Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works   (sltrib.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, political action committees, Utah County, constitutional convention, Utahns, Balanced Budget Amendment, vote-by-mails, Political campaign staff, blood donors  
•       •       •

4944 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2012 at 11:20 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-19 08:49:02 PM  
"If somebody wants to attack my record or come after me, that's fine, but let's be clear about who it is," said Daw, R-Orem. "The whole point about disclosure is to not have this shell game going on."



man up nancy. YOUR party created these rules. so either change the rules so that NOBODY can do this, or STFU.

what's that? got nothing to say?

yeah, that's what I thought.
 
wee
2012-05-19 09:04:47 PM  

Weaver95: man up nancy. YOUR party created these rules. so either change the rules so that NOBODY can do this, or STFU.

what's that? got nothing to say?

yeah, that's what I thought.


Off-topic I know, but what's your aversion to the shift key at the beginning of a sentence? Starting a sentence with a capital letter helps the reader read what you wrote...
 
2012-05-19 09:12:02 PM  

wee: Off-topic I know, but what's your aversion to the shift key at the beginning of a sentence? Starting a sentence with a capital letter helps the reader read what you wrote...


I'm using a keyboard that is...less than regulation. Not really my choice. the shift keys on this thing occasionaly get stuck. plus i'm stuck using IE8 since my company has an aversion to firefox on their work computers.

Consider it a quirk, if you'd prefer.
 
2012-05-19 09:29:45 PM  
 
2012-05-19 09:39:23 PM  
Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...
 
2012-05-19 09:42:28 PM  

Mentat: Senators McCain and Whitehouse file friend-of-the-court brief to get SCOTUS to review Citizens United.


Good. Should have gone all the way. It won't make some of the folks who are shoveling cash into the system very happy, but given how the debate has taken a turn for the worse in the last few years--and it wasn't great before--we need to have just a hair of accountability...

At least know who is funding our representatives...
 
2012-05-19 09:49:57 PM  

hubiestubert: At least know who is funding buying our representatives...

 
2012-05-19 09:55:05 PM  

hubiestubert: Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...


If there's one thing you can count on to happen over and over again, it's that Republicans never consider the consequences of their actions. Watching them gape in disbelief every time Democrats use their own tactics against them is like watching Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff for the 500th time.
 
2012-05-19 09:58:00 PM  

Mentat: hubiestubert: Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...

If there's one thing you can count on to happen over and over again, it's that Republicans never consider the consequences of their actions. Watching them gape in disbelief every time Democrats use their own tactics against them is like watching Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff for the 500th time.


I will repeat from the Romney thread:

MOM! HE HIT BACK!
 
2012-05-19 10:09:35 PM  
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
 
2012-05-19 10:09:59 PM  

hubiestubert: Mentat: hubiestubert: Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...

If there's one thing you can count on to happen over and over again, it's that Republicans never consider the consequences of their actions. Watching them gape in disbelief every time Democrats use their own tactics against them is like watching Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff for the 500th time.

I will repeat from the Romney thread:

MOM! HE HIT BACK!


It's crazy. Even when you warn them what will happen, they seem completely incapable of grasping the idea that Democrats might use the same tactics. If they win the White House and Senate, do they really think they'll be able to advance their agenda? No, because the Democrats will filibuster the hell out of everything just like the GOP does now. Then the GOP will threaten to remove the filibuster, never grasping the fact that the Democrats will someday get the Senate back. It's like watching a hamster in its wheel.
 
2012-05-19 10:12:14 PM  

fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works


Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling
 
2012-05-19 11:18:43 PM  
B-b-b-but BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME!!!1!

i145.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-19 11:25:10 PM  
"If somebody wants to attack my record or come after me, that's fine, but let's be clear about who it is," said Daw, R-Orem. "The whole point about disclosure is to not have this shell game going on."

Well change the law!! Don't just biatch when Democrats do it and do nothing to stop it and not care when Republican do the same thing.

Try to change the law for EVERYONE or shut the hell up!

These were the same asses declaring this as wonderful "1st amendment freedoms for all*"

* all = millionaires and corporations
 
2012-05-19 11:27:05 PM  
They aren't allowed to use our tactics against us!
 
2012-05-19 11:28:15 PM  

fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works


Both sides are bad, so vote Citizens United?
 
2012-05-19 11:33:04 PM  
Hey, Brad Daw, you could perhaps write a bill that would alleviate that problem. Oh, you won't? Well, shut the fark up, then.
 
