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.

(CNN)   "Sheesh, it's not even June, and I'm already sick of this stuff. With five months to go until the election, I think a steady diet of this junk will drive me into a mental institution"   (cnn.com) divider line 75
    More: Obvious, Sheesh, Charlton Heston  
•       •       •

3664 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 May 2012 at 11:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-31 01:09:44 PM

Maud Dib: Death_Poot:

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if you lived in California and someone on the other side was bellyaching like you are......

Not bellyaching, it's a cold hard fact. I realize facts are stupid things for your kind.

[i865.photobucket.com image 480x505]


transitionculture.org

That wasn't the point I was making....try again.
 
2012-05-31 01:12:38 PM

palelizard: indylaw: Hey, don't knock it till you try it. Mind-altering drugs, art projects and all the mac-and-cheese you could ask for.

What am I about to sign up for?


Think of it as a very expensive resort you just can't say no to!
 
2012-05-31 02:05:17 PM
1-3 definitely need to happen. Shorter campaigns and public financing would fix a lot of the problems with Washington. When our politicians spend 1/3-1/2 of their time fundraising and campaigning they're not working for us and they're increasingly likely to allow lobbyists to tell them what to do with their actually governing duties.
 
2012-05-31 02:42:33 PM
Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.
 
2012-05-31 02:59:31 PM

Geotpf: Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.


You have a very strange view of the first amendment.
 
2012-05-31 03:11:15 PM
We really should change the election from November to June and limit the amount of campaigning candidates do previous to Election Day.

There is no good reason why there should be some long dragged out year-long prelude to getting elected.

This sh*t's ridiculous.
 
2012-05-31 03:20:03 PM
"We really should change the election from November to June and limit the amount of campaigning candidates do previous to Election Day."

Even better, as I already stated, make it on April 16. So that check just written to the IRS is fresh in peoples' minds as they vote.
 
2012-05-31 04:08:02 PM

tlchwi02: Skr: Is there some Dark Horse candidate that I am unaware of that makes this election's outcome even slightly in doubt?

now that romney is the nominee, they woulnd't sell much pundit face time if they kept pushing the "inevitability" thing. So now they'll push it as a tight race to keep people tuning in. considering how broken "polling" is (land line telephones with 2pm EST call times is what we're judging the tone of the nation off of?) its all a joke.


Gallup calls cell phones at 6pm. I know this first hand.
 
2012-05-31 04:09:19 PM

Alphax: Geotpf: Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.

You have a very strange view of the first amendment.


You're an idiot.

Campaigning involves speaking and associating with people. Other countries can restrict campaigning to a certain time before an election because they are allowed to restrict people from speaking and associating with people because they don't have a first amendment.

Banning private contrabutitions is a direct violation of the Citizen's United ruling on the first amendment.

Banning negative ads is banning speech; again, prohibited by the first amendment. Mexico can ban speech; America can't.

Limiting polling is limiting a group from speaking to a bunch of people about their opinions and then speaking about the results of what they said; again, another obvious free speech violation.

I can't believe I had to spell all of that out.
 
2012-05-31 04:23:56 PM

Geotpf: Alphax: Geotpf: Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.

You have a very strange view of the first amendment.

You're an idiot.

Campaigning involves speaking and associating with people. Other countries can restrict campaigning to a certain time before an election because they are allowed to restrict people from speaking and associating with people because they don't have a first amendment.

Banning private contrabutitions is a direct violation of the Citizen's United ruling on the first amendment.

Banning negative ads is banning speech; again, prohibited by the first amendment. Mexico can ban speech; America can't.

Limiting polling is limiting a group from speaking to a bunch of people about their opinions and then speaking about the results of what they said; again, another obvious free speech violation.

I can't believe I had to spell all of that out.


I was too polite.
 
2012-05-31 04:37:54 PM

tnpir: Oh bullshiat. California has Republicans in statewide offices and often elects Republican governors.


Not since after the November 1994 election. Other than incumbents getting re-elected, people being appointed to office, and people elected to non-partisan offices, there have been a grand total of only two Republicans elected to statewide offices since then (there are nine partisan statewide offices total), and Arnie was one of them (he probably would have lost in a normal Republican primary, but, due to the goofy recall election, he didn't have to go through one). California has also voted for the Democrat in every Presidential election since then.

