The video has over 3.7 million views. And the thumbs up out number the thumbs down almost three to one. It seems to be working for her.
You can on Ash Wednesday.
Ask certain Christians groups and Ash Wednesday will show you who is the Whore of Babylon.
Which words do you now feel to have been “poor choices” in your statement?
:dubious:
Who are the many Dopers who have claimed in this thread that “Republican ads are striking for only presenting white males”? :dubious: I must have missed reading all those dozens of posts here.
I followed that link and your characterization of what is written there is not even wrong. Nothing that you wrote is supported by anything at the link you offered whatsoever.
Since you seem to feel you have some calling to be a political spokesperson on this board, here are two ways you could be considerably more effective at it:
-
You could lay out where and why, on matters of policy, you think Mrs. Clinton would make a bad President;
-
You could explain who you think on the Republican side would make a better President, and why.
Sneering over a single fucking commercial on the first day of what promises to be an especially tedious campaign season is pretty weak tea. Just sayin’.
I will walk you through it, as you probably don’t know all the relevant facts if you’ve been getting your news from Stephen Colbert.
Under both the text of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the Federal Election Commission’s interpretations, the act of “speaking critically about a political candidate” was held to a be “campaign contribution in kind” to all possible and actual, present and future opponents of that candidate. Also under the BCRA, corporations and labor unions were blanketly banned from paying for such communications.
Under this doctrine, the FEC barred the scheduled offering over pay-per-view cable of a conservative film critical of Hillary Clinton, as it was funded by Citizens United, a conservative activist group which is incorporated.
Citizens United sued the FEC, and, in 2010, the Supreme Court found that laws blanketly prohibiting political speech from classes of speakers are a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
Now, the spin that the pro-“campaign finance reform” people put on this case was that it
- barred all regulation of campaign funding under the doctrine that ‘money is speech’
- created the doctrine that ‘corporations are people’ to justify itself
Neither of these things are true. In fact, the decision only overruled the attempt by the BRCA and the FEC to treat speech as money as a means to regulate speech under campaign finance laws. Congress is still free to pass just about any restriction it likes on who may donate money to a politician or how much, but has seen fit to decline to do so in favor of caterwauling about Citizens United rightfully upholding the basic principle of free speech.
“Corporate personhood” is, of course, inherent in the entire purpose and definition of forming a corporation, has been a fact of corporation law since corporations have existed, and does not mean that “corporations are people.” In any case, neither the phrase nor the concept even appears in the CU decision at all. The notion that the case “established” a doctrine which in fact has been around for over a century and had absolutely nothing to do with the case was seized upon by comedians who found “corporations are people” an easy target of mockery, leading to widespread confusion over what Citizens United did.
What Citizens United actually did was overturn a law saying that it is illegal to go on television and criticize Hillary Clinton.
What this has to do with the news story is: Since this was a Supreme Court decision, it can only be overturned by another decision or by Constitutional amendment. Since it was a Supreme Court decision protecting the most basic civil liberty of the Bill of Rights, the right to speak freely about political leaders, any amendment overturning the decision must necessarily be a repeal of the First Amendment. Furthermore, no amendment would be required to simply pass a law regulating actual financial donations to candidates; only the “don’t criticize Hillary Clinton” law is at issue here.
Hillary Clinton has announced her intention to raise 2.5 billion dollars to win the Presidency in 2016. Apparently that kind of “campaign finance” does not require “reform,” but the part where it’s legal to say you don’t plan on voting for her does. This is an extremely ominous attitude from a politician who has demonstrated authoritarian tendencies in the past, and it’s impossible for anyone claiming the good name of an ACLU liberal to support it.
They were pandering each other.
You’re close, Haberdasher, to our dark conspiracy, but not quite. Yes, we are skulking about preparing to overturn free speech for Corporate Americans, the last despised minority, poor dears, poor dears. A Constitutional Amendment ripping apart the First Amendment and making it illegal to criticize The Leader is our latest plot.
But its meant to be take place after the President for Life Amendment is passed and ratified. Obama, Fearless Leader. Not Hillary. I mean, c’mon, she’s a skirt!
So it would appear, yes.
Then we’re coming after your guns.
I should mention, your first amendment rights are already limited. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
So yes, limits can be applied if they rise to an important enough level. Personally, I’d say the US degenerating into a plutocracy where the rich manipulate elections, rises to a significant level.
