Tax dollars being used for political speech? Based on money of the candidate? You don’t see a First Amendment problem here? Freedom of press to those who own a press. Even the Nazis, the Commies, and the Koo Koo Klan have their own press. But you want tax dollars given to any freak fringe group. Let the find their own soap box. There are enough free coverage on radio, press, TV,and Internet.
The founders were a little elitist. “Freedom of the Press” implyed those able to afford one, at least to rent. Constitutional free press wouldn’t distinguish between buying a ream of paper & renting a press, from a 30 second spot on a national network. They restricted voter eligibility, instead. But why is political speach exempted from truth in advertizing laws?
Taking your money to give to a cause or candidate you disagree with is beyond un-Constitutional, it is immoral. There should not be any public (i.e., coercively taxed) funding of any political issue.
ChukLitl raises an interesting (though badly misspelled) question about why political speech is exempted from truth in advertising laws. The simplest answer is that you do not want the government deciding what political views are true or not. That way lies censorship, then dictatorship.
It’s time to sever money from speech, but we need a new Supreme Court, which means electing more progressive presidents until Justices Kennedy & Scalia retire.
We’re stuck with Justices Thomas, Alito, & Roberts for quite some time, I’m afraid: the last legacy–besides the mounting debt–of the Bush family to the destruction of America.
Hey Brian, got a quick question for you. Why does Obama love the Bush family so much? He’s allowing oil prices to spiral, thereby enriching the Bush family immensely. Wouldn’t he want to stop that sort of thing unless he’s in on their scheme?
Thanks, Nola, for conceding that Bush-Dick’s presidency led the U.S.A. into ruin.
As for oil prices, they have risen, although not as badly as they rose when Bush-Dick was president and telling us that invading Iraq would cause lower oil prices.
I do agree that taxing Big Oil more severely while capping the price of gasoline would benefit America, but, unlike Bush-Dick, Obama must work with a hostile Congress, too much of which is owned, as it was under Bush-Dick, by Big Oil.
You just re-elected Big Oil’s whore-mongering Senator Vitter. When you whine about the price of gasoline, Nola, look in the mirror.
I didn’t re-elect David Vitter… apparently you can’t grasp the concept of “Misng” NOLA. And for your information, the Democrat Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is just as much in the pocket of big oil as you believe David Vitter to be. Taxing big oil would work extremely well. It would drive all of the home offices for all of the oil companies overseas putting even more Americans out of work. Yeah, that’ll help your precious “can’t do anything because of all the roadblocks put in his way by Bush” President Obama a lot won’t it? Basically all you’ve said since President Obama was elected was “He can’t do anything”. If that’s the case, why bother electing him in the first place?
And as far as conceding, I haven’t conceded anything. I simply don’t argue most issues with a person who believes that sex is only for pleasure and that procreation was just “collateral damage” so to say. With logic like that, there’s no chance you’ll listen to reason. And unlike you, I don’t hate the President of the United States, no matter who he or she might be. When you allow hate to color all of your thoughts, you put blinders on and are simply unable to see the big picture. Nothing in economics, politics, society, or life is as black and white as you’d like it to be. When you grow up enough to understand that there are gray areas in all of those points, then I’ll welcome any logical arguments you put forth. Unlike you, I might even change my mind on a subject once I have enough unbiased evidence to support such.
As for President Obama’s accomplishments, they have been many.
The U.S. has ended combat operations in your beloved Bush-Dick’s bloodily messy invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. economy is rising from your Bush-Dick’s Great Recession.
Health-care costs will get somewhat controlled.
Women have the right to equal pay and the right to control their own bodies.
B.P. was forced to pay for its own clean-up of the spill caused while Bush-Dick’s regulators were looking the other way.
As for your “thoughts” on sex, you have established nothing, and you misread what I wrote. Check back in the archives. You claimed that sex was primarily for procreation. I said that it was primarily for pleasure.
Considering that all animals receive sexual & sensual pleasure at times other than times of procreation and considering that human beings are sexual daily from birth to death, one would be hard-pressed (so to speak) to restrict sex for procreation.
I never used the word “only”. Try to argue a point with logic.