2012-05-19 11:33:48 PM  

gimmegimme: fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works

Both sides are bad, so vote Citizens United?


Floridians...I don't get them either.
 
2012-05-19 11:43:47 PM  

fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works


News flash chuckles, Democrats have 'cared' since all of this shiat started, the Repubs have just told them to stop whining. Now that the Right is getting a taste of their own medicine, they're the ones crying. I say it serves them right.
 
2012-05-19 11:44:10 PM  
Just to recap: if we let gay people marry each other, this will lead to all kinds of evil absurdities like people marrying toasters. That would be a Bad Thing™.

However, money is speech and corporations are people and that's not even remotely absurd at all. Nay, good sir, it's just as God intended.
 
2012-05-19 11:47:27 PM  
Does that mean Democrats are for them now?

What's my opinion on this? I haven't been keeping up.
 
2012-05-19 11:50:53 PM  

sendtodave: Does that mean Democrats are for them now?

What's my opinion on this? I haven't been keeping up.


Floridians apparently think Dems are automatically for it now because one Republican is inconvenienced. He thinks both sides are the same.
 
2012-05-19 11:55:56 PM  
I swear, this is starting to sound more and more like middle school.

"That's not fair!"

Nobody promised you fair; but playing by the rules YOU made is as fair as fair can be, I think.
 
2012-05-19 11:58:37 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I swear, this is starting to sound more and more like middle school.

"That's not fair!"

Nobody promised you fair; but playing by the rules YOU made is as fair as fair can be, I think.


Yeah, Republicans complaining about it? farking do something about it!
 
2012-05-20 12:01:15 AM  

Sabyen91: Yeah, Republicans complaining about it? farking do something about it!


But then Obama would get to sign a good piece of legislation.

And we couldn't have THAT.
 
2012-05-20 12:01:17 AM  

Mentat: fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works

Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling


That's one heck of a read.

And quite disturbing in its recounting of judicial activism and wild swings of law.
 
2012-05-20 12:02:28 AM  

bulldg4life: Mentat: fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works

Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling

That's one heck of a read.

And quite disturbing in its recounting of judicial activism and wild swings of law.


It can't be judicial activism because only commie libs do that.
 
2012-05-20 12:03:14 AM  
newsjunkiepost.com
 
2012-05-20 12:03:45 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Sabyen91: Yeah, Republicans complaining about it? farking do something about it!

But then Obama would get to sign a good piece of legislation.

And we couldn't have THAT.


I'd like to see the GOP win congress and have Obama win reelection through massive outside money.

If the democrats use the filibuster, we could see the GOP flip out about campaign finance reform AND have them change senate rules to stop the minority party from ruining America.

Then, we'd just have to wait for them to implode again.
 
2012-05-20 12:07:26 AM  

sendtodave: Does that mean Democrats are for them now?

What's my opinion on this? I haven't been keeping up.


Near as I can tell, most Democrats are against them, but they are not going to bring a knife to a gun fight.

That's my opinion, and I say good for them.
 
2012-05-20 12:10:02 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Sabyen91: Yeah, Republicans complaining about it? farking do something about it!

But then Obama would get to sign a good piece of legislation.

And we couldn't have THAT.


Obama: Let's pass a law that makes it illegal to rip out the intestines of kitties.
Republicans: Um...no! Kitties should have their intestines ripped out!
 
2012-05-20 12:15:18 AM  

Mentat: hubiestubert: Mentat: hubiestubert: Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...

If there's one thing you can count on to happen over and over again, it's that Republicans never consider the consequences of their actions. Watching them gape in disbelief every time Democrats use their own tactics against them is like watching Wile E. Coyote fall off a cliff for the 500th time.

I will repeat from the Romney thread:

MOM! HE HIT BACK!

It's crazy. Even when you warn them what will happen, they seem completely incapable of grasping the idea that Democrats might use the same tactics. If they win the White House and Senate, do they really think they'll be able to advance their agenda? No, because the Democrats will filibuster the hell out of everything just like the GOP does now. Then the GOP will threaten to remove the filibuster, never grasping the fact that the Democrats will someday get the Senate back. It's like watching a hamster in its wheel.


At least hamsters are cute.
 
2012-05-20 12:15:22 AM  

DeaH: Near as I can tell, most Democrats are against them, but they are not going to bring a knife to a gun fight.

That's my opinion, and I say good for them.


