There are 12 year old girls who whine less than Newt Gingrich.

Your wife is a bird; karma is still valid.

Please please please... Mitt Romney, create a flip-flopping Citizens United ad about Newt Gingrich as soon as possible. Mitt, think of the Lulz, the LULZ I tell you!

I'm shocked, shocked that a Washington insider disagrees with a ruling which prevents the government from suppressing political speech. The rhetorical pretzels people bend themselves into to criticize Citizens United are hilarious. Remember, the case was about whether or not it was legal to air a documentary, which under the law was a FELONY. A felony. To air a documentary. Because it might influence an election. Apparently, though, to protect democracy we need to felonize the creation and distribution of documentaries if they're too close to an election (!!!).

Republicans thinks something good/not good when it affects them personally. Wow amazing that like never happens!!

Oh wait I meant to say that ALWAYS happens. Republicans are unable to generalize their beliefs on to others and themselves. They mostly have a very "how does this effect me directly" view of the world.

All they had to do was tell the truth about Newt to turn voters against him. The truth hurts, doesn't it, Newt?

I do love how much they eat each other, I wonder if they care or realise how much this will undermine the actual election or are they just banking on the Fear of a Black President Part 2:Fartbongo Boogaloo?

Too late. Romney is gonna be the guy that loses to Obama. Sorry Newt.

FTA: "Gingrich, who hailed the decision at the time and opposes taxpayer-funded campaigning, proposed a tweak to the new rules that would allow campaigns to accepted an unlimited amount of money so long as they make the donors public online."

Seems to me that what he doesn't like about Super PACs is that they have to be at arm's length from the candidate. He thinks the unlimited money should be able to go straight to the campaign, which is under candidate control, rather than through a Super PAC, which isn't.

Forced Perspective: I'm shocked, shocked that a Washington insider disagrees with a ruling which prevents the government from suppressing political speech. The rhetorical pretzels people bend themselves into to criticize Citizens United are hilarious. Remember, the case was about whether or not it was legal to air a documentary, which under the law was a FELONY. A felony. To air a documentary. Because it might influence an election. Apparently, though, to protect democracy we need to felonize the creation and distribution of documentaries if they're too close to an election (!!!).

It was a Free Speech zone for political advertising.

So to get this SCOTUS decision straight, *real* speech can be put into "time, place, and manner" restrictions but buying airtime is so sacrosanct, you can buy as much as you want with no restrictions at all. Makes perfect sense that some people are freer than others on the basis of how much cash they posses. How very democratic.

That's OK. We don't think Newt Gingrich is such a good thing, either.

Forced Perspective: I'm shocked, shocked that a Washington insider disagrees with a ruling which prevents the government from suppressing political speech. The rhetorical pretzels people bend themselves into to criticize Citizens United are hilarious. Remember, the case was about whether or not it was legal to air a documentary, which under the law was a FELONY. A felony. To air a documentary. Because it might influence an election. Apparently, though, to protect democracy we need to felonize the creation and distribution of documentaries if they're too close to an election (!!!).

The case was about a documentary, but the ruling was so poorly written that the right to supress speech was simply transferred to the group with the biggest pocket.

gameshowhost: Your wife is a bird; karma is still valid.

Funny'd. XD

DarnoKonrad: Makes perfect sense that some people are freer than others on the basis of how much cash they posses. How very democratic.

Our voting system is (kinda sorta) democratic(ish).

10 We are not a democracy.

No, the fundamental problem with the ruling isn't how much money rich people can spend to influence campaigns or otherwise speak, it's the idea that corporations qualify as people, just because they are comprised of people.

I feel they should not. But, then, should labor unions, lobbyists, human rights groups, etc. have the right to speak (or spend money) to further the cause of their groups?

Probably not. If we were a democracy.

20 GOTO 10

I'm sure Newt's for it. What he's against is it being used by his opponents.

The REAL reason nobody Conservative said boo about the "Citizens United" ruling was because they thought it would benefit them exclusively to the detriment of the Democrats. They were counting all that Koch Brothers cash they thought would come rolling in and it would steamroll their path to victory.

Karma's a biatch, ain't it?

So, Gingrich is agreeing with the Supreme Court? He's all for unlimited amounts of money, but he wants disclosure of who the donors are. That was their recommendation too, though you'll notice the Republicans in Congress never bothered taking it up.

