Scalia is rather partial to not giving a fuck about whether your motives are pure while judging whether you abrogated the 1st, for which i’m grateful.

You should be pissed that the legislature can’t do any better, instead of impugning the motives of justices standing up for your rights.

216 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:16:15pm

re: #206 Spare O’Lake

While all men are created equal and everyone deserves a fair shot, there can be no success without failure in a free and democratic society.

But that success should be meritorious and earned from an equal starting point.

217 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:16:31pm

re: #212 Mad Al-Jaffee

in bed

*ducks*

You’re into ducks?

218 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:16:42pm

re: #214 MandyManners

Horsefeathers! Every child deserves a trophy just for participating!

Equality of outcome, it makes a lot of sense.

219 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:17:06pm

re: #216 recusancy

But that success should be meritorious and earned from an equal starting point.

It is. We’re all born free.

220 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:17:11pm

re: #215 Aceofwhat?

Scalia is rather partial to not giving a fuck about whether your motives are pure while judging whether you abrogated the 1st, for which i’m grateful.

You should be pissed that the legislature can’t do any better, instead of impugning the motives of justices standing up for your rights.

My rights were never threatened, as I am not a corporation.

221 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:17:11pm

re: #180 Fozzie Bear

So commerce = speech?

Interesting.

When you’re using “commerce” for speech, yes. Unless you agree with the principle that you can restrict the use of pamphlets, megaphones, and other media to disseminate political views as long as somebody makes a buck.

222 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:17:21pm

re: #216 recusancy

But that success should be meritorious and earned from an equal starting point.

oh, brother

223 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:17:24pm

re: #216 recusancy

But that success should be meritorious and earned from an equal starting point.

wellll, then you’re getting into the tricky part of defining “equal” and “starting point” in American society. Good luck getting agreement on that.

224 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:17:32pm

re: #218 Walter L. Newton

Equality of outcome, it makes a lot of sense.

Only in Berkeley and its ilk.

225 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:00pm

re: #219 MandyManners

It is. We’re all born free.

Some are born free with $1,000,000 in the bank.

226 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:03pm

re: #207 EmmmieG

C’est vrai?

Мне нравитс& #1103; говорит& #1100; другие Языки

Anybody know the word in Spanish for troll?

No me gusta “trolls.”

Necesitamos concinar los trols en la parrilla. Donde está Dark Falcon?

227 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:05pm

re: #217 MandyManners

You’re into ducks?

No, I’m more into rabbits, but only if they look like Jessica.

228 lostlakehiker  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:11pm

re: #150 Cato the Elder

Child porn is not protected speech.

Saying you want to kill the president is not protected speech.

“Fighting words” are not protected speech.

Plotting to overthrow the government is not protected speech.

What category of speech does the whackjob right fear Kagan will add to the list? Has she given any indication of what speech she would like to unprotect?

Speech that she deems contributes to gender or racial inequality? Such as this post, because I’ll go out on a limb and say that these inequalities are not caused by this or that form of speech anyhow. The main determinant of salary, rank, and standing in society is achievement. Skill, zeal, courage, and preparation are the main determinants of achievement, and thus the main determinants of rank and standing.

Ms. Kagan is a high achiever, and that’s why she’s been nominated, rather than some other liberal.

229 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:24pm

re: #220 Fozzie Bear

My rights were never threatened, as I am not a corporation.

I have ambitions to be an officer of a corporation someday. I look forward to hearing about how that makes me evil, or less protected in various ways.

230 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:34pm

re: #218 Walter L. Newton

Equality of outcome, it makes a lot of sense.

Equality of outcome leads to equality of input, like in Soviet Union.

And, goodness knows, the US has too much in our stores already. I would love to stand in line for the one type of shoe available, and another line for four rolls of tp.

231 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:40pm

Interesting….

Cash couriers target of Northeast raids, source says

Raids by federal agents in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey on Thursday are focused on a system of “cash couriers” who bring money into the United States from overseas, a source close to the investigation said.

Three people were taken into custody, according to a U.S. official — two in Massachusetts and a third in Maine. A statement from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed that three people were taken into custody on alleged immigration violations, but provided no further details.

All three are from Pakistan, according to a U.S. official. One is a so-called “visa overstay.” Another was in the process of being removed from the United States, but had not yet been ordered removed, as he was attempting to adjust his status so that he could stay in the country, the official said.

A federal law enforcement source said the initial two detained were connected to the case, but said they were “collateral” in the sense that they may not have had direct knowledge of or input into the Times Square plot.

232 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:18:59pm

re: #223 EastSider

welll, then you’re getting into the tricky part of defining “equal” and “starting point” in American society. Good luck getting agreement on that.

heh. i had a dog…and his name was BINGO

233 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:01pm

re: #209 MandyManners

It’s gonna happen! :)

234 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:11pm

re: #225 EastSider

Some are born free with $1,000,000 in the bank.

So… what the fuck? Doesn’t that make you want to hopefully someday have 1,500,000, or are you going to whine about what other poeple have?

235 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:27pm

re: #225 EastSider

Some are born free with $1,000,000 in the bank.

And some are born with nothing and end up with $1,000,000 in the bank.

236 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:31pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

I have ambitions to be an officer of a corporation someday. I look forward to hearing about how that makes me evil, or less protected in various ways.

It doesn’t make you either. But it doesn’t make your corporation a literal person, either, no matter how much you insist it is.

237 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:34pm

re: #230 EmmmieG

Equality of outcome leads to equality of input, like in Soviet Union.

And, goodness knows, the US has too much in our stores already. I would love to stand in line for the one type of shoe available, and another line for four rolls of tp.


All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

238 lostlakehiker  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:47pm

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

This is an English only blog.

Doch. On peut en francaise parle’z, ou en Espanol, ili pa Russkii.

239 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:19:52pm

re: #223 EastSider

welll, then you’re getting into the tricky part of defining “equal” and “starting point” in American society. Good luck getting agreement on that.

I know.

240 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:20:08pm

Television says
“Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball”
Follow sage advice.

241 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:20:17pm

re: #237 Mad Al-Jaffee

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

And some animals stand in line for tp, and some have a vacation dacha.

I have a feeling I know which type of animal I would be.

242 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:21:02pm

re: #240 oaktree

Television says
“Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball”
Follow sage advice.

If Happy Fun Ball starts to glow, do not look directly at Happy Fun Ball.

243 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:21:32pm

re: #234 Walter L. Newton

So… what the fuck? Doesn’t that make you want to hopefully someday have 1,500,000, or are you going to whine about what other poeple have?

Yes, hopefully you’d have that ambition, or at least some ambition to do something.

But if the goal is to make money (which is not necessarily the goal in America, although “pursuit of happiness” is often confused as “pursuit of money”), then those who are born with $1M in the bank are at a huge advantage to those born with $0.

Its a lot easier to make $500k w/ a $1M platform.

244 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:21:46pm

re: #230 EmmmieG

Equality of outcome leads to equality of input, like in Soviet Union.

And, goodness knows, the US has too much in our stores already. I would love to stand in line for the one type of shoe available, and another line for four rolls of tp.

Nobody is advocating for equality of outcomes.

245 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:22:10pm

re: #236 Fozzie Bear

It doesn’t make you either. But it doesn’t make your corporation a literal person, either, no matter how much you insist it is.

Apparently if i want to express an opinion in concert with the other officers/owners of the company, i am no longer a person.

Odd. I wonder what that’ll feel like. Will i be a daemon, however temporarily?

246 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:22:18pm

re: #244 recusancy

Nobody is advocating for equality of outcomes.

You haven’t been around children’s sports recently, have you?

247 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:22:32pm

re: #172 elektramourns

If she against Citizens United, she would be against filthy rich corporations buying political ads.

The Supreme Court by this one ruling has overturned 63 years worth of legislation by the Congress. Not just one law, but dozens of them, that have been whittled and honed over time to try to keep the political fair and free of undue influence by monied interests.

That is all gone now, and there is no chance that it will get fixed during an election year either. The ads this election cycle are going to be a whole new experience. Not only can you spend an unlimited amount of money promoting a candidate you can now also spend an unlimited amount attacking one. Regardless of whether or not you also openly support and fund a candidates election campaign you no longer have to report that nor does he have to count your ads as campaign spending in his favor.

Basically it is way too much of a good thing, sure we now have unrestricted and unregulated “free political speech,” but we also have even media corporations allowed to fund and run their own pro/attack ads. This is going to be a mess, no question…

248 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:22:37pm

re: #225 EastSider

Some are born free with $1,000,000 in the bank.

Even better than that - some are born free to parents who teach them not to find bitterness and anger at people who have more material possessions than they do.

249 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:22:58pm

re: #243 EastSider

Yes, hopefully you’d have that ambition, or at least some ambition to do something.

But if the goal is to make money (which is not necessarily the goal in America, although “pursuit of happiness” is often confused as “pursuit of money”), then those who are born with $1M in the bank are at a huge advantage to those born with $0.

Its a lot easier to make $500k w/ a $1M platform.

No… you’re whining is a huge DISADVANTAGE to you ever making anything of your life. Who the fuck said life was easy? Who owes you jack?

250 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:23:03pm

Never mind the nontroversy…bet she wishes she could take this one back…..

Kagan in 1995 said Supreme Court confirmation hearings had become meaningless. Writing a book review of “The Confirmation Mess” by Stephen Carter, Kagan wrote that when “the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce.”


Good to know that she wants a full and open examination of her views by the Senate and not one of those meaningless softball interviews.
[Link: blogs.abcnews.com…]

251 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:23:11pm

re: #238 lostlakehiker

Doch. On peut en francaise parle’z, ou en Espanol, ili pa Russkii.

i thought ‘doch’ was only a contrary affirmative…?

252 Jadespring  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:23:32pm

re: #207 EmmmieG

C’est vrai?


Anybody know the word in Spanish for troll?

No me gusta “trolls.”

We need to scratch the coconut and answer that question.

253 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:23:47pm

HOW DARE PEOPLE WORK HARD IN THEIR LIVES AND PASS THEIR MONEY AND POSSESSIONS ON TO THEIR OWN CHILDREN! THE OUTRAGE!

/

254 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:23:58pm

re: #225 EastSider

Some are born free with $1,000,000 in the bank.

So? Take it away (steal?) it from that person?

255 lostlakehiker  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:23:59pm

re: #37 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Allow me to help. I had four years of Grammar I, and won my 6th grade class’s spelling bee only to be destroyed by a fourth grader for the school championship. I think that qualifies me to speak to the folks who are at this intelligence level…

Uncensored means not censored.
Ungreased means not greased.
Unhappy means not happy.
Uncoerced means not coerced.
Unraged is a word I made up yesterday. But it means not raged.

Ungulate means not gulate. Unified means not ified. Universe means not iverse. Union means not ionized. I get it!

/unforced errors

256 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:24:07pm

re: #249 Walter L. Newton

No… you’re whining is a huge DISADVANTAGE to you ever making anything of your life. Who the fuck said life was easy? Who owes you jack?

wow. this was never about me. I’m going to ignore that comment and continue to talk about the general public. I’d prefer if you could keep it from being personal.

257 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:24:11pm

re: #247 ausador

The Supreme Court by this one ruling has overturned 63 years worth of legislation by the Congress. Not just one law, but dozens of them, that have been whittled and honed over time to try to keep the political fair and free of undue influence by monied interests.

That is all gone now, and there is no chance that it will get fixed during an election year either. The ads this election cycle are going to be a whole new experience. Not only can you spend an unlimited amount of money promoting a candidate you can now also spend an unlimited amount attacking one. Regardless of whether or not you also openly support and fund a candidates election campaign you no longer have to report that nor does he have to count your ads as campaign spending in his favor.

Basically it is way too much of a good thing, sure we now have unrestricted and unregulated “free political speech,” but we also have even media corporations allowed to fund and run their own pro/attack ads. This is going to be a mess, no question…

So does this mean until now corporations never had any influence on politics and political campaigns? /

258 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:24:19pm

re: #248 cliffster

Even better than that - some are born free to parents who teach them not to find bitterness and anger at people who have more material possessions than they do.

