I hope you’re sitting down, because Radar Online has the exclusive breaking news story that Chief Justice Roberts is not resigning!
In other exclusive breaking news, Julia Roberts will not be named to the Supreme Court.
2 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:41:19am |
Pandering for pageviews? Probably should stick to Lady Ga Ga and Sarah Palin.
| 3 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:46:31am |
almost as hilarious ....
Chait on the new Obama appt and the outrageous outrage therefrom...
[Link: www.tnr.com...]
| 4 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:51:38am |
re: #3 Thanos
almost as hilarious ...
Chait on the new Obama appt and the outrageous outrage therefrom...
[Link: www.tnr.com...]
Who's the lady with Bush in the picture? Is the pic related to the article?
| 5 |
albusteve Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:52:26am |
welcome to the world of un news....think of all the storied that didn't happen...what a gold mine!
| 6 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:52:33am |
re: #4 Killgore Trout
Who's the lady with Bush in the picture? Is the pic related to the article?
Harriet Miers.
| 8 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:54:32am |
| 10 |
lawhawk Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:55:45am |
re: #4 Killgore Trout
That unrelated photo is Harriet Miers.
The Roberts non story was hilarious because it was completely unsourced from the outset and I'm sure that if someone actually sought to get a comment from Roberts himself, he'd probably say what the heck.
Even TMZ has better sourcing than that.
As for the Obama selection of a brother of a Rep to a judgeship, the guy could be completely qualified and competent for the job, but it is the appearance of impropriety that raises eyebrows - the timing is most exquisite (just when Obama needs that particular vote in the House, the brother gets the job). Only thing that would make the story more juicy is that the brother gets the job just after the Rep votes on the health care bill in Obama's favor - a classic quid pro quo.
| 11 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:56:58am |
re: #4 Killgore Trout
Who's the lady with Bush in the picture? Is the pic related to the article?
Harriet Meyers?
| 12 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:57:54am |
re: #10 lawhawk
the timing is most exquisite (just when Obama needs that particular vote in the House, the brother gets the job).
Not to mention that the congressman was amongst the dozen or so Dem house "no votes" invited to the White House last night (or the night before)
| 13 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:58:27am |
re: #3 Thanos
almost as hilarious ...
Chait on the new Obama appt and the outrageous outrage therefrom...
[Link: www.tnr.com...]
So what exactly would it take for outrage to not be outrageous?
| 14 |
lawhawk Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:59:40am |
re: #13 cliffster
That Ground Zero is still far from being rebuilt? The outrage over that can't necessarily be outrageous enough.
| 15 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:59:43am |
| 16 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:59:55am |
re: #13 cliffster
So what exactly would it take for outrage to not be outrageous?
That's the point, when every day is outrageous outrage X 3 or 4 you lose the ability and the credibility to draw people's attention to things that might really matter.
| 17 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:59:57am |
But the idiot media will continue to use the epithet "The Pretty Woman" every time they mention Julia, just like Madonna is still "The Material Girl".
Gaaah!
| 18 |
windsword Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:00:13pm |
Is Anna Nicole Smith still dead, Wolf?
| 19 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:00:41pm |
This just in, Bears still shit in the woods.
| 20 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:01:44pm |
| 21 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:01:57pm |
| 22 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:02:19pm |
| 23 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:02:26pm |
re: #17 Cato the Elder
But the idiot media will continue to use the epithet "The Pretty Woman" every time they mention Julia, just like Madonna is still "The Material Girl".
Gaaah!
yeah. she's not that pretty.
| 24 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:03:07pm |
| 25 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:04:29pm |
| 26 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:04:37pm |
Charles what is your source for the Julia Roberts denial story? I can't get paid for passing this along to FOX news without a credible source.
/
| 27 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:05:17pm |
| 28 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:05:22pm |
re: #17 Cato the Elder
But the idiot media will continue to use the epithet "The Pretty Woman" every time they mention Julia, just like Madonna is still "The Material Girl".
Gaaah!
Eric Roberts is the true talent in the family.
| 29 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:05:29pm |
Speaking of idiocy...just got this picture sent to me from an old friend who's gone wacko-jesus freak/birther in the past 20 years since I last saw him.
| 30 |
Racer X Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:06:22pm |
re: #29 darthstar
Speaking of idiocy...just got this picture sent to me from an old friend who's gone wacko-jesus freak/birther in the past 20 years since I last saw him.
Photoshop.
| 31 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:06:29pm |
Employment questions aside, Roberts is my fav logician on the court. Even that guy's poo is smart.
| 32 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:06:34pm |
Best of the Best of Eric Roberts Crying
| 33 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:07:46pm |
re: #25 cliffster
What the hell is wrong with you??
I've seen Milla Jovovich on screen. It's like thinking that "blue moon belgian pale ale" is awesome beer and then discovering Hoegaarden.
| 34 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:08:16pm |
I will say, I would welcome a Roberts retirement after only five years. But I don't see that happening. I'd settle for a Thomas/Scalia/Alito retirement as well. Kennedy could jump ship and it wouldn't phase me, either.
But this of course, is because the men mentioned above are far too liberal for my taste.
/
| 35 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:08:31pm |
re: #31 Aceofwhat?
Employment questions aside, Roberts is my fav logician on the court. Even that guy's poo is smart.
I'd take the other route with that analogy. Full of shit comes to mind.
| 37 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:09:44pm |
re: #13 cliffster
So what exactly would it take for outrage to not be outrageous?
Black ants infest the White House = Outrage
"Red" ants infest the White House = Outrageous! (commie ants!)
/
| 38 |
albusteve Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:10:14pm |
| 39 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:11:26pm |
IN other breaking news that didn't happen:
My mortgage application didn't fall through, the house I'm buying didn't burn to the ground,and the contract on the house I've sold didn't fall through.
All of which is to say, the first round's still on me.
| 40 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:11:35pm |
| 41 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:11:39pm |
re: #33 Aceofwhat?
I've seen Milla Jovovich on screen. It's like thinking that "blue moon belgian pale ale" is awesome beer and then discovering Hoegaarden.
my wife loves blue moon. No amount of giving her real beer will change her mind. It's a problem for us
| 42 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:12:45pm |
re: #41 cliffster
my wife loves blue moon. No amount of giving her real beer will change her mind. It's a problem for us
it's not terrible. It's just a pale (heh) imitation of the real thing.
| 43 |
albusteve Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:12:50pm |
re: #35 drcordell
I'd take the other route with that analogy. Full of shit comes to mind.
why so?....has he disappointed you with bad judgments?
| 44 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:12:50pm |
re: #41 cliffster
my wife loves blue moon. No amount of giving her real beer will change her mind. It's a problem for us
I've got a similar problem.
I used to smoke Balkan Sobranie exclusively in a Peterson pipe. nothing less would do.
Now? Prince Albert in a corncob pipe, and I'm amazed I ever smoked anything else.
| 45 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:13:23pm |
| 46 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:13:29pm |
re: #29 darthstar
Speaking of idiocy...just got this picture sent to me from an old friend who's gone wacko-jesus freak/birther in the past 20 years since I last saw him.
You better keep that one on the downlow or Orly Taitz whill be sending you subpeana's to testify at her next "birther" lawsuit.
/
| 47 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:13:59pm |
re: #29 darthstar
Speaking of idiocy...just got this picture sent to me from an old friend who's gone wacko-jesus freak/birther in the past 20 years since I last saw him.
Exhibit A in Orly Taitz's dossier of proof.
| 48 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:14:21pm |
re: #46 ausador
You better keep that one on the downlow or Orly Taitz whill be sending you subpeana's to testify at her next "birther" lawsuit.
/
I don't know how likely the next suit will be. The orderlies in the dayroom are getting sick of humoring her, and the other "guests" can't it still long enough.
| 49 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:14:23pm |
re: #40 Aceofwhat?
re: #35 drcordell
So he didn't rule correctly the other day when he refused to ban DC from performing gay marriages?
got it. juuust checkin'.
I loved watching those confirmation hearings. He made the democrats look like a bunch of drooling morons (which isn't hard to do, to be sure). And he did it all with great honor. "With respect, sir..."
| 50 |
MandyManners Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:15:02pm |
re: #40 Aceofwhat?
re: #35 drcordell
So he didn't rule correctly the other day when he refused to ban DC from performing gay marriages?
got it. juuust checkin'.
And, the same Roberts that upheld removing the Ten Commandments from pubic property.
| 51 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:15:07pm |
re: #44 Guanxi88
I've got a similar problem.
I used to smoke Balkan Sobranie exclusively in a Peterson pipe. nothing less would do.
Now? Prince Albert in a corncob pipe, and I'm amazed I ever smoked anything else.
You have Prince Albert in a pipe? You need to let him out!
| 52 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:15:09pm |
re: #45 darthstar
I hadn't heard about that...thanks. So Roberts did the right thing...I'm impressed.
i love reading his stuff. as far as i'm aware, there is less evidence that he's been acting in a partisan fashion than there is for the case that AGW is just a big "gotcha".
but i'd love a good-natured debate on it, because it'll just get me reading more of his stuff. whaddya got?
| 53 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:15:21pm |
re: #46 ausador
You better keep that one on the downlow or Orly Taitz whill be sending you subpeana's to testify at her next "birther" lawsuit.
/
I would welcome sitting on the stand and testifying in court for Orly. Though I suspect she'd ask the judge to treat me as a hostile witness when I responded to her first five questions with "Are you fucking daft?"
| 54 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:15:33pm |
re: #50 MandyManners
And, the same Roberts that upheld removing the Ten Commandments from pubic property.
Bingo.
| 55 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:16:22pm |
| 56 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:16:34pm |
re: #50 MandyManners
And, the same Roberts that upheld removing the Ten Commandments from pubic property.
Well, we do have our own Bill of Rights in this country. Coveting isn't a crime...it's just a sin.
| 57 |
MandyManners Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:17:09pm |
re: #54 Aceofwhat?
Some don't understand the concept of stare decisis.
| 58 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:17:11pm |
re: #49 cliffster
I loved watching those confirmation hearings. He made the democrats look like a bunch of drooling morons (which isn't hard to do, to be sure). And he did it all with great honor. "With respect, sir..."
I was glued to it. It's the most unconstitutional moment he's ever had...overwhelming intellectual force employed on the obviously unarmed...
| 59 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:17:13pm |
re: #33 Aceofwhat?
I've seen Milla Jovovich on screen. It's like thinking that "blue moon belgian pale ale" is awesome beer and then discovering Hoegaarden.
Oh yeah? Well, I've seen Uma Thurman in person.
Of course, she was like seven at the time, and I didn't make the connection at first when I saw her amazing boobies in "Dangerous Liaisons", but still. Neener!
| 60 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:18:18pm |
re: #56 darthstar
Well, we do have our own Bill of Rights in this country. Coveting isn't a crime...it's just a sin.
And CJR kept it that way!
| 61 |
Gus Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:18:20pm |
re: #29 darthstar
Speaking of idiocy...just got this picture sent to me from an old friend who's gone wacko-jesus freak/birther in the past 20 years since I last saw him.
Here, this is fun. Snopes did an analysis and even shows the original sign. As they point out, Swahili is the language of Kenya not Arabic. The original sign is located in between Oman and the UAE.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]
| 62 |
albusteve Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:18:45pm |
re: #55 cliffster
Have R, will hate.
waaah!....they didn't answer me, anyway the guy is brilliant and fair...what more can you ask for?...some prima dona nut cake like the goofballs that vote to seat them?
| 63 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:19:14pm |
re: #57 MandyManners
Some don't understand the concept of stare decisis.
True. And some only claim to. The decision to reverse McCain/Feingold and allow corporations to unlimited campaign donations has yet to have an effect, but I suspect we'll see its full effect around August and September when the political ads start airing.
| 64 |
Mad Al-Jaffee Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:19:25pm |
re: #44 Guanxi88
I've got a similar problem.
I used to smoke Balkan Sobranie exclusively in a Peterson pipe. nothing less would do.
Now? Prince Albert in a corncob pipe, and I'm amazed I ever smoked anything else.
Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
| 65 |
MandyManners Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:19:32pm |
re: #56 darthstar
Well, we do have our own Bill of Rights in this country. Coveting isn't a crime...it's just a sin.
What's that got to do with the price of beans in Lima?
| 66 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:19:51pm |
re: #61 Gus 802
Here, this is fun. Snopes did an analysis and even shows the original sign. As they point out, Swahili is the language of Kenya not Arabic. The original sign is located in between Oman and the UAE.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]
Wait! He was born in Oman?
//
| 67 |
albusteve Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:20:01pm |
re: #56 darthstar
Well, we do have our own Bill of Rights in this country. Coveting isn't a crime...it's just a sin.
what is sin then?....seems like a crime against Gods wishes works...no?
| 68 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:20:04pm |
re: #50 MandyManners
And, the same Roberts that upheld removing the Ten Commandments from pubic property.
Freudian slip, much?
And speaking of removing embarrassing things, thanks for changing your avatar.
Oh, wait. These new glasses are playing tricks on me.
| 69 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:20:08pm |
| 70 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:20:17pm |
re: #64 Mad Al-Jaffee
Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
Not for long, I tell you what. That's some good cheap cob-fodder.
| 71 |
Gus Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:20:26pm |
| 72 |
MandyManners Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:22:16pm |
| 73 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:23:57pm |
re: #53 darthstar
I would welcome sitting on the stand and testifying in court for Orly. Though I suspect she'd ask the judge to treat me as a hostile witness when I responded to her first five questions with "Are you fucking daft?"
His fathers name was Barack Obama, technically our President is Barack Obama II according to his birth certificate...well the certificate of live birth which of course is absolutely nothing like a birth certificate no matter how many Republican officials testify that they have seen the records and certified in writing that it is true...
///The sign is absolutely true Kenya was the bithplace of Barack Obama, just not Barack Obama II.
| 74 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:24:34pm |
re: #61 Gus 802
Here, this is fun. Snopes did an analysis and even shows the original sign. As they point out, Swahili is the language of Kenya not Arabic. The original sign is located in between Oman and the UAE.
[Link: www.snopes.com...]
Ha...the Arabic "Welcome to" actually reads "Paul is dead" and the Arabic under "Kenya" actually reads "Hawaii"
| 75 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:25:33pm |
re: #67 albusteve
what is sin then?...seems like a crime against Gods wishes works...no?
God doesn't have jurisdiction in the US...yet. Of course, the Repent Armadillo types are trying to change that.
| 76 |
Sheila Broflovski Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:25:41pm |
re: #73 ausador
His fathers name was Barack Obama, technically our President is Barack Obama II according to his birth certificate...well the certificate of live birth which of course is absolutely nothing like a birth certificate no matter how many Republican officials testify that they have seen the records and certified in writing that it is true...
///The sign is absolutely true Kenya was the bithplace of Barack Obama, just not Barack Obama II.
Wouldn't that be Barack Obama, Jr.? I thought II was only used if the name skipped a generation (grandson with the same name as grandfather)
| 77 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:25:49pm |
re: #63 darthstar
True. And some only claim to. The decision to reverse McCain/Feingold and allow corporations to unlimited campaign donations has yet to have an effect, but I suspect we'll see its full effect around August and September when the political ads start airing.
Have a citation for ya.
The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.
Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922 (1975); Southeast-ern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727 (1996); Turner, 512 U. S. 622; Simon & Schuster, 502 U. S. 105; Sable Com-munications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115 (1989); Florida Star v. B. J. F., 491 U. S. 524 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767 (1986); Land-mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U. S. 6 (1970).
This protection has been extended by explicit holdings tothe context of political speech.
See, e.g., Button, 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936).
Under the rationale of these precedents,political speech does not lose First Amendment protection“simply because its source is a corporation.”
Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)(“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bel-lotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”
And good for them. It was Mc/F which flew in the face of stare.
| 78 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:26:39pm |
I sometimes think this world would be a better and happier place if more folk wee more intelligent in picking their vices:
See, because I smoke a corncob pipe, dust my nostrils with snuff, and have the occasional slug of slivovitz, I've got three vices that DON'T involve much in the way of madness.
If folk would just swap out one crazy vice (say, birtherism) for something a bit more staid, we'd all be spared no end of trouble.
| 79 |
MrSilverDragon Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:26:54pm |
re: #47 Cato the Elder
Exhibit A in Orly Taitz's dossier of proof.
Ya know, every time I see her name, icanhascheezburger.com pops into my head. I can just see a cat sitting there with a quizzical expression on its face saying, "Orly? Taitz not wut she sez."
(no, they haven't upped my meds recently, why?)
| 80 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:27:15pm |
re: #40 Aceofwhat?
re: #35 drcordell
So he didn't rule correctly the other day when he refused to ban DC from performing gay marriages?
got it. juuust checkin'.
I don't disagree with every ruling he has made. But his statements at his confirmation hearing about being a "constructionist" and an "umpire" who only calls "balls and strikes" have been proven to be complete horseshit. With Citizens United vs. FEC he has proven himself to be the very definition of an "activist" judge.
| 81 |
Mad Al-Jaffee Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:28:21pm |
re: #79 MrSilverDragon
I keep thinking she's a porn star called "Oily Taintz."
| 82 |
Gus Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:28:23pm |
| 83 |
MandyManners Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:28:31pm |
The operation was scheduled to take place several weeks ago in the Binyamin region. The soldier, from an elite unit of the Artillery Corps, posted on his Facebook page: “On Wednesday, we are cleaning out [the name of the village] – today an arrest operation, tomorrow an arrest operation and then, please God, home by Thursday.”
The status update on the soldier’s page was revealed by other members of the soldier’s unit. His commanders then updated Judea and Samaria Division commander Brig.-Gen. Nitzan Alon, who decided to cancel the operation out of concern that the mission had been compromised.
The raid eventually took place, several days later, and was successful. The soldier, who had updated his Facebook page with his cellular phone, was disciplined by his commander, sentenced to 10 days in jail and kicked out of his unit.
SNIP
| 84 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:28:43pm |
re: #65 MandyManners
What's that got to do with the price of beans in Lima?
Bean prices...specifically coffee bean prices...in Lima, Peru are covered by the eleventh commandment. Thou shalt not put sugar in thy coffee. Sugar is loosely translated to mean money, and coffee is loosely translated to be coffee. The space between 'shalt' and 'not' is to give literalists the opportunity to skip the negative and actually put sugar in their coffee if they want to...but most people consider them to be kind of trashy for doing so.
| 85 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:29:03pm |
re: #78 Guanxi88
I used to have a neighbor that was a little nuts. He was old; he smoked like a stack and drank like a fish. He thinks that people over 60 that don't smoke and drink should be taxed; they're going to live too long. I like that dude.
| 86 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:29:07pm |
re: #76 Alouette
Wouldn't that be Barack Obama, Jr.? I thought II was only used if the name skipped a generation (grandson with the same name as grandfather)
Thank you. I thought I was the only one who remembered that rule.
| 87 |
MandyManners Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:29:12pm |
re: #80 drcordell
I don't disagree with every ruling he has made. But his statements at his confirmation hearing about being a "constructionist" and an "umpire" who only calls "balls and strikes" have been proven to be complete horseshit. With Citizens United vs. FEC he has proven himself to be the very definition of an "activist" judge.
Wah.
| 88 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:29:19pm |
re: #68 Cato the Elder
Freudian slip, much?
And speaking of removing embarrassing things, thanks for changing your avatar.
Oh, wait. These new glasses are playing tricks on me.
I've got one for her - one that says something positive about her own faith instead of trying to single out someone else's:
| 89 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:29:54pm |
re: #63 darthstar
True. And some only claim to. The decision to reverse McCain/Feingold and allow corporations to unlimited campaign donations has yet to have an effect, but I suspect we'll see its full effect around August and September when the political ads start airing.
I would hope that a whittling down of the First Amendment requires more than a concern about campaign donations, whose sources are still required to be disclosed.
quote...
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form.
The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation.See Part II–E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id., at 26–31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those pre-sented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds “that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book,” and if it did, “there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009).
This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
| 90 |
Ojoe Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:30:10pm |
re: #77 Aceofwhat?
The argument to ban corporations from the political speech that they could afford to buy really was an insult to the citizenry because it assumed that we were not smart enough to see through an expensive ad campaign, if it were a lie.
Beyond that, it would have required to have been set up a speech monitor with far reaching and authoritarian powers.
| 91 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:30:50pm |
We have a new denier troll in the thread downstairs. They just keep coming. It is like the days when we ran evolution threads...
| 92 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:31:28pm |
re: #77 Aceofwhat?
It was Mc/F which flew in the face of stare.
That may be your opinion, but it isn't shared by a large number of legal scholars. The legality of regulating corporate financing in politics has a long and established legal precedent. It's not just about whether or not corporations have first amendment rights. It's about whether the government has any legal ability to regulate those rights. And for approximately 100 years the courts had previously held that yes, the government can regulate political donations.
Just because you have a first amendment right does not by default mean that right cannot be abridged in any way. Students are explicitly granted first amendment rights, yet the courts have also held that it is completely legal for schools to abridge those rights.
| 93 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:32:03pm |
re: #85 cliffster
I used to have a neighbor that was a little nuts. He was old; he smoked like a stack and drank like a fish. He thinks that people over 60 that don't smoke and drink should be taxed; they're going to live too long. I like that dude.
I was told as a young man that any normal man has at least three vices. Now, if someone says he's only got two, that means he has on vice that's UNSPEAKABLY bad; if he says he has but one, then he's got two that'll make ya blush, and if he says he has no vices at all, he's a pervert and a liar.
| 94 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:33:34pm |
re: #87 MandyManners
Wah.
And here comes MandyManners with her typical highly intellectual insight. If only I could draw some ASCII art of Calvin peeing on John Roberts...
| 95 |
William Barnett-Lewis Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:33:48pm |
re: #80 drcordell
I don't disagree with every ruling he has made. But his statements at his confirmation hearing about being a "constructionist" and an "umpire" who only calls "balls and strikes" have been proven to be complete horseshit. With Citizens United vs. FEC he has proven himself to be the very definition of an "activist" judge.
IOKIYAAR
Activist judge that is.
William
| 96 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:34:45pm |
re: #78 Guanxi88
I sometimes think this world would be a better and happier place if more folk wee more intelligent in picking their vices:
See, because I smoke a corncob pipe, dust my nostrils with snuff, and have the occasional slug of slivovitz, I've got three vices that DON'T involve much in the way of madness.
If folk would just swap out one crazy vice (say, birtherism) for something a bit more staid, we'd all be spared no end of trouble.
Mark Twain on vice:
"In my early manhood and in middle life I used to vex myself with reforms every now and then. And I never had occasion to regret these divergencies for, whether the resulting deprivations were long or short, the rewarding pleasure which I got out of the vice when I returned to it always paid me for all that it cost."
"I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices."
And in the denouement Malraux's great novel "Man's Fate", he has a couple of minor characters discussing the fate of the hero, now dead. The wise old Chinese guy says his - the hero's - problem was that he chose the wrong vice. He was into alcohol, when opium would have been the right drug for him.
One must make these choices very perspicaciously.
| 97 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:35:26pm |
re: #90 Ojoe
Beyond that, it would have required to have been set up a speech monitor with far reaching and authoritarian powers.
Categorically false. Unless you considered the Federal Election Commission "a speech monitor with far reaching and authoritarian powers?"
| 98 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:35:56pm |
re: #94 drcordell
And here comes MandyManners with her typical highly intellectual insight. If only I could draw some ASCII art of Calvin peeing on John Roberts...
Sigh. Please don't. These threads have enough pissing contests going on as it is.
| 99 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:37:11pm |
re: #95 wlewisiii
IOKIYAAR
Activist judge that is.
William
Exactly. A "librul" judge who makes consistent efforts to consider issues only within the limited scope that they were presented to the court? ACTIVIST!
A "conservative" judge who accepts a case with limited scope, then expands it to completely gut 100 years of court precedent? Constructionist!
| 100 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:37:34pm |
re: #80 drcordell
I don't disagree with every ruling he has made. But his statements at his confirmation hearing about being a "constructionist" and an "umpire" who only calls "balls and strikes" have been proven to be complete horseshit. With Citizens United vs. FEC he has proven himself to be the very definition of an "activist" judge.
I think he covers that...
It is only because the majority rejects Citizens United’s statutory claim that it proceeds to consider the group’s various constitutional arguments, beginning with its narrowest claim (that Hillary is not the functional equivalent of express advocacy) and proceeding to its broadest claim (that Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494U. S. 652 (1990) should be overruled). This is the same order of operations followed by the controlling opinion in Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL). There the appellant was able to prevail on its narrowest constitutional argument because its broadcast ads did not qualify as the functional equivalent of express advocacy; there was thus no need to go on to address the broader claim that McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), should be overruled. WRTL, 551 U. S., at 482; id., at 482–483 (ALITO, J., concurring).
This case is different—not, as the dissent suggests, because the approach taken in WRTL has been deemed a “failure,” post, at 11, but because, in the absence of any valid narrower ground of decision,there is no way to avoid Citizens United’s broader constitutional argument.
The dissent advocates an approach to addressing Citizens United’s claims that I find quite perplexing. It presumably agrees with the majority that Citizens United’s narrower statutory and constitutional arguments lack merit—otherwise its conclusion that the group should lose this case would make no sense. Despite agreeing that these narrower arguments fail, however, the dissent argues that the majority should nonetheless latch on to one of them in order to avoid reaching the broader constitutional question of whether Austin remains good law. It even suggests that the Court’s failure to adopt one of these concededly meritless arguments is a sign that the majority is not “serious about judicial restraint.” Post, at 16.
This approach is based on a false premise: that our practice of avoiding unnecessary (and unnecessarily broad) constitutional holdings somehow trumps our obligation faithfully to interpret the law. It should go without saying, however, that we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right. Thus while it is true that “if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” post, at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted), sometimes it is necessary to decide more.
There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. When constitutional questions are “indispensably necessary” to resolving the case at hand, “the court must meet and decide them.” Ex parte Randolph, 20 F. Cas. 242, 254 (No. 11, 558) (CC Va.1833) (Marshall, C. J.).
make sense? stare decisis isn't compelling enough to avoid answering the question.
| 101 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:37:58pm |
re: #98 oaktree
Sigh. Please don't. These threads have enough pissing contests going on as it is.
Things were rolling along perfectly fine until Mandy started cracking wise. And yes, I still find her avatar disgustingly offensive.
| 102 |
Locker Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:38:12pm |
re: #98 oaktree
Sigh. Please don't. These threads have enough pissing contests going on as it is.
True but maybe correct the source rather than the response.
| 103 |
Ojoe Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:38:13pm |
re: #97 drcordell
Who would tell a corporation to stop, and on what criterion?
The post would be an arbitrary political hall monitor.
No good at all.
Either this is a democracy where all are free to make up their own minds, or it is a kindergarden class.
BBL
| 104 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:38:18pm |
re: #76 Alouette
Wouldn't that be Barack Obama, Jr.? I thought II was only used if the name skipped a generation (grandson with the same name as grandfather)
Perhaps Kenyan's either don't follow or are not familiar with that nuance of naming rules?
| 105 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:38:24pm |
re: #98 oaktree
Sigh. Please don't. These threads have enough pissing contests going on as it is.
A charge to which Mandy silently pleads nolo contendere with every post.
| 106 |
avanti Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:39:02pm |
re: #68 Cato the Elder
Freudian slip, much?
And speaking of removing embarrassing things, thanks for changing your avatar.
Oh, wait. These new glasses are playing tricks on me.
She's not going to change her avatar, just balance it out with this one to be fair and drop it.
BTW, both are offensive as hell to this agnostic,
| 107 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:39:11pm |
Wingnuts try to get hip - with terrifying results:
A rapper that looks even dumber, somehow, than Glenn Beck, some autotuned scarecrow who seems so happy to be so pissed off about Obama, and a star turn from a 'hardcore birther' who looks like David Mitchell from Peep Show. I know it looks like a heavy handed parody by mercilessly snarky libs, but as far as I can tell these are real wingnuts.
| 108 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:39:25pm |
re: #103 Ojoe
Who would tell a corporation to stop, and on what criterion?
The post would be an arbitrary political hall monitor.
No good at all.
Either this is a democracy where all are free to make up their own minds, or it is a kindergarden class.
BBL
You're acting like the past 100 years of Federal Election Commission regulation never existed. Are you telling me that you feel like the major problem with our political system over the past 100 years is a lack of corporate money?
| 109 |
zora Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:40:10pm |
re: #105 Cato the Elder
What is Calvin peeing on? I can't make out the image.
| 110 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:40:21pm |
re: #100 Aceofwhat?
make sense? stare decisis isn't compelling enough to avoid answering the question.
The question was already answered quite well. Roberts just didn't like the answer. That's what makes him an activist judge.
| 112 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:40:50pm |
| 113 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:41:02pm |
| 115 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:41:49pm |
| 116 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:41:54pm |
re: #92 drcordell
That may be your opinion, but it isn't shared by a large number of legal scholars. The legality of regulating corporate financing in politics has a long and established legal precedent. It's not just about whether or not corporations have first amendment rights. It's about whether the government has any legal ability to regulate those rights. And for approximately 100 years the courts had previously held that yes, the government can regulate political donations.
Just because you have a first amendment right does not by default mean that right cannot be abridged in any way. Students are explicitly granted first amendment rights, yet the courts have also held that it is completely legal for schools to abridge those rights.
No one interprets the law through their own lenses like "legal scholars". And I disagree with your assertion that they find this opinion lacking in numbers that exceed their tendency to roost on the left hand side of the spectrum.
Here's some more for ya-
The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union. What makes this case difficult is the need to confront our prior decision in Austin. This is the first case in which we have been asked to overrule Austin, and thus it is also the first in which we have had reason to consider how much weight to give stare decisis in assessing its continued validity. The dissent erroneously declares that the Court “reaffirmed” Austin’s holding in subsequent cases—namely, Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003); McConnell; and WRTL. Post, at 48–50.
Not so. Not a single party in any of those cases asked us to overrule Austin, and as the dissent points out, post, at 4–6, the Court generally does not consider constitutional arguments that have not properly been raised. Austin’s validity was therefore not directly at issue in the cases the dissent cites. The Court’s unwillingness to overturn Austin in those cases cannot be understood as a reaffirmation of that decision.
| 119 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:42:46pm |
re: #99 drcordell
Exactly. A "librul" judge who makes consistent efforts to consider issues only within the limited scope that they were presented to the court? ACTIVIST!
A "conservative" judge who accepts a case with limited scope, then expands it to completely gut 100 years of court precedent? Constructionist!
To which precedent do you refer?
| 120 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:42:50pm |
re: #106 avanti
She's not going to change her avatar, just balance it out with this one to be fair and drop it.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
| 121 |
badger1970 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:43:13pm |
re: #117 avanti
Who's going to be the illustrator? Kids need pics you know.
| 122 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:43:57pm |
re: #112 Guanxi88
Flag of Hamas
re: #113 Guanxi88
Which is on the flag of Hamas.
Hey! Take it up with HAMAS - it's their damned flag:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 123 |
Kragar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:44:18pm |
Speaking of evolution;
Labrador Retriever-Sized Herbivore Shakes up Theories of Dino Evolution
According to the Nature editor’s summary, Asilisaurus is an early member of the Ornithodira line, the “avian” group that broke off from the crocodile group during the time before dinosaur emergence. What does that mean for the dinosaur ancestry? The balance of opinion has alternated between more reptilian ancestors, which walked on all fours, and two-legged animals that had bird-shaped bodies but couldn’t fly. Recently, the idea of two-legged dino ancestors had been winning out, but the new find yanks the trend back toward quadrupeds [ScienceNOW].
