Vermont becomes first state to call for a Citizens United Resolution

[JakeStarkey]

freedombecki, the press of both parties do that now and have for some time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anger is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance (CD). Calling others "stupid fucking assholes" for offering information on a critical issue is a sure sign of CD, and an indication the author of such harsh language needs counseling.

Cognitive dissonance is holding two or more conflicting positions at the same time. Believe it or not, calling someone a stupid fucking asshole is not a sign that I have a conflict of opinion. It is, however, a sign that someone is a stupid fucking asshole. If you need evidence that I don't have a conflicitng opinion I am not the one that claims to believe in the Constitution as the foundation of the government, yet want to change it to take away the rights of people, that would be the OP, and you. That, in case you have trouble following the logic, makes you a stupid fucking asshole. If you don't like being a stupid fucking asshole, stop trying to take away the rights of people.

You have every right to be pathologically angry, at least up to the point that you assault, threaten or commit battery.

I am not angry with you, you make me nauseous. That is actually quite an accomplishemnt considering the anti-nausea regimen the doctor has me on, but you accomplish it every time you claim that the only way to save the country is to turn it into a prison camp.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The funny thing about the term Conservative is it actually means unwilling or slow to change. Change happens no matter what when it's necessary. Some people know when to be Conservative and when to be Liberal.

Overturning Citizens United is a Liberal thought, it takes thinking, not a lack of. It also takes Liberal amounts of Action to change.

This is one of the longest term common sense problems in America....If the red stands against it, they will simply be exposed even more as profit mongers who work for Corporations instead of the people.

Actually, Politically Conservative means nothing of the sort! What it means is, 'Operate within the confines of the United States Constitution'.

Bzzzzt. Thanks for playin'.
Sorry, that's not at all what it means. Everybody has to operate within the Constitution. That's why it's the Constitution.

That explains why people are always getting sued by their neighbors for violating the general welfare clause.

Wait, all it really shows is what a stupid fucking idiot Pogo is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another thing.

I see lot's of people stand up for Citizens United just because they saw Unions donating to politicians.

Need I say, "two wrongs don't make a right?"

Why create or justify something terribly wrong just because not enough people fought against the initial problem? I just don't get it. Why double down on bad decisions?

Another thing, you are a complete idiot.

The issue here is not money in politics, it is common people being able to say things about politicians. The thing that makes your positrion so incredibly stupid that it amounts to believing that the Earth is 7 days old is that rich people were always able to spend as much money as they wanted on an election. The law never applied to them. If one of the Koch brothers had made "Hillary, the Movie" and tried to show it the government would not have had a problem with it. The only reason they blocked it was because a small group of regular, non rich, people got together to make the movie. The governemnt actually required them to form a corporation in order to do this, and then told them they were not allowed to show the movie because they formed a procreational.

Joseph Heller wrote a book about this situation, one I know you have never read because I know that learning things scares the fucking crap out of you. Nonetheless, it is still a Catch 22, a no won situation. By trying to do away with free speech you want to make it impossible for people to express their opinion about politicians when it matters most. The only conceivable reason to support that position is that you hate the idea of anyone being able to tell the truth about people you worship. That is your fucking problem, if you were to take the time to educate yourself about the real world of politics you might, just might, be worth debating. Until you do all you will receive from me is scorn.

What the fuck would you know about "debating", master baiter?

I know enough to know when to break the rules of debate, how much do you know?

That's right, all you got is crying about other people not being nice to you.

 

[Dot Com]

Does that whole "getting money out of politics" thing apply to all money going to money going to politicians, or just big business? Do Unions, Soros & Bloomberg, and Hollywood fundraisers all get shut down, or does this apply solely to the Koch Brothers?

Here is the pledge of the driver behind this, the Wolf PAC.

The Plan - Wolf PAC

I just tweeted it to 250+ followers

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quit yer whinging. It applies to big money, all big money. Do understand that Big Business out spends unions about 90 to 1 in political campaigns. So keep it balanced.

That was a demonstration of JakeStarkey unconditional support of Democrats if I ever saw one.

Political Spending by Unions Far Exceeds Direct Donations - WSJ.com

That was certainly an all out support for critical facts and objectivity.

Poor Jakey, got hit with a butt load of facts and resorted to random insults.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals, moderates, and conservatives, all are terrified of how business now can mislead the electorate through false advertising and thus dominating elections.