I already have my two most important inheritances:

1. My siblings (that’s where the money went).

2. Their attitude towards work and challenges and learning.

They’re going to spend the rest. Trust me. After that it’s photographs, and I already digitized those.

259 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:24:34pm

re: #219 MandyManners

It is. We’re all born free.

…as free as the wind blows,
As free as the grass grows,
Born free to follow your heart.

260 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:24:37pm

re: #227 Mad Al-Jaffee

No, I’m more into rabbits, but only if they look like Jessica.

You wascal.

261 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:24:53pm

re: #255 lostlakehiker

Ungulate means not gulate. Unified means not ified. Universe means not iverse. Union means not ionized. I get it!

/unforced errors

What are the opposites of disgruntled and discombobulated?

262 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:25:02pm

re: #247 ausador

This is going to be a mess, no question…

Then the legislature should fix it without trampling on our rights. I like the idea of taxing it. Free speech ≠ untaxed speech, IIRC…

263 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:25:12pm

re: #246 EmmmieG

You haven’t been around children’s sports recently, have you?

I have not. And I agree that the glut of trophies and the self esteem culture is not beneficial to the development of individuals.

264 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:26:00pm

re: #256 EastSider

wow. this was never about me. I’m going to ignore that comment and continue to talk about the general public. I’d prefer if you could keep it from being personal.

No… you speak for yourself, not painting with some broad brush for the “general public.” That’s just a ruse someone uses so they don’t have to take responsibility for their opinions.

Talk for yourself, you’re not talking for me, or anyone else.

265 JRCMYP  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:26:05pm

Perhaps we could levy a Stupid Tax and use the proceeds to buy the right wingers a clue? Or at least a dictionary or two.

266 darthstar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:26:15pm

Thank you Sarah Palin…you are wise beyond your wardrobe.

“Some Republicans have evidently thought that they have to kind of move to the left of the center or move to the middle in order to win,” Palin said during a speech in Rosemont, Ill. “I’m saying, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’ You win by letting the middle move to you.”

267 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:27:20pm
268 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:27:30pm

re: #244 recusancy

Nobody is advocating for equality of outcomes.

equal starting points will require that you rob people of their outcomes.

try “equal opportunity” instead. it’s just as sweet of a sentiment, minus all of the ugly stealing;)

269 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:27:37pm

re: #266 darthstar

Thank you Sarah Palin…you are wise beyond your wardrobe.

I’ll remember to try that approach the next time me and 3-4 others are holding to rope on which someone is currently hanging over a cliff on…

;) //

270 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:27:55pm

re: #245 Aceofwhat?

Apparently if i want to express an opinion in concert with the other officers/owners of the company, i am no longer a person.

Odd. I wonder what that’ll feel like. Will i be a daemon, however temporarily?

No, if you want to express an opinion personally, using personal funds, fine. However, considering pretty much every major restriction on corporate expenditures on political propaganda has been overturned, there won’t be much to stop your LLC from buying the best legislation money can buy. You either understand the power and inherent danger of unregulated political propaganda, or you don’t.

Apparently, you don’t.

271 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:27:57pm

re: #246 EmmmieG

You haven’t been around children’s sports recently, have you?

The Kid figured it out a few years ago when everyone on his team got a trophy even though they lost. He refused the trophy.

272 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:28:53pm

re: #270 Fozzie Bear

No, if you want to express an opinion personally, using personal funds, fine. However, considering pretty much every major restriction on corporate expenditures on political propaganda has been overturned, there won’t be much to stop your LLC from buying the best legislation money can buy. You either understand the power and inherent danger of unregulated political propaganda, or you don’t.

Apparently, you don’t.

You’re right… now, what can we do about it?

273 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:29:17pm

re: #259 Spare O’Lake

…as free as the wind blows,
As free as the grass grows,
Born free to follow your heart.

Now I have that song in my head.

274 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:29:32pm

re: #264 Walter L. Newton

No… you speak for yourself, not painting with some broad brush for the “general public.” That’s just a ruse someone uses so they don’t have to take responsibility for their opinions.

Talk for yourself, you’re not talking for me, or anyone else.

alright then fine.

I was born free.

I was born to a middle class family that gave me the opportunity to lead a healthy childhood and attend a good school

Not everyone gets that chance.

I really would like you (and anyone else hyperventilating here) to read my previous posts. I’m not whining. I’m not advocating entitlements. I’m simply stating that “equal’ and “starting point” are subjective terms, and not as clear cut as being “born free.” I’m not advocating a position one way or the other.

275 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:29:43pm

re: #244 recusancy

I seem to recall Reverend Sharpton advocating just that very thing a week or so ago, when he reinterpreted Dr King’s dream as being not ‘equal opportunity for all men regardless of color or creed ’ but ’ equal everything in everybody’s house.’

276 Old Dragon  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:30:00pm

Totally serene that I helped elect a President who is smarter than I am, and I’m no slouch after 36 years teaching high school history. His choice for the Court is proof of my convictions.

Hofstader wrote about “Anti-Intellectualism in America” 50 years ago.
The more things change…..

Old Dragon

277 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:30:17pm

re: #267 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

My puzzler hurts.

In bed.

278 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:30:18pm

re: #271 MandyManners

The Kid figured it out a few years ago when everyone on his team got a trophy even though they lost. He refused the trophy.

I prefer taking pictures of the kids while playing and then digitally scrapbooking the photos. They have a memento that is real, then.

279 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:30:24pm

re: #271 MandyManners

The Kid figured it out a few years ago when everyone on his team got a trophy even though they lost. He refused the trophy.

Gee I wonder where he got that un-PC attitude?

280 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:30:32pm

re: #272 Walter L. Newton

You’re right… now, what can we do about it?

Continue the futile exercise of attempting to educate people about how propaganda works.

What else can you do?

281 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:30:59pm

How much money did Goldman Sachs give BHO’s campaign?

282 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:06pm

re: #270 Fozzie Bear

No, if you want to express an opinion personally, using personal funds, fine. However, considering pretty much every major restriction on corporate expenditures on political propaganda has been overturned, there won’t be much to stop your LLC from buying the best legislation money can buy. You either understand the power and inherent danger of unregulated political propaganda, or you don’t.

Apparently, you don’t.

You either know when you’re being an arrogant prick or you don’t. Apparently, you don’t.

283 darthstar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:18pm

re: #267 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

My puzzler hurts.

She also says “our recent hook-up with hope and change isn’t a long term relationship”…hook-up…yes, Sarah considers hope and change to be like Todd’s business partners…it’s okay to fuck them, but you don’t want to wake up with them. Sadly for her, America isn’t that big of a tramp.

284 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:23pm

re: #271 MandyManners

The Kid figured it out a few years ago when everyone on his team got a trophy even though they lost. He refused the trophy.

Good on him.

285 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:40pm

re: #282 cliffster

You either know when you’re being an arrogant prick or you don’t. Apparently, you don’t.

Oh I don’t care if I’m arrogant, when I’m right.

286 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:42pm

re: #278 EmmmieG

I prefer taking pictures of the kids while playing and then digitally scrapbooking the photos. They have a memento that is real, then.

I don’t do the digital stuff but I have oodles of photographs.

287 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:52pm

re: #248 cliffster

Even better than that - some are born free to parents who teach them not to find bitterness and anger at people who have more material possessions than they do.

Bitterness and anger is the fuel behind politics in this country. Whichever side has the most of that fuel turns out the most voters.

288 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:31:55pm

re: #279 Spare O’Lake

Gee I wonder where he got that un-PC attitude?

*whistling*

289 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:32:58pm

re: #279 Spare O’Lake
The Resistance./

290 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:33:09pm

re: #287 recusancy

Bitterness and anger is the fuel behind politics in this country. Whichever side has the most of that fuel turns out the most voters.

Yes, bitterness and arrogance may be the fuel, but money is the match and the oxygen.

291 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:33:38pm

re: #288 MandyManners
Apple, tree.
:)

292 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:34:04pm

re: #257 Gus 802

So does this mean until now corporations never had any influence on politics and political campaigns? /

Sure they did, just not direct access to the media, to do that they had to form and fund a PAC and report their contributions. It was transparent and researchable, now, well now it isn’t.

293 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:34:15pm

re: #270 Fozzie Bear

No, if you want to express an opinion personally, using personal funds, fine. However, considering pretty much every major restriction on corporate expenditures on political propaganda has been overturned, there won’t be much to stop your LLC from buying the best legislation money can buy. You either understand the power and inherent danger of unregulated political propaganda, or you don’t.

Apparently, you don’t.

You continue to fail to make a distinction between whether i think that there is a problem and whether i think that the only solution is to trample on my rights.

i think that there is an immigration problem. let’s just round up all of the brown people.

see? all of a sudden a potentially effective solution seems unpalatable, and we wonder what kind of idiot would write such a law.

unpalatable laws are not justified by the purity of their intentions, no matter how much you want to make yourself believe that i just don’t “get it”.

294 EastSider  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:34:20pm

re: #287 recusancy

Bitterness and anger is the fuel behind politics in this country. Whichever side has the most of that fuel turns out the most voters.

I’ll give you that. I was about to say something snarky about Obama’s campaign being fueled on “hope and change” to rebut your point. However, it was just well branded, forward facing bitterness and anger at Bush/Repubs.

295 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:34:40pm

re: #276 Old Dragon

I’m no slouch after 36 years teaching high school history. Old Dragon

So after 36 years, can you tell me what happened already?

296 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:34:52pm

re: #280 Fozzie Bear

Continue the futile exercise of attempting to educate people about how propaganda works.

What else can you do?

The Obama campaign had so much money, they had a channel on satellite tv that was all-Obama, all the time. THAT is propaganda. I guess it was those evil corporations that gave it all to him?

297 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:35:32pm

re: #290 Fozzie Bear
I would substitute fear and loathing for those.
But neither is really good for keeping the motivation alive in the long run.

298 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:35:35pm

re: #280 Fozzie Bear

Continue the futile exercise of attempting to educate people about how propaganda works.

What else can you do?

Nothing… the plutocracy and the kleptocracy is entrenched, there is nothing you can do about it, nothing I can do about it. Do you really think that the global big business and special interest cabal that actually pulls all the strings are in any way going to let you or I or anyone at the street level effect any changes?

If you do, you’re crazy. No, politicians can’t change a think, the left has had a real good dose of that… the hope and change has become business as usual. Nothing Obama has done up to this point in any way changes the balance of power in regards to big money, it just adjusts the alliances a bit.

And conservatives, who are always waving the “small government” flag have burned that bridge behind them a real long time ago. Bush left office after handing over enough money to have financed a whole new continent.

It’s a catch 22, and there is nothing legally you can do about it.

299 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:35:44pm

re: #287 recusancy

Bitterness and anger is the fuel behind politics in this country. Whichever side has the most of that fuel turns out the most voters.

you got that right, recusancy.

300 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:35:44pm

re: #296 cliffster

The Obama campaign had so much money, they had a channel on satellite tv that was all-Obama, all the time. THAT is propaganda. I guess it was those evil corporations that gave it all to him?

The Obama campaign paid for it. Not a faceless corporation.

301 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:35:51pm

re: #272 Walter L. Newton

You’re right… now, what can we do about it?

he’s not right. i get it. but laws are not given constitutional passes due to their sweet intentions in my evil, right-leaning world.

302 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:36:53pm

re: #292 ausador

Sure they did, just not direct access to the media, to do that they had to form and fund a PAC and report their contributions. It was transparent and researchable, now, well now it isn’t.

they don’t have to disclose that they paid for the ad? really?

303 darthstar  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:36:55pm

Poor McCain…when even Joe “I had a dead woman in my office when I was in congress” Scarborough is laughing at you, you’re fucked.

304 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:37:08pm

re: #300 recusancy

The Obama campaign paid for it. Not a faceless corporation.

Right. Where did the Obama campaign get all that money?

305 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:37:13pm

re: #292 ausador

Sure they did, just not direct access to the media, to do that they had to form and fund a PAC and report their contributions. It was transparent and researchable, now, well now it isn’t.