Paul Barrett of London’s Natural History Museum says: “The creatures share a lot of features with dinosaurs,” he said. “They show us an intermediate step between more primitive reptiles and the more specialised dinosaurs” [BBC News]. While dinos hung around for 165 million years or so, the silesaurs like Asilisaurus lived only 45 million years before extinction. However, since silesaurs and true dinosaurs diverged from a common ancestor, the two groups should have existed during the same time frame [National Geographic]. Thus, the earliest emerging dinos might stretch back even to the time frame of this Asilisaurus, more than 240 million years ago.
MORE GAPS!
| 124 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:45:02pm |
re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Speaking of evolution;
Labrador Retriever-Sized Herbivore Shakes up Theories of Dino Evolution
MORE GAPS!
Khaki pants for all!
| 125 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:45:53pm |
re: #122 Guanxi88
Hey! Take it up with HAMAS - it's their damned flag:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
That is not what's in Mandy's avatar. It's the name of Allah (God in Arabic), plain and simple.
Sheesh.
| 126 |
Mad Al-Jaffee Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:46:02pm |
re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
That makes me want a dinosaur dog!
| 127 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:46:12pm |
re: #119 Aceofwhat?
To which precedent do you refer?
The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm. , 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC) , and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id. , at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 (1990) .
| 128 |
The Left Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:47:09pm |
re: #107 Jimmah
Wingnuts try to get hip - with terrifying results:
A rapper that looks even dumber, somehow, than Glenn Beck, some autotuned scarecrow who seems so happy to be so pissed off about Obama, and a star turn from a 'hardcore birther' who looks like David Mitchell from Peep Show. I know it looks like a heavy handed parody by mercilessly snarky libs, but as far as I can tell these are real wingnuts.
[Video]
I love it. Almost as terrifying as those other 'hip' conservative rappers who included a shout out to the shrieking harpy in their lyrics.
So sad.
| 129 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:47:13pm |
re: #76 Alouette
Wouldn't that be Barack Obama, Jr.? I thought II was only used if the name skipped a generation (grandson with the same name as grandfather)
It could be either way.
Usually it is Jr. until there is a grandson with the same name, then you get a II and III to distinguish.
Different naming conventions than ours entirely.
| 130 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:47:21pm |
Also completely ignored by the "umpire" and "non-activist" Roberts:
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL) , McConnell v. FEC , 540 U. S. 93 (2003) , FEC v. Beaumont , 539 U. S. 146 (2003) , FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life , Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL) , NRWC , 459 U. S. 197 , and California Medical Assn. v. FEC , 453 U. S. 182 (1981) .
| 131 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:47:27pm |
re: #107 Jimmah
proof again that the nether regions of either side of the political spectrum can be difficult to distinguish! crazy tends to look the same.
lucky for us, crazy also tends to look crazy - helps us call it out!
| 132 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:47:42pm |
re: #125 Cato the Elder
That is not what's in Mandy's avatar. It's the name of Allah (God in Arabic), plain and simple.
Sheesh.
You know, as I look at it (the avatar) more closely, I think you're right.
| 133 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:48:36pm |
re: #131 Aceofwhat?
proof again that the nether regions of either side of the political spectrum can be difficult to distinguish! crazy tends to look the same.
lucky for us, crazy also tends to look crazy - helps us call it out!
Really... I don't see this kind of crazy on the left?
| 134 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:48:57pm |
Mah Zeh?
MATZAH!
I know I am perverse, but I still have some from last year that I was munching on ;)
Still perfectly crispy. Apparently if you keep it dry it lasts longer than honey.
| 135 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:49:11pm |
re: #119 Aceofwhat?
To which precedent do you refer?
Hmm...your record of posting shows that your not really that dense, so you just must be playing at it now.
| 136 |
The Left Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:49:39pm |
re: #133 Walter L. Newton
Really... I don't see this kind of crazy on the left?
We don't have that particular brand of culturally clueless crazy, no.
| 137 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:49:41pm |
Aceofwhat?, if you want to claim that you agree with the Roberts ruling, go right ahead. I certainly am not entitled to prevent you from having your opinion. But what you can't do is try and claim that Roberts showed any form of restraint or conservatism when deciding the scope of what to examine in Citizens United vs. FEC.
| 138 |
Kragar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:50:08pm |
re: #126 Mad Al-Jaffee
That makes me want a dinosaur dog!
Can they have laser attached to their heads?
| 139 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:50:11pm |
re: #122 Guanxi88
Hey! Take it up with HAMAS - it's their damned flag:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
It is not the same. Same color yeah. Not the same script.
| 140 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:50:43pm |
re: #76 Alouette
Wouldn't that be Barack Obama, Jr.? I thought II was only used if the name skipped a generation (grandson with the same name as grandfather)
Seekrit Grandchild?
Changeling?
| 141 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:50:58pm |
re: #132 Guanxi88
You know, as I look at it (the avatar) more closely, I think you're right.
Of course I'm right. I fact-check my own ass before I bring stuff like this.
| 142 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:51:08pm |
re: #136 iceweasel
We don't have that particular brand of culturally clueless crazy, no.
I really didn't think so.
| 143 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:51:19pm |
re: #139 Stanley Sea
It is not the same. Same color yeah. Not the same script.
Yeah, I pulled up the avatar - I think cato's dead-on with the ID
| 144 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:51:27pm |
re: #128 iceweasel
I love it. Almost as terrifying as those other 'hip' conservative rappers who included a shout out to the shrieking harpy in their lyrics.
So sad.
Heh!. Some of the lyrical highlights:
"Look into my eyes - you'll see nothing but pies"
"I'm sick of smelling like a Mosque after Ramadan"
And of course : "Fool me once shame on me - fool me twice - it's not gonna happen"
which I think is an unconscious reworking of:
LOL
| 145 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:52:04pm |
| 146 |
Mad Al-Jaffee Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:52:07pm |
re: #138 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Can they have laser attached to their heads?
No, the frickin' laser beams are for the frickin' sharks.
| 147 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:52:23pm |
re: #127 drcordell
The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm. , 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC) , and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id. , at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 (1990) .
good quote. that's the part where they take "spending" and try to make it sound like "speech". this is not a question of what folks can spend. It's a question of whether they can say something. years of campaign spending law have not been overturned.
"Congress violates the First Amendment when it decrees that some speakers may not engage in political speech at election time, when it matters most."
bingo
what else?
| 148 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:53:07pm |
re: #131 Aceofwhat?
proof again that the nether regions of either side of the political spectrum can be difficult to distinguish! crazy tends to look the same.
lucky for us, crazy also tends to look crazy - helps us call it out!
No, not my point at all. Liberal snark merchants would have my full blessing to parody right wing lunacy like this - it's just that the real right wing lunatics beat them to it on this occasion.
| 149 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:53:15pm |
re: #145 ausador
ALIEN POD PERSON!!!
Well, it would explain some things, but might create more questions.
| 150 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:53:28pm |
re: #133 Walter L. Newton
Really... I don't see this kind of crazy on the left?
not trying to diminish through comparison...there's crazy all around...but seems to be more on the right these days. still, i'd say that crazy often resembles different crazy more than it resembles the original premise.
| 151 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:54:01pm |
re: #148 Jimmah
No, not my point at all. Liberal snark merchants would have my full blessing to parody right wing lunacy like this - it's just that the real right wing lunatics beat them to it on this occasion.
ha! i did misunderstand. i like this point even better!
| 152 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:54:04pm |
re: #141 Cato the Elder
Of course I'm right. I fact-check my own ass before I bring stuff like this.
You're not going to go very far as a polemicist with ethics and standards like that.
| 153 |
avanti Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:55:16pm |
re: #143 Guanxi88
Yeah, I pulled up the avatar - I think cato's dead-on with the ID
To be fair to Mandy, I'm sure she did not realize it was God's name in Arabic, even for some Christians. Pissing on Hamas's flag, I'm cool with that, but God's name in another language, not so much.
| 154 |
Ericus58 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:55:29pm |
Lufthansa embarrassed after Russian 'Stalingrad' hijack
The Daily Telegraph (London) 03/04/2010
Author: Andrew Osborn
"Lufthansa, the German airline, was left embarrassed after a competition to name a new aeroplane was rigged by Russians who nominated "Stalingrad," the site of one of Nazi Germany's worst defeats."
man, some people just can't let go.... ;)
| 155 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:56:17pm |
re: #152 Guanxi88
You're not going to go very far as a polemicist with ethics and standards like that.
Au contraire, mon ami.
Facts make all the difference between a polemic and a rant.
| 156 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:56:40pm |
re: #147 Aceofwhat?
good quote. that's the part where they take "spending" and try to make it sound like "speech". this is not a question of what folks can spend. It's a question of whether they can say something. years of campaign spending law have not been overturned.
"Congress violates the First Amendment when it decrees that some speakers may not engage in political speech at election time, when it matters most."
bingo
what else?
I'm confused. Speech equals spending. That is exactly what Roberts et all find in their ruling. Corporations have the right to free speech, and money is speech. Therefore corporations have the right to free spending.
| 158 |
Kragar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:57:13pm |
re: #146 Mad Al-Jaffee
No, the frickin' laser beams are for the frickin' sharks.
OK, tasers then. They can stun anyone who tries to run away.
| 159 |
zora Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:57:13pm |
re: #153 avanti
if that is the case and she has been asked about it several times, then i think she would say so herself. she is not shy.
| 161 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:57:21pm |
| 162 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:57:30pm |
re: #145 ausador
ALIEN POD PERSON!!!
Here's a current hypothesis that fits in with what we;ve heard thus far:
he's a Reptilian shape-shifting time traveller. He is also his own grandfather. This would explain the conflicting stories of when and where he was born, and would also account for the oddness of the Barack Obabam and Barack Obama II thing.
| 163 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:57:47pm |
re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
And in other news, Generalisamo Fransisco Franco is still dead.
FIFY
| 164 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:57:50pm |
re: #101 drcordell
Things were rolling along perfectly fine until Mandy started cracking wise. And yes, I still find her avatar disgustingly offensive.
How about you all just suck up it and move on or formally ask Charles to deal with it instead of all this passive-aggressive high school drama bullshit. She's had that for years. No one bitched until certain people decided that she was next on the list of right-of-center people to be bullied off of this forum.
No "voice from above" has ordered her to change it yet despite all the recent fauxtrage about it. There is precedent for it to happen here, as I've seen Stinky threaten tac-nuke strikes to people who don't change their avatar before. So either ask for a damn official ruling or shut the fuck up please, it's getting really tiresome.
| 165 |
Ericus58 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:58:13pm |
re: #127 drcordell
What was your source for this? You did pull this from somewhere, yes?
| 166 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:58:19pm |
re: #153 avanti
To be fair to Mandy, I'm sure she did not realize it was God's name in Arabic, even for some Christians. Pissing on Hamas's flag, I'm cool with that, but God's name in another language, not so much.
Not "even" for "some" Christians. It's the word Arab Christians use when they pray to God.
And if she didn't realize it then, she realizes it now.
No excuse.
| 167 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:58:44pm |
re: #137 drcordell
Aceofwhat?, if you want to claim that you agree with the Roberts ruling, go right ahead. I certainly am not entitled to prevent you from having your opinion. But what you can't do is try and claim that Roberts showed any form of restraint or conservatism when deciding the scope of what to examine in Citizens United vs. FEC.
I most certainly can. The government conceded the point during oral arguments.
[The Court:] I take it we have never accepted your shareholder protection interest. This is a new argument.
[The Government:] I think that that’s fair
[The Court:] In other words, you are asking us to uphold Austin on the basis of two arguments, two principles, two compelling interests we have never accepted in [the context of limits on political expenditures].
[The Government:] In this particular context, fair enough.
i so claim.
| 168 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:58:44pm |
re: #164 ArchangelMichael
How about you all just suck up it and move on or formally ask Charles to deal with it instead of all this passive-aggressive high school drama bullshit. She's had that for years. No one bitched until certain people decided that she was next on the list of right-of-center people to be bullied off of this forum.
No "voice from above" has ordered her to change it yet despite all the recent fauxtrage about it. There is precedent for it to happen here, as I've seen Stinky threaten tac-nuke strikes to people who don't change their avatar before. So either ask for a damn official ruling or shut the fuck up please, it's getting really tiresome.
Well said.
| 169 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:59:10pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
Not "even" for "some" Christians. It's the word Arab Christians use when they pray to God.
And if she didn't realize it then, she realizes it now.
No excuse.
It's turned into a pissing match, if you'll excuse the phrase.
| 170 |
lawhawk Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:59:26pm |
re: #130 drcordell
Also completely ignored by the "umpire" and "non-activist" Roberts:
Just so we're clear on this - who is activist - the court that restricts the first amendment in the first place, or the court that later decides the earlier restriction went too far or went in the wrong direction?
Stare decisis grounds would let any decision by any S.Ct. (regardless of whether you consider it activist or not) that restricts the 1st amendment to stand, but it would somehow be activist to overturn that prior decision restricting the 1st.
I think that's a grave misreading of the 1st, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is no mention of individuals or corporations in reference to the speech clause. It simply requires that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. As M/F abridged that freedom especially in respect to corporations, it should have been stricken as unconstitutional.
| 171 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:59:49pm |
| 172 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:00:01pm |
re: #147 Aceofwhat?
years of campaign spending law have not been overturned.
And yes, 103 years of campaign spending law has been overturned. The Tillman Act of 1907 is the first example cited in the dissenting opinion. That law had been held to be Constitutional for 103 years until John Roberts decided that he didn't like it, and would overturn it.
| 173 |
Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:00:04pm |
re: #102 Locker
True but maybe correct the source rather than the response.
I doubt the source would react at all to another piling on that particular point of contention.
Another adopting a similar style of avatar strikes me as a sort of "tu coque" defense. From that I predict it would simply create another point of contention that detracts from the quality of the blog as I see it. (Though it must be noted that this blog follows "one man, one vote" and Charles and the man, and he has the vote.) ;)
| 174 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:00:07pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
Not "even" for "some" Christians. It's the word Arab Christians use when they pray to God.
And if she didn't realize it then, she realizes it now.
No excuse.
She knows. She just doesn't give a shit.
| 175 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:00:56pm |
re: #171 cliffster
Obama American Agenda Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With a 50-Plus-1 Strategy
Glad to see he came around.
| 176 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:01:01pm |
re: #165 Ericus58
What was your source for this? You did pull this from somewhere, yes?
The dissenting opinion of the court.
[Link: www.law.cornell.edu...]
| 178 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:01:09pm |
re: #156 drcordell
I'm confused. Speech equals spending. That is exactly what Roberts et all find in their ruling. Corporations have the right to free speech, and money is speech. Therefore corporations have the right to free spending.
Speech equals spending? Trying to find the case law behind that...now i'm confused. Speech is speech. Whether it costs money or not (how much are you paying to speak on this blog?) is entirely different.
| 179 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:01:47pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
Not "even" for "some" Christians. It's the word Arab Christians use when they pray to God.
And if she didn't realize it then, she realizes it now.
No excuse.
And that means what? She knows, we all know. As a "friendly" atheist, you know how I feel about these things. It is offensive. But she's and adult, I suspect she has made a decision, and nothing will change it, unless the owner of this blog requests her to change it.
But I'm not sure how beating this to death changes anything. Get it over with, ask Charles.
| 180 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:02:20pm |
re: #137 drcordell
Aceofwhat?, if you want to claim that you agree with the Roberts ruling, go right ahead. I certainly am not entitled to prevent you from having your opinion. But what you can't do is try and claim that Roberts showed any form of restraint or conservatism when deciding the scope of what to examine in Citizens United vs. FEC.