Good for Vermont, Three more states are online for this year, another eighteen at least next year.

The only people I know who are afraid of free speech are statist assholes.

$$$ is not free speech. One man one vote enables free speech. $$$ corrupts it.

Which explains why the rich people were exempt from McCain-Feingold, but poor people were told they couldn't say anything about politicians during an election.

Dayam, Jake is still the stupid one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals, moderates, and conservatives, all are terrified of how business now can mislead the electorate through false advertising and thus dominating elections.

Good for Vermont, Three more states are online for this year, another eighteen at least next year.

Freedom of speech has a price, but it's worth it.

That's the difference between you and our Founders Jake, they trusted the people to make their own decisions.

We did not, SCOTUS overturned the will of the people as passed in Congress.

We the people wanted that decision.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

good for them... the problem is the wackos will try to open up any constitutional convention to destroy the constitution as it exists.

I didn't consider that, thanks. They might try to roll back the New Deal, Equal Rights, all progress made in the last 80 years.

i would think they'd mess with the 1st since they hate the fact that we have a secular government and then go after the 4th amendment, the 5th and everything that isn't the 2nd amendment...

You ant to rewrite the 1st Amendment, then complain that the other side might rewrite it themselves? Is there a word for that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does that whole "getting money out of politics" thing apply to all money going to money going to politicians, or just big business? Do Unions, Soros & Bloomberg, and Hollywood fundraisers all get shut down, or does this apply solely to the Koch Brothers?

Here is the pledge of the driver behind this, the Wolf PAC.

The Plan - Wolf PAC

I just tweeted it to 250+ followers

I just topped 6000 myself, what does that say about our relative impact on the issues?

 

[Dot Com]

hate to break the news to you but quantity =/= quality. Glad to help.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

hate to break the news to you but quantity =/= quality. Glad to help.

Mine are mostly writers, computer geeks, and science buffs.

I suggest you apply the first rule of holes.

 

[Dot Com]

whatever makes you feel netter.

 

[Pogo]

Another thing, you are a complete idiot.

The issue here is not money in politics, it is common people being able to say things about politicians. The thing that makes your positrion so incredibly stupid that it amounts to believing that the Earth is 7 days old is that rich people were always able to spend as much money as they wanted on an election. The law never applied to them. If one of the Koch brothers had made "Hillary, the Movie" and tried to show it the government would not have had a problem with it. The only reason they blocked it was because a small group of regular, non rich, people got together to make the movie. The governemnt actually required them to form a corporation in order to do this, and then told them they were not allowed to show the movie because they formed a procreational.

Joseph Heller wrote a book about this situation, one I know you have never read because I know that learning things scares the fucking crap out of you. Nonetheless, it is still a Catch 22, a no won situation. By trying to do away with free speech you want to make it impossible for people to express their opinion about politicians when it matters most. The only conceivable reason to support that position is that you hate the idea of anyone being able to tell the truth about people you worship. That is your fucking problem, if you were to take the time to educate yourself about the real world of politics you might, just might, be worth debating. Until you do all you will receive from me is scorn.

What the fuck would you know about "debating", master baiter?

I know enough to know when to break the rules of debate, how much do you know?

That's right, all you got is crying about other people not being nice to you.

"Rules" such as... strawmen? A/k/a pulling shit out of your ass and then running away when called out on it? That kind of "rules of debate"?

Lying fucking coward. You're dismissed. Leave this one to the adults and go play where you're qualified.

PS thanks for the sig line.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the fuck would you know about "debating", master baiter?

I know enough to know when to break the rules of debate, how much do you know?

That's right, all you got is crying about other people not being nice to you.

"Rules" such as... strawmen? A/k/a pulling shit out of your ass and then running away when called out on it? That kind of "rules of debate"?

Lying fucking coward. You're dismissed. Leave this one to the adults and go play where you're qualified.

PS thanks for the sig line.

FYI, there is nothing in the rules of debate that prohibits the use fallacies, or even outright lies. If you were half as smart as you think I am, which is a pretty fucking low bar, you would know that. The fact that you think those are actual rules says a hall of a lot about your education in the subject of debating.

Thanks for making my point for me, it is always interesting when a chimpanzee tries to act like he understands higher order thinking.

