What? Obama was elected with a fairly good majority, and re-elected. He's in charge of everything we're talking about here - it's entirely within the executive branch of the government, and he is in charge of that.
You know... you should be far more terrified of people who think they're doing the right thing, and fervently believe in all the crap they say.
Those people? Those fucking people are scary motherfuckers who will do anything if they can justify it to themselves. And if they can avoid getting caught, they'll do even more.
Yup. Sounds just like anonymous and many other hacktivist types.
At this point, they can either try to protect your lives, or your way of life... but what they've been doing is incompatible with both.
Yup. Just like when your nice country home becomes part of the busier growing suburbs. All the sudden you have to give up the freedom of never locking your front door and leaving your keys conveniently in the car. Why? Because there are malicious asshats in the world. Sometimes entire sub-cultures of them, some of which are deadly violent.
No, I'm following your thinking to its only conclusion. The people in China work for China - that's how that government works. We buy things made there. You're implying that the act of buying things from China is no different than hiring someone, and that the act of buying something from a Chinese firm that - like everything else in Chine, produces huge amounts of pollution - is no different than paying an employee in the US to do something that pollutes. So, if we don't want China to pollute while making the things we buy from them, because that makes us guilty for their pollution, then the only solution (since China shows no interest in changing their ways) is to stop buying what they sell.
So everything you do with the money you make while you're at work (because that's all the money you make) is tied back to your employer? Where do you live, that feudal rules still apply?
China might manufacture the goods, but Americans are consuming them.
Should your employer compensate the people who live near you if you spend your time at home crapping in your back yard and stinking up the neighborhood? They are the ones who buy your services, and that's how you buy the food you leave in digested piles out there, right?
What? The person who's buying your services isn't in charge of how you live your life? Oh.
Why do people keep confusing "democratizing" with "entitling?" Because the urge here appears to be to take other people's money and to use it to subsidize an activity for people who haven't raised the money or made the effort it to support it for themselves. That's not "democracy," and it has nothing to do with such.
It restricted corporations. It did not restrict individuals.
No, it also restricted individuals. You, personally, could not run a candidate or issue advocacy ad on a date too close to the election, for example. But regardless:
Let's say you're a landscaper. You. By yourself. You've incorporated your business for all of usual very good reasons. Now you're an Eeeeevil Corporation, right? Right. Your local town's mayoral race is in play, and one of the candidates says that he thinks all uses of fertilizer should be banned. This would destroy your business. So you want to run a small election-season campaign to inform your customers and other people in town about how that one candidate's position could impact your local business, but also in some cases their own homes. In fact, you find that you and several other landscapers - some individuals, and some LLCs, and some incorporated - realize that they all have a common interest in this case, and form a PAC in order to pool their resources, to make the best use of their limited communications budget on a matter that's very important to them.
Gasp! A association of Eeeeeevil businesses trying to sway an election with their Eeeeeevil corporate money! No big deal, right? It's a bunch of citizens of this country assembled together and looking out for the interests of themselves, the companies they've formed, and their future prospects. Except, McCain-Feingold had things to say about it. In direct conflict with the First Amendment. The First Amendment has NOTHING to say about special conditions under which the government can muzzle political speech (say, when it's a landscaper's business running an issue ad to counter a politician who is demonizing his business). The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" - it doesn't say, "Except when the people speaking have assembled into a labor union, or a company, or a non-profit group..." Why? Because everyone involved in those incorporated assemblies are people. And they are guaranteed freedom from government interference when they decide to assemble and or speak. Period.
Have you ever been unemployed and eligible to collect unemployment?
Yes.
If so, did you collect unemployment?
No.
In your imaginary fantasy world, wouldn't the incredibly corrupt fantasy villains your'e dreaming those of us who actually recognize the existence of civilization to be have already locked you up in chains and started whipping you?
No, because the huge tax base that's paid by the minority of the people in the country wouldn't be generated under such circumstances. It's a balancing act - tax load vs. quality of life. Reduce quality of life too much, and the small number of people who pay the vast majority of the taxes will simply stop doing the things that generates all of that cash. Or they'll just do it somewhere else.
The law, before the ruling, deprived exactly nobody of free speech.