From what I understand they will still be limited by the same provision and regulations applied to all groups including non-profits. Whatever transparency there was will remain in place. Corporations would still have to file with the FEC and adhere to campaign rules.

306 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:37:22pm

re: #302 Aceofwhat?

they don’t have to disclose that they paid for the ad? really?

Thomas was the only Justice who came to that opinion, thankfully.

307 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:37:28pm

re: #301 Aceofwhat?

he’s not right. i get it. but laws are not given constitutional passes due to their sweet intentions in my evil, right-leaning world.

Your “evil, right-leaning world” can’t do anything about anything… see my re: #298 Walter L. Newton

308 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:37:48pm

re: #304 cliffster

Right. Where did the Obama campaign get all that money?

Individuals.

309 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:37:53pm

re: #293 Aceofwhat?

You continue to fail to make a distinction between whether i think that there is a problem and whether i think that the only solution is to trample on my rights.

i think that there is an immigration problem. let’s just round up all of the brown people.

see? all of a sudden a potentially effective solution seems unpalatable, and we wonder what kind of idiot would write such a law.

unpalatable laws are not justified by the purity of their intentions, no matter how much you want to make yourself believe that i just don’t “get it”.

The thing is, your rights were never threatened. You were always free to spend as much of your own money as you want on political speech. Go nuts. Buy billboards, radio ads. Set up your own websites, newspapers, and so on. There is no limit, and never has been, for individuals.

You continue to pretend there literally is no difference between a limited liability corporation and an individual, and that more than half a century of election law was somehow a grevious violation of your rights.

Your rights were never even momentarily threatened.

310 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:12pm

re: #300 recusancy

The Obama campaign paid for it. Not a faceless corporation.

huh. what exactly is a “faceless corporation”, besides that thing which probably writes your checks?

311 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:20pm

re: #300 recusancy

The Obama campaign paid for it. Not a faceless corporation.

Really?

Barack Obama (D) - Top Contributors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683

312 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:28pm

:)

313 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:31pm

re: #304 cliffster

Right. Where did the Obama campaign get all that money?

Unicorn’s pooped it out.

314 JRCMYP  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:49pm

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

How the hell did you get *that* from her words? Seriously. This isn’t about you. Look around the room. It might be hard to imagine, but I don’t think she’s thowing rocks at anyone.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

315 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:56pm

re: #308 recusancy

Individuals.

No corporation contributed to it?

316 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:38:56pm

Ahoy, ahoy!

Still bayoneting the wounded, are we?

317 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:39:14pm

re: #308 recusancy

Individuals.

Excellent. So why the worry about corporations making contributions, when individuals can clearly contribute so much money to a campaign that it can’t possibly spend it all?

318 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:39:26pm

re: #306 recusancy

Thomas was the only Justice who came to that opinion, thankfully.

and i disagree with him on that. but why are you saying it isn’t researchable, in this case?

319 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:39:27pm

re: #311 Gus 802

Really?

Barack Obama (D) - Top Contributors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683

Those are individuals who disclosed who they worked for as they wrote the check. That isn’t the actual company, using company money.

320 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:39:36pm

re: #298 Walter L. Newton

Nothing… the plutocracy and the kleptocracy is entrenched, there is nothing you can do about it, nothing I can do about it. Do you really think that the global big business and special interest cabal that actually pulls all the strings are in any way going to let you or I or anyone at the street level effect any changes?

If you do, you’re crazy. No, politicians can’t change a think, the left has had a real good dose of that… the hope and change has become business as usual. Nothing Obama has done up to this point in any way changes the balance of power in regards to big money, it just adjusts the alliances a bit.

And conservatives, who are always waving the “small government” flag have burned that bridge behind them a real long time ago. Bush left office after handing over enough money to have financed a whole new continent.

It’s a catch 22, and there is nothing legally you can do about it.

Abbey, is that you?

321 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:39:46pm

re: #281 MandyManners
Its second largest amount./
(In a remarkable six degrees thing, Kagan’s represented them, too).
[Link: www.pr-inside.com…]
**disclaimer…. I know nuthin’ about this website. If it’s evil, it was the first google to open up when ’ kagan goldman ’ was typed in.

322 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:39:48pm

re: #311 Gus 802

Really?

Barack Obama (D) - Top Contributors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683

Next campaign, that pesky reporting of contributions will no longer be neccessary.

Enjoy your faceless rulers.

323 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:40:20pm

re: #320 Spare O’Lake

Abbey, is that you?

I really don’t know what your reference is to, and I hope it wasn’t meant to be nasty.

324 MandyManners  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:40:21pm

Gotta’ git.

325 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:40:28pm

re: #318 Aceofwhat?

and i disagree with him on that. but why are you saying it isn’t researchable, in this case?

The electorate doesn’t do research.

326 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:40:52pm

re: #262 Aceofwhat?

Then the legislature should fix it without trampling on our rights. I like the idea of taxing it. Free speech ≠ untaxed speech, IIRC…

How does that fix anything? Well other than limiting the ability to run political ads to those willing to spend the most money to do so. Why can’t we lizards get together and run a cheap anti-luap nor ad if we wanted to without having to pay a tax on it? :p

/

327 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:41:00pm

re: #315 MandyManners
You know….. they passed the coffee can around at lunch for a few weeks.//
The secretarial pool really came through.

328 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:41:25pm

re: #319 recusancy

Those are individuals who disclosed who they worked for as they wrote the check. That isn’t the actual company, using company money.

It has the same effect in the long run.

I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think there was and is no corporate influence on political campaigning. And that includes bundling and hiding behind non-profit groups.

It’s the nature of the beast.

329 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:41:30pm

re: #322 Fozzie Bear

Next campaign, that pesky reporting of contributions will no longer be neccessary.

Enjoy your faceless rulers.

The rulers of both the right and left are not faceless… it’s global business, special interest, big money and about 100 private citizens. There’s never been any mystery about that.

330 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:41:36pm

re: #271 MandyManners

I’m new here so I don’t want to get too controversial, but when my oldest daughter was 11 (1993) she brought home a blue ribbon in some sporting event. I was proud and praised her for it. She said, ” It doesn’t mean anything, everyone got one.” It was some kind of Scandinavian thing according to the back of the ribbon. It did not elevate her self-esteem.

331 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:42:32pm

re: #330 Nick Morgan

I’m new here so I don’t want to get too controversial, but when my oldest daughter was 11 (1993) she brought home a blue ribbon in some sporting event. I was proud and praised her for it. She said, ” It doesn’t mean anything, everyone got one.” It was some kind of Scandinavian thing according to the back of the ribbon. It did not elevate her self-esteem.

But it help the ribbon industry.

332 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:42:46pm

re: #330 Nick Morgan

How did you lose all your teeth?

333 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:10pm

re: #329 Walter L. Newton

The rulers of both the right and left are not faceless… it’s global business, special interest, big money and about 100 private citizens. There’s never been any mystery about that.

Yes, but now there is no legal compulsion to disclose precisely what interests are financing what campaign, nor is there any limit to how much can be spent.

334 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:31pm

re: #332 cliffster

How did you lose all your teeth?

Talking smack about Leroy Brown, perhaps.

335 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:36pm

BRB going to check on something regarding the Citizen’s United ruling and reporting to the FEC.

336 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:39pm

re: #309 Fozzie Bear

The thing is, your rights were never threatened. You were always free to spend as much of your own money as you want on political speech. Go nuts. Buy billboards, radio ads. Set up your own websites, newspapers, and so on. There is no limit, and never has been, for individuals.

You continue to pretend there literally is no difference between a limited liability corporation and an individual, and that more than half a century of election law was somehow a grevious violation of your rights.

Your rights were never even momentarily threatened.

You continue to pretend that my speech is less valuable if voiced in concert with others in a particular organizational structure. i remain an individual in that structure. ten people speaking in unison still have the right to speak. whether or not they had to pay for the medium in which they spoke is your driving concern? quite a small distinction for which you’ll throw a constitutional right overboard…

funny how the “evil unions” never make it into your diatribe. i support their right to free speech as well.

have a napkin - you have raw partisan on your chin…

337 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:41pm

re: #328 Gus 802

It has the same effect in the long run.

I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think there was and is no corporate influence on political campaigning. And that includes bundling and hiding behind non-profit groups.

It’s the nature of the beast.

Which is why I’m for public financing of campaigns. It’s too hard to regulate in so many gray areas like that.

338 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:55pm

re: #330 Nick Morgan

I’m new here so I don’t want to get too controversial, but when my oldest daughter was 11 (1993) she brought home a blue ribbon in some sporting event. I was proud and praised her for it. She said, ” It doesn’t mean anything, everyone got one.” It was some kind of Scandinavian thing according to the back of the ribbon. It did not elevate her self-esteem.

My daughter was in a piano festival (for four? five? years now where to get the highest rank is difficult. You get 1-5 points per your ranking. At 15 points (four years of good rankings, or five years of perfect), you get a gold cup.

It matters to her. She displays it.

(My favorite award was the blue ribbon for cookies at the county fair (4H). That’s Mama’s girl.)

339 prairiefire  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:43:59pm

re: #314 JRCMYP

Hi, I love your website. I heart toys!

340 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:44:30pm

re: #334 Guanxi88

Talking smack about Leroy Brown, perhaps.

Maybe he tugged on Superman’s cape

341 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:44:48pm

re: #323 Walter L. Newton

I really don’t know what your reference is to, and I hope it wasn’t meant to be nasty.

Abbey Hoffman.
Revolutionary pinko talk about the Man.
I love it.

342 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:44:53pm

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

What does bother me about Kagan’s remark is this part: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality …”

The implicit message is that it’s this society that is uniquely afflicted by these problems. Yeah, we’re the world’s bad guys.

Most times I agree with you, however you are off base or being overly defensive here. Uniquely? It just does not logically follow, you are taking an unwarranted leap. Our society is marred by some imperfections, Charles and you both take pains to point some of those imperfections out. Among those imperfections are the two things that Kagan correctly mentions.

My wife is marred by a small scar on her chin she got from a fight with her brother 48 yrs ago, it doesn’t make me love her less….

/SC, you are trying to find something that’s not there.

343 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:45:24pm

re: #325 recusancy

The electorate doesn’t do research.

i figured that was lurking in there somewhere.

344 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:45:43pm

re: #336 Aceofwhat?

You continue to pretend that my speech is less valuable if voiced in concert with others in a particular organizational structure. i remain an individual in that structure. ten people speaking in unison still have the right to speak. whether or not they had to pay for the medium in which they spoke is your driving concern? quite a small distinction for which you’ll throw a constitutional right overboard…

funny how the “evil unions” never make it into your diatribe. i support their right to free speech as well.

have a napkin - you have raw partisan on your chin…

If you run a public LLC as an administrator… it isn’t your money. If you run a private corporation, these laws never applied to you.

So what, exactly, are you talking about in this fictional group of 10?

345 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:45:54pm

re: #333 Fozzie Bear

Yes, but now there is no legal compulsion to disclose precisely what interests are financing what campaign, nor is there any limit to how much can be spent.

What the fuck does it matter? Disclose, not disclose, even if you knew how many times some big contributors took a shit, what good is that knowledge to you? Who’s going to change it?

I’ve asked you that question a number of times now, and you keep avoiding given me your answer. What can be done?

346 Old Dragon  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:46:20pm

re: #295 Spare O’Lake

Decided to give the smarter younger generation their chance to excel “in the blood and sand of the arena”.

Old Dragon

347 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:46:20pm

re: #341 Spare O’Lake

Abbey Hoffman.
Revolutionary pinko talk about the Man.
I love it.

Talkin’ ‘bout the Man ain’t necessarily an exclusively pinko thing, ya know.

Us hep cats know that a large part of the current political realm is little more than the play of shadows on the back wall of the cave.

348 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:46:35pm

re: #331 Walter L. Newton

But it help the ribbon industry.

jobs!

349 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:46:43pm

re: #303 darthstar
I don’t get it…. he has a fabulous ranch in AZ, houses all over with his wife and kids…. he should kick back and take a well-deserved rest.
He’s served this country well in more ways than one. If J.T. actually gets elected, he’ll be nothing if not a pundit/cartoonists’ dream, and MoDo will have material for at least a few weeks. What’s the worst that could happen? After all, LA’s already consigned the entire state to hades.//

350 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:47:09pm

re: #343 Aceofwhat?

i figured that was lurking in there somewhere.