Other people, as it happens, those whose political agendas align with the moneyed interests, find differently.
http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
So because there exist some limits, any limit you feel like making is justified?
So is the don’t-criticize-Hillary law a feverish conspiracy theory that doesn’t exist, or a crucially necessary step in protecting America that all reasonable people must support? Both at the same time? Seems like Schrodinger’s Censorship.
Sum it up. I’m not going to a site called popehat.com unless it’s porn.
No. But because there exist some limits, limits are possible.
You are asserting that I’m trying to get, anything I feel like, established as a limit. I’m not. I specifically explained why I thought it was important. Because our government is run by elected officials. Those officials make law. And if the very process of election becomes compromised, then the government itself is compromised.
That’s an easy argument. It shouldn’t confuse you. Make your argument that the government becoming more and more under the sway of moneyed interests is a good thing. I’ll listen to it. But I’ve seen the debate for a long time, and thusfar no one has made an argument that seems that compelling. But go on, maybe you’re the one.
There is no law that you can’t criticize Hillary, so I’m unable to engage meaningfully in the hypothetical you’re spinning.
“Fire in a crowded theater” is a lazy shorthand for “I can disregard free speech whenever I like,” quoted from a long-overturned SC opinion that upheld imprisoning a man solely for advocating against U.S. participation in World War I.
I do not consider “disagreeing with Hillary Clinton” equivalent to starting a deadly stampede under false pretenses. Do you?
Do you advocate that there should be such a law, as Hillary Clinton does in the Washington Post article I linked above?
I notice you ignored the meat of my comment, about how your characterization is flawed, and left limp and unsatisfied my question about how you could explain how your position is superior.
Protip: If you can’t explain why your position is better than another, question why you hold it.
I don’t want to disregard free speech whenever I feel like it. I want to keep the integrity of our government intact. The government should, ideally, be for all the people. Not just those what have billions. I specifically explained my position, and you specifically cut it out of your reply.
I don’t consider “disagreeing with Hillary Clinton” to be an accurate way to characterize the issue in question. In fact, I wonder why you have to resort to polemics if you’re right?
Campaign finance reform isn’t the same thing as destroying the first amendment. Can you agree with that? If you can’t, I suspect you’ll be unable to effectively argue your position.
My characterization is accurate. Hillary Clinton doesn’t object to shattering records for money raised, from corporations and otherwise, in her own campaign. She objects to the Supreme Court decision which, in fact, overturned a law making it illegal to criticize Hillary Clinton.
To the extent that “and because Hillary Clinton is using her billions to advocate against ‘those what have billions,’ it is justified to suppress criticism of her” is the meaning of this statement, your position is untenable in a society with any concept of the freedom of speech at all.
You are incorrect, as anyone who knows the facts behind Citizens United can see.
Passing a constitutional amendment that allows the FEC to reinstate the law against criticizing Hillary Clinton which was struck down on First Amendment grounds in Citizens United is destroying the First Amdendment. That course of action, not regulating the flow of money, which does not require a Constitutional amendment and is clearly not what Hillary “2.5 billion dollars” Clinton advocates, is what is under discussion here, because it is what Hillary endorsed in the WaPo article.
Until the law is changed, of course you’d raise as much as you can. Otherwise you’d lose automatically.
I find it hard to understand why you can’t get this. If you’re against unlimited money in politics, you think that you should not try to raise as much as you can, when your opponent will?
Doesn’t that strike you as stupid? You can want the law changed, but still play by the rules as they are. Otherwise, you’ll never be elected, and then the law can’t be changed.
It’s such a poor argument, I can’t tell if you’re just fucking with me.
Again, your asinine characterization of this isn’t doing you any good here. I’m pretty sure you’re just unable to argue for your position, so you’re just reciting bumper-sticker-platitudes at this point.
I know the facts. And since I’m the only one making a cogent argument in this back-and-forth, I’d say nah.
No it isn’t. It’s regulating elections. And not to the benefit of any one person, as you so casually, and inaccurately repeat, over-and-over.
Yeah, I’m gonna go ahead and declare victory here. Since I have you incoherent at this point. <3
But, gawd, she positively must take Kim Kardashian and go shopping! Something simply must be done about those shoes! Now, I’m dishing Hillary, not criticizing, so I get a pass…