I for one am looking forward to the new generation of political ads...
There are no where near enough unattributable and unaccountable attack ads on T.V. today so I'm very much looking forward to the 2010 election ads. This is going to be quite as hoot as hundreds of corporate ads join the regular ones and not limited to be "for" someone. Nope now they can be "against" them, make up shit, tell lies, stretch the truth, whatever you wish to call it.
The new legion of attack ads should be highly entertaining, but I'm not convinced that they are good for our democracy.
| 181 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:02:33pm |
re: #178 Aceofwhat?
Speech equals spending? Trying to find the case law behind that...now i'm confused. Speech is speech. Whether it costs money or not (how much are you paying to speak on this blog?) is entirely different.
Try and find the case law behind that? Citizens United vs. FEC is the case law. Roberts is the one who created the precedent. Which is what makes him an activist judge.
| 182 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:02:36pm |
re: #160 Obdicut
She's been told it about a zillion times.
which is enough, unless you're the new sheriff in town.
| 183 |
Only The Lurker Knows Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:03:20pm |
re: #164 ArchangelMichael
Well said. Thank You,
| 184 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:03:22pm |
re: #175 darthstar
Glad to see he came around.
I suppose if you're going to be a liar and a hypocrite, you should at least do it out in the open
| 185 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:03:51pm |
In other breaking news, I will not be buying a Gulfstream V this year, nor is it true that my wife is pregnant with triplets.
| 186 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:03:58pm |
re: #153 avanti
To be fair to Mandy, I'm sure she did not realize it was God's name in Arabic, even for some Christians. Pissing on Hamas's flag, I'm cool with that, but God's name in another language, not so much.
To be fair to every brain cell in our heads it must be noted that Mandy has been well aware of what her avatar is for some time now, because she has been told ages ago. She isn't changing it as one would if her misapprehension had been as you had stated.
But you know - I'm actually happy for her to keep it because its going to stop her from carrying out any more of her little faintings over words like "goddamn" or any other such manufactured piety-fuelled outrages that she likes to try to pull.
| 187 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:04:32pm |
re: #128 iceweasel
I love it. Almost as terrifying as those other 'hip' conservative rappers who included a shout out to the shrieking harpy in their lyrics.
So sad.
As an example of this phenomena, I wish to present the following, warning, brain melt will occur.
This is why there is some music that some exceptionally white folks should never attempt.
The original "remake" It is a song that is over 2500 years old after all:
A version that is excellent and uses more Hebraic modalities
And this is what will call brain melt:
| 188 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:04:38pm |
re: #185 Shiplord Kirel
In other breaking news, I will not be buying a Gulfstream V this year, nor is it true that my wife is pregnant with triplets.
It's Gulfstream IV, and she's having twins?
| 189 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:04:44pm |
re: #180 ausador
I for one am looking forward to the new generation of political ads...
There are no where near enough unattributable and unaccountable attack ads on T.V. today so I'm very much looking forward to the 2010 election ads. This is going to be quite as hoot as hundreds of corporate ads join the regular ones and not limited to be "for" someone. Nope now they can be "against" them, make up shit, tell lies, stretch the truth, whatever you wish to call it.
The new legion of attack ads should be highly entertaining, but I'm not convinced that they are good for our democracy.
Hmmm, sounds like the Internet.
| 190 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:04:55pm |
re: #182 Aceofwhat?
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
If an Arab-speaking Christian were to join the board, should they also not express any displeasure?
I don't get the idea that when something has been around long enough, it's okay.
| 191 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:04:56pm |
re: #177 Cato the Elder
phffphfft.
Seriously? How much time have we wasted arguing about her damn avatar the past few weeks? It's not unreasonable for me to say enough is enough for FFS.
| 192 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:05:34pm |
re: #184 cliffster
I suppose if you're going to be a liar and a hypocrite, you should at least do it out in the open
I think he's being pretty honest about what he wants. Whether congress can do it is another matter.
But let's not start throwing the "liar" and "hypocrite" labels around again. That kind of shit doesn't get anyone anywhere.
| 193 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:05:59pm |
re: #172 drcordell
And yes, 103 years of campaign spending law has been overturned. The Tillman Act of 1907 is the first example cited in the dissenting opinion. That law had been held to be Constitutional for 103 years until John Roberts decided that he didn't like it, and would overturn it.
Each year a law is challenged is not equivalent to a year a law is deemed constitutional. It's a fairly well-accepted principle, IIRC, that it is the frequency with which a law is upheld rather than the duration that matters.
Unless one disagrees with the decision, of course.
| 194 |
zora Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:06:30pm |
re: #191 ArchangelMichael
it is also reasonable for you not to argue about it anymore if you're tired of it.
| 195 |
The Left Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:06:52pm |
re: #164 ArchangelMichael
No one bitched until certain people decided that she was next on the list of right-of-center people to be bullied off of this forum.
That is a gigantic crock of shit.
And btw, I really don't think it's a good idea for you to encourage people to email CJ to complain about a poster's avatar. Do you think he has time for that shit?
People who are offended by it have said so. To Mandy. And we have to right to say so.
Deal.
| 196 |
Velvet Elvis Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:07:06pm |
re: #164 ArchangelMichael
How about you all just suck up it and move on or formally ask Charles to deal with it instead of all this passive-aggressive high school drama bullshit. She's had that for years. No one bitched until certain people decided that she was next on the list of right-of-center people to be bullied off of this forum.
No "voice from above" has ordered her to change it yet despite all the recent fauxtrage about it. There is precedent for it to happen here, as I've seen Stinky threaten tac-nuke strikes to people who don't change their avatar before. So either ask for a damn official ruling or shut the fuck up please, it's getting really tiresome.
I'm offended by it but I'd be more offended if anyone made her change it.
| 197 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:07:22pm |
re: #191 ArchangelMichael
Seriously? How much time have we wasted arguing about her damn avatar the past few weeks? It's not unreasonable for me to say enough is enough for FFS.
I take it as the beauty of having a community blog.
re: #190 Obdicut
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
If an Arab-speaking Christian were to join the board, should they also not express any displeasure?
I don't get the idea that when something has been around long enough, it's okay.
In my humble opinion, that person joining is very doubtful, unfortunately.
| 198 |
darthstar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:07:26pm |
re: #180 ausador
I for one am looking forward to the new generation of political ads...
There are no where near enough unattributable and unaccountable attack ads on T.V. today so I'm very much looking forward to the 2010 election ads. This is going to be quite as hoot as hundreds of corporate ads join the regular ones and not limited to be "for" someone. Nope now they can be "against" them, make up shit, tell lies, stretch the truth, whatever you wish to call it.
The new legion of attack ads should be highly entertaining, but I'm not convinced that they are good for our democracy.
Fox News can now be labeled a single political ad.
| 199 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:07:56pm |
re: #191 ArchangelMichael
Seriously? How much time have we wasted arguing about her damn avatar the past few weeks? It's not unreasonable for me to say enough is enough for FFS.
Charles can weigh in any time he likes. Until then, as I find it personally offensive, I'll continue to bore you with it.
Keep in mind that I like Mandy, and often upding her comments. And she mine. (Well, not that often.) This is not personal, nor an attempt to bully someone off the board.
| 200 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:08:03pm |
re: #190 Obdicut
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
If an Arab-speaking Christian were to join the board, should they also not express any displeasure?
I don't get the idea that when something has been around long enough, it's okay.
I think the green might tip them off that it's not aimed (so to speak) at them.
Still, it's been done to death already.
| 201 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:08:35pm |
The Party of No says "no' (again)....
House Republicans Support Restraint and Seclusion For Children
House Republicans gave their senate cohorts a run for their scum-sucking money when they refused to support H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.
The bill passed, but 153 House Republicans, so intent on saying no to any legislation introduced by a Democrat, couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.
The reason for voting against the legislation? Tyranny, religious oppression and the radical homosexual agenda, of course....
House Passes Bill That Intrudes on Private and Religious Schools
While acknowledging that preventing harmful restraint and seclusion is noble, Andresen Blom, the Executive Director of American Principles in Action, indicated that the expansion of federal regulations is deeply misguided:
"With radicals like Kevin Jennings being given powerful positions in the Department of Education, the last thing Americans need in the clumsy hands of the federal government is our private and religious schools. 80% of Catholic parochial schools as well as a large number of independent private schools accept some form of funding from the federal government. Americans do not pay their hard-earned money to private schools in order to subject them to burdensome and subjective regulations written by unelected federal and state bureaucrats. This is nothing less than another egregious federal power grab that intrudes on private and religious education."
LOL
| 202 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:08:56pm |
re: #192 darthstar
I think he's being pretty honest about what he wants. Whether congress can do it is another matter.
But let's not start throwing the "liar" and "hypocrite" labels around again. That kind of shit doesn't get anyone anywhere.
When a person lies and is hypocritical, what do you call it?
| 203 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:09:14pm |
re: #202 cliffster
When a person lies and is hypocritical, what do you call it?
In that industry? Business as usual.
| 204 |
Sheila Broflovski Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:10:00pm |
Well, if Mandy ever decides to change her avatar, she can use this one.
| 205 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:10:13pm |
re: #164 ArchangelMichael
How about you all just suck up it and move on or formally ask Charles to deal with it instead of all this passive-aggressive high school drama bullshit. She's had that for years. No one bitched until certain people decided that she was next on the list of right-of-center people to be bullied off of this forum.
What utter ill informed garbage. Not only has Mandy been trying to run new, liberal posters off the blog with her mob tactics "google their names!", but no-one on the left has been trying to get her or anyone else banned. A lot of people just find her avatar - particularly in combination with her fake "show some respect!" piety to be unacceptable. All the "Charles ban them please" action has been coming - in spades - from certain right wing posters here, who want to see several of us libs banned:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 206 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:10:18pm |
re: #193 Aceofwhat?
Each year a law is challenged is not equivalent to a year a law is deemed constitutional. It's a fairly well-accepted principle, IIRC, that it is the frequency with which a law is upheld rather than the duration that matters.
Unless one disagrees with the decision, of course.
But Roberts had absolutely no basis to examine ANY of the widely-held precedents that they completely gutted. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'll let the dissenting opinion speak for itself here:
in its jurisdictional statement to this Court, Citizens United properly advised us that it was raising only “an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of … BCRA §203.” Juris. Statement 5. The jurisdictional statement never so much as cited Austin , the key case the majority today overrules. And not one of the questions presented suggested that Citizens United was surreptitiously raising the facial challenge to §203 that it previously agreed to dismiss. In fact, not one of those questions raised an issue based on Citizens United’s corporate status. Juris. Statement (i). Moreover, even in its merits briefing, when Citizens United injected its request to overrule Austin , it never sought a declaration that §203 was facially unconstitutional as to all corporations and unions
Roberts single-handedly took it upon himself to force the court to decide on a much, much wider issue than the one it was presented with. Citizens United sued to have its restrictions on campaign spending loosened because it receives funding primarily from individuals. And then Roberts took that case, and expanded it to cover the Constitutionality of campaign finance regulation as a whole. If that is not judicial activism, what the fuck is?
| 207 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:11:18pm |
re: #181 drcordell
Try and find the case law behind that? Citizens United vs. FEC is the case law. Roberts is the one who created the precedent. Which is what makes him an activist judge.
WHY one wishes to restrict speech is less important then the question of WHETHER one may restrict speech.
Hooray, 1st Amendment.
| 208 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:11:25pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
Not "even" for "some" Christians. It's the word Arab Christians use when they pray to God.
And if she didn't realize it then, she realizes it now.
No excuse.
Is there a good excuse for harping on this same old meme ad nauseum?
I get that you dislike the picture,
Though around here it's really a fixture.
Please give it a rest,
And don't be a pest,
And please spare us another lecture.
| 209 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:12:05pm |
I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended
| 211 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:13:01pm |
re: #195 iceweasel
That is a gigantic crock of shit.
And btw, I really don't think it's a good idea for you to encourage people to email CJ to complain about a poster's avatar. Do you think he has time for that shit?
People who are offended by it have said so. To Mandy. And we have to right to say so.
Deal.
Eh. Makes other charges of "baiting" ring hollow. Baiting cuts both ways.
(obviously, no baiting at all is the preferred solution, imho)
| 212 |
SixDegrees Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:13:24pm |
re: #193 Aceofwhat?
Each year a law is challenged is not equivalent to a year a law is deemed constitutional. It's a fairly well-accepted principle, IIRC, that it is the frequency with which a law is upheld rather than the duration that matters.
Unless one disagrees with the decision, of course.
The history of treating corporations as individuals has a long history - here's a decent overview.
It should be noted that extending the rights - and responsibilities - of individuals to corporations is the fundamental basis for holding corporations responsible, just as individuals would be, for destruction of property, personal injury, wrongful death and a host of other actions; the very idea that a corporation can be sued arises from it.
There's an ongoing struggle in defining the boundaries of such recognition, but courts are generally averse, in the long run, to any decision resulting in something resembling a fractional person.
| 213 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:14:23pm |
re: #209 cliffster
I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended
Could you please repeat that?
| 214 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:14:31pm |
re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote
As an example of this phenomena, I wish to present the following, warning, brain melt will occur.
This is why there is some music that some exceptionally white folks should never attempt.
The original "remake" It is a song that is over 2500 years old after all:
[Video]
Gaah! How can he mess with the sacred legacy of Boney M like that? ;-)
| 215 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:14:44pm |
Here's a further dismantling of Robert's completely irresponsible conduct, as written in the dissent:
The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. Had Citizens United maintained a facial challenge, and thus argued that there are virtually no circumstances in which BCRA §203 can be applied constitutionally, the parties could have developed, through the normal process of litigation, a record about the actual effects of §203, its actual burdens and its actual benefits, on all manner of corporations and unions. 4 “Claims of facial invalidity often rest on speculation,” and consequently “raise the risk of premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of factually barebones records.” Id., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the record is not simply incomplete or unsatisfactory; it is nonexistent. Congress crafted BCRA in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation had failed to avert. The Court now negates Congress’ efforts without a shred of evidence on how §203 or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United. 5
| 216 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:14:49pm |
re: #199 Cato the Elder
Charles can weigh in any time he likes. Until then, as I find it personally offensive, I'll continue to bore you with it.
Keep in mind that I like Mandy, and often upding her comments. And she mine. (Well, not that often.) This is not personal, nor an attempt to bully someone off the board.
I know all of this. That said, an inordinate amount of time and bandwidth has been wasted so far on this subject, and I'm sure Charles knows what's going on. No action has been taken. So either ask for it, or drop it. The vast majority of the people, registered or otherwise who read LGF are tired of this crap day in and day out. Bitching, sniping, pissing contests between assholes with continent sized internet-egos. It got old along time ago.
| 217 |
The Left Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:15:18pm |
re: #211 Aceofwhat?
Eh. Makes other charges of "baiting" ring hollow. Baiting cuts both ways.
(obviously, no baiting at all is the preferred solution, imho)
I fail to see a single thing in my post which is 'baiting'.
BTW, CJ's comment that Jimmah just linked above is highly instructive in revealing who the genuine bullies are. as is Jimmah's point about the demands some make that people here start 'googling' certain lizards.
| 219 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:15:55pm |
re: #204 Alouette
Well, if Mandy ever decides to change her avatar, she can use this one.
I could get behind that. She could even put my name in there.
| 220 |
The Left Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:16:05pm |
re: #216 ArchangelMichael
So why join in?
Don't like it, scroll.
| 221 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:16:26pm |
re: #209 cliffster
I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended
re: #210 Stanley Sea
And so am I!!