Finally, as you abandon so many discussions to try to score easy points, one must see that you have conceded most matters, to wit: You have no defense of Bush-Dick’s disasterous presidency. You have no case against Obama excepting your personal dislike.
Combat operations in Iraq were ended before Obama took office. Obama has escalated combat operations in Afghanistan.
The economy is actually going nowhere despite the hardest propaganda the Dems can push, nothing is truly moving, and with oil prices remaining high, the economy won’t move.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/housing-starts-in-u-s-fall-more-than-estimated-to-lowest-since-april-2009.html
My healthcare costs have gone up since Healthcare “reform” was enacted, as have those of most folks who have employer provided health care coverage. That’s most likely just a cost of doing business increase for sure, but the true costs of health care reform haven’t begun to hit yet. Let’s revisit this one in 2014 when all of the factors and provisions have gone into effect.
The BP oil spill occurred well over a year after President Obama’s inauguration, and in fact the well being drilled was being drilled completely during the Obama administration. Why hasn’t he put competent people in the regulator’s spots if that’s where the problem is? You must understand, as a long-time resident of the Gulf Coast region, I contend that BP should bear all the costs necessary to put people hurt by the spill back to where they were beforehand. I also believe that regulation of oil drilling should be vigorously enforced and substantial fines imposed on oil companies and drilling companies which bypass, jury-rig, or otherwise disable safety systems. That being said, I find it insane that we are reduced to drilling in 5000 feet of water to find oil, when there is available oil on land, which can be recovered using an area smaller than the size of Central Park in New York. I know you are a total anti-petroleum type, being that your world only exists in black and white, but getting the economy going and getting it off of oil simultaneously is basically an impossibility. Conservation at this point, especially in terms of our auto use is obviously beneficial in two areas, less dependence on oil, and less pollution. I have no problem with that, both of my cars get higher than EPA mandated fuel economy ratings, and as a matter of fact, neither of my cars, though several years old, qualified for the cash for clunkers program because they both had too high of a fuel economy rating. Geez, what a great program that rewarded people for being stupid years ago. Not that I’m bitter, because I wouldn’t have used the program anyway.
All animals apparently don’t receive sexual and sensual pleasure during times other than procreation because most mate only during estrus or rut. If they did it for pleasure, they’d mate continually such as humans do. in addition, in most animals, it is instinct alone which drives the mating urge, whereas with humans there are many different factors which drive the urge to mate. I’m not one of those bible-thumping sycophants who think that humans should only have sex for procreation, and I’m not anti-abortion, except that I think it’s a really expensive, lazy, and stupid form of birth control. And your splitting of hairs between “only” and “primarily” is a straw man argument, based again on your black and white only view of the world.
Nola: In re combat operations in Iraq: President Obama ended them last August.
In re Afghanistan: I agree. Are you complaining about this? If so, then what would you have Obama do, considering the mess in Afghanistan partly created by your beloved Ronald Reagan and made enormously worse by your beloved Bush-Dick?
In re the American economy: The recession bottomed out in June 2009. The TARP & the stimulus—although they had flaws—have helped raise the economy out of the depths of the Great Recession caused by your beloved Bush-Dick and your strongly supported Republican congress.
In re healthcare: Since you receive care through the government-supported military system, I do not understand your complaint? Wouldn’t healthcare be simple and fairer if all received the health-care that you, as a tax-supported government worker, receive?
In re the B.P. oil spill: Bush-Dick’s MMS approved all the plans for B.P.’s, Transocean’s, & Dick Cheney’s Halliburton’s deepwater drilling in the Gulf in 2003 & 2004. Considering that your beloved Bush-Dick left Obama with two misbegotten wars and the worst economy in eighty years, you can hardly expect him to have replaced every single corrupt or incompetent official in the previous administration w/ the first year of his presidency.
In re gathering more oil: Although we could turn our land into a petroleum pincushion, we would have nothing to show for twenty years, and we would have little oil for all the work involved. Developing the use of renewable resources, developing better public transportation, and changing our habits is much more profitable in the long run than spiking every hundred yards with an oil well.
In re sexual practices: You understand rutting as an animal’s only sexual & sensual pleasure. Hardly. Most mammals enjoy sensual pleasures constantly, and most higher mammals practice a myriad sexual activities throughout the year.