Not coincidentally, the anti-illegal immigration prop 187 passed in the November 1994 election. After that, Hispanic voters in the state all became Democrats and many citizen non-voting hispanics became regular voters (again, for the Democrats).
 
2012-05-31 04:40:31 PM

Alphax: Geotpf: Alphax: Geotpf: Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.

You have a very strange view of the first amendment.

You're an idiot.

Campaigning involves speaking and associating with people. Other countries can restrict campaigning to a certain time before an election because they are allowed to restrict people from speaking and associating with people because they don't have a first amendment.

Banning private contrabutitions is a direct violation of the Citizen's United ruling on the first amendment.

Banning negative ads is banning speech; again, prohibited by the first amendment. Mexico can ban speech; America can't.

Limiting polling is limiting a group from speaking to a bunch of people about their opinions and then speaking about the results of what they said; again, another obvious free speech violation.

I can't believe I had to spell all of that out.

I was too polite.


Explain how I am wrong in any of my examples. They are all extremely blatant first amendment violations. Saying I have "a very strange view of the first amendment" is about as wrong as you can be.
 
2012-05-31 04:51:03 PM

Geotpf: Alphax: Geotpf: Alphax: Geotpf: Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.

You have a very strange view of the first amendment.

You're an idiot.

Campaigning involves speaking and associating with people. Other countries can restrict campaigning to a certain time before an election because they are allowed to restrict people from speaking and associating with people because they don't have a first amendment.

Banning private contrabutitions is a direct violation of the Citizen's United ruling on the first amendment.

Banning negative ads is banning speech; again, prohibited by the first amendment. Mexico can ban speech; America can't.

Limiting polling is limiting a group from speaking to a bunch of people about their opinions and then speaking about the results of what they said; again, another obvious free speech violation.

I can't believe I had to spell all of that out.

I was too polite.

Explain how I am wrong in any of my examples. They are all extremely blatant first amendment violations. Saying I have "a very strange view of the first amendment" is about as wrong as you can be.


Blatant? I don't see that at all.

And don't use the Citizens United ruling. Worst thing they ever did.

Your interpretation of 'speech' is far more broad than anything I've ever seen. Slander isn't free speech, nor is campaigning.
 
2012-05-31 05:40:18 PM
Who said anything about slander? Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true. And campaigning is the farking definition of speech. You know what they call it when a politican stands in front of a bunch of people in front of a microphone and talks for an hour about why he should be elected?

IT'S CALLED A SPEECH!!! OF COURSE A SPEECH IS SPEECH!!!!

As for Citizen's United, the Supremes say that's speech, and they get to decide these sorts of things-not you, not me.
 
2012-05-31 06:57:51 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: How to stop election year insanity

Ooh, I know. Go outside and stop listening to this shiat.


Well, yeah, but we have to live with the results.

I could totally support every single thing this guy says. Actually, I think I've said most of them myself at one time or another. Screw this, time to oil up the guillotine.
 
2012-05-31 06:58:58 PM

Geotpf: Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true. And campaigning is the farking definition of speech. You know what they call it when a politican stands in front of a bunch of people in front of a microphone and talks for an hour about why he should be elected?

IT'S CALLED A SPEECH!!! OF COURSE A SPEECH IS SPEECH!!!!



Speech bought and paid for by private donors.

Not exactly "free speech."

Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true.

Note the word "if" in your reply.
 
2012-05-31 07:01:38 PM

Geotpf: As for Citizen's United, the Supremes say that's speech


The Supremes also said Plessy vs. Ferguson was protecting people's rights too.

Methinks you don't protest much.
 
2012-05-31 07:34:14 PM

Geotpf: Who said anything about slander? Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true.


FTA: "when a political ad goes over the line into negativity and falsehood."

The author was referring to negative ads that *are* slander.

If America ever becomes sane again, it may not be unlikely that an amendment will be proposed changing term specifications for the president and maybe Congress.
 
2012-05-31 07:35:33 PM

quickdraw: Writer forgot

6. Turn off the TV.


Can you say 'brainwashing'?
b-b-b-b-b-brainwashing?
Its a non stop disco...