Shaggy_C: but he wants disclosure of who the donors are. That was their recommendation too, though you'll notice the Republicans in Congress never bothered taking it up.

So Newt's a RINO...old news, exciting, etc...

I think during the State of the Union address both Republicans and Democrats cheered Obama when he criticize the Supreme Court for the "Citizen's United" ruling.

sendtodave: Our voting system is (kinda sorta) democratic(ish).

We're a democratic republic. We vote for representatives -- as opposed to say. . a communist republic like China who picks its representatives from the communist party -- not the "demos."

Citizens United is fustercluck on many levels, both on "time place and manor" restrictions and "person-hood."

Lando Lincoln: Well, YEAH. SuperPAC's were designed to be used against OBAMA, not other REPUBLICANS.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised the ruling didn't include this stipulation.

When it helps him personally, he's for it. When it hurts him personally, hes' against it.

Definition of Republican.

Like swiftboating, it's only okay when done against Democrats.

GAT_00: Haha, you don't have a Super PAC of your own.

Actually he does. It's called Winning Our Future. This guy is a whining joke because he got outspent.

zappaisfrank: The REAL reason nobody Conservative said boo about the "Citizens United" ruling was because they thought it would benefit them exclusively to the detriment of the Democrats. They were counting all that Koch Brothers cash they thought would come rolling in and it would steamroll their path to victory.

Karma's a biatch, ain't it?

No they didn't, how could they considering that the opinion directly addressed the Labor Unions as well.

Citizen's United is largely a zero sum game, yet the reaction on the left has been frightening, up to and including rescinding the First Amendment.

YIKES.

Cry me a farking river you fat pig.

DarnoKonrad: We're a democratic republic. We vote for representatives -- as opposed to say. . a communist republic like China who picks its representatives from the communist party -- not the "demos."

Right. But I don't see how Citizens United impacted suffrage.

If anything, It'd guess that tons of shiny, expensive ads would get people out to vote even more. Maybe for the wrong reasons, or the wrong guy, but, hey, that's democracy for you.

Citizens United is fustercluck on many levels, both on "time place and manor" restrictions and "person-hood."

Uh, it removed restrictions, didn't it? Aren't minimal restrictions on an natural right a Good Thing?

Much easier to have honest political opinions when you're not in the race anymore isn't it Newt? Was easier before you got in and easier now.

halfof33: Citizen's United is largely a zero sum game, yet the reaction on the left has been frightening, up to and including rescinding the First Amendment.

That's a believable statement right there.

halfof33: zappaisfrank: The REAL reason nobody Conservative said boo about the "Citizens United" ruling was because they thought it would benefit them exclusively to the detriment of the Democrats. They were counting all that Koch Brothers cash they thought would come rolling in and it would steamroll their path to victory.

Karma's a biatch, ain't it?

No they didn't, how could they considering that the opinion directly addressed the Labor Unions as well.

Citizen's United is largely a zero sum game, yet the reaction on the left has been frightening, up to and including rescinding the First Amendment.

YIKES.

Try not to break the string as you stand there clutching your pearls. Would you like a fan? I declair, it sounds like you might just have tne vapors!

What's amusing is supper PACs will mean more negative adds and if the GOP nomination goes for a long time it will mean that the final nomination will come out very bad looking.

halfof33: zappaisfrank: The REAL reason nobody Conservative said boo about the "Citizens United" ruling was because they thought it would benefit them exclusively to the detriment of the Democrats. They were counting all that Koch Brothers cash they thought would come rolling in and it would steamroll their path to victory.

Karma's a biatch, ain't it?

No they didn't, how could they considering that the opinion directly addressed the Labor Unions as well.

Citizen's United is largely a zero sum game, yet the reaction on the left has been frightening, up to and including rescinding the First Amendment.

YIKES.

Because the Conservatives already had their "Union Dismantling" plan on the drawing board, the grand result of which would be to hamper their ability to fund Democratic candidates. It was believed, then and now, that Unions were no match financially with the deep pockets of the Republican billionaires, thus the ruling was perceived as a huge benefit for the right as a way to hobble the left. Newt being hobbled by Romney's super PAC, undoubtedly funded by the aforementioned Republican billionaires, is an unintended consequence.

sendtodave: Uh, it removed restrictions, didn't it? Aren't minimal restrictions on an natural right a Good Thing?