Just because you have little interest in sex, do not project from that that the rest of the world does not find it fundamentally pleasurable. That is it pleasurable is precisely the reason that nature attached procreation to it. How much procreation would there be otherwise?
“Only” & “primarily” are very different words, but I am glad that you noticed any difference. I am glad that you take no responsibility for Senator Vitter. I wonder which congressional representatives you will admit to supporting. I suspect none: That would require you to admit a mistake, and no regressive ever does that.
Er, BRIAN you said the beloved leader got us out of Iraq in your first sentence. Yes I believe that was August 31, except for 50,000 “Non-combat ” troops. In the first week of September we lost 2 non-combat troops (hated American War mongers) in a non-combat firefight with an additional 3 wounded. I realize this had to be Bush/CheneyNixon/Lincoln’s fault and not a lie by our community leader. After all, he only tells the truth. I know you hate the military and religion, but the rest of us misguided sheep will say a prayer for the wives, parents, and children of these brave men
I am happy you support alternative fuel sources. I bet industry and Wall Street are racing to make this economically feasible. As for the government stepping in? Didn’t they do that with something called the Manhattan Project. Got results that have lasted since.
I’m glad to hear you say what goes on behind closed doors belong behind closed doors. I would guess you mean we keep it off the Congressional spending bills.
Check you child’s biology book, only dolphins and humans
have sex for recreation. The rest of the animal and plant kingdom do it for procreation. Believe in majorities?
lewisbower about 13 years ago
Tax dollars being used for political speech? Based on money of the candidate? You don’t see a First Amendment problem here? Freedom of press to those who own a press. Even the Nazis, the Commies, and the Koo Koo Klan have their own press. But you want tax dollars given to any freak fringe group. Let the find their own soap box. There are enough free coverage on radio, press, TV,and Internet.
LHPuttgrass about 13 years ago
Lewreader, never in the history of the English language has “Genius” been used less accurately than following your name.
Pjbflyn about 13 years ago
Free speech is now, thanks to our less-than-supreme court, more expensive than ever.
runar about 13 years ago
There are rich people who feel that they are more entitled to “free speech” than others.
ChukLitl Premium Member about 13 years ago
The founders were a little elitist. “Freedom of the Press” implyed those able to afford one, at least to rent. Constitutional free press wouldn’t distinguish between buying a ream of paper & renting a press, from a 30 second spot on a national network. They restricted voter eligibility, instead. But why is political speach exempted from truth in advertizing laws?
robertdcurtis about 13 years ago
In reply to ChukLitl I believe it’s called product enhancement!
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
Chuk, maybe because silent political ads wouldn’t convince anyone to vote for the subjects?
pschearer Premium Member about 13 years ago
Taking your money to give to a cause or candidate you disagree with is beyond un-Constitutional, it is immoral. There should not be any public (i.e., coercively taxed) funding of any political issue.
ChukLitl raises an interesting (though badly misspelled) question about why political speech is exempted from truth in advertising laws. The simplest answer is that you do not want the government deciding what political views are true or not. That way lies censorship, then dictatorship.
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
It’s time to sever money from speech, but we need a new Supreme Court, which means electing more progressive presidents until Justices Kennedy & Scalia retire.
We’re stuck with Justices Thomas, Alito, & Roberts for quite some time, I’m afraid: the last legacy–besides the mounting debt–of the Bush family to the destruction of America.
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
Hey Brian, got a quick question for you. Why does Obama love the Bush family so much? He’s allowing oil prices to spiral, thereby enriching the Bush family immensely. Wouldn’t he want to stop that sort of thing unless he’s in on their scheme?
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Thanks, Nola, for conceding that Bush-Dick’s presidency led the U.S.A. into ruin.
As for oil prices, they have risen, although not as badly as they rose when Bush-Dick was president and telling us that invading Iraq would cause lower oil prices.
I do agree that taxing Big Oil more severely while capping the price of gasoline would benefit America, but, unlike Bush-Dick, Obama must work with a hostile Congress, too much of which is owned, as it was under Bush-Dick, by Big Oil.