Is it not true? The topic of this thread is case in point. It will be repeated and very few will check to be sure they have the quote in context.

351 Jadespring  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:48:30pm

re: #338 EmmmieG

My daughter was in a piano festival (for four? five? years now where to get the highest rank is difficult. You get 1-5 points per your ranking. At 15 points (four years of good rankings, or five years of perfect), you get a gold cup.

It matters to her. She displays it.

(My favorite award was the blue ribbon for cookies at the county fair (4H). That’s Mama’s girl.)

My favorite award was the 3rd place ribbon I got at a long distance track meet. I wasn’t very good at running and didn’t like it much but it was something we had to do for gym class. Somehow I managed third in my age group and was so surprised.

I still have that ribbon. It’s better then any first place finish.

352 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:48:53pm

Fozzie, what change in law makes it ok to not disclose contributions? I missed that one?

I Know that there aren’t caps or limits due to the SC ruling, but was disclosure honestly struck down as well?

353 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:49:11pm

re: #345 Walter L. Newton

Reinstate the election laws that existed, albeit flawed, and overturn US v CU.

Disclosure rules and limits have real effects.

354 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:49:40pm

re: #353 Fozzie Bear

Reinstate the election laws that existed, albeit flawed, and overturn US v CU.

Disclosure rules and limits have real effects.

You’re deluded to think that will change anything.

355 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:49:59pm

re: #344 Fozzie Bear

If you run a public LLC as an administrator… it isn’t your money. If you run a private corporation, these laws never applied to you.

So what, exactly, are you talking about in this fictional group of 10?

“isn’t my money” as in, i can’t simply take it and walk away? yes.

“isn’t my money” as in, i can’t help to decide how to spend it? no.

it’s not my money…but it is my decision, along with other officers/board members/etc. so in that respect, it is my money. i can’t keep it, but i can spend it for the good of the company if we agree as a group of company officers.

356 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:50:34pm

re: #338 EmmmieG

Congratulations to your daughter! At least they don’t pass out gold cups to every participant.

357 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:51:07pm

re: #355 Aceofwhat?

“isn’t my money” as in, i can’t simply take it and walk away? yes.

“isn’t my money” as in, i can’t help to decide how to spend it? no.

it’s not my money…but it is my decision, along with other officers/board members/etc. so in that respect, it is my money. i can’t keep it, but i can spend it for the good of the company if we agree as a group of company officers.

You’re really reaching.

358 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:51:35pm

re: #354 Walter L. Newton

If you believe that they were ineffective completely, then you shouldn’t have a problem with the decision.

359 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:51:55pm

re: #350 recusancy

Is it not true? The topic of this thread is case in point. It will be repeated and very few will check to be sure they have the quote in context.

it is a dangerous slope. making information available is an idea that i support.

saying that “people won’t look into it” is not justification for poor regulation.

360 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:51:57pm

re: #298 Walter L. Newton
Walter! Did you know Smokey’s getting his own spinoff?
[Link: www.theonion.com…]

361 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:53:16pm

so what, do people think that the supreme court justices are on the take? that they struck down the campaign finance reform in exchange for a big fat swiss bank account and a beach house in the caribbean?

362 ryannon  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:53:31pm

re: #320 Spare O’Lake

Abbey, is that you?

Yeah man!

Let’s burn some money at the stock exchange!

363 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:53:48pm

re: #362 ryannon

Yeah man!

Let’s burn some money at the stock exchange!

Steal This Thread!

364 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:55:22pm

re: #362 ryannon

Yeah man!

Let’s burn some money at the stock exchange!

Or, alternately, day-trading, I suppose? Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Using a Zippo, though, saves you on brokerage fees.

365 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:55:45pm

re: #359 Aceofwhat?

it is a dangerous slope. making information available is an idea that i support.

saying that “people won’t look into it” is not justification for poor regulation.

You’re completely twisting what I mean. I want more regulation. When I said Thomas was the only justice to have an opinion against the disclosure part, I was thankful that he was the only one. There needs to be disclosure and that disclosure needs to be front and center on the ad rather then only “reasearchable”.

366 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:55:50pm

re: #357 recusancy

You’re really reaching.

facts don’t reach.

back to unions, though. a miner’s union wants to run ads about how they believe one of the local candidates has an anti-regulation record, and you’re going to tell them that their first amendment rights got chucked at the door to their union office?

ugh.

367 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:57:07pm

re: #361 cliffster

No, I think that 5 of them are wrong, and 4 aren’t, on this issue. I also think you don’t know how to troll.

368 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:57:08pm

re: #361 cliffster

so what, do people think that the supreme court justices are on the take? that they struck down the campaign finance reform in exchange for a big fat swiss bank account and a beach house in the caribbean?

apparently they think that Scalia likes democracies which can be bought.

nothing like impugning motives on the road to Missing Point!

369 ryannon  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:57:26pm

re: #329 Walter L. Newton

The rulers of both the right and left are not faceless… it’s global business, special interest, big money and about 100 private citizens. There’s never been any mystery about that.

Like the man said, faceless.

Even if you might see a photo of one of them in Forbes, when was the last time you had any real interaction with any of these ‘people’?

370 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:57:51pm

re: #367 Fozzie Bear

No, I think that 5 of them are wrong, and 4 aren’t, on this issue. I also think you don’t know how to troll.

oh please

371 Slap  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:58:18pm

re: #341 Spare O’Lake

Had a friend once who studied at the Hoffman Abbey with a series of ruler-wielding Hassidic nuns….

372 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:58:33pm

re: #366 Aceofwhat?

Unions are limited in liability as in a LLC. There is a huuuuuge difference.

373 ryannon  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:59:04pm

re: #332 cliffster

How did you lose all your teeth?

I don’t know what the hell you’re saying, but it sounds funny. Upding.

374 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:59:29pm

re: #368 Aceofwhat?

apparently they think that Scalia likes democracies which can be bought.

nothing like impugning motives on the road to Missing Point!

Exactly. It’s not the disagreement that gets me, it’s the OH MY GOD SCALIA IS IN THE BACK POCKET OF BIG BUSINESS AAAAHAHHHHHAAA!!!!!!

375 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:59:29pm

re: #361 cliffster

so what, do people think that the supreme court justices are on the take? that they struck down the campaign finance reform in exchange for a big fat swiss bank account and a beach house in the caribbean?

No. They rule in favor of corporations almost every time. It’s just ideology.

376 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:59:46pm

re: #372 Fozzie Bear

PIMF. aren’t

377 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, May 13, 2010 12:59:58pm

Help help! I’m being uncoerced! Now we see the reasonableness inherent in the system!

378 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:00:09pm

re: #376 Fozzie Bear

ack nvm i misread my misreading of myself. ack.

379 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:00:36pm

re: #365 recusancy

You’re completely twisting what I mean. I want more regulation. When I said Thomas was the only justice to have an opinion against the disclosure part, I was thankful that he was the only one. There needs to be disclosure and that disclosure needs to be front and center on the ad rather then only “reasearchable”.

fortunately, it appears that requiring such disclosure is fine and dandy. is there a concerning concern that i missed somewhere?

380 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:00:41pm

re: #374 cliffster

Nobody said that but you in this thread, you realize.

381 Slap  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:00:42pm

re: #377 LudwigVanQuixote

Bloody anarcho-syndicalist!

Go back to your commune!

382 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:00:50pm

Well, they could have used another word….’ unforced ’ would have been less obscure. Or something…
But it’s a perfectly good word.
[Link: www.google.com…]
re: #192 Fozzie Bear
We can link to DU now?//
Whoo-hoo! Rock and roll!

383 prairiefire  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:01:10pm

This is good news:[Link: www.cnn.com…]

384 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:01:29pm

re: #381 Slap

Bloody anarcho-syndicalist!

Go back to your commune!

Just because some tart tossed you a sword in some aquatic ceremony does not make you king!

385 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:02:08pm

re: #371 Slap

Had a friend once who studied at the Hoffman Abbey with a series of ruler-wielding Hassidic nuns…

Wow man…Hassidic nuns is a rip-off, man…a total rip-off.

386 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:02:10pm

re: #380 Fozzie Bear

Nobody said that but you in this thread, you realize.

Actually, that’s not true. But I’m done talking to you for today, you big meanie.

387 Slap  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:02:19pm

Eef I told you you had a beyootiful body…..

388 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:02:49pm

re: #386 cliffster

Can you quote where somebody accused Scalia of being bought in this decision?

389 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:03:02pm

re: #377 LudwigVanQuixote

I love Monty Python references.

390 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:03:09pm

Well let’s be fair if the Supreme court did limit hate speech, racism, stupidity, vile slurs, open lies and baseless hateful propaganda, Free Republic and Alex Jones would be out of business.

I can see they are protecting their interests.

391 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:03:51pm

re: #389 Nick Morgan

I love Monty Python references.

Well you have found good company my friend. It would guess that at least 50% of lizards are fans.

392 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:03:51pm

re: #379 Aceofwhat?

fortunately, it appears that requiring such disclosure is fine and dandy. is there a concerning concern that i missed somewhere?

I was replying to what you wrote here: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

I took what you wrote to mean: if Thomas’ opinion was the prevailing one, what would the big deal have been? Or by “this case” do you mean how it was eventually ruled?

393 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:03:57pm

re: #367 Fozzie Bear

No, I think that 5 of them are wrong, and 4 aren’t, on this issue. I also think you don’t know how to troll.

but if you were running against a self-financed millionare, before CU, then the corporations’ right to free speech was suddenly rediscovered.

i’m trying to think of a non-sarcastic remark about such an interesting constitutional loophole, but i’m not having much luck…

394 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:05:42pm

re: #393 Aceofwhat?

but if you were running against a self-financed millionare, before CU, then the corporations’ right to free speech was suddenly rediscovered.

I read this sentence several times, and for whatever reason, it still isn’t making any sense to me. Can you rephrase, or have I just had a stroke?

395 Slap  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:05:44pm

re: #385 Spare O’Lake

If that’s not a jocular statement, please provide the source. I’m not one to appropriate another’s phrases without attribution, and will immediately sack myself.

(Quite serious here — if that was a theft from someone, it was not intentional. Let me holmes it.)

396 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:05:56pm

re: #390 LudwigVanQuixote

Well let’s be fair if the Supreme court did limit hate speech, racism, stupidity, vile slurs, open lies and baseless hateful propaganda, Free Republic and Alex Jones would be out of business.

I can see they are protecting their interests.

The Court would also be out of business.

397 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:06:10pm

Tension high. Loosen up!
My hovercraft full of eels
Quote Monty Python.

398 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:06:30pm

re: #394 Fozzie Bear

Particularly the role of the word ‘rediscovered’.

399 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:07:01pm

re: #390 LudwigVanQuixote

I can see they are protecting their interests. upholding the First Amendment.


FTFY/

400 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:07:21pm

re: #380 Fozzie Bear

Nobody said that but you in this thread, you realize.

to be fair, you did say

“Scalia is rather partial to the best democracy money can buy”

which isn’t much more reasonable…but i agree that you did not say what Cliffster said.

(i don’t like misattribution in a debate…seems dishonorable;)

401 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:08:14pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

It’s hyperbole. And like you said, not much at that.

402 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:08:43pm

re: #391 LudwigVanQuixote

It is one of the things that attracted me to this site. May I interest you in some Venezuelan beaver cheese?

403 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:09:02pm

re: #397 oaktree

Tension high. Loosen up!
My hovercraft full of eels
Quote Monty Python.

I will not buy this record. It is scratched.

404 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:09:17pm

re: #392 recusancy

I was replying to what you wrote here: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

I took what you wrote to mean: if Thomas’ opinion was the prevailing one, what would the big deal have been? Or by “this case” do you mean how it was eventually ruled?

oh, no, sorry. i do not believe that requiring disclosure is any threat to free speech, and i’m glad that 8 other justices agreed with me.

is that more clear?

i appreciate your pointing out where the misunderstanding was!