Other than the people who would be prosecuted under the law for speaking in any manner or during any of the times that the law said would make them criminals. You're either deliberately trolling, or you have no idea what you're talking about, or maybe some of both.
You're (deliberately, of course) confusing who owns things with who does the reporting and who makes editorial decisions. If you're trying to pretend that endless studies demonstrating the overwhelmingly partisan democrat leanings of the people who produce, edit, and deliver the news and entertainment that shapes public opinion, then... please stop. You're not kidding anybody. But the fact that you tried to slip in irrelevant and deliberately misleading information says you already know all this, and you're just trying to muddy the waters.
But that's assumed since everyone knows that's how money works. When something says "free dispenser" it means that you do not have to pay money to use the dispenser, not that the dispenser was created and stocked via magic.
Ask millions of people who get cash or bought-with-cash entitlements from state or government agencies where the money comes from, and they'll tell you it comes from "the government." Not "from other people that the government took it from," or "we borrowed it from other people's grandchildren, and possibly yours, too."
Okay, try to think of it another way. The amount of money needed to get into office has increased dramatically.
Yes, compared to the good old days, it's skyrocketed. Just like the survival rate of mothers giving birth, the standard of living, the population, and everything else. So what? Does the fact that a comprehensive campaign to communicate to hundreds of millions of people can't be free mean that we should infringe on your first amendment rights, and mine? There's a reason the constitution is so crystal clear on the fact that the government may not do that. If you don't like that, propose an amendment in which the government can stop you from expressing your political opinions, and get that amendment ratified. Good luck with that.
You mean the First Amendment as it was interpreted before Citizens United or the First Amendment as it has been interpreted since Citizens United? Because they're not the same thing.
Prior to the Citizens United case, McCain-Feingold hadn't BEEN interpreted in constitutional terms. Not by the courts. Just because it passed in congress doesn't mean it's constitutional. That's the whole point of bringing such things before the court.
Want to explain to me why Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the ruling why Republicans supported it?
Because the majority of media outlets, which weren't impacted by McCain-Feingold's limitations on pre-election opinion broadcasting, are run by editorial boards and staff that skew left. The Democrats truly enjoyed that un-infringed support. Simple as that.
It's not that Republicans stood to gain by having their constitutional rights re-protected, it's that they stood to RE-gain something that had been taken away from them out of proportion, in political terms.
The Republicans thought they would have the upper hand in the post Citizens United era.
No, they just thought it would be nice not to have their First Amendment rights infringed, that's all. And plenty of liberal-minded groups agreed with them. You don't give up your freedoms of speech and assembly based on the calendar, nor based on the manner in which you assemble. Large media operations were allowed to pursue candidate and issue advocacy while other groups were set up to become criminals for doing exactly the same thing. A plain and simple violation of the First Amendment, not to mention an obvious example of unequal protection under the law. A group that wanted to make and show a documentary about Hillary Clinton was being prevented from doing so during election season, while the New York Times or MSNBC could run special editions or one-hour specials aimed at her opponents? That sort of capricious BS is what the ruling was about, and well it should have been. McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional on the face of it.
Yes, yes. I man with a miracle cure who could save millions of lives, but he's just too modest to let actual scientists study it or demonstrate its actual efficacy.
So, he'll go down as the Modest Guy Who Let Millions Of People Die Because He's Just So Darn Humble.
After 3 of years of doing this he won't say how many people he has helped
Of course not. Quacks selling snake oil really dislike leaving a trail that can be examined by actual people who employ critical thinking and the scientific method to establish the efficacy of drugs.
By which you mean, send someone to work every day, and force them to spend part of that day working for someone else who is not. If they don't do that, they face seizure of their property or loss of their liberty. If someone WANTS to help out of work people, they certainly can (and they do, to the tune of billions of dollars of charity every year). But if you're going to force that kindness under threat of jail time, as we do now, at least man up and recognize it for what it is. Admit that the "support" you want to provide is something you're taking from one person, under threat of force, and giving to another person, so you can feel generous.
Slashdot Mirror
The government we didn't elect
What? Obama was elected with a fairly good majority, and re-elected. He's in charge of everything we're talking about here - it's entirely within the executive branch of the government, and he is in charge of that.
You know ... you should be far more terrified of people who think they're doing the right thing, and fervently believe in all the crap they say.