I'm offended that Stanley's offended that cliffster's offended, and I'm offended that anyone mught consider being offended by my being offended.
| 222 |
SixDegrees Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:16:28pm |
re: #209 cliffster
I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended
Shut up - you're offending me. /
| 223 |
jaunte Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:17:04pm |
re: #217 iceweasel
I hear googling the lizard too much will affect your eyesight.
| 224 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:17:07pm |
re: #221 Guanxi88
I'm offended that Stanley's offended that cliffster's offended, and I'm offended that anyone mught consider being offended by my being offended.
Now comes the sacking?
| 225 |
lawhawk Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:17:15pm |
Those who are offended are themselves offended. /I'm offended.
Now, who's heading up the department of sacking, now those folks have themselves been sacked?
| 226 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:18:32pm |
re: #225 lawhawk
Those who are offended are themselves offended. /I'm offended.
Now, who's heading up the department of sacking, now those folks have themselves been sacked?
A Møøse once bit my sister ... No realli!
| 227 |
Velvet Elvis Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:18:39pm |
You know avatars are so impossibly hard to see on here that you have to click on them to see them. I'm sure some kind of argument could be made that people who don't want to be offended shouldn't be clicking on avatars.
| 228 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:18:41pm |
re: #225 lawhawk
We had the same thought?
Either you are slipping or I am getting smarter.
I'm guessing you are slipping.
| 229 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:18:45pm |
So what are we offended at?
Inquiring minds are desperate to know.
Without having to, you know, actually look for it.
| 230 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:19:04pm |
re: #209 cliffster
I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended I am offended
That's what Mandy says at the mere mention of the words like "goddammit".
That's why she's getting called out over her avatar.
| 232 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:19:33pm |
Thread to thread vendettas are piteous, jejune, boring, tedious, tawdry, obnoxious and a total waste of pixels, bandwidth, and time.
Some people just don't have a life, a creative mind, or anything better to do with their time I 'spose.
| 234 |
Digital Display Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:19:57pm |
re: #221 Guanxi88
I'm offended that Stanley's offended that cliffster's offended, and I'm offended that anyone mught consider being offended by my being offended.
I'm Hyper-offended..
/beat that!
| 236 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:20:11pm |
re: #206 drcordell
Roberts single-handedly took it upon himself to force the court to decide on a much, much wider issue than the one it was presented with. Citizens United sued to have its restrictions on campaign spending loosened because it receives funding primarily from individuals. And then Roberts took that case, and expanded it to cover the Constitutionality of campaign finance regulation as a whole. If that is not judicial activism, what the fuck is?
Because...
--
Given the nature of that claim and defense, it makes no difference of any substance whether this case is resolved by invalidating the statute on its face or only as applied to Citizens United. Even if considered in as-applied terms, a holding in this case that the Act may not be applied to Citizens United—because corporations as well as individuals enjoy the pertinent First Amendment rights—would mean that any other corporation raising the same challenge would also win.
Likewise, a conclusion that the Act may be applied to Citizens United—because it is constitutional to prohibit corporate political speech—would similarly govern future cases. Regardless whether we label Citizens United’s claim a “facial” or “as-applied”challenge, the consequences of the Court’s decision are the same.
--
The dissent agreed that CU's objections on narrower grounds were rightfully denied. Their broadest objection was that in their case, the law was unconstitutional. If true, then the law is unconstitutional. That's overreaching?
| 238 |
lawhawk Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:20:19pm |
re: #215 drcordell
Here's a further dismantling of Robert's completely irresponsible conduct, as written in the dissent:
The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. Had Citizens United maintained a facial challenge, and thus argued that there are virtually no circumstances in which BCRA §203 can be applied constitutionally, the parties could have developed, through the normal process of litigation, a record about the actual effects of §203, its actual burdens and its actual benefits, on all manner of corporations and unions. 4 “Claims of facial invalidity often rest on speculation,” and consequently “raise the risk of premature interpretation of statutes on the basis of factually barebones records.” Id., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the record is not simply incomplete or unsatisfactory; it is nonexistent. Congress crafted BCRA in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation had failed to avert. The Court now negates Congress’ efforts without a shred of evidence on how §203 or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United. 5
You can keep quoting from the dissent to argue that Roberts was somehow an activist, but note well that the dissent was the dissent because they couldn't manage to convince the other members of the court to their position. The judges debate these issues and decide how they're going to rule and who writes the opinions on that basis.
Moreover, I am sure someone with the luxury of time could point out any of those earlier cases and their dissents to claim that Roberts was right all along and that far from being activist was merely holding the line on 1st Amendment jurisprudence to correct the wrong that was placed upon it by M/F.
| 239 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:20:36pm |
re: #212 SixDegrees
The history of treating corporations as individuals has a long history - here's a decent overview.
It should be noted that extending the rights - and responsibilities - of individuals to corporations is the fundamental basis for holding corporations responsible, just as individuals would be, for destruction of property, personal injury, wrongful death and a host of other actions; the very idea that a corporation can be sued arises from it.
There's an ongoing struggle in defining the boundaries of such recognition, but courts are generally averse, in the long run, to any decision resulting in something resembling a fractional person.
agree completely.
| 240 |
Kragar Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:20:49pm |
| 241 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:21:09pm |
Also, note that Roberts himself heard an extremely similar case to Citizens United just two years ago. And yet he managed to avoid a facial challenge to all campaign finance laws just fine. Go look up Wisconsin Right to Life vs. FEC, from the year 2006.
Roberts managed to write that opinion without completely gutting 100 years of campaign finance law. Things have changed that dramatically in 2 years that Roberts now felt it appropriate to completely expand the scope of an as-applied challenge to a facial challenge?
| 242 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:21:15pm |
re: #208 Spare O'Lake
Is there a good excuse for harping on this same old meme ad nauseum?
I get that you dislike the picture,
Though around here it's really a fixture.
Please give it a rest,
And don't be a pest,
And please spare us another lecture.
Intolerance become a fixture
Is no reason not to fix it.
The opposite is true, in fact.
Said Cato. Ipse dixit.
| 243 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:21:31pm |
re: #232 Thanos
Thread to thread vendettas are piteous, jejune, boring, tedious, tawdry, obnoxious and a total waste of pixels, bandwidth, and time.
Some people just don't have a life, a creative mind, or anything better to do with their time I 'spose.
jejeune = easy decision to upding
| 244 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:21:57pm |
re: #233 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Same shit, Thursday.
Oh, cripes.
I had nothing to say about Killgore's popevatar.
I will have nothing to say on this, either.
| 245 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:22:18pm |
re: #214 Jimmah
Gaah! How can he mess with the sacred legacy of Boney M like that? ;-)
Some folks just ain't got soul:
Actually:
This is something from another direction of it that I truly adore, which oddly enough was originally don by Don McClean, but it sounds Jewish. Alas, it did not embed the first try.
| 247 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:22:53pm |
re: #241 drcordell
Also, note that Roberts himself heard an extremely similar case to Citizens United just two years ago. And yet he managed to avoid a facial challenge to all campaign finance laws just fine. Go look up Wisconsin Right to Life vs. FEC, from the year 2006.
Roberts managed to write that opinion without completely gutting 100 years of campaign finance law. Things have changed that dramatically in 2 years that Roberts now felt it appropriate to completely expand the scope of an as-applied challenge to a facial challenge?
"There the appellant was able to prevail on its narrowest constitutional argument because its broadcast ads did not qualify as the functional equivalent of express advocacy; there was thus no need to go on to address the broader claim that McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), should be overruled."
ahh. logic. smells of...rich mahogany and fine leather...
| 248 |
lawhawk Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:22:56pm |
re: #241 drcordell
Except that as an appellate court judge, he's required to find according to the law as it was then interpreted by the Supreme Court.
On the Supreme Court, you're the final arbiter of what the law means.
There's no problem with the manner in which Roberts decided the two cases.
| 249 |
Sheila Broflovski Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:23:39pm |
I made a new avatar for Mandy, using Calvin, reenacting Mandy's favorite saying.
| 250 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:24:07pm |
re: #236 Aceofwhat?
Because...
--
Given the nature of that claim and defense, it makes no difference of any substance whether this case is resolved by invalidating the statute on its face or only as applied to Citizens United. Even if considered in as-applied terms, a holding in this case that the Act may not be applied to Citizens United—because corporations as well as individuals enjoy the pertinent First Amendment rights—would mean that any other corporation raising the same challenge would also win.Likewise, a conclusion that the Act may be applied to Citizens United—because it is constitutional to prohibit corporate political speech—would similarly govern future cases. Regardless whether we label Citizens United’s claim a “facial” or “as-applied”challenge, the consequences of the Court’s decision are the same.
--The dissent agreed that CU's objections on narrower grounds were rightfully denied. Their broadest objection was that in their case, the law was unconstitutional. If true, then the law is unconstitutional. That's overreaching?
That's completely absurd. Roberts himself authored a majority opinion just TWO YEARS AGO considering the exact same issue! And managed to support an as-applied challenge rather than a facial challenge. What the hell changed?
| 251 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:24:14pm |
re: #244 reine.de.tout
Oh, cripes.
I had nothing to say about Killgore's popevatar.
I will have nothing to say on this, either.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised no one has taken offense at my crown sitting on top of the world.
*sigh*
It ain't easy being the Queen of Everything.
| 252 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:24:29pm |
re: #249 Alouette
I made a new avatar for Mandy, using Calvin, reenacting Mandy's favorite saying.
That was quick!
| 253 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:24:48pm |
| 254 |
avanti Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:04pm |
re: #217 iceweasel
I fail to see a single thing in my post which is 'baiting'.
BTW, CJ's comment that Jimmah just linked above is highly instructive in revealing who the genuine bullies are. as is Jimmah's point about the demands some make that people here start 'googling' certain lizards.
Look, Mandy may be a lot of things, but timid is not one of them. I survived her attacks early on and did not bail, I suspect she won't wilt at criticisms from her anyone, bullying or not.
I was attacked for using my USN Avatar and even dropped it for a bit until I convinced some that you could both serve and be a leftie.
Having said all that, we all have a free speech right to even offensive speech, and to bitch about offensive speech. I'd love to see Mandy rethink the avatar, but don't support forcing her to.
| 255 |
Sheila Broflovski Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:06pm |
re: #252 Stanley Sea
That was quick!
It wasn't so quick, I've been working on it since the beginning of this thread.
| 256 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:19pm |
| 257 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:32pm |
re: #251 reine.de.tout
Actually, I'm a bit surprised no one has taken offense at my crown sitting on top of the world.
*sigh*
It ain't easy being the Queen of Everything.
Rien de tout.
| 258 |
Mad Al-Jaffee Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:44pm |
If anyone is offended by cute dogs, I'll change my avatar.
| 259 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:48pm |
re: #248 lawhawk
Except that as an appellate court judge, he's required to find according to the law as it was then interpreted by the Supreme Court.
On the Supreme Court, you're the final arbiter of what the law means.
There's no problem with the manner in which Roberts decided the two cases.
WRTL vs. FEC was a Supreme Court Case. With Roberts acting as Chief Justice. Care to offer another explanation?
| 260 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:25:58pm |
re: #249 Alouette
I made a new avatar for Mandy, using Calvin, reenacting Mandy's favorite saying.
Clever... now if you could find the word "Holy Jihad" in Arabic...
| 261 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:26:26pm |
| 262 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:26:29pm |
re: #217 iceweasel
I fail to see a single thing in my post which is 'baiting'.
BTW, CJ's comment that Jimmah just linked above is highly instructive in revealing who the genuine bullies are. as is Jimmah's point about the demands some make that people here start 'googling' certain lizards.
in the past, it has been postulated that bringing a thing up over and over is a form of 'baiting'. i agree. but then...we need to apply the characterization evenly.
we all have things we don't like to scroll past. seems chummy to ask each other to limit those things.
| 263 |
wrenchwench Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:26:33pm |
re: #251 reine.de.tout
Actually, I'm a bit surprised no one has taken offense at my crown sitting on top of the world.
*sigh*
It ain't easy being the Queen of Everything.
That's the world?!? Why I oughtta...
| 264 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:26:35pm |
re: #258 Mad Al-Jaffee
If anyone is offended by cute dogs, I'll change my avatar.
I got bit by a cute dog when I was 10. Please change your avatar
| 265 |
Mad Al-Jaffee Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:27:08pm |
re: #264 cliffster
I got bit by a cute dog when I was 10. Please change your avatar
Was that on a first date?
| 266 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:27:23pm |
re: #254 avanti
I hated you when you first got here. Came after you too, now? You're one of my favorite Lizards even though we seldom agree.
(manly hug)
| 268 |
SixDegrees Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:27:39pm |
re: #232 Thanos
Thread to thread vendettas are piteous, jejune, boring, tedious, tawdry, obnoxious and a total waste of pixels, bandwidth, and time.
...and, sadly, seem to be increasingly common.
| 269 |
The Left Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:07pm |
re: #254 avanti
I'd love to see Mandy rethink the avatar, but don't support forcing her to.
Show where I supported "forcing her" to abandon her avatar.
You can't, because I didn't.
Frankly, I think it's an excellent idea for her to keep it-- for exactly the reasons Jimmah outlined above. :)
| 270 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:12pm |
re: #258 Mad Al-Jaffee
There are people out there who have lost dogs, man.
| 272 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:25pm |
re: #254 avanti
I always liked you just fine.
Still do.
Love it that you kept your temper in those days.
| 273 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:32pm |
re: #258 Mad Al-Jaffee
If anyone is offended by cute dogs, I'll change my avatar.
It's possible. There are some people with certain cultural sensibilities who are bother by dogs. I would suggest you change it as a preemptive to insulting someone of that ilk.
| 274 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:33pm |
re: #268 SixDegrees
...and, sadly, seem to be increasingly common.
Yeah, whatever happened to hating people you see face-to-face?
I tell ya, the web's destroying normal social interactions.
| 276 |
zora Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:57pm |
re: #249 Alouette
i'm glad you chose a rope. a "fuck you, you fucking fuckwad" avatar would not have been pretty.
| 277 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:28:59pm |
re: #264 cliffster
I got bit by a cute dog when I was 10. Please change your avatar
Any response to [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] ? Nah - didn't think so.
| 278 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:29:00pm |
re: #271 Mad Al-Jaffee
Work day's over. Time for home.
Come back here so I can beat your ass for the first date comment. Then you can go
| 279 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:29:55pm |
| 281 |
avanti Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:30:28pm |
re: #266 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
I hated you when you first got here. Came after you too, now? You're one of my favorite Lizards even though we seldom agree.
(manly hug)
Oh, crap, bromance on LGF now.
| 282 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:30:47pm |
OT
The Postal Service has been holding mail for my old address for one month today.
One of the consumer affairs "investigators" just as much as called me a liar when I told him that I had submitted my change of address on the 11th and the carrier had been holding my mail without authorization for a week before that.
According to him, the request was not submitted until the 19th and was not entered into the system until the 23rd, meaning that the requisite "7-10 postal business days" for mail to be forwarded have not quite passed. He did not explain how items mailed to me from the same zip code on the 1st of February are still being held, since it defies belief tha they would still be in the system 18 days later when the authorization allegedly started.
The problem with this is that no independent authority exists to investigate failures like this, and the postal inspectors and consumer affairs people are only interested in covering for their gravy train and its fellow riders.
Lubbock doesn't look much like Rio de Janeiro, but we have caught up with their postal service.
| 283 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:30:48pm |
| 284 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:31:03pm |
re: #205 Jimmah
I've never asked for anyone to be banned who wasn't obviously a sock puppet or and idiot mid-flounce. None of the drama shenanigans that went on behind the scenes with you and "those people" (you know who I mean) matter to the content and administration of this blog and they are none of my business. They can cry about it all they want but it's not Charles' problem either. I apologize to you and iDub (I like both of you, seriously) for accusing you of bullying anyone.