 

[Pogo]

A "hall of a lot" eh? There is a limit on sig line content yanno.

Your employment of endless fallacies doesn't make you a bad debater, so much as it makes you a pathological liar. And yes, as far as I'm concerned them IS the rules; you DO NOT get to make shit up about people and not get called on it, fucking period. Continue to do that, you'll continue to be a liar and as such, utterly worthless.

Again, strictly speaking of this planet only.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A "hall of a lot" eh? There is a limit on sig line content yanno.

Your employment of endless fallacies doesn't make you a bad debater, so much as it makes you a pathological liar. And yes, as far as I'm concerned them IS the rules; you DO NOT get to make shit up about people and not get called on it, fucking period. Continue to do that, you'll continue to be a liar and as such, utterly worthless.

Again, strictly speaking of this planet only.

Prove that I lied by telling us how awful the government is.

 

[AntiParty]

Does that whole "getting money out of politics" thing apply to all money going to money going to politicians, or just big business? Do Unions, Soros & Bloomberg, and Hollywood fundraisers all get shut down, or does this apply solely to the Koch Brothers?

Here is the pledge of the driver behind this, the Wolf PAC.

The Plan - Wolf PAC

Does anyone else see the irony in having a PAC to take away constitutional rights from people?

Quote this in your tweet.

Corporations are not people. Corporations are a business ran by a group of people who generally aren't all in one party. Generally the focus of this group is profit, not politics. It's illegal to force someone to vote against their will. The owner of a Corporation is not allowed by law to force it's employee's to contribute or vote for a specific party.

It's really that simple.

But if you don't agree with me then you haven't done enough research to see that groups of people are manipulating the system for profit. <----This should be Politics 101 ever since the great depression. Clearly the lesson wasn't learned because we are doing the exact same scenario all over again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is the pledge of the driver behind this, the Wolf PAC.

The Plan - Wolf PAC

Does anyone else see the irony in having a PAC to take away constitutional rights from people?

Quote this in your tweet.

Corporations are not people. Corporations are a business ran by a group of people who generally aren't all in one party. Generally the focus of this group is profit, not politics. It's illegal to force someone to vote against their will. The owner of a Corporation is not allowed by law to force it's employee's to contribute or vote for a specific party.

Is that a no?

It's really that simple.

You believe that people in groups have no rights, but want to use the theory of collective rights to deny rights to individuals. You are right, that is simple, even if it proves that you are a fucking idiot.

But if you don't agree with me then you haven't done enough research to see that groups of people are manipulating the system for profit. <----This should be Politics 101 ever since the great depression. Clearly the lesson wasn't learned because we are doing the exact same scenario all over again.

Let me see if I understand your position.

Since the great depression government has stuck its fingers into everything, increasing its power at the expense of liberty, and you think the solution to this is to give the government more power.

Makes sense, if you have no brains.

 

[AntiParty]

Does anyone else see the irony in having a PAC to take away constitutional rights from people?

Quote this in your tweet.

Corporations are not people. Corporations are a business ran by a group of people who generally aren't all in one party. Generally the focus of this group is profit, not politics. It's illegal to force someone to vote against their will. The owner of a Corporation is not allowed by law to force it's employee's to contribute or vote for a specific party.

Is that a no?

It's really that simple.

You believe that people in groups have no rights, but want to use the theory of collective rights to deny rights to individuals. You are right, that is simple, even if it proves that you are a fucking idiot.

But if you don't agree with me then you haven't done enough research to see that groups of people are manipulating the system for profit. <----This should be Politics 101 ever since the great depression. Clearly the lesson wasn't learned because we are doing the exact same scenario all over again.

Let me see if I understand your position.

Since the great depression government has stuck its fingers into everything, increasing its power at the expense of liberty, and you think the solution to this is to give the government more power.

Makes sense, if you have no brains.

It's like talking to a 4 year old....

Show me one Corporation that is a group of people who all align with the way they vote. Is Verison all Democratic? Every employee? Is GE all Republican? Is Boeing all Tea Party? Every single employee?

Either these Corporations are forcing their employee's to vote/donate a certain way, against the law, or they are using their corporate funding so that the most profitable PERSON, the owner, can donate to a party.

I'm curious why this is complicated for you to comprehend.

CITIZENS UNITED is an attack on the Constitution. Not the fight against it!