405 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:09:25pm

re: #398 Fozzie Bear

Particularly the role of the word ‘rediscovered’.

I think Ace is trying to say: Your only concern is the amount of money. So if a rich individual you don’t like buys a bunch of ads, you’ll all of a sudden want a corporation you do like to buy a bunch of ads to counter it.

406 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:09:33pm

re: #393 Aceofwhat?

JUST the man I wanted to “see”

I need your help. I have to go to an awards ceremony tonight at mu sons school, followed by driving into work. MEANING,, I won’t be anywhere near a TV set from 6 pm (eastern) till 11 pm (at best)

SO ,,, give me your phone number and I’ll be able to tell just by the tone in your voice how the Celtics/ Cavs game is going!!
//

407 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:09:50pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

I never insinuated that Scalia voted for anything other than what he believed in. (I.e., he voted his actual rather than purchased opinion)

I also think he’s wrong for having done so, which I think I insinuated rather clearly. However, apparently when criticizing this decision it is incumbent upon me to nay I do NOT think the Supreme Court has been corrupted. I just think it is packed with ideologues at the moment. Huge difference.

408 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:09:53pm

Rainy Day Squirrell

Image: Rainy-Day-Squirrell.jpg


/and I’m still trying to get a read or link on when or how no financial disclosure became ok for candidates?

409 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:10:25pm

re: #395 Slap

If that’s not a jocular statement, please provide the source. I’m not one to appropriate another’s phrases without attribution, and will immediately sack myself.

(Quite serious here — if that was a theft from someone, it was not intentional. Let me holmes it.)

Hahahahahahaha.
Back in the sixties, man, EVERYTHING was a rip-off, man.

410 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:10:25pm

re: #394 Fozzie Bear

I read this sentence several times, and for whatever reason, it still isn’t making any sense to me. Can you rephrase, or have I just had a stroke?

It’s probably me.

Do you remember the “millionaire’s exception” in McCain-Feingold?

i was trying to summarize it sardonically, because i can’t think of any other way to summarize it;)

411 The Curmudgeon  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:10:58pm

re: #342 Thanos

Most times I agree with you, however you are off base or being overly defensive here. Uniquely? It just does not logically follow, you are taking an unwarranted leap.

This is obviously not one of my better days.

412 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:11:11pm

re: #405 recusancy

I’ll let Ace rephrase if he wishes lest I start arguing with your interpretation of what he meant…. gets really messy lol.

413 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:11:50pm

re: #406 sattv4u2

JUST the man I wanted to “see”

I need your help. I have to go to an awards ceremony tonight at mu sons school, followed by driving into work. MEANING,, I won’t be anywhere near a TV set from 6 pm (eastern) till 11 pm (at best)

SO ,,, give me your phone number and I’ll be able to tell just by the tone in your voice how the Celtics/ Cavs game is going!!
//

heh. i went from belligerently confident to depressingly pessimistic in the span of two games.

what the hell happened to LeBron the other night? if that guy who showed up in his jersey makes any more appearances, we’re finished. end of story.

sigh.

414 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:12:01pm

re: #411 The Curmudgeon

This is obviously not one of my better days.

I’ve had a few of those myself.

415 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:12:06pm

re: #412 Fozzie Bear

I’ll let Ace rephrase if he wishes lest I start arguing with your interpretation of what he meant… gets really messy lol.

thanks…i appreciate that!

416 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:12:48pm

I’ll be doing my bit to help boost the local economy, and increase tax receipts for the county later today. I’m off to buy a car (this’ll make 3 we’ll have now).

Fritz, my diesel death snail, is strictly a commuter vehicle, of course. Wife and kiddos use the minivan for their runs hither, thither, and yon, but I find the mpg on the thing is so goshawful that buying a little Chevy metro, for me to make runs to the shops, is actually pretty damned cost-effective.

Besides, Fritz is far too pretty a car to be seen anywhere other than on the highway, belching black smoke as its angry, scowling pilot tries desperately to get the thing up over 60 mph and keep it there. Love that german engineering, though.

417 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:13:01pm

re: #413 Aceofwhat?

heh. i went from belligerently confident to depressingly pessimistic in the span of two games.

what the hell happened to LeBron the other night? if that guy who showed up in his jersey makes any more appearances, we’re finished. end of story.

sigh.


I just ask that “he” does ONCE more,, preferably this evening!

418 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:13:14pm

re: #402 Nick Morgan
Not unless you are willing to first allow an environmental impact study and devote a thread to interpreting the results.//

419 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:14:31pm

re: #410 Aceofwhat?

It’s probably me.

Do you remember the “millionaire’s exception” in McCain-Feingold?

i was trying to summarize it sardonically, because i can’t think of any other way to summarize it;)

People can get enough money that they start to have the ability to exhibit sinister force on people, it’s true. We keep the government in check because it has the ability to oppress; we also keep big money in check too for that same reason. There will always be a tension between what is appropriate and what is not appropriate when it comes to regulating those with large amounts of money.

When this supreme court decision came out though, there was so much hyperventilating and gnashing of teeth, it was incredible. People need to fucking calm down about things. The ape-shit-going doesn’t help anything.

420 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:14:32pm

re: #398 Fozzie Bear

Particularly the role of the word ‘rediscovered’.

“rediscovered” as in, if this was really about money and evil influence, there wouldn’t be circumstances under which corporations and unions could once again speak as freely as independently wealthy individuals.

who, by the way, often make their wealth in tandem with corporations.

oh, tangled webs…

421 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:14:54pm

re: #416 Guanxi88

I’ll be doing my bit to help boost the local economy, and increase tax receipts for the county later today. I’m off to buy a car (this’ll make 3 we’ll have now).

Fritz, my diesel death snail, is strictly a commuter vehicle, of course. Wife and kiddos use the minivan for their runs hither, thither, and yon, but I find the mpg on the thing is so goshawful that buying a little Chevy metro, for me to make runs to the shops, is actually pretty damned cost-effective.

Besides, Fritz is far too pretty a car to be seen anywhere other than on the highway, belching black smoke as its angry, scowling pilot tries desperately to get the thing up over 60 mph and keep it there. Love that german engineering, though.

Yes, but only the fastest turtles taunt Diesel Death Snail — and only after they have passed it! ;)

422 Slap  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:14:55pm

re: #409 Spare O’Lake

I must be having interpretive issues today, ‘cause I’m missing the connect here. I was attempting (important word, that) to humorously riff on the Abbey/Abbie discrepancy.

Apparently I fell on face.

423 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:14:58pm

The problem I, and I think most people have, is the volume of your speech is proportional to the volume of your wallet.

424 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:16:42pm

re: #417 sattv4u2

I just ask that “he” does ONCE more,, preferably this evening!

i am OUT of trash talk for the rest of this series…you should have seen me last game. i was already having a tough day and then sat there stunned as some other team put on the Cavs jerseys and shot more poorly than i would have.

seriously…i can make more than 1 of 8 from inside the 3-pt line.

what bothers me most is that LBJ was pissed about how the offense was being run. if he gets down like that again, i’m gonna have too much gin and join him.

(and i’m really trying to have less gin…it’s not helping my workouts)

425 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:16:48pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

(i don’t like misattribution in a debate…seems dishonorable;)

Confucius say: Man to go to bed with itchy bum often wake up with smelly finger.
- Best of Miss Attribution (1961)

426 Kragar  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:16:51pm

re: #423 recusancy

The problem I, and I think most people have, is the volume of your speech is proportional to the volume of your wallet.

Always has been.

427 Political Atheist  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:17:01pm

I knew AGW was bad but I had no idea it would strike this close to home so fast. :)

428 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:17:08pm

re: #423 recusancy

The problem I, and I think most people have, is the volume of your speech is proportional to the volume of your wallet.

Would you agree that some people are going to have more money than others, thought? And that that’s ok?

429 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:17:15pm

re: #423 recusancy

The problem I, and I think most people have, is the volume of your speech is proportional to the volume of your wallet.

That’s probably true. However, is the best solution to limit and monitor it, or possibly to spend resources so that the people at large have better bullshit detectors, ability to reason, and knowledge of and access to resources allowing them to check out claims and make better informed decisions.

Ha ha. I kill myself…

430 lostlakehiker  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:17:31pm

re: #261 Mad Al-Jaffee

What are the opposites of disgruntled and discombobulated?

I’d be unraged, but at the moment your comments leave me undisgruntled and adiscombobulated.

431 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:17:32pm

re: #421 oaktree

Yes, but only the fastest turtles taunt Diesel Death Snail — and only after they have passed it! ;)

You kiddin’ me? The diesel exhaust slows those turtles right the hell down, I tell you what. I’m burning a mix of about 75% regular diesel and 25% biodiesel (which is just the ticket for older diesel engines, by the way), doing my little bit to keep the earth green.

:)

432 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:18:43pm

re: #247 ausador

The Supreme Court by this one ruling has overturned 63 years worth of legislation by the Congress. Not just one law, but dozens of them, that have been whittled and honed over time to try to keep the political fair and free of undue influence by monied interests.

That is all gone now, and there is no chance that it will get fixed during an election year either. The ads this election cycle are going to be a whole new experience. Not only can you spend an unlimited amount of money promoting a candidate you can now also spend an unlimited amount attacking one. Regardless of whether or not you also openly support and fund a candidates election campaign you no longer have to report that nor does he have to count your ads as campaign spending in his favor.

Basically it is way too much of a good thing, sure we now have unrestricted and unregulated “free political speech,” but we also have even media corporations allowed to fund and run their own pro/attack ads. This is going to be a mess, no question…

What a minute. are you saying that Roberts and Alito, who so steadfastly proclaimed their fealty to the principle of stare decisis during their confirmation hearings, decided to overturn long-settled law in a manner that directly aids their political patrons?

Geez. It’s enough to make someone cynical.

433 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:18:54pm

re: #428 cliffster

Would you agree that some people are going to have more money than others, thought? And that that’s ok?

Yes. That’s ok! Quit trying to attribute some equality of outcomes commie shit to me.

434 Nimed  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:19:00pm

re: #423 recusancy

The problem I, and I think most people have, is the volume of your speech is proportional to the volume of your wallet.

But that, and only that, is a good argument against the CU ruling. A consequencialist argument. not some nonsense about money!=speech or corporations!=people.

435 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:19:19pm

re: #407 Fozzie Bear

I never insinuated that Scalia voted for anything other than what he believed in. (I.e., he voted his actual rather than purchased opinion)

I also think he’s wrong for having done so, which I think I insinuated rather clearly. However, apparently when criticizing this decision it is incumbent upon me to nay I do NOT think the Supreme Court has been corrupted. I just think it is packed with ideologues at the moment. Huge difference.

i get that. but i still don’t think he or the other 4 believe in a “purchased democracy”. i think they believe that the ends were not worth the means.

your concern is misplaced, IMHO. surely the legislature can contrive of some other way to depress such spending.

what did you think of my tax solution? come on, how often do you get a right-leaning person to tell you they think that a solution to a problem is to tax corporations more? eh? i’m giving you diamonds here!

436 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:19:23pm

Perhaps a bill making it so that any decision of a publicly traded organization to spend money on political advertising would have to be both approved by a majority of shareholders, and publicly disclosed would suffice. I doubt it would pass, however.

437 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:19:40pm

re: #424 Aceofwhat?

i am OUT of trash talk for the rest of this series…you should have seen me last game. i was already having a tough day and then sat there stunned as some other team put on the Cavs jerseys and shot more poorly than i would have.

seriously…i can make more than 1 of 8 from inside the 3-pt line.

what bothers me most is that LBJ was pissed about how the offense was being run. if he gets down like that again, i’m gonna have too much gin and join him.

Well ,, regardless of this series outcome, either team is in for a tough match with the Magic

(and i’m really trying to have less gin…it’s not helping my workouts)

438 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:20:52pm

re: #424 Aceofwhat?

i am OUT of trash talk for the rest of this series…you should have seen me last game. i was already having a tough day and then sat there stunned as some other team put on the Cavs jerseys and shot more poorly than i would have.

seriously…i can make more than 1 of 8 from inside the 3-pt line.

what bothers me most is that LBJ was pissed about how the offense was being run. if he gets down like that again, i’m gonna have too much gin and join him.