You just re-elected Big Oil’s whore-mongering Senator Vitter. When you whine about the price of gasoline, Nola, look in the mirror.
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
I didn’t re-elect David Vitter… apparently you can’t grasp the concept of “Misng” NOLA. And for your information, the Democrat Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is just as much in the pocket of big oil as you believe David Vitter to be. Taxing big oil would work extremely well. It would drive all of the home offices for all of the oil companies overseas putting even more Americans out of work. Yeah, that’ll help your precious “can’t do anything because of all the roadblocks put in his way by Bush” President Obama a lot won’t it? Basically all you’ve said since President Obama was elected was “He can’t do anything”. If that’s the case, why bother electing him in the first place?
And as far as conceding, I haven’t conceded anything. I simply don’t argue most issues with a person who believes that sex is only for pleasure and that procreation was just “collateral damage” so to say. With logic like that, there’s no chance you’ll listen to reason. And unlike you, I don’t hate the President of the United States, no matter who he or she might be. When you allow hate to color all of your thoughts, you put blinders on and are simply unable to see the big picture. Nothing in economics, politics, society, or life is as black and white as you’d like it to be. When you grow up enough to understand that there are gray areas in all of those points, then I’ll welcome any logical arguments you put forth. Unlike you, I might even change my mind on a subject once I have enough unbiased evidence to support such.
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Well, Nola, in what state do you vote?
As for President Obama’s accomplishments, they have been many.
The U.S. has ended combat operations in your beloved Bush-Dick’s bloodily messy invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. economy is rising from your Bush-Dick’s Great Recession.
Health-care costs will get somewhat controlled.
Women have the right to equal pay and the right to control their own bodies.
B.P. was forced to pay for its own clean-up of the spill caused while Bush-Dick’s regulators were looking the other way.
As for your “thoughts” on sex, you have established nothing, and you misread what I wrote. Check back in the archives. You claimed that sex was primarily for procreation. I said that it was primarily for pleasure.
Considering that all animals receive sexual & sensual pleasure at times other than times of procreation and considering that human beings are sexual daily from birth to death, one would be hard-pressed (so to speak) to restrict sex for procreation.
I never used the word “only”. Try to argue a point with logic.
Finally, as you abandon so many discussions to try to score easy points, one must see that you have conceded most matters, to wit: You have no defense of Bush-Dick’s disasterous presidency. You have no case against Obama excepting your personal dislike.
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
Combat operations in Iraq were ended before Obama took office. Obama has escalated combat operations in Afghanistan.
The economy is actually going nowhere despite the hardest propaganda the Dems can push, nothing is truly moving, and with oil prices remaining high, the economy won’t move. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/housing-starts-in-u-s-fall-more-than-estimated-to-lowest-since-april-2009.html
My healthcare costs have gone up since Healthcare “reform” was enacted, as have those of most folks who have employer provided health care coverage. That’s most likely just a cost of doing business increase for sure, but the true costs of health care reform haven’t begun to hit yet. Let’s revisit this one in 2014 when all of the factors and provisions have gone into effect.
The BP oil spill occurred well over a year after President Obama’s inauguration, and in fact the well being drilled was being drilled completely during the Obama administration. Why hasn’t he put competent people in the regulator’s spots if that’s where the problem is? You must understand, as a long-time resident of the Gulf Coast region, I contend that BP should bear all the costs necessary to put people hurt by the spill back to where they were beforehand. I also believe that regulation of oil drilling should be vigorously enforced and substantial fines imposed on oil companies and drilling companies which bypass, jury-rig, or otherwise disable safety systems. That being said, I find it insane that we are reduced to drilling in 5000 feet of water to find oil, when there is available oil on land, which can be recovered using an area smaller than the size of Central Park in New York. I know you are a total anti-petroleum type, being that your world only exists in black and white, but getting the economy going and getting it off of oil simultaneously is basically an impossibility. Conservation at this point, especially in terms of our auto use is obviously beneficial in two areas, less dependence on oil, and less pollution. I have no problem with that, both of my cars get higher than EPA mandated fuel economy ratings, and as a matter of fact, neither of my cars, though several years old, qualified for the cash for clunkers program because they both had too high of a fuel economy rating. Geez, what a great program that rewarded people for being stupid years ago. Not that I’m bitter, because I wouldn’t have used the program anyway.