But with that in mind, I've simply witnessed that bitching about Mandy, her avatar, her opinions, her posting style has become flavor of the month here while other colossal assholes who tend to make LGF a painful scrolling experience here get a pass. Sorry, but putting up with what seems to me to be phony outrage to make some kind of a point, or simple high school cliquey drama when we are supposed to be intelligent, politically knowledgeable adults is offensive to me.
| 285 |
Ojoe Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:31:47pm |
re: #283 Thanos
Mostly I listen to the Chieftains & Battlefield Band & the like so I wouldn't know.
BBL
| 286 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:32:13pm |
re: #275 lawhawk
Okay, I got that case confused with a different one.
But see Ace's 247.
The proper order is narrowest to broadest, if i've learned anything in years of being a SCOTUS junkie. FEC vs Wisc. RTL could be decided on narrower grounds. In Citizens United, even the dissent agreed that the narrower arguments don't hold water, if i'm reading it right...
| 287 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:32:34pm |
re: #277 Jimmah
Any response to [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] ? Nah - didn't think so.
hahaha, wow you sure showed me
| 288 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:32:43pm |
| 289 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:33:26pm |
re: #230 Jimmah
That's what Mandy says at the mere mention of the words like "goddammit".
That's why she's getting called out over her avatar.
How honest of you. Thanks for admitting your true motive.
| 290 |
avanti Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:33:33pm |
re: #269 iceweasel
Show where I supported "forcing her" to abandon her avatar.
You can't, because I didn't.
Frankly, I think it's an excellent idea for her to keep it-- for exactly the reasons Jimmah outlined above. :)
Never said you did, but I've seem comments suggesting Charles could rule on the issue, and I'd rather he not do anymore then weigh in with a opinion if he has one.
| 291 |
Gus Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:33:34pm |
re: #252 Stanley Sea
That was quick!
I made one for drcordell. Which is available in two colors either...
//Jumps back into fox hole!
| 292 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:33:46pm |
re: #285 Ojoe
Mostly I listen to the Chieftains & Battlefield Band & the like so I wouldn't know.
BBL
Here's another band you might like then
| 293 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:34:19pm |
re: #282 Shiplord Kirel
we should have the govt take a bigger hand in health care. they run a heck of an operation...
(i kid...i kid...)
| 294 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:34:52pm |
re: #275 lawhawk
Okay, I got that case confused with a different one.
But see Ace's 247.
Yeah, I saw his 247. And it's a fine point. But he completely misses the issue that I am trying to raise, and the issue raised in the dissent. Roberts very well could have decided the merits of Citizens United vs. FEC properly. But he did so in a way that completely flies in the face of years of Supreme Court precedent.
The plaintiff in the case did not wish to present a facial challenge to the law in question. Roberts then takes it upon himself to create a facial challenge. Which, flies in the face of how the Supreme Court has conducted business for years.
Furthermore, Roberts decides this facial challenge without allowing ANY consideration of the massive change to the political landscape of this country his decision creates. As quoted in the dissent:
Congress crafted BCRA in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation had failed to avert. The Court now negates Congress’ efforts without a shred of evidence on how §203 or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United.
It's not that Roberts decided the way he did. It's that he went about coming to that decision in a way that micturates upon countless established court precedents. Whether it be the scope of the case at hand, case law, established Supreme Court protocol, you name it. He went about handling this ruling in a completely unorthodox manner. Which is fine, he's the Chief Justice. But don't try and call yourself a fucking "umpire" then.
| 295 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:35:03pm |
re: #284 ArchangelMichael
I can't speak for others, but as a Christian myself with Arab Catholic friends, my outrage is not at all phony.
| 296 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:35:05pm |
re: #269 iceweasel
Show where I supported "forcing her" to abandon her avatar.
You can't, because I didn't.
Frankly, I think it's an excellent idea for her to keep it-- for exactly the reasons Jimmah outlined above. :)
Yes - please Mandy, by all means keep your avatar if it's so important to you. Just drop the piety act. Or keep the piety act up and get your ass handed to you every time for hypocrisy - it's all good!
| 297 |
prairiefire Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:36:05pm |
re: #285 [Link: www.floggingmolly.com...] Molly is coming to KC.
| 298 |
Randall Gross Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:36:42pm |
Quick, who am I paraphrasing:
"If you bathe in the bile too long then the bile bathes in you...."
| 299 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:36:59pm |
re: #287 cliffster
hahaha, wow you sure showed me
Apparently, since what this is about - i.e. Mandy's hypocrisy has been made plain to you and you have no answer.
| 300 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:37:25pm |
| 301 |
prairiefire Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:37:45pm |
Trying again. Flogging Molly is coming to KC:
| 302 |
Only The Lurker Knows Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:38:05pm |
re: #300 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Just don't drink and drive.
| 303 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:38:21pm |
| 304 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:38:40pm |
re: #300 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Let's go to Faces.
Replace the "A" with an "E" and you guys are having an entirely different conversation!!!
//
eeewwww
| 305 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:38:45pm |
re: #299 Jimmah
Apparently, since what this is about - i.e. Mandy's hypocrisy has been made plain to you and you have no answer.
Deep breaths, dude. Load a bowl.. put a good buzz on
| 307 |
reine.de.tout Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:38:56pm |
re: #205 Jimmah
What utter ill informed garbage. Not only has Mandy been trying to run new, liberal posters off the blog with her mob tactics "google their names!", but no-one on the left has been trying to get her or anyone else banned. A lot of people just find her avatar - particularly in combination with her fake "show some respect!" piety to be unacceptable. All the "Charles ban them please" action has been coming - in spades - from certain right wing posters here, who want to see several of us libs banned:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
You and I have had our differences, and will in the future.
I don't know who exactly has sent those e-mails to Charles, but I'm not one of them and I would not try to tell Charles what to do.
Whether this place has an overall conservative or liberal tone to it, the fact is that there are people here who have more smarts in their little finger than I ever will have in my brain in my lifetime. To be able to be here and have access to that, and to be able to interact with folks like that, is a gift IMO. And I surely appreciate it.
| 308 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:39:25pm |
re: #73 ausador
His fathers name was Barack Obama, technically our President is Barack Obama II according to his birth certificate...well the certificate of live birth which of course is absolutely nothing like a birth certificate no matter how many Republican officials testify that they have seen the records and certified in writing that it is true...
///The sign is absolutely true Kenya was the bithplace of Barack Obama, just not Barack Obama II.
I keep imagining that one of these days Governor Lingle will go ape on the the nirthers.
| 309 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:39:51pm |
re: #282 Shiplord Kirel
Everybody loves to dump on the USPS, and I'm not minimizing your story, but:
I received two packages today. The first was from Washington State, and arrived here in Baltimore after two days. The second was from Washington, DC, and arrived in one day. Neither was sent express or priority, just regular first-class mail.
The Post Office is an example of government working, and working well.
| 310 |
Sheila Broflovski Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:40:17pm |
re: #291 Gus 802
I made one for drcordell. Which is available in two colors either...
//Jumps back into fox hole!
When I did a GIS on "Calvin pissing" the object that came up the most frequently was the Ford logo.
| 311 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:40:46pm |
re: #294 drcordell
It's not that Roberts decided the way he did. It's that he went about coming to that decision in a way that micturates upon countless established court precedents. Whether it be the scope of the case at hand, case law, established Supreme Court protocol, you name it. He went about handling this ruling in a completely unorthodox manner. Which is fine, he's the Chief Justice. But don't try and call yourself a fucking "umpire" then.
well (and i like the 'micturate' bit, so kudos there), if i bring an 'as applies' constitutional challenge and the court finds in my favor, i believe it's incumbent upon the court to also consider whether it's unconstitutional in my case, or would now be constitutional for anyone else given it's unconstitutional in my case.
And the dissent you quote is the part i hate the most. I could give two shits about WHY congress wanted to abridge the First Amendment. It's not just something we go trade in because we're not smart enough to figure out another way to skin the cat. Go figure out another way to skin the cat.
I think that's the way it's traditionally done.
| 312 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:41:11pm |
re: #309 Cato the Elder
Everybody loves to dump on the USPS, and I'm not minimizing your story, but:
I received two packages today. The first was from Washington State, and arrived here in Baltimore after two days. The second was from Washington, DC, and arrived in one day. Neither was sent express or priority, just regular first-class mail.
The Post Office is an example of government working, and working well.
And losing a shitload of money.
| 313 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:41:17pm |
| 314 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:41:24pm |
re: #309 Cato the Elder
Everybody loves to dump on the USPS, and I'm not minimizing your story, but:
I received two packages today. The first was from Washington State, and arrived here in Baltimore after two days. The second was from Washington, DC, and arrived in one day. Neither was sent express or priority, just regular first-class mail.
The Post Office is an example of government working, and working well.
But they're going to start closing on Saturdays
| 315 |
Guanxi88 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:41:53pm |
I dunno - for a while, I loved the "SWINGING FOLDING CHAIRS AT EACH OTHER" aspects of the place.
Now, I find myself more and more fond of the folk I was hitting and being hit by, and find the whole thing distasteful.
Doesn't mean I won't pick up a folding chair from time to time, but it'll be swung in the spirit of friendship, camaraderie, and intellectual sportsmanship.
You f*cking pigs/
| 316 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:42:23pm |
re: #284 ArchangelMichael
Sorry, but putting up with what seems to me to be phony outrage to make some kind of a point, or simple high school cliquey drama when we are supposed to be intelligent, politically knowledgeable adults is offensive to me.
Explain then how sporting an avatar like Mandy's which shows a kid pissing on the name of God, while faking outrage over mild cuss words involving the name of God is the expression of an intelligent, politically knowledgable adult?
Or alternatively, if you think it isn't then please tell me why pointing out that it isn't is inconsistent with being an "intelligent, politically knowledgable adult"?
Isn't pointing out blatant hypocrisy liek that part of what we do as "intelligent, politically knowledgable adults"?
| 317 |
Gus Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:42:23pm |
re: #310 Alouette
When I did a GIS on "Calvin pissing" the object that came up the most frequently was the Ford logo.
Yeah, those are the ones I usually see out on the road. On a Dodge pick-up.
| 318 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:42:25pm |
re: #309 Cato the Elder
(but we're glad LGF is on the internet and not via USPS)..
| 319 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:42:50pm |
re: #91 LudwigVanQuixote
We have a new denier troll in the thread downstairs. They just keep coming. It is like the days when we ran evolution threads...
I liked the evolution threads. I could actually follow the science on the evolution threads.
| 320 |
simoom Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:43:49pm |
In another Fail, a LaRoucher won the Democratic Party primary Tuesday night in Texas's 22nd, Tom Delay's old congressional district:
[Link: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...]
"LaRouche Democrat" Kesha Rogers: The victory in the 22nd Congressional District yesterday by LaRouche Democrat Kesha Rogers sent an unmistakable message to the White House, and its British imperial controllers: Your days are numbered. Kesha's campaign hit relentlessly at a single theme, that President Obama must go, that his attacks on this nation – with his dismantling of the manned space program, his efforts to ram through a fascist, killer “health care” policy, his endless bailouts for Wall Street swindlers, while demanding budget cuts which will increase the death rates among the poor, the sick, the elderly and the unemployed – are not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.Skeptics said that LaRouche's approach is impractical, it won't work, that Democrats will never support someone who is calling for the President's impeachment. Obviously, the voters of the 22nd district disagreed with those skeptics, as Kesha received 53% of the vote against two opponents. As Kesha told the Galveston Daily News last night, when a reporter asked if she expected support from the Democratic Party in the fall election, “I am leading a war against the British Empire. I'm not worried about what Democratic Party hacks say or do.”
...
This is your time to make history, to take this country back from the global speculators who are destroying everything precious to us. After we impeach Obama, we are going to implement the LaRouche Plan, beginning with a global Glass-Steagall, and full-funding for a Moon-Mars mission, as the essential science driver behind a major commitment to build the modern infrastructure this nation needs.
In Texas voters can choose which party's primaries they vote in and then vote for any candidate in the general (which was the mechanism behind Limbaugh's election '08 "Operation Chaos"). Wikipedia has Texas-22 as a Cook PVI R+13 district so hopefully she has no shot at winning.
| 321 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:43:50pm |
re: #312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
And losing a shitload of money.
Thanks in large part to the intarwebs, something the USPS has no control over.
| 322 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:44:52pm |
re: #311 Aceofwhat?
well (and i like the 'micturate' bit, so kudos there), if i bring an 'as applies' constitutional challenge and the court finds in my favor, i believe it's incumbent upon the court to also consider whether it's unconstitutional in my case, or would now be constitutional for anyone else given it's unconstitutional in my case.
Right. You have that exactly right. And instead of carefully considering the implications of the fact that they are facially challenging 100 years of established court precedent, Roberts et al. simply ignore the issue. They pay it a tiny bit of lip service, but nothing serious. Nothing that belies the severity of the fundamental changes they are making to our political system.
Again, not saying that Roberts made the wrong decision here. But they did so with complete and reckless abandon for the proper way these things are done in the Supreme Court.
| 323 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:44:58pm |
re: #310 Alouette
When I did a GIS on "Calvin pissing" the object that came up the most frequently was the Ford logo.
I heard a GM commercial day before yesterday on the radio. "A lot of long-time Toyota owners have started looking at GM and realizing how high-quality, affordable and safe they are. They get good gas mileage and they are safe." I think the word safe was said 20 times in that ad. Heh
| 324 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:45:26pm |
Postal service is about to get worse, the USPS is stopping routine Saturday deliveries.
This might mean lay-offs, but the union will not oppose these because those employees who remain will undoubtedly get big boosts in their already phenomenal pay and compensation. That is how managers deal with unions these days, if you can offer 51% of the members a big enough payoff, you can screw the other 49% any way you like. The kind of loyalty and solidarity we saw in unions in years past just does not exist. And why should it? Postal workers, longshoremen, and GM assemblers may be working class in education and tasking but they are upper middle class in income and benefits. They have children in elite colleges, elaborate retirement plans, and sizable investment portfolios to worry about. Their connection with the hard-bitten supporters of John L. Lewis and Eugene Debs is remote to say the least.
| 325 |
Eclectic Infidel Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:45:56pm |
I'm so excited. Today about 4-5 are us are going to Hayward to counter some anti-Israel folk. It's the little things in life that helps with these dark times.
I read some of the comments and as usual, there are accusations of "fascism" and "socialism."
| 326 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:45:58pm |
re: #321 Cato the Elder
Thanks in large part to the intarwebs, something the USPS has no control over.
Bandwidth tax!
| 327 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:47:03pm |
re: #316 Jimmah
Explain then how sporting an avatar like Mandy's which shows a kid pissing on the name of God, while faking outrage over mild cuss words involving the name of God is the expression of an intelligent, politically knowledgable adult?
Or alternatively, if you think it isn't then please tell me why pointing out that it isn't is inconsistent with being an "intelligent, politically knowledgable adult"?
Isn't pointing out blatant hypocrisy liek that part of what we do as "intelligent, politically knowledgable adults"?
I'll expect you to rush to my aid, then, the next time i'm in principled disagreement with folks and they fake outrage.
or we can do neither.
i'm good either way.
| 328 |
Locker Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:47:18pm |
re: #316 Jimmah
Explain then how sporting an avatar like Mandy's which shows a kid pissing on the name of God, while faking outrage over mild cuss words involving the name of God is the expression of an intelligent, politically knowledgable adult?
Or alternatively, if you think it isn't then please tell me why pointing out that it isn't is inconsistent with being an "intelligent, politically knowledgable adult"?
Isn't pointing out blatant hypocrisy liek that part of what we do as "intelligent, politically knowledgable adults"?
Couldn't agree more and it's hard to ignore that some people get a complete pass on things. I find it completely acceptable to call someone on their bullshit when they act totally offended 200pct of the time, sling one word insults, run from debates after proven wrong and still act like a victim.