(and i’m really trying to have less gin…it’s not helping my workouts)

Well ,, regardless of this series outcome, either team is in for a tough match with the Magic

(pimf)

AND,, make mine Vodka

439 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:08pm

re: #433 recusancy

Yes. That’s ok! Quit trying to attribute some equality of outcomes commie shit to me.

I wasn’t, of course, sorry. I was just going to follow up and ask, what is your thought process for deciding what appropriate measures are for controlling this phenomenon? As in my #419

440 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:15pm

re: #408 Thanos

Rainy Day Squirrell

Image: Rainy-Day-Squirrell.jpg

/and I’m still trying to get a read or link on when or how no financial disclosure became ok for candidates?

Nice oak.

441 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:15pm

re: #418 tradewind

Not unless you are willing to first allow an environmental impact study and devote a thread to interpreting the results.//

But of course! Beavers are rampant in our wetlands and are in no short supply. They continually increase our wetlands by damming our waterways and making a nuisance of themselves. If we can’t use them for a source of high quality cheese, what good are they?

442 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:30pm

re: #435 Aceofwhat?

And yes, I favor taxing it, even at .001%, because that creates mandatory disclosure, and criminal penalties for avoiding same.

The amount of money would be secondary to the secondary results, for me, if that makes any sense.

443 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:31pm

re: #436 Fozzie Bear

Perhaps a bill making it so that any decision of a publicly traded organization to spend money on political advertising would have to be both approved by a majority of shareholders, and publicly disclosed would suffice. I doubt it would pass, however.

That’s probably done now actually. Board of Directors passes budget and budget includes an item for political advertising.

However, that doesn’t tell you a thing about what particular ads the money pays for and what candidates/issues it supports/derides.

444 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:36pm

re: #422 Slap

I must be having interpretive issues today, ‘cause I’m missing the connect here. I was attempting (important word, that) to humorously riff on the Abbey/Abbie discrepancy.

Apparently I fell on face.

i thought you were talking about abbeyadams, and i couldn’t remember how it was relevant, so i just scrolled on.

heh. when she shows up, i’ll be certain to tell her that you had words for her in her absence//

445 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:21:56pm

re: #438 sattv4u2

Well ,, regardless of this series outcome, either team is in for a tough match with the Magic

(pimf)

AND,, make mine Vodka

Thunderbird, if we’re placing drink orders. Just bring me the damned bottle.

Failing that, Rosie in a skirt will do. (5 points and MONDO hobo cred for the one who gets the reference)

446 DaddyG  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:22:15pm

Good gravy the birthers are out over Hawaii’s decision to try to stem the contant freedom of information act requests for Obama’s birth certificate.

Birther measure signed into law

My response to a birther who used the “when he will I will” argument to my request for the birthers birth certificate…

there is an inscription near the Tomb of the Unknown soldier that says “When we assumed the soldier we did not lay aside the citizen” from then-Gen. George Washington’s June 26, 1775, letter to the Provincial Congress

Any civil right you have is the same as President Obama’s right (or any other President) who is our Commander in Chief but also a civillian citizen.

If your certified birth certificate from your state was sufficient for you to get a job, then President Obama’s certified birth certificate from his state is sufficient for him to have his job.

Look- I’m an old time conservative who believes in the rule of law, minimal government interference, fiscal responsibility and a strong military. The nutjob calls for Obama to re-prove something he’s already proven are embarassing and undermine what traditional conservatism is about. I don’t appreciate my political party being hijacked by a bunch of rabble rousers.

447 recusancy  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:22:16pm

re: #436 Fozzie Bear

Perhaps a bill making it so that any decision of a publicly traded organization to spend money on political advertising would have to be both approved by a majority of shareholders, and publicly disclosed would suffice. I doubt it would pass, however.

How about just public financing of campaigns. Everybody has the same amount of money to get their message out. After all, when they take office they will have the same amount of money to work with.

448 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:22:18pm

re: #441 Nick Morgan

But of course! Beavers are rampant in our wetlands and are in no short supply. They continually increase our wetlands by damming our waterways and making a nuisance of themselves. If we can’t use them for a source of high quality cheese, what good are they?

Hats. They make good hats.

449 Feline Fearless Leader  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:23:00pm

re: #441 Nick Morgan

But of course! Beavers are rampant in our wetlands and are in no short supply. They continually increase our wetlands by damming our waterways and making a nuisance of themselves. If we can’t use them for a source of high quality cheese, what good are they?

Isn’t Venezuela suffering from a shortage (or looming shortage) of hydroelectric power? If the beaver dams are already in place then all you have to add are the turbines and generating equipment!

/

450 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:23:15pm

re: #445 Guanxi88

Thunderbird, if we’re placing drink orders. Just bring me the damned bottle.

Failing that, Rosie in a skirt will do. (5 points and MONDO hobo cred for the one who gets the reference)

Wild Irish Rose wine in a paper bag ,, TO GO!

451 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:23:39pm

re: #436 Fozzie Bear
I’d be all for that if unions were required to obtain a similar vote before donating and endorsing candidates.
So I’m pretty sure it’s not happening./

452 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:23:50pm

re: #450 sattv4u2

Wild Irish Rose wine in a paper bag ,, TO GO!

Hey, somebody knows how to live, or hangs out in questionable joints.

Well done!

453 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:23:54pm

re: #447 recusancy

I like this idea too. But… seems tricky to implement.

454 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:24:01pm

re: #436 Fozzie Bear

Perhaps a bill making it so that any decision of a publicly traded organization to spend money on political advertising would have to be both approved by a majority of shareholders, and publicly disclosed would suffice. I doubt it would pass, however.

buying a share does not make one magically more learned in the ways of running a successful corporation.

selling a share is the vote of a shareholder…shares are a stake in the profits, as opposed to a voice in the direction, of a corporation.

455 ryannon  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:24:07pm

re: #416 Guanxi88

I’ll be doing my bit to help boost the local economy, and increase tax receipts for the county later today. I’m off to buy a car (this’ll make 3 we’ll have now).

Fritz, my diesel death snail, is strictly a commuter vehicle, of course. Wife and kiddos use the minivan for their runs hither, thither, and yon, but I find the mpg on the thing is so goshawful that buying a little Chevy metro, for me to make runs to the shops, is actually pretty damned cost-effective.

Besides, Fritz is far too pretty a car to be seen anywhere other than on the highway, belching black smoke as its angry, scowling pilot tries desperately to get the thing up over 60 mph and keep it there. Love that german engineering, though.

I rented a sweet little (four door) Fiat diesel a few weeks back for a weekend in the country. Not only was it as fast and responsive as any gas-powered car in its class, but by paying attention to your driving habits - especially shifting into all of the five gear-positions - you could get an average of three to four liters (one U.S. gallon) per 100 kilometers (64 miles).

I sometimes get the feeling that there’s something that Detroit and even the foreign constructors are not telling U.S. drivers/consumers.

456 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:24:27pm

O noes! Another species of human in Eurasia?

The story of Homo keeps getting weirder and weirder. Just as I was getting used to the idea that Neandertals and more modern Homo sapiens may have made the beast with two backs, somebody calls my attention to yet another lineage of Homo that may have coexisted with both of them. This conclusion comes from DNA extracted from a single bone and described in a paper by Krause et al. (and, of course, Svante Pääbo) in the April 8 issue of Nature.

457 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:25:01pm

re: #447 recusancy

How about just public financing of campaigns. Everybody has the same amount of money to get their message out. After all, when they take office they will have the same amount of money to work with.

Are political contributions by corporations tax deductible? (I would guess they are, but I don’t know.) If so, taking away the deduction would have some effect.

458 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:25:02pm

re: #452 Guanxi88

Hey, somebody knows how to live, or hangs out in questionable joints.

Well done!

“questionable”!?!?

When I was growing up, those places were TOP SHELF!

459 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:25:14pm

re: #448 Guanxi88

What I’d give for a good Venezuelan beaver hat!

460 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:25:23pm

re: #454 Aceofwhat?

So you don’t think the owners of a corporation should have a say in how that corporation spends money? Whose speech is it then, if not the corporation’s?

That seems like a position that demands further justification, to me.

461 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:25:33pm

re: #442 Fozzie Bear

And yes, I favor taxing it, even at .001%, because that creates mandatory disclosure, and criminal penalties for avoiding same.

The amount of money would be secondary to the secondary results, for me, if that makes any sense.

what if we tried to make the taxes large enough to keep the advertising to a dull roar?

pigovian solutions can be elegant, on occasion…yes, i said it!

462 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:26:23pm

re: #445 Guanxi88
If you start feeling extravagant, may I suggest you next try a fine Ripple.
:)

463 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:26:33pm

re: #460 Fozzie Bear

So you don’t think the owners of a corporation should have a say in how that corporation spends money? Whose speech is it then, if not the corporation’s?

That seems like a position that demands further justification, to me.

A corporation is “owned” by the shareholders, not a “someone”

464 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:26:55pm

re: #462 tradewind

If you start feeling extravagant, may I suggest you next try a fine Ripple.
:)

Ripple? Someone’s got a deep cellar; that’s been gone now 30 years or so.

465 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:27:01pm

re: #422 Slap

I must be having interpretive issues today, ‘cause I’m missing the connect here. I was attempting (important word, that) to humorously riff on the Abbey/Abbie discrepancy.

Apparently I fell on face.

I was jokingly coming back to your riff, using ’60s hippie lingo to say that the nuns ripped off the Hasidism.
Man oh Manishewitz!

466 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:27:53pm

re: #463 sattv4u2

Um, yeah that’s exactly my point. Thanks?

467 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:28:03pm

re: #464 Guanxi88

Ripple? Someone’s got a deep cellar; that’s been gone now 30 years or so.

Redd Fox (as Fred Sanford)

“I like to mix champagne and Ripple ,,, I call it ChamPipple!

468 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:28:12pm

re: #455 ryannon

I rented a sweet little (four door) Fiat diesel a few weeks back for a weekend in the country. Not only was it as fast and responsive as any gas-powered car in its class, but by paying attention to your driving habits - especially shifting into all of the five gear-positions - you could get an average of three to four liters (one U.S. gallon) per 100 kilometers (64 miles).

I sometimes get the feeling that there’s something that Detroit and even the foreign constructors are not telling U.S. drivers/consumers.

Love diesel; fritz is not a turbo - he was one of the last of his breed, so there’s a lot of modern technology that he just doesn’t have, but, for all that, I bought him with about a quarter million miles on the engine, and he’s probably good for at least 500,000 before I decide to sell him off.

469 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:28:24pm

re: #449 oaktree

Indeed my perspicacious young friend.

470 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:28:59pm

Got sidetracked with a phone call. So back on Citizen’s United I quickly found this from Alliance for Justice:

What Does Citizens United Do: Key Aspects

* It does not impact 501(c)(3)s. Regardless of the changes in election law, the federal tax law that prohibits 501(c)(3)s from supporting or opposing candidates still apply. 501(c)(3)s still cannot endorse candidates or make independent expenditures suggesting who is the “better” candidate.

* It does not allow corporations to make monetary or in-kind contributions directly to candidates for federal office or to coordinate communications with candidates. The prohibition on corporate contributions to candidates and coordinated communications remain intact.

* It allows corporations, including nonprofit corporations such as issue-based 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s, to make independent expenditures containing express advocacy using the corporation’s general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates for the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and President. However, nonprofit corporations remain subject to federal tax law, including a primary purpose restriction (political activities cannot be the primary purpose of a 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6)) and possible tax on political activities.

* It allows corporations to make “electioneering communications.”

* Although corporations may now make independent expenditures and electioneering communications, they must comply with existing disclosure and disclaimer requirements.

So Alliance for Justice is a rather left leaning organization. As you can see, they’re stating that corporations “must comply with existing disclosure and disclaimer requirements.”

471 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:29:10pm

re: #469 Nick Morgan

Indeed my perspicacious young friend.

hey back off, it’s not his fault he sweats a lot.