/SOAD
//obligatory
 
2012-05-31 07:59:20 PM

The Green Manalishi: xalres: Just detatch yourself from it emotionally and it all becomes incredibly amusing.

It's easy to do that, and I have. But where does that leave us as a democracy? Voters are so turned off and apathetic that the people in power can ride roughshod over our basic rights and no one really cares. Corruption is so commonplace that no one bats an eye anymore.

That's the mood in this country -- that it's all a big joke. The system is so incredibly broken that there's not even a point in trying to fix it. Just grab as much as you can now, for you and your family, and let the rest fall.


Yeah pretty much. There's not a whole lot we can do within the bounds of the system to change anything. Regaining control would require booting monied interests out of the process. Do you see that happening without a lot of bloodshed? Because I don't. So eff it. Just sit back and enjoy the lunacy.
 
2012-05-31 08:48:08 PM

whidbey: Geotpf: Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true. And campaigning is the farking definition of speech. You know what they call it when a politican stands in front of a bunch of people in front of a microphone and talks for an hour about why he should be elected?

IT'S CALLED A SPEECH!!! OF COURSE A SPEECH IS SPEECH!!!!


Speech bought and paid for by private donors.

Not exactly "free speech."

Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true.

Note the word "if" in your reply.


"I was only asking questions."
 
2012-06-01 04:57:57 AM

Geotpf: Who said anything about slander? Negative ads aren't slander if everything in them is true. And campaigning is the farking definition of speech. You know what they call it when a politican stands in front of a bunch of people in front of a microphone and talks for an hour about why he should be elected?

IT'S CALLED A SPEECH!!! OF COURSE A SPEECH IS SPEECH!!!!

As for Citizen's United, the Supremes say that's speech, and they get to decide these sorts of things-not you, not me.


FWIW, the Supreme Court has made lots of decisions that I disagree with, from Dredd Scott (black people are property, not people) through Griswold v. Connecticut... all that to say nothing of rulings like Wickard v. Filburn, wherein the court ruled that if you grow your own wheat, then eat it, that's covered by the interstate commerce clause, so the federal government can regulate it.

My point is, they make many decisions, that in no way precludes me from also making personal decisions that they're a bunch of ideologues who could care less about the constitution.
 
2012-06-01 05:11:37 AM

Alphax: Geotpf: Let's look at the list:

1. Make the presidency a six-year, one-term-only gig.

That would require a constitutional amendment.

2. Start the campaign season after Labor Day.

This would violate the first amendment.

3. Publicly finance the election (and allow no private contrabutions).

See #2.

4. Ban negative ads.

See #2.

5. Limit polling.

See #2.

Every single one of his proposals is unconstitutional. That's hard to do.

You have a very strange view of the first amendment.


All of the limits proposed are limits on free speech... campaigning, advertising, polling, not allowing you to finance your own campaign privately.... all are free speech limits... you're talking about a raft of constitutional amendments to prohibit people from talking about political issues and candidates because you find it all too inconvenient. I'm not seeing how this is passable in any form.
 
2012-06-01 05:21:55 AM

firefly212: All of the limits proposed are limits on free speech... campaigning, advertising, polling, not allowing you to finance your own campaign privately.... all are free speech limits... you're talking about a raft of constitutional amendments to prohibit people from talking about political issues and candidates because you find it all too inconvenient. I'm not seeing how this is passable in any form.


We still do have the Federal Election Commision, the FEC, weakened though it is. Under the absolute 'free speech' interpretation he was pushing, just having an FEC would be illegal. Or the FCC. Or laws against prostitution, because people talk to each other when they do that. Or nearly anything else one can think of. Oh, we can't regulate the banks, people at banks talk.
 
2012-06-01 03:58:39 PM

Geotpf: Not since after the November 1994 election. Other than incumbents getting re-elected, people being appointed to office, and people elected to non-partisan offices, there have been a grand total of only two Republicans elected to statewide offices since then (there are nine partisan statewide offices total), and Arnie was one of them (he probably would have lost in a normal Republican primary, but, due to the goofy recall election, he didn't have to go through one). California has also voted for the Democrat in every Presidential election since then.


Okay, my mistake, but if California has elected two Republicans to statewide offices since 1994, that's two more than Democrats elected to statewide office in Texas. And we have at least a couple of dozen statewide offices.
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report