Those people? Those fucking people are scary motherfuckers who will do anything if they can justify it to themselves. And if they can avoid getting caught, they'll do even more.
Yup. Sounds just like anonymous and many other hacktivist types.
At this point, they can either try to protect your lives, or your way of life ... but what they've been doing is incompatible with both.
Yup. Just like when your nice country home becomes part of the busier growing suburbs. All the sudden you have to give up the freedom of never locking your front door and leaving your keys conveniently in the car. Why? Because there are malicious asshats in the world. Sometimes entire sub-cultures of them, some of which are deadly violent.
So the Chinese government is NOT in charge of environmental regulations there - it's the factory owners that are?
No, I'm following your thinking to its only conclusion. The people in China work for China - that's how that government works. We buy things made there. You're implying that the act of buying things from China is no different than hiring someone, and that the act of buying something from a Chinese firm that - like everything else in Chine, produces huge amounts of pollution - is no different than paying an employee in the US to do something that pollutes. So, if we don't want China to pollute while making the things we buy from them, because that makes us guilty for their pollution, then the only solution (since China shows no interest in changing their ways) is to stop buying what they sell.
So what you're saying is that all of China is a crap factory, and that we should simply not buy anything they make.
So everything you do with the money you make while you're at work (because that's all the money you make) is tied back to your employer? Where do you live, that feudal rules still apply?
China might manufacture the goods, but Americans are consuming them.
Should your employer compensate the people who live near you if you spend your time at home crapping in your back yard and stinking up the neighborhood? They are the ones who buy your services, and that's how you buy the food you leave in digested piles out there, right?
What? The person who's buying your services isn't in charge of how you live your life? Oh.
Why do people keep confusing "democratizing" with "entitling?" Because the urge here appears to be to take other people's money and to use it to subsidize an activity for people who haven't raised the money or made the effort it to support it for themselves. That's not "democracy," and it has nothing to do with such.
It restricted corporations. It did not restrict individuals.
No, it also restricted individuals. You, personally, could not run a candidate or issue advocacy ad on a date too close to the election, for example. But regardless:
... abridging the freedom of speech" - it doesn't say, "Except when the people speaking have assembled into a labor union, or a company, or a non-profit group..." Why? Because everyone involved in those incorporated assemblies are people. And they are guaranteed freedom from government interference when they decide to assemble and or speak. Period.
Let's say you're a landscaper. You. By yourself. You've incorporated your business for all of usual very good reasons. Now you're an Eeeeevil Corporation, right? Right. Your local town's mayoral race is in play, and one of the candidates says that he thinks all uses of fertilizer should be banned. This would destroy your business. So you want to run a small election-season campaign to inform your customers and other people in town about how that one candidate's position could impact your local business, but also in some cases their own homes. In fact, you find that you and several other landscapers - some individuals, and some LLCs, and some incorporated - realize that they all have a common interest in this case, and form a PAC in order to pool their resources, to make the best use of their limited communications budget on a matter that's very important to them.
Gasp! A association of Eeeeeevil businesses trying to sway an election with their Eeeeeevil corporate money! No big deal, right? It's a bunch of citizens of this country assembled together and looking out for the interests of themselves, the companies they've formed, and their future prospects. Except, McCain-Feingold had things to say about it. In direct conflict with the First Amendment. The First Amendment has NOTHING to say about special conditions under which the government can muzzle political speech (say, when it's a landscaper's business running an issue ad to counter a politician who is demonizing his business). The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law
No, you only have to look at the point where the money the government is spending is collected by that government.
Income taxes.
Have you ever been unemployed and eligible to collect unemployment?
Yes.
If so, did you collect unemployment?
No.
In your imaginary fantasy world, wouldn't the incredibly corrupt fantasy villains your'e dreaming those of us who actually recognize the existence of civilization to be have already locked you up in chains and started whipping you?
No, because the huge tax base that's paid by the minority of the people in the country wouldn't be generated under such circumstances. It's a balancing act - tax load vs. quality of life. Reduce quality of life too much, and the small number of people who pay the vast majority of the taxes will simply stop doing the things that generates all of that cash. Or they'll just do it somewhere else.
The law, before the ruling, deprived exactly nobody of free speech.