472 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:29:24pm

To me the insidious part that money plays in politics is not the money that goes to candidates. For that to be the case you have to start with the most likely mistaken perception that a candidate is at the beck and call of anyone who gives a substantial donation, or that they will automatically do their bidding. I don’t believe that to be always, mostly, or even somewhat likely to be true for the majority of our elected officials, as renegade as that might sound.
It’s the lobbying groups and those operatives that bother me the most, like the Denialists who make their living shaping public opinion.

Here’s an example of one, and another. Both of these guys are insidious and have done a great deal towards damaging our public debate and body politic.

473 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:29:39pm

re: #451 tradewind

I’d be all for that if unions were required to obtain a similar vote before donating and endorsing candidates.
So I’m pretty sure it’s not happening./

If the issue is the effect of big money on political campaigns, what is the objection to unions making endorsements?

474 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:29:41pm

re: #466 Fozzie Bear

Um, yeah that’s exactly my point. Thanks?

In that case,, no

Calling a vote of the shareholders for each and every time the “corporation” needs to spend money would cripple the company. By the time the votes are all in and tabulated, the competition beat you to the job

475 b_sharp  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:29:47pm

re: #459 Nick Morgan

What I’d give for a good Venezuelan beaver hat!

Here you go.

476 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:30:39pm

re: #440 Killgore Trout

Nice oak.

Spoken like our resident Druid :)

477 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:30:49pm

re: #448 Guanxi88
Don’t let your dogs ( or kids) swim in beaver ponds unless you want a whopping vet bill that goes along with giardiasis. My golden was weak for two months.

478 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:31:40pm

re: #474 sattv4u2

I’m talking specifically about political advertising, not all expenditures. Perhaps the context of the conversation has been missed here.

479 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:31:50pm

re: #467 sattv4u2

Redd Fox (as Fred Sanford)

“I like to mix champagne and Ripple ,,, I call it ChamPipple!

If you want to get into mixes, let me suggest this hangover-inducing combo, personally tested and I can vouch for its effects:

Equal parts:

Ruby Port
Christian Brothers Brandy
Ginger ale

Goes down like sunshine.

480 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:32:44pm

re: #479 Guanxi88

If you want to get into mixes, let me suggest this hangover-inducing combo, personally tested and I can vouch for its effects:

Equal parts:

Ruby Port
Christian Brothers Brandy
Ginger ale

Goes down like sunshine.

You had a girlfriend named Sunshine too?

481 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:33:13pm

re: #460 Fozzie Bear

So you don’t think the owners of a corporation should have a say in how that corporation spends money? Whose speech is it then, if not the corporation’s?

That seems like a position that demands further justification, to me.

Simple. Let’s start with the difference between an investor and an owner.

Owning stock makes you an investor.

The company has a separate structure for making decisions. If that decision-making structure decides to speak on behalf of a politician or political issue, then they are speaking as a group of individuals, legally, using money that they are legally permitted to spend on behalf of their shared professional interest.

482 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:33:40pm

re: #471 cliffster

Oy.

483 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:34:26pm

re: #464 Guanxi88
You gotta have impeccable Gallo connections./

484 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:34:29pm

re: #480 cliffster

You had a girlfriend named Sunshine too?

Like the beverage, she was cheap, seemed like just the ticket, but always left me feeling ill in the morning. You know how it is..

485 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:34:53pm

re: #481 Aceofwhat?

So the owners don’t actually own anything?

I think that is really reaching. People who buy at an IPO are both owners and investors. Beyond that, they are just owners.

486 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:35:04pm

re: #483 tradewind

You gotta have impeccable Gallo connections./

If they stuck stock certificates on the labels, I’d have long since been majority shareholder.

Doctor told me to give up the gin, and so…..

487 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:35:19pm

re: #463 sattv4u2

A corporation is “owned” by the shareholders, not a “someone”

i disagree in part. you may invest in my business. that does not bestow decision-making ownership, only equity ownership.

“owner” is not precise enough for the discussion of shares and company decisions, imho.

488 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:35:35pm

re: #484 Guanxi88

Like the beverage, she was cheap, seemed like just the ticket, but always left me feeling ill in the morning. You know how it is..

go home at 2 with a 10 and wake up at 10 with a 2.

489 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:36:44pm

re: #478 Fozzie Bear

I’m talking specifically about political advertising, not all expenditures. Perhaps the context of the conversation has been missed here.

Again, no
Does a union poll all it’s members before
A) endorsing a candidate
and
B) sending him/her money?

I see no difference. A union votes for it’s leaders (as stockholders vote for their board of directors). Don’t like the direction the union/ corporation takes? Vite the leaders/ board out

490 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:36:45pm

re: #488 cliffster

go home at 2 with a 10 and wake up at 10 with a 2.

The girls all get prettier at closing time, to quote the song.

491 ryannon  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:36:55pm

Way OT, but by this time in the thread….

A friend emailed this to me and I thought I’d throw it into the arena for reader response. There’s apparently a parent jcall association in the U.S. of which this is the clone. As far as I can see, it’s fly-paper for useful idiots, despite the fact that some high-powered French (Jewish) intellectuals have signed it:

[Link: www.jcall.eu…]

492 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:37:14pm

re: #488 cliffster

And that’s if your lucky.

493 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:37:27pm

re: #478 Fozzie Bear

I’m talking specifically about political advertising, not all expenditures. Perhaps the context of the conversation has been missed here.

but that’s an artificial distinction. there may be other expenditures you think are “less moral”…what about layoff decisions? commitment to green energy?

etc.

either the company’s structure is in charge of its expenditures or it is not.

494 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:38:25pm

re: #487 Aceofwhat?

Frankly, I think that’s insane. I don’t get how corporations can get a liability/responsibility pass and yet their executives can act as independent entities, not beholden directly to the people who literally own the chairs they sit in?

I think you are arguing a logically untenable position. But, then again, I don’t think that corporations should be allowed to run as assumed. I think they should have to re-apply for incorporation regularly, and be denied and dissolved in the event of major malfeasance. How charmingly 1800’s of me.

495 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:39:02pm

re: #493 Aceofwhat?

All legislation is an “artificial” distinction.

496 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:39:08pm

re: #473 garhighway
No objection, if it’s a majority vote.
I was a ( coerced ) teamster for years, and the union donated ( using money from dues we had to pay) to candidates that none of my co-workers would have dreamed of voting for.
Then again, how we ever ended up being represented by Teamsters in the first place is still a mystery. Didn’t last all that long, but it was a fun conversation starter at cocktail parties…….

497 Gus  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:39:08pm

Feds involved in major gang raid today:

Agents Swarm Newburgh in Raid Against Gangs

NEWBURGH, N.Y. — The authorities raided dozens of homes here early on Thursday in a major show of force against the Bloods and the Latin Kings street gangs, whose members have wreaked havoc in this small, troubled city along the Hudson River.

More than 300 officers and agents with the F.B.I.; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the local and state police began gathering before dawn in a former National Guard armory here. By 6 a.m., heavily armed F.B.I. SWAT teams were breaking through doors across this city about an hour north of Manhattan.

“Nothing this size has been tried with this many agents in the region,” James Gagliano, the supervisory agent in charge of the region, who has headed the investigation, told the small army of agents as they prepared to roll out…

498 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:39:14pm

re: #487 Aceofwhat?

i disagree in part. you may invest in my business. that does not bestow decision-making ownership, only equity ownership.

“owner” is not precise enough for the discussion of shares and company decisions, imho.

I took the “owned” from Fozzies 460, saying the stockholders as opposed to an individual had the stake

499 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:40:24pm

re: #481 Aceofwhat?

Simple. Let’s start with the difference between an investor and an owner.

Owning stock makes you an investor.

The investors, collectively, own the company. They select the directors, and, through shareholder votes, perform other governance functions, like selecting the company’s auditor, modifying its by-laws, and attending to such other governance matters as they may from time to time decide. The company has a separate structure for making decisions. If that decision-making structure decides to speak on behalf of a politician or political issue, then they are speaking as a group of individuals, unless they are using company money, in which case they are speaking on behalf of the corporation, an artificial entity that has no independent existence beyond the corporation laws of its state of incorporation.

FTFY

500 What, me worry?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:40:29pm

re: #491 ryannon

Way OT, but by this time in the thread…

A friend emailed this to me and I thought I’d throw it into the arena for reader response. There’s apparently a parent jcall association in the U.S. of which this is the clone. As far as I can see, it’s fly-paper for useful idiots, despite the fact that some high-powered French (Jewish) intellectuals have signed it:

[Link: www.jcall.eu…]


“Systematic support of Israeli government policy [ie building in their own territory] is dangerous and does not serve the true interests of the state of Israel.”

They can go suck an egg.

501 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:40:58pm

re: #485 Fozzie Bear

So the owners don’t actually own anything?

I think that is really reaching. People who buy at an IPO are both owners and investors. Beyond that, they are just owners.

you own an equity stake. in some cases, that carries additional rights, such as the right to vote for board members.

but you’re not an Owner. for example, do you think that being a shareholder in Lockheed-Martin gives you access to all of the company’s facilities?

buy a few shares and try to walk in to one of their more protected locations - just tell them you’re an owner!!

502 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:41:25pm

See, I’m the kinda guy who used to live rather largely. I used to enjoy Patton’s favorite cocktail, the 170 (half brandy, half champagne) for my birthday breakfast at the 4 seasons, Boston, which I had every year, Soft-boiled egg with a scoop of beluga caviar, that sort of thing.

Then, I got married.

Then, I had a kid

Then, I had two more.

And so, now, I find myself learning to appreciate the finer things that can be found at somewhat lower prices. You know how it is…..

503 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:41:32pm

Alright, this has been fun, albeit circular. Time to go eat dinner.

504 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:42:05pm

re: #501 Aceofwhat?

buy a few shares and try to walk in to one of their more protected locations - just tell them you’re an owner!!

Hell ,, I have LOTS of shares in the corporation I work for and I don’t even have access to some of the bathrooms!!

505 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:42:12pm

re: #492 Slumbering Behemoth

Ouch. On many levels. Was that an AshleyMadison.com commercial? Like this one?

506 Kruk  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:42:18pm

What I find most depressing about the whole outrageous outrage is the uncritical way something that can be so easily disproven is being propagated by other blogs. Within a few weeks, it will be a “known fact” that Kagan intends to have people send to re-education camps if they don’t parrot the politically approved lines on race and gender. Truth seems to defined by how louldy and often you can repeat the lie.

507 garhighway  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:42:44pm

re: #496 tradewind

No objection, if it’s a majority vote.
I was a ( coerced ) teamster for years, and the union donated ( using money from dues we had to pay) to candidates that none of my co-workers would have dreamed of voting for.
Then again, how we ever ended up being represented by Teamsters in the first place is still a mystery. Didn’t last all that long, but it was a fun conversation starter at cocktail parties…

I get the connection between union donations and corporate donations.

Endorsements, though, seems to be an extension of the idea.

508 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:42:47pm

re: #501 Aceofwhat?

Being a majority shareholder should and does. Why the artificial distinction preventing minority shareholders from assembling and doing the same as a group?

Frankly, I find that immoral and wrong.

509 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:43:02pm

re: #494 Fozzie Bear

Frankly, I think that’s insane. I don’t get how corporations can get a liability/responsibility pass and yet their executives can act as independent entities, not beholden directly to the people who literally own the chairs they sit in?

they are beholden to act in your best interests. in some cases, you can attempt to vote some of them out of their chairs.

in all cases, you can sell your ownership and walk away. no one forced you to purchase the stock in the first place.

510 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:43:20pm

re: #503 Fozzie Bear

Alright, this has been fun, albeit circular. Time to go eat dinner.

enjoy

511 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:43:51pm

re: #503 Fozzie Bear

Alright, this has been fun, albeit circular. Time to go eat dinner.

eh, go spin.

:)

512 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:45:30pm

re: #508 Fozzie Bear

Being a majority shareholder should and does. Why the artificial distinction preventing minority shareholders from assembling and doing the same as a group?

Frankly, I find that immoral and wrong.