If someone is nice to everyone and does their best to get along I'll be the first one to defend and take up for them. However if someone is a raving asshole all the time (like yours truly) I find it very, very difficult to criticize someone for fighting back. If you are going to mix it up, expect to get dirty and expect to take your lumps.
| 329 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:48:24pm |
re: #307 reine.de.tout
You and I have had our differences, and will in the future.
I don't know who exactly has sent those e-mails to Charles, but I'm not one of them and I would not try to tell Charles what to do.
Whether this place has an overall conservative or liberal tone to it, the fact is that there are people here who have more smarts in their little finger than I ever will have in my brain in my lifetime. To be able to be here and have access to that, and to be able to interact with folks like that, is a gift IMO. And I surely appreciate it.
I'm glad to hear you aren't one of them, Reine. And I agree with the rest of your post as well. Most people here of whatever political persuasion are great to talk to, argue with, have a laugh with or whatever and don't become obsessed like that.
| 330 |
simoom Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:48:46pm |
re: #320 simoom
A little more on Rogers:
[Link: www.fortbendnow.com...]
Kesha Rogers, seeking the Democratic nomination for Congressional District 22, has been making a big statement at the corner of U.S. 59 and Hwy. 6 in Sugar Land lately as she and campaign volunteers hold signs, one of which features a photo of President Barack Obama with an Adolf Hitler-style moustache. A larger sign features a space shuttle with the words, “come and take it.”
...
Rogers, a Lyndon LaRouche activist, is calling for the impeachment of Obama.“If you want to save NASA, call for the impeachment of Obama,” said Rogers Friday morning, and she and two campaign supporters were packing up their signs.
In her campaign literature, Rogers calls the government health care bill fascist, and says it will kill Americans. She also calls for a “global Glass-Steagall”
“The world is blowing out now; and we the people must force the matter of national sovereignty and bankruptcy reorganization into the discussion now, or there won’t be much of anything left to reorganize,” reads a handout from Rogers’ campaign. “That’s why I am running for Congress, and why I endorse LaRouche’s call to save the world with a global ‘Glass-Steagall.’ Nations must tell the bankers of the world, ‘You must take your losses, we are investing in productive jobs for our people again.’”
| 331 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:49:16pm |
re: #310 Alouette
When I did a GIS on "Calvin pissing" the object that came up the most frequently was the Ford logo.
Hahahahaha this is great. I'm changing it right now. Thanks!
| 332 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:50:09pm |
re: #331 drcordell
Hahahahaha this is great. I'm changing it right now. Thanks!
What is your logo all about? I don't recognize it?
| 333 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:50:22pm |
re: #327 Aceofwhat?
I'll expect you to rush to my aid, then, the next time i'm in principled disagreement with folks and they fake outrage.
or we can do neither.
i'm good either way.
nttawwt~~
| 334 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:50:56pm |
re: #322 drcordell
Right. You have that exactly right. And instead of carefully considering the implications of the fact that they are facially challenging 100 years of established court precedent, Roberts et al. simply ignore the issue. They pay it a tiny bit of lip service, but nothing serious. Nothing that belies the severity of the fundamental changes they are making to our political system.
Again, not saying that Roberts made the wrong decision here. But they did so with complete and reckless abandon for the proper way these things are done in the Supreme Court.
But isn't the Tillman act a ban on corporate contributions to candidates? How is that relevant to a ban on corporate speech that does not entail a direct donation to a candidate, except through inventiveness on Justice Stevens' part?
(asking honestly)
| 335 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:51:10pm |
re: #332 Walter L. Newton
What is your logo all about? I don't recognize it?
It's just a rat-face mask. Inside joke.
| 336 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:52:05pm |
re: #335 drcordell
It's just a rat-face mask. Inside joke.
You have an 'inside" with rats!?!?
Is that you, Sammy the Bull !?!?!?
| 337 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:52:21pm |
re: #333 sattv4u2
nttawwt~~
diet mountain dew does not belong up my nose. updinged you nevertheless...
| 338 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:53:18pm |
re: #332 Walter L. Newton
What is your logo all about? I don't recognize it?
Walter
Go to my companys web site. theres a bunch of openings, lots in Broomfield
Don't know if anything matches up
G'Luck
| 339 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:53:37pm |
re: #335 drcordell
I always thought it was a buck-toothed bear.
| 340 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:53:57pm |
re: #334 Aceofwhat?
But isn't the Tillman act a ban on corporate contributions to candidates? How is that relevant to a ban on corporate speech that does not entail a direct donation to a candidate, except through inventiveness on Justice Stevens' part?
(asking honestly)
Well, and this is my opinion here, I haven't read the case law on this. But I would assume that it's because fundamentally there is little difference.
Whats the big difference between a corporation giving $50,000 to a candidate to spend on election advertising, or that corporation spending $50,000 on ads that explicitly advocate for that candidate to be elected?
Fundamentally there isn't a difference. It's money being spent by a corporation to explicitly influence a given election in a specific candidates favor.
| 341 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:54:16pm |
re: #337 Aceofwhat?
diet mountain dew does not belong up my nose. updinged you nevertheless...
it doesn't??
Left ear canal??
| 342 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:54:57pm |
| 343 |
Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:55:02pm |
re: #201 Killgore Trout
The Party of No says "no' (again)...
House Republicans Support Restraint and Seclusion For Children
LOL
Harry Ried should put up a "Child Molestation is a Bad Thing, O.K.?" referendum just to get Republicans on record as voting against it since it was put forward by the dems.
/why not?
| 344 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:55:07pm |
re: #289 Spare O'Lake
re: #230 Jimmah
That's what Mandy says at the mere mention of the words like "goddammit".
That's why she's getting called out over her avatar.
How honest of you. Thanks for admitting your true motive.
Yes, calling out blatant hypocrisy, as I and others have made clear all along.
| 345 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:55:18pm |
| 346 |
cliffster Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:55:23pm |
re: #342 cliffster
Not like FBV. You can't coach that stuff.
| 347 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:55:34pm |
re: #309 Cato the Elder
Everybody loves to dump on the USPS, and I'm not minimizing your story, but:
I received two packages today. The first was from Washington State, and arrived here in Baltimore after two days. The second was from Washington, DC, and arrived in one day. Neither was sent express or priority, just regular first-class mail.
The Post Office is an example of government working, and working well.
I wouldn't assert that everything the USPS does is a monumental snafu, anymore than I would generalize about a fast coast-to-coast delivery. However, the lack of accountability and response I have encountered is a systemic problem and potentially a very serious one. The USPS's status as an independent agency probably aggravates this.
Otoh, maybe I should have moved to Baltimore rather than to the other side of the same zip code.
| 348 |
prairiefire Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:55:53pm |
re: #301 prairiefire
I think that would be a fun show. The only thing is, I'm getting so old, I don't like being jostled by boisterous young 'uns.
| 349 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:56:04pm |
re: #316 Jimmah
Isn't pointing out blatant hypocrisy liek that part of what we do as "intelligent, politically knowledgable adults"?
Once or twice. Not beating it like a dead horse multiple times a day every day for weeks.
| 350 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:58:04pm |
re: #349 ArchangelMichael
Once or twice. Not beating it like a dead horse multiple times a day every day for weeks.
I thought that was what monitors and the "report" button was for.
| 351 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:00:30pm |
re: #338 sattv4u2
Walter
Go to my companys web site. theres a bunch of openings, lots in Broomfield
Don't know if anything matches up
G'Luck
Will do.
| 352 |
drcordell Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:00:32pm |
I'm out. Nice talking with you aceofwhat, always nice to get into it with someone and not have it devolve into a complete pissing match. Cheers.
| 353 |
Eclectic Infidel Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:01:00pm |
re: #101 drcordell
Things were rolling along perfectly fine until Mandy started cracking wise. And yes, I still find her avatar disgustingly offensive.
Especially since I've personally known Muslims (former neighborhood in San Francisco - Parkside district) who are decent folk to be around. I say this as an atheist who doesn't go out of his way to demean religious symbols. Just sharing.
| 354 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:01:17pm |
re: #340 drcordell
Well, and this is my opinion here, I haven't read the case law on this. But I would assume that it's because fundamentally there is little difference.
Whats the big difference between a corporation giving $50,000 to a candidate to spend on election advertising, or that corporation spending $50,000 on ads that explicitly advocate for that candidate to be elected?
Fundamentally there isn't a difference. It's money being spent by a corporation to explicitly influence a given election in a specific candidates favor.
corporation giving money to candidate = donation. reason = don't care.
corporation buying their own ad time = speech.
to me, at least, there's a huuuge distinction. this may be where we disagree personally, and i don't begrudge your personal opinion (i know you don't begrudge mine either - recognized+appreciated).
But it also seems to me that A = Tillman act and B = First Amendment. It feels like [legally speaking] there are miles between the two.
I'm not a lawyer either, just a SCOTUS reader, so i have no more qualification on it than you, in case i wasn't transparent about it earlier.
| 355 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:02:33pm |
re: #352 drcordell
I'm out. Nice talking with you aceofwhat, always nice to get into it with someone and not have it devolve into a complete pissing match. Cheers.
likewise. good stuff.
| 356 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:03:59pm |
re: #328 Locker
Couldn't agree more and it's hard to ignore that some people get a complete pass on things. I find it completely acceptable to call someone on their bullshit when they act totally offended 200pct of the time, sling one word insults, run from debates after proven wrong and still act like a victim.
If someone is nice to everyone and does their best to get along I'll be the first one to defend and take up for them. However if someone is a raving asshole all the time (like yours truly) I find it very, very difficult to criticize someone for fighting back. If you are going to mix it up, expect to get dirty and expect to take your lumps.
Yep - full agreement there, Locker. "If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen with that flamethrower?"
| 357 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:04:26pm |
re: #354 Aceofwhat?
I'm not a lawyer either, ,
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night ,, does that count ??
| 358 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:05:40pm |
re: #349 ArchangelMichael
Once or twice. Not beating it like a dead horse multiple times a day every day for weeks.
Speaking for myself - I've once mentioned it a few times and usually when Mandy has just perpetrated another act of outstanding hypocrisy like the one referenced. I imagine the same probably goes for others.
| 359 |
Silvergirl Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:07:44pm |
re: #164 ArchangelMichael
How about you all just suck up it and move on or formally ask Charles to deal with it instead of all this passive-aggressive high school drama bullshit. She's had that for years. No one bitched until certain people decided that she was next on the list of right-of-center people to be bullied off of this forum.
No "voice from above" has ordered her to change it yet despite all the recent fauxtrage about it. There is precedent for it to happen here, as I've seen Stinky threaten tac-nuke strikes to people who don't change their avatar before. So either ask for a damn official ruling or shut the fuck up please, it's getting really tiresome.
It's gone beyond passive aggressive. It's ranging into "Death to Salman Rushdie" territory.
| 360 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:07:47pm |
re: #358 Jimmah
Speaking for myself - I've once mentioned it a few times and usually when Mandy has just perpetrated another act of outstanding hypocrisy like the one referenced. I imagine the same probably goes for others.
Have you sent a 'report" of her transgressions to Charles? If not, do so. if so, I would leave it in his (more than) capable hands
| 361 |
ArchangelMichael Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:10:06pm |
re: #358 Jimmah
Speaking for myself - I've once mentioned it a few times and usually when Mandy has just perpetrated another act of outstanding hypocrisy like the one referenced. I imagine the same probably goes for others.
Well I'm not here hours on end everyday anymore. Too many meat-world problems to deal with, but it's been going on long and often enough for me to not only notice but get perturbed by it. I didn't mean to start World War 3 with any of you over this, just wanted it dealt with and moved past.
| 362 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:11:03pm |
re: #30 Locker
re: #46 Jimmah
So for one it's the outrage at the special treatment, and for the other(s) it's the outrage at the outrageous hypocrisy.
Oh, by the way, I just wanted to express my relief that your outrage is grounded in hateful jealousy and personal animosity, and not in any concern for offending believers in Allah.
Hahahahah...talk about hypocrisy...hahahahaha.
| 363 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:11:46pm |
re: #360 sattv4u2
Have you sent a 'report" of her transgressions to Charles? If not, do so. if so, I would leave it in his (more than) capable hands
Do you think he has nothing better to do than adjudicate over every argument that comes up? That's infantile.
Like I said, I'm not pressuring her to pull her avatar - I will call out her hypocrisy though anytime she tries to fake outrage over some minor offense towards HER god.
| 364 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:12:31pm |
re: #355 Aceofwhat?
Ace is my favorite guy at LGF who's wrong about everything.
//
| 365 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:13:27pm |
re: #347 Shiplord Kirel
Otoh, maybe I should have moved to Baltimore rather than to the other side of the same zip code.
Talk about extreme solutions!
Although having a Shiplord here in town would be mondo cool.
| 366 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:15:07pm |
re: #363 Jimmah
Do you think he has nothing better to do than adjudicate over every argument that comes up? That's infantile.
Like I said, I'm not pressuring her to pull her avatar - I will call out her hypocrisy though anytime she tries to fake outrage over some minor offense towards HER god.
No ,, but I do KNOW that if he wanted the offensive avatar removed, or her "fake outrage" deleted, it would be gone. He asked Mandy awhile back to stop referring to Pres. Obama with the string of letters she used as his "name" and she hasn't since
| 368 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:15:51pm |
re: #364 Obdicut
Ace is my favorite guy at LGF who's wrong about everything.
//
Compliment accepted. The imprint of the back of your hand on my skin will fade soon enough!//
| 369 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:16:15pm |
re: #363 Jimmah
Do you think he has nothing better to do than adjudicate over every argument that comes up? That's infantile.
Like I said, I'm not pressuring her to pull her avatar - I will call out her hypocrisy though anytime she tries to fake outrage over some minor offense towards HER god.
That happened in this thread?
| 370 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:18:36pm |
re: #31 Aceofwhat?
Employment questions aside, Roberts is my fav logician on the court. Even that guy's poo is smart.
I mentioned the other day that the only vote that's close to libertarian is Thomas.
| 371 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:19:20pm |
re: #369 Aceofwhat?
That happened in this thread?
no ,, but there was a nasal Mountain Dew Spew I heard about! !
/
| 372 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:19:56pm |
re: #370 RogueOne
I mentioned the other day that the only vote that's close to libertarian is Thomas.
I don't find myself in agreement with him as often as I do Roberts...although I think his stance on oral arguments is fascinating.
| 373 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:20:00pm |
re: #369 Aceofwhat?
Mandy's comment that started it all:
And, the same Roberts that upheld removing the Ten Commandments from pubic [sic] property.
I assume that's pious outrage there, but I could be wrong.
| 374 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:20:07pm |
re: #362 Spare O'Lake
re: #46 Jimmah
So for one it's the outrage at the special treatment, and for the other(s) it's the outrage at the outrageous hypocrisy.
Oh, by the way, I just wanted to express my relief that your outrage is grounded in hateful jealousy and personal animosity, and not in any concern for offending believers in Allah.
Hahahahah...talk about hypocrisy...hahahahaha.
Jealousy - of what, exactly? And I assure you I have no personal animosity against Mandy - just some of the things she says and stunts she tries to pull here.
Speaking of "hateful jealousy and personal animosity" - that's quite obviously your bag Spare. Nice projection, as always.
PS As I've stated when this came up before - I think Mandy's avatar, and more importantly the willingness of some people to defend it, would be a great turn off to any muslim posters who happened to register here.
| 375 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:20:11pm |
re: #370 RogueOne
If you ignore everything involving police powers, that is.
| 376 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:20:19pm |
re: #371 sattv4u2
no ,, but there was a nasal Mountain Dew Spew I heard about! !
/
when you're en fuego, you're en fuego.
| 377 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:20:35pm |
re: #372 Aceofwhat?
I don't find myself in agreement with him as often as I do Roberts...although I think his stance on oral arguments is fascinating.
There was an article floating around last week about that, you read it?
| 378 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:20:52pm |
re: #370 RogueOne
I mentioned the other day that the only vote that's close to libertarian is Thomas.