All animals apparently don’t receive sexual and sensual pleasure during times other than procreation because most mate only during estrus or rut. If they did it for pleasure, they’d mate continually such as humans do. in addition, in most animals, it is instinct alone which drives the mating urge, whereas with humans there are many different factors which drive the urge to mate. I’m not one of those bible-thumping sycophants who think that humans should only have sex for procreation, and I’m not anti-abortion, except that I think it’s a really expensive, lazy, and stupid form of birth control. And your splitting of hairs between “only” and “primarily” is a straw man argument, based again on your black and white only view of the world.
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Nola: In re combat operations in Iraq: President Obama ended them last August.
In re Afghanistan: I agree. Are you complaining about this? If so, then what would you have Obama do, considering the mess in Afghanistan partly created by your beloved Ronald Reagan and made enormously worse by your beloved Bush-Dick?
In re the American economy: The recession bottomed out in June 2009. The TARP & the stimulus—although they had flaws—have helped raise the economy out of the depths of the Great Recession caused by your beloved Bush-Dick and your strongly supported Republican congress.
In re healthcare: Since you receive care through the government-supported military system, I do not understand your complaint? Wouldn’t healthcare be simple and fairer if all received the health-care that you, as a tax-supported government worker, receive?
In re the B.P. oil spill: Bush-Dick’s MMS approved all the plans for B.P.’s, Transocean’s, & Dick Cheney’s Halliburton’s deepwater drilling in the Gulf in 2003 & 2004. Considering that your beloved Bush-Dick left Obama with two misbegotten wars and the worst economy in eighty years, you can hardly expect him to have replaced every single corrupt or incompetent official in the previous administration w/ the first year of his presidency.
In re gathering more oil: Although we could turn our land into a petroleum pincushion, we would have nothing to show for twenty years, and we would have little oil for all the work involved. Developing the use of renewable resources, developing better public transportation, and changing our habits is much more profitable in the long run than spiking every hundred yards with an oil well.
In re sexual practices: You understand rutting as an animal’s only sexual & sensual pleasure. Hardly. Most mammals enjoy sensual pleasures constantly, and most higher mammals practice a myriad sexual activities throughout the year.
Just because you have little interest in sex, do not project from that that the rest of the world does not find it fundamentally pleasurable. That is it pleasurable is precisely the reason that nature attached procreation to it. How much procreation would there be otherwise?
“Only” & “primarily” are very different words, but I am glad that you noticed any difference. I am glad that you take no responsibility for Senator Vitter. I wonder which congressional representatives you will admit to supporting. I suspect none: That would require you to admit a mistake, and no regressive ever does that.
lewisbower about 13 years ago
Er, BRIAN you said the beloved leader got us out of Iraq in your first sentence. Yes I believe that was August 31, except for 50,000 “Non-combat ” troops. In the first week of September we lost 2 non-combat troops (hated American War mongers) in a non-combat firefight with an additional 3 wounded. I realize this had to be Bush/CheneyNixon/Lincoln’s fault and not a lie by our community leader. After all, he only tells the truth. I know you hate the military and religion, but the rest of us misguided sheep will say a prayer for the wives, parents, and children of these brave men I am happy you support alternative fuel sources. I bet industry and Wall Street are racing to make this economically feasible. As for the government stepping in? Didn’t they do that with something called the Manhattan Project. Got results that have lasted since. I’m glad to hear you say what goes on behind closed doors belong behind closed doors. I would guess you mean we keep it off the Congressional spending bills. Check you child’s biology book, only dolphins and humans have sex for recreation. The rest of the animal and plant kingdom do it for procreation. Believe in majorities?
GESWho almost 13 years ago
ER, LEWREADER, Chimps do it for fun too. As do many other “animals.”
NOTE: Not safe for work. Or children…
look on YouTube with the following term:
“chimp frog”
The first result is likely to be the one I mean for you to look up.
If sex is only for procreation and If that Chimp is trying to make a baby with that frog, then that is one messed up world your creator made.
Now we know how the platypus came about, though…