This, my friends, in one single post, demonstrates the support for Citizens United.

sendtodave does not believe there is a legal difference between a corporation and a human being. He believes corporations have natural rights. Therefore supporting natural rights of corporations is a good thing.

There is no arguing with this. You either think a corporation is a person or you do not.

halfof33: Citizen's United is largely a zero sum game, yet the reaction on the left has been frightening, up to and including rescinding the First Amendment.

Only for the rich, because they can "speak" louder. Money is always a force multiplier.

Egalitarianism regarding speech (or, well, all rights, really) is a fine idea. Treat us all as equal individuals.

But, well, we'd have to disallow ANY group from speaking if the right is "granted" solely to individuals. Or, recognized to solely come from individuals, I guess I should say.

sendtodave: Uh, it removed restrictions, didn't it? Aren't minimal restrictions on an natural right a Good Thing?


I do not agree the expenditure of money is a natural right.

Corvus: supper PACs

An expensively funded TV dinner?

sendtodave: But, well, we'd have to disallow ANY group from speaking if the right is "granted" solely to individuals. Or, recognized to solely come from individuals, I guess I should say.

*face palm*

A group of individual is not the same as a financial legal entity formed to legally shield actual individuals from legal responsibility which is what a corporation is.

Corporations are government entities not just a "group of people" which you are pretending they are.

DarnoKonrad: sendtodave: Uh, it removed restrictions, didn't it? Aren't minimal restrictions on an natural right a Good Thing?


I do not agree the expenditure of money is a natural right.

I would certainly hope that being able to engage in the economy is a right.

More to the point, presses cost money. You need to buy them to have the freedom to use them.

lennavan: sendtodave: Uh, it removed restrictions, didn't it? Aren't minimal restrictions on an natural right a Good Thing?

This, my friends, in one single post, demonstrates the support for Citizens United.

sendtodave does not believe there is a legal difference between a corporation and a human being. He believes corporations have natural rights. Therefore supporting natural rights of corporations is a good thing.

There is no arguing with this. You either think a corporation is a person or you do not.

Look, just because I'm immortal, can't be imprisoned, and live in a post office box in Delaware doesn't make me not a person.

Bigot.

Corvus: A group of individual is not the same as a financial legal entity formed to legally shield actual individuals from legal responsibility which is what a corporation is.

Corporations are government entities not just a "group of people" which you are pretending they are.

... eh?

cor·po·ra·tion/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/
Noun:
A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

That's the basis behind the ruling.

sendtodave: I would certainly hope that being able to engage in the economy is a right.

Why? Congress has the explicit power to regulate commerce.

sendtodave: More to the point, presses cost money. You need to buy them to have the freedom to use them.

No one was stopping Citizens United from 'pressing' copies of it's 'documentary.'

WTF Indeed: There are 12 year old girls who whine less than Newt Gingrich.

True, but that's because they are all waiting to become his next future ex-wife.

lennavan: That's a believable statement right there.

Uh, you have seen the proposed Constitutional Amendment from a couple of hard core lefties in the Senate have you not?

sendtodave: Only for the rich, because they can "speak" louder. Money is always a force multiplier.

You know what else is a "force multiplier"? Armies of patronage employees. How do you think Obama got to the White House?

Wellon Dowd: lennavan: sendtodave: Uh, it removed restrictions, didn't it? Aren't minimal restrictions on an natural right a Good Thing?

This, my friends, in one single post, demonstrates the support for Citizens United.

sendtodave does not believe there is a legal difference between a corporation and a human being. He believes corporations have natural rights. Therefore supporting natural rights of corporations is a good thing.

There is no arguing with this. You either think a corporation is a person or you do not.

Look, just because I'm immortal, can't be imprisoned, and live in a post office box in Delaware doesn't make me not a person.

Bigot.


My wife gave birth to a 9 lb baby corporation. I believe he was a person immediately after conception of our LLC.

coeyagi: Please please please... Mitt Romney, create a flip-flopping Citizens United ad about Newt Gingrich as soon as possible. Mitt, think of the Lulz, the LULZ I tell you!

Mitt would never do such a thing. Good thing we have Super Pac's that can handle that job for him.

halfof33: How do you think Obama got to the White House?

He got more votes than the other guy.