For "libertarian" read "reactionary".
| 379 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:22:53pm |
re: #366 sattv4u2
No ,, but I do KNOW that if he wanted the offensive avatar removed, or her "fake outrage" deleted, it would be gone.
Since when did Charles delete comments for hypocrisy or simply for making an invalid argument?
| 380 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:23:30pm |
re: #373 Cato the Elder
Mandy's comment that started it all:
I assume that's pious outrage there, but I could be wrong.
She was responding/concurring to my post that, despite fears to the contrary, Roberts IMHO subjugates personal opinion to proper jurisprudence.
She was agreeing that Roberts made the right decision WRT the ten commandments bit. I don't think that's pious outrage.
| 381 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:23:32pm |
re: #376 Aceofwhat?
when you're en fuego, you're en fuego.
and when you're not, you're not
(now all I have to do is marry a 14 year old cousin and I could be Jerry Lee Lewis
| 382 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:24:06pm |
re: #377 RogueOne
There was an article floating around last week about that, you read it?
no - is it buried here somewhere so that i could search?
| 383 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:24:20pm |
re: #374 Jimmah
As I've stated when this came up before - I think Mandy's avatar, and more importantly the willingness of some people to defend it, would be a great turn off to any muslim posters who happened to register here.
And I for one would love to see some Muslim posters here. For one thing, it would make Pam Geller's head explode.
| 385 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:25:05pm |
re: #375 Obdicut
If you ignore everything involving police powers, that is.
A few years ago Kelo V. New London and Gonzalez V. Reich came up, Thomas was the only justice to stay consistently in favor of the individual over the state. He's the closest thing to a libertarian we have on the court and at this point I'll take what I can get.
| 386 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:25:28pm |
re: #383 Cato the Elder
And I for one would love to see some Muslim posters here. For one thing, it would make Pam Geller's head explode.
We had one, very briefly, at one point.
| 388 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:25:40pm |
| 389 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:25:54pm |
re: #384 Cato the Elder
I stand corrected.
No problemo. Although it does leave my original question unanswered...
| 390 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:26:33pm |
re: #385 RogueOne
I'm sorry, but I do think if you read up his police powers decisions you'll change your mind.
| 391 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:27:01pm |
re: #382 Aceofwhat?
no - is it buried here somewhere so that i could search?
I posted it in one of the morning threads but I'm having a hard time remembering where I found it first. Give me a second....
| 392 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:27:24pm |
re: #391 RogueOne
I posted it in one of the morning threads but I'm having a hard time remembering where I found it first. Give me a second...
no worries. i'll find it.
| 393 |
Aye Pod Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:28:00pm |
re: #383 Cato the Elder
And I for one would love to see some Muslim posters here. For one thing, it would make Pam Geller's head explode.
Me too. Some Scottish progressive Muslims would make a great wee addition here...hehe.
Dinner time - BBL.
| 394 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:28:31pm |
re: #390 Obdicut
I'm sorry, but I do think if you read up his police powers decisions you'll change your mind.
the Berghuis v. Thompkins oral arguments are really interesting.
| 395 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:29:21pm |
re: #389 Aceofwhat?
No problemo. Although it does leave my original question unanswered...
Mandy recently apologized to me for taking the Lord's name in vain in a post that I didn't even remember.
I replied that if she wanted to make it up to me, she could stop pissing on the Name of God in her avatar. That seems hypocritical to me, but it's merely my opinion.
Apparently some others around here agree.
| 396 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:30:08pm |
re: #379 Jimmah
Since when did Charles delete comments for hypocrisy or simply for making an invalid argument?
eye of the beholder, no!?
I looked at the avatar once (when someone mentioned it) It is what it is. I don't need (nor want) to see it again. That stated, if Charles wants the avatar removed, it WILL be gone, one way or another
| 397 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:30:23pm |
re: #393 Jimmah
Me too. Some Scottish progressive Muslims would make a great wee addition here...hehe.
Dinner time - BBL.
updinged for "scottish progressive Muslim". is it possible for me to inoffensively ask if such a rare creature can be found in the wild?
(eat dinner first. i know where i rank//)
| 398 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:30:41pm |
re: #392 Aceofwhat?
no worries. i'll find it.
Too late. I believe this has all the appropriate.
Clarence Thomas: The Pen Is Mightier Than the Microphone
[Link: reason.com...]
| 399 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:31:33pm |
re: #397 Aceofwhat?
updinged for "scottish progressive Muslim". is it possible for me to inoffensively ask if such a rare creature can be found in the wild?
(eat dinner first. i know where i rank//)
Of course not. No true Scottish Muslim could ever be a progressive. ;^)
| 400 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:31:37pm |
re: #390 Obdicut
I'm sorry, but I do think if you read up his police powers decisions you'll change your mind.
You're a statist, I'd expect you not to like him.
| 401 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:31:45pm |
re: #395 Cato the Elder
Mandy recently apologized to me for taking the Lord's name in vain in a post that I didn't even remember.
I replied that if she wanted to make it up to me, she could stop pissing on the Name of God in her avatar. That seems hypocritical to me, but it's merely my opinion.
Apparently some others around here agree.
Seems fine. Note that you left it in that thread. I'm at a teeny bit of a loss as to the justification for this thread's hand-wringing.
| 402 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:35:33pm |
re: #400 RogueOne
I can never tell if you're being serious or not when you do things like call me a statist and say I hate the first amendment. It's so ludicrously untrue.
You're highly concerned with citizens interactions with the police. In every decision I'm aware off, Thomas has sided with law enforcement over citizens.
| 403 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:35:54pm |
re: #398 RogueOne
Too late. I believe this has all the appropriate.
Clarence Thomas: The Pen Is Mightier Than the Microphone
[Link: reason.com...]
Cool. It's such a shame that he's the focus of so much hate.
| 404 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:38:03pm |
re: #401 Aceofwhat?
Seems fine. Note that you left it in that thread. I'm at a teeny bit of a loss as to the justification for this thread's hand-wringing.
Maybe because the avatar is a constant offense to some people?
Mandy is not shy, as you may have noticed. If the cartoon were defensible, she would defend it. But not so much as a peep out of her, not even a "go piss up a rope". She knows it's wrong.
| 405 |
Silvergirl Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:39:36pm |
re: #227 Conservative Moonbat
You know avatars are so impossibly hard to see on here that you have to click on them to see them. I'm sure some kind of argument could be made that people who don't want to be offended shouldn't be clicking on avatars.
And why not SCROLL, as has been so often offered as advice to others?
| 406 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:41:10pm |
re: #402 Obdicut
I can never tell if you're being serious or not when you do things like call me a statist and say I hate the first amendment. It's so ludicrously untrue.
You're highly concerned with citizens interactions with the police. In every decision I'm aware off, Thomas has sided with law enforcement over citizens.
I gave you a +1 because I was jokingly calling you a statist, but lets face it you do have statist leanings. You can't help it, it's part of liberal culture.
Find me any other justice that votes more often than Thomas in limiting federal power and for the individual over the state and I'll drop him into second place on my good justice list. Right now that position is vacant anyway. He's not perfect but since I know I'm never going to get an actual libertarian on the court I'll take what I can get.
| 407 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:42:02pm |
re: #404 Cato the Elder
Maybe because the avatar is a constant offense to some people?
Mandy is not shy, as you may have noticed. If the cartoon were defensible, she would defend it. But not so much as a peep out of her, not even a "go piss up a rope". She knows it's wrong.
Eh. At some point, don't we lodge our grievance and then move along? But if not, what you state would at least be your transparent feeling.
IIRC, some said that their objection was to pious outrage (which would be hypocritical) and as such limited solely to responses. I couldn't find such an instance here, so i'm puzzled.
| 408 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:43:03pm |
Obdi, in case you're not sure that whole first sentence was a joke. I'm the kind of person where If I didn't like you I'd make sure you knew it. You can take every insult I lob at you as a joke. I don't have to agree with people in order to like them.
| 409 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:43:15pm |
re: #405 Silvergirl
And why not SCROLL, as has been so often offered as advice to others?
heh. one of these days i'm gonna moon everyone and see how long it takes for folks to figure it out.
well...on second thought...i kinda like posting here.
| 410 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:44:01pm |
re: #406 RogueOne
I gave you a +1 because I was jokingly calling you a statist, but lets face it you do have statist leanings. You can't help it, it's part of liberal culture.
First of all, there's no such thing as 'liberal culture'. Second of all, by that criteria, everyone's a statist-- everyone believes a state is necessary. Other than anarchists. The extent to which they think the state should have domain is scalar, not ideological.
Find me any other justice that votes more often than Thomas in limiting federal power and for the individual over the state and I'll drop him into second place on my good justice list. Right now that position is vacant anyway. He's not perfect but since I know I'm never going to get an actual libertarian on the court I'll take what I can get.
I'm simply pointing out that on every police vs. citizen decision he's made, he's on the side of the police. Thus me saying that he's the most libertarian if you ignore those decisions-- I happen to feel that particular power dynamic is one of the most absolutely important to any 'libertarian' ideal.
| 411 |
Silvergirl Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:44:04pm |
re: #404 Cato the Elder
Maybe because the avatar is a constant offense to some people?
Mandy is not shy, as you may have noticed. If the cartoon were defensible, she would defend it. But not so much as a peep out of her, not even a "go piss up a rope". She knows it's wrong.
If she hasn't said she knows it's wrong, let her speak for herself. Maybe she's not peeping because she's LHOA at the outrage. Wind up your dinger, Cato.
| 413 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:45:37pm |
re: #411 Silvergirl
If she hasn't said she knows it's wrong, let her speak for herself. Maybe she's not peeping because she's LHOA at the outrage. Wind up your dinger, Cato.
IN BED!!!
| 414 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:47:00pm |
re: #410 Obdicut
First of all, there's no such thing as 'liberal culture'.
don't sell yourself short. you're a culture of one, springy tendons and all//
| 415 |
Page 3 in the Binder of Women Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:48:44pm |
| 416 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:48:55pm |
re: #410 Obdicut
First of all, there's no such thing as 'liberal culture'. Second of all, by that criteria, everyone's a statist-- everyone believes a state is necessary. Other than anarchists. The extent to which they think the state should have domain is scalar, not ideological.
Sure there is such a thing as liberal culture and you're right, both sides of the aisle are statists. It's just a matter of what behavior they want to control that seperates the two but the end result is the same.
Conservatives want marijuana to remain illegal because drugs are bad, while liberals just want it legalized just so they can outlaw it again because smoking is bad and it's brought in by non-union truck drivers.
| 417 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:51:38pm |
re: #416 RogueOne
Sure there is such a thing as liberal culture and you're right, both sides of the aisle are statists. It's just a matter of what behavior they want to control that seperates the two but the end result is the same.
Conservatives want marijuana to remain illegal because drugs are bad, while liberals just want it legalized just so they can outlaw it again because smoking is bad and it's brought in by non-union truck drivers.
here there be a conservative who wants legalized marijuana. anti-marijuana pursuits waste money as quickly and with as much efficacy as just about any other big-gubmint program.
sometimes i think i'd make a great centrist politician, except that (a) i don't want to be one and (b) i'd get my a$$ kicked in every primary every time.
| 418 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:52:33pm |
re: #416 RogueOne
Tell me what liberal culture is, then.
And you do support the existence of a state, right? You're not an anarchist?
| 419 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:55:31pm |
re: #417 Aceofwhat?
here there be a conservative who wants legalized marijuana. anti-marijuana pursuits waste money as quickly and with as much efficacy as just about any other big-gubmint program.
sometimes i think i'd make a great centrist politician, except that (a) i don't want to be one and (b) i'd get my a$$ kicked in every primary every time.
Add to that one that has no problem with Adam and Steve getting married and you have me!
| 420 |
RogueOne Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:08:00pm |
re: #418 Obdicut
Tell me what liberal culture is, then.
And you do support the existence of a state, right? You're not an anarchist?
No, I'm not an anarchist. I'm not ever really a "L"-ibertarian. I'm actually a small "l" libertarian. I happen to believe the federal government has very limited powers granted to it by the constitution and I think they have used every loophole they can find, like the commerce clause (another area where Thomas is very good), to expand their reach beyond what's necessary. I also believe there are very, very few (if any!) limitations on the bill of rights portion which is what separates me from the left and the right.
| 421 |
Obdicut Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:12:36pm |
re: #420 RogueOne
But why do you think the Constitutional limits are so very important? Is your political philosophy defined by the document, or do you like the document because it agrees with your political philosophy?
| 422 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:56:33pm |
re: #415 Stanley Sea
Dare I ask what happened?
Kind of buttoned-down in that newbie way. Got asked a lot of questions about Islam in a fairly hostile way, IIRC. ("How do you feel about the founder of your faith being a pedophile?" is, IMHO, not the best way to make someone feel welcomed.)
Posted one evening, didn't return that I saw.
| 423 |
oldegeezr Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:17:12pm |
Somewhat OT; never-the-less, relevant, if Radar Online is the source…
As an olde soldier I know how important it is to keep the unit morale of the troops high. It’s directly related to the successful completion of the mission.
With that thought in mind and noting recently, from some of the male posters here, that they’re either unemployed or concerned about their continued employment. I submit the following…
Here’s an old idea that’s new again… for all you out of work, hi-tecky, guy, bloggers or budding lizard actors and actresses…now literally “hangin’ out” here, day after day on LGF.
I’ve always been an enthusiastic proponent of makin’ “lemonade outta lemons”...from Jon Stewart and the Daily Show…check it out!
This approach can also work for all the lovely, unemployed, gurl bloggers, her too…except a totally different marketing approach…will be required with respect to what you're packin'…!
WWJS...He'd say..." I luv you sinner...!"
Trump Allies Test a New Strategy for Blocking Election Results They Don’t Like When a member of Georgia’s Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections refused to join her colleagues as they certified two primaries this year, she claimed she had been denied her right to examine a long list of election ...
Cheechako
US Military M17 & M18 Pistols Causing Unintentional Discharges Documents detail U.S. soldiers shot by their own Sig Sauer guns; military says no reason for concern Around lunchtime on Feb. 8, 2023, inside an administrative office at Fort Eustis in Virginia, a sergeant with the Army’s 221st Military ...
William Lewis
The Cause of the Rain Here? dryad, in Greek mythology, a nymph or nature spirit who lives in trees and takes the form of a beautiful young woman. Dryads were originally the spirits of oak trees (drys: “oak”), but the name was later applied to ... William Lewis
Uncommon US Flags #3: Storm Warning Flags Indianola, Texas after the Civil War became the principal port for the state, due to its location on Matagorda Bay. The town steadily grew as commerce, tourism, and agriculture expanded. In 1875, a powerful Category 3 hurricane struck Indianola, ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
A Friday at the Tail End of SpringJust out and about for a bit. First a walk downtown where the two rivers meet, then a short drive just outside of town. William Lewis
This Civil War Submarine Vanished for 136 Years [VIDEO] A Civil War submarine powered by hand cranks and lit by candlelight. What could possibly go wrong? Meet the HL Hunley. Support the production of these videos through our Patreon: patreon.com Thank you to Nick DeLong from Clemson University ...
teleskiguy
Billions in US Taxpayer Dollars Now Go to Religious Schools via Vouchers Billions in taxpayer dollars are being used to pay tuition at religious schools throughout the country, as state voucher programs expand dramatically and the line separating public education and religion fades. School vouchers can be used at almost any ... Cheechako
Adobe Caught Selling AI Generated Images Imitating Ansel Adams’ Work Adobe scolded for selling ‘Ansel Adams-style’ images generated by AI Adobe found itself in hot water this weekend after the Ansel Adams estate publicly scolded the company for selling generative AI imitations of the late photographer’s work. On Friday, ... William Lewis
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ... teleskiguy