I actually started a super PAC dedicated to supporting candidates who want to outlaw super PACs. People seem baffled by that concept, but I'm not sure why.
 
2012-05-20 12:22:15 AM  

skinnycatullus: DeaH: Near as I can tell, most Democrats are against them, but they are not going to bring a knife to a gun fight.

That's my opinion, and I say good for them.

I actually started a super PAC dedicated to supporting candidates who want to outlaw super PACs.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-05-20 12:22:58 AM  
SuperPACs are corruption.
 
2012-05-20 12:24:39 AM  

2wolves: hubiestubert: At least know who is funding buying remote-operating our representatives...


I swear. If a jamming signal was activated on the Senate floor, 100% of the gop representatives present would collapse on the floor where they stood and twitch as their eyes shone a BSOD.
 
2012-05-20 12:25:23 AM  

exatron: At least hamsters are cute.


You're damned straight.
 
2012-05-20 12:27:18 AM  

skinnycatullus: DeaH: Near as I can tell, most Democrats are against them, but they are not going to bring a knife to a gun fight.

That's my opinion, and I say good for them.

I actually started a super PAC dedicated to supporting candidates who want to outlaw super PACs. People seem baffled by that concept, but I'm not sure why.


Man, that sounds like the super PAC to end all super PACs.
 
2012-05-20 12:29:17 AM  
www.pathologystudent.com
 
2012-05-20 12:29:36 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: exatron: At least hamsters are cute.

You're damned straight.


No.

profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-05-20 12:32:54 AM  
I still say someone should create a false flag SuperPAC that viciously attacks their own candidate with hateful, batsh*t crazy screeds so the backlash falls on their opponent. You know, for the lulz.
 
2012-05-20 12:36:13 AM  

fusillade762: I still say someone should create a false flag SuperPAC that viciously attacks their own candidate with hateful, batsh*t crazy screeds so the backlash falls on their opponent. You know, for the lulz.


Well, if they followed the law they wouldn't have their "own" candidate. Of course we know that is ridiculous.
 
2012-05-20 12:42:44 AM  

Mentat: fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works

Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling


I believe he's making a note of when one party is in power, the other suddenly finds the secrecy wrong. And then goes back and forth every four years, guessing, to imply the WH shifting back and forth.
 
2012-05-20 12:44:07 AM  

mathmatix: Mentat: fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works

Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling

I believe he's making a note of when one party is in power, the other suddenly finds the secrecy wrong. And then goes back and forth every four years, guessing, to imply the WH shifting back and forth.


Except that if farking stupid since the Dems are against CU and the Republicans are for it and that won't change any time soon.
 
2012-05-20 01:04:54 AM  

fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works


So, both sides are bad you say?
 
2012-05-20 01:06:39 AM  

propasaurus: fickle floridian: 4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Democrats care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works
4 years later:
Suddenly Republicans care about SuperPACs and secrecy. Funny how that works

So, both sides are bad you say?


Actually he just proved that he is an idiot.
 
2012-05-20 01:16:59 AM  

hubiestubert: Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...


The Law of Unintended Consequences is one of those "TL;DR" topics for the arrogant and snap judgement types.
 
2012-05-20 01:18:42 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: hubiestubert: Perhaps folks should have thought of that before changing the rules...

The Law of Unintended Consequences is one of those "TL;DR" topics for the arrogant and snap judgement types.


No, I think all of the consequences were intended. This guy is just biatching because the intended consequences suck for him at this moment.
 
2012-05-20 01:21:05 AM  

Mentat: Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling


"Mr. Olson," Ginsburg said, "are you taking the position that there is no difference" between the First Amendment rights of a corporation and those of an individual? "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?"

"What the Court has said in the First Amendment context . . . over and over again," Olson replied, "is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment."

"Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?" Ginsburg went on.

Olson was ready: "The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin#ixz z1vNrTc6qe


Yikes.
 
2012-05-20 01:34:16 AM  

sendtodave: Mentat: Suddenly? Democrats cared about it as soon as it was clear that the Roberts court was maneuvering to overturn McCain-Feingold.

How John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Ruling

"Mr. Olson," Ginsburg said, "are you taking the position that there is no difference" between the First Amendment rights of a corporation and those of an individual? "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?"

"What the Court has said in the First Amendment context . . . over and over again," Olson replied, "is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment."

"Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?" Ginsburg went on.

Olson was ready: "The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation."

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin#ixz z1vNrTc6qe

Yikes.


that...is some SCARY shiat...
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report