Other than the people who would be prosecuted under the law for speaking in any manner or during any of the times that the law said would make them criminals. You're either deliberately trolling, or you have no idea what you're talking about, or maybe some of both.
You're (deliberately, of course) confusing who owns things with who does the reporting and who makes editorial decisions. If you're trying to pretend that endless studies demonstrating the overwhelmingly partisan democrat leanings of the people who produce, edit, and deliver the news and entertainment that shapes public opinion, then ... please stop. You're not kidding anybody. But the fact that you tried to slip in irrelevant and deliberately misleading information says you already know all this, and you're just trying to muddy the waters.
But that's assumed since everyone knows that's how money works. When something says "free dispenser" it means that you do not have to pay money to use the dispenser, not that the dispenser was created and stocked via magic.
Ask millions of people who get cash or bought-with-cash entitlements from state or government agencies where the money comes from, and they'll tell you it comes from "the government." Not "from other people that the government took it from," or "we borrowed it from other people's grandchildren, and possibly yours, too."
Should say, "Miami uses some of the tax money it collects to buy sunscreen for some people in some locations."
I know! I know! We need self driving bicycles!
No. What we need is 3D-printed solar bicycle lanes.
Okay, try to think of it another way. The amount of money needed to get into office has increased dramatically.
Yes, compared to the good old days, it's skyrocketed. Just like the survival rate of mothers giving birth, the standard of living, the population, and everything else. So what? Does the fact that a comprehensive campaign to communicate to hundreds of millions of people can't be free mean that we should infringe on your first amendment rights, and mine? There's a reason the constitution is so crystal clear on the fact that the government may not do that. If you don't like that, propose an amendment in which the government can stop you from expressing your political opinions, and get that amendment ratified. Good luck with that.
You mean the First Amendment as it was interpreted before Citizens United or the First Amendment as it has been interpreted since Citizens United? Because they're not the same thing.
Prior to the Citizens United case, McCain-Feingold hadn't BEEN interpreted in constitutional terms. Not by the courts. Just because it passed in congress doesn't mean it's constitutional. That's the whole point of bringing such things before the court.
Want to explain to me why Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the ruling why Republicans supported it?
Because the majority of media outlets, which weren't impacted by McCain-Feingold's limitations on pre-election opinion broadcasting, are run by editorial boards and staff that skew left. The Democrats truly enjoyed that un-infringed support. Simple as that.
It's not that Republicans stood to gain by having their constitutional rights re-protected, it's that they stood to RE-gain something that had been taken away from them out of proportion, in political terms.
So what you're saying is you have no idea what you're talking about.
The Republicans thought they would have the upper hand in the post Citizens United era.
No, they just thought it would be nice not to have their First Amendment rights infringed, that's all. And plenty of liberal-minded groups agreed with them. You don't give up your freedoms of speech and assembly based on the calendar, nor based on the manner in which you assemble. Large media operations were allowed to pursue candidate and issue advocacy while other groups were set up to become criminals for doing exactly the same thing. A plain and simple violation of the First Amendment, not to mention an obvious example of unequal protection under the law. A group that wanted to make and show a documentary about Hillary Clinton was being prevented from doing so during election season, while the New York Times or MSNBC could run special editions or one-hour specials aimed at her opponents? That sort of capricious BS is what the ruling was about, and well it should have been. McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional on the face of it.
Yes, yes. I man with a miracle cure who could save millions of lives, but he's just too modest to let actual scientists study it or demonstrate its actual efficacy.
So, he'll go down as the Modest Guy Who Let Millions Of People Die Because He's Just So Darn Humble.
Occam's Razor says: quack.
After 3 of years of doing this he won't say how many people he has helped
Of course not. Quacks selling snake oil really dislike leaving a trail that can be examined by actual people who employ critical thinking and the scientific method to establish the efficacy of drugs.
Provide unemployment support
By which you mean, send someone to work every day, and force them to spend part of that day working for someone else who is not. If they don't do that, they face seizure of their property or loss of their liberty. If someone WANTS to help out of work people, they certainly can (and they do, to the tune of billions of dollars of charity every year). But if you're going to force that kindness under threat of jail time, as we do now, at least man up and recognize it for what it is. Admit that the "support" you want to provide is something you're taking from one person, under threat of force, and giving to another person, so you can feel generous.