Not really. Even majority shareholders are subject to what the board of directors decides at any given time

That stated, a majority shareholder CAN have more infuence on who is ON the board either prior to (ensuring decisions are to their liking) or after (excerting influence on board changes if the board does things the shareholder doesn’t like)

513 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:45:33pm

re: #502 Guanxi88

See, I’m the kinda guy who used to live rather largely. I used to enjoy Patton’s favorite cocktail, the 170 (half brandy, half champagne) for my birthday breakfast at the 4 seasons, Boston, which I had every year, Soft-boiled egg with a scoop of beluga caviar, that sort of thing.

Then, I got married.

Then, I had a kid

Then, I had two more.

And so, now, I find myself learning to appreciate the finer things that can be found at somewhat lower prices. You know how it is…

Hence, my connoisseurship of the affordable potables, aka, bum wines, and suchlike.

514 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:45:50pm

re: #499 garhighway

FTFY

all formal organizations of people are formalized through some sort of artificial record.

like, say, a union.

or is this really only about corporations? because I tried really hard to get Fozzie to include them in the discussion…

515 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:46:40pm

re: #502 Guanxi88

See, I’m the kinda guy who used to live rather largely. I used to enjoy Patton’s favorite cocktail, the 170 (half brandy, half champagne) for my birthday breakfast at the 4 seasons, Boston, which I had every year, Soft-boiled egg with a scoop of beluga caviar, that sort of thing.

Then, I got married.

Then, I had a kid

Then, I had two more.

And so, now, I find myself learning to appreciate the finer things that can be found at somewhat lower prices. You know how it is…

Taco Bell, Ezra Brooks on the rocks. Yep.

516 sattv4u2  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:48:14pm

K ,, gotta go get ready for the awards ceremony at sons school

ACE

Rondo
Pierce
Allen
Garnett

pick your poison!

:)

517 Randall Gross  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:48:28pm

Wow…. speak of the very devil; (I linked to his wiki bio above…)

[Link: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com…]
Complaint Spotlights ‘Dr. Evil’ Campaign Against Drunk-Driving Protections

518 albusteve  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:48:34pm

re: #506 Kruk

What I find most depressing about the whole outrageous outrage is the uncritical way something that can be so easily disproven is being propagated by other blogs. Within a few weeks, it will be a “known fact” that Kagan intends to have people send to re-education camps if they don’t parrot the politically approved lines on race and gender. Truth seems to defined by how louldy and often you can repeat the lie.

if no one believes it, is it still the truth?…in govt, votes and power are far more valuable…truth is just another whore to pimp off

519 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:49:00pm

re: #505 cliffster

It’s from some British comedy show, Man Stroke Woman.

*Language*

520 Guanxi88  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:49:04pm

re: #515 cliffster

Taco Bell, Ezra Brooks on the rocks. Yep.

I will say, though, that Christian Borhters brandy, or E&J, if you’re looking to spend a little, combined with M&R Asti makes a very acceptable substitute for Old Blood ‘n’ Guts’ beloved 170.

521 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:50:11pm

re: #506 Kruk

Within a few weeks, it will be a “known fact” that Kagan intends to have people send to re-education camps if they don’t parrot the politically approved lines on race and gender.


I kinda doubt it, but don’t worry. It’s a known fact to a subset of humanity that we never landed on the moon, that the earth is flat, and that extra-terrestrials have inserted chips under the nape of their necks, the better to track their movements.
Hasn’t affected us much.

522 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:51:15pm

re: #508 Fozzie Bear

Being a majority shareholder should and does. Why the artificial distinction preventing minority shareholders from assembling and doing the same as a group?


because then you’d radically depress the entire market. stock is widely available because the (often) smart people who run successful companies are made confident that they don’t have to kowtow to whatever insane idea some minority group of shareholders wants to put on the table.

and can we reserve “immoral” for things like “gassing Afghan girls at school”?

agree or disagree, but this isn’t about morals.

back to the topic - why is it immoral that you and i can’t walk into a Lockheed missile development site with few shares of stock, but moral to abrogate our right to free speech if we start a company together and sell a little stock to help finance it along the way?

help…my moral compass is aflutter;)

523 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:51:52pm

Totally off topic. (If you don’t have a teenage daughter, skip this post.)

I’m looking at the Regional State Park maps for Washington state. In each area, they highlight a few “main” towns or cities.

Seattle? check.

Tacoma? check.

Spokane? check.

Forks? check.

Not Port Angeles, or Port Townsend. Forks, which nobody had heard of five years ago except for the locals.

Out of control.

524 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:52:04pm

re: #516 sattv4u2

K ,, gotta go get ready for the awards ceremony at sons school

ACE

Rondo
Pierce
Allen
Garnett

pick your poison!

:)

they aren’t going to win this. but i’m terribly afraid that the Cavs will LOSE it!

cheers!

525 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:53:25pm

re: #508 Fozzie Bear

Being a majority shareholder should and does. Why the artificial distinction preventing minority shareholders from assembling and doing the same as a group?

Frankly, I find that immoral and wrong.

PIMF - reposting for readability…sorry

because then you’d radically depress the entire market. stock is widely available because the (often) smart people who run successful companies are made confident that they don’t have to kowtow to whatever insane idea some minority group of shareholders wants to put on the table.

and can we reserve “immoral” for things like “gassing Afghan girls at school”?

agree or disagree, but this isn’t about morals.

back to the topic - why is it immoral that you and i can’t walk into a Lockheed missile development site with few shares of stock, but moral to abrogate our right to free speech if we start a company together and sell a little stock to help finance it along the way?

help…my moral compass is aflutter;)

526 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:55:01pm

re: #523 EmmmieG

Forks - known for their delicious Slurpees?

527 cliffster  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:55:50pm

re: #523 EmmmieG

Is that online? Linkee please, that’s really funny.

528 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:57:03pm

re: #524 Aceofwhat?

If the Cavs let LeBron go, it will mean that they are giving up on Cleveland. They are admitting that they do not expect to win an NBA Championship.

You can’t convince me that any team would be better without LeBron James.

529 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 13, 2010 1:58:03pm

[Link: www.parks.wa.gov…]re: #527 cliffster

Since when is Port Angeles or Port Townsend less important than Forks?

530 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:00:56pm

re: #528 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

If the Cavs let LeBron go, it will mean that they are giving up on Cleveland. They are admitting that they do not expect to win an NBA Championship.

You can’t convince me that any team would be better without LeBron James.

no, never!

i just meant that i watched his body language really closely last game and he seemed pissed about something - Mo’s quick shots - offensive sets - i don’t know.

but if he doesn’t show up in the next two games, the Cavs are toast. and given that he hasn’t “shown up” in 3 games so far, i’m feeling down…

531 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:08:56pm

re: #229 Aceofwhat?

I have ambitions to be an officer of a corporation someday. I look forward to hearing about how that makes me evil, or less protected in various ways.

I wish that didn’t make me think less of you.

532 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:10:36pm

re: #228 lostlakehiker

The main determinant of salary, rank, and standing in society is achievement.

Your faith in the meritocracy is touching.

533 tradewind  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:19:02pm

I only wish that Obama had actually told the truth when he said he wanted a SCOTUS that looked a little more like the average American ( or words to that effect). All three women are from NY, all are from Harvard or Yale. All SCOTUS justices will be from either CA or the East Coast.. flyover country, fuggeddaboutit.
And the religious makeup of the Court is the antithesis of diverse.
Doesn’t this get a little insular?

534 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:20:17pm

re: #531 Cato the Elder

I wish that didn’t make me think less of you.

“yeah, but you have to play dirty just like the rest of them or you won’t be successful”

sorry…couldn’t resist…

535 Slap  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:44:48pm

re: #465 Spare O’Lake

Ah, no prob. Not being able to watch another’s expressions when freestyle smartassin’ is such an impediment….

536 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:46:43pm

re: #228 lostlakehiker

Speech that she deems contributes to gender or racial inequality? Such as this post, because I’ll go out on a limb and say that these inequalities are not caused by this or that form of speech anyhow. The main determinant of salary, rank, and standing in society is achievement. Skill, zeal, courage, and preparation are the main determinants of achievement, and thus the main determinants of rank and standing.

Ms. Kagan is a high achiever, and that’s why she’s been nominated, rather than some other liberal.

This is a spectacular example of reverting to factory settings. Kagan says plain as a bell that she doesn’t think speech contributing to inequality should be unprotected, so you figure she means that it should be?

537 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:48:27pm

re: #246 EmmmieG

You haven’t been around children’s sports recently, have you?

At my school the kids compete like crazy people.

538 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:49:14pm

re: #254 MandyManners

So? Take it away (steal?) it from that person?

Paranoia strikes deep…

539 steve_davis  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:50:13pm

re: #45 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

For Oiled Wildlife, Dawn Cleans Best

“This feels so soft on my feathers, Marge!”

“Well, I should certainly hope so. Your claws are soaking in it!”

540 RogueOne  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:51:55pm

I haven’t read through the whole 500+ posts but I’d like to point out that not only did she argue for restricting speech in the citizens united case but she also argued in the US vs. Stevens case….


“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

The stevens case was slapped down 8-1 by the USSC with Alito being the only one to agree. She’s a pro-government jurist just like Alito.

541 RogueOne  Thu, May 13, 2010 2:52:45pm

re: #540 RogueOne

Forgot the link to the stevens argument (pdf):
[Link: www.abanet.org…]

542 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 13, 2010 3:04:31pm

re: #533 tradewind

I only wish that Obama had actually told the truth when he said he wanted a SCOTUS that looked a little more like the average American ( or words to that effect). All three women are from NY, all are from Harvard or Yale. All SCOTUS justices will be from either CA or the East Coast.. flyover country, fuggeddaboutit.
And the religious makeup of the Court is the antithesis of diverse.
Doesn’t this get a little insular?

Suppose it does. However, when I complain about the preponderance of white Protestant men in other settings, I usually get told that it will all come out in the wash, and it’s all about merit.

It will all come out in the wash, and it’s all about merit.

543 BlackFedora  Thu, May 13, 2010 3:34:20pm

Oh no…. speaking of dishonesty and stupidity. I sat through Jones’ Fall of the Republic Part 1 documentary and towards the end of it when he has his climate change denier hat on. He said, “Al Gore says he invented the internet”

and I wanted to bang my head on my desk. I kinda don’t like Al Gore that much. I think he’s right about the science of climate change but he kinda rubs me the wrong way. No big deal. Anyway… I can’t believe people actually think Jonesy is like this muck racker extraordinaire because Al Gore didn’t really say he invented the internet….

Its basically the same type of dishonesty and willful stupidity that’s going into slamming Kagin as a Communist/Gun grabber/Zionist/ you name it.

544 Mentis Fugit  Thu, May 13, 2010 4:18:46pm

Can’t you see it’s a code?????

United Nations
Nazis
Communists
Obama
Erectile dysfunction
RFID implants
Communists AGAIN!
Elitist
Democrats

/Glen Berk

545 aagcobb  Thu, May 13, 2010 5:59:08pm

They didn’t coerce the bigots, and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a bigot. Then they didn’t coerce the birfers, and I said nothing, because I wasn’t a birfer, then they didn’t coerce the homophobes, the anti-vaccers, the creationists, the global warming denialists, the survivalists, the oathkeepers, the birchers and the Austrian Economists, and I did nothing because I wasn’t one of them. Then they didn’t coerce me, and that was kind of cool.

546 Cobdenite  Fri, May 14, 2010 12:08:11am

““Uncoerced.” Is this an obscure word? Maybe we should take up a collection to buy the wingnuts dictionaries.”

You know, they would just complain about how the big money behind dictionary publishers is actually altering the words slightly to make them support the vast conspiracy known as “logic”.

Again, this was supposedly the “party of common sense” two decades ago.

547 The Curmudgeon  Fri, May 14, 2010 6:45:29am

re: #43 The Curmudgeon

Egad! I’ve made the list of “Worst Comments.” This is a tough room indeed. But that’s okay. Everyone knows that I’m really a great guy.

548 im_gumby_damnit  Fri, May 14, 2010 12:58:02pm

If that’s her most outrageously outrageous remark, then you’d better get used to saying “Justice” Kagan.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 477 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1