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.

(Politico)   "Victory, you say? Master Rove, not victory. The shroud of the Dark Side has fallen. Begun, the internecine Republican SuperPAC Wars have"   (politico.com) divider line 75
    More: Obvious, Karl Rove, Republicans, GOP, Restore Our Future, Congressional Leadership Fund, American Crossroads, Gabriel Gomez, Senate Conservatives Fund  
•       •       •

3141 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2013 at 3:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-09 09:20:08 AM  
Invest in political t-shirt, bumper sticker, and sign producers. Complete lack of grammar/spelling a plus.

They are going to burn down an entire pile of money fighting each other.
 
2013-11-09 09:35:28 AM  
Can I take "Ways to ensure the Tea Party candidate wins the primary, losing the election for the GOP" for $200, please Alex?
 
2013-11-09 11:11:30 AM  
Politco keeps telling me that I've already viewed a few articles and is demanding payment to see the linked article. Anyone else have this issue, or does everyone secretly have a Politico account? I don't really go there except for Fark.
 
2013-11-09 11:15:14 AM  
I look forward to the blood-letting. My hope is these groups dig in and fight until there is only one standing and don't reach some kind of compromise (not that I'm really concerned with these conservatives finding out what compromise is at this point in the game) that allows for the existence of mildly disgruntled social nutters and teabaggers to remain in the Republican Party. No, I don't want begrudging acceptance of political reality, I want a WAR.
 
2013-11-09 11:33:27 AM  

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

 
2013-11-09 11:34:21 AM  

Somacandra: Politco keeps telling me that I've already viewed a few articles and is demanding payment to see the linked article. Anyone else have this issue, or does everyone secretly have a Politico account? I don't really go there except for Fark.


Clear your cookies and cache, use an incognito/private window and you won't have that problem.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-11-09 11:55:45 AM  
The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.
 
2013-11-09 12:10:54 PM  

vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.


Money runs out, crazy keeps on keepin' on. The money may abandon Republicans and fall on right-wing Democrats.
 
2013-11-09 12:12:37 PM  
When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?
 
2013-11-09 12:17:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Clear your cookies and cache, use an incognito/private window and you won't have that problem.


Thanks. Worked perfectly. Decent article too on disputes between different strategies.
 
2013-11-09 12:28:27 PM  

Somacandra: cameroncrazy1984: Clear your cookies and cache, use an incognito/private window and you won't have that problem.

Thanks. Worked perfectly. Decent article too on disputes between different strategies.


Yeah, that was surprising considering it's Politico.
 
2013-11-09 01:32:44 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?


It's like sh*t gone plaid.
 
2013-11-09 02:01:11 PM  

i915.photobucket.com

 
2013-11-09 02:04:32 PM  

basemetal: [encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 225x225]


img.fark.net

rasjacobson.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-09 03:01:07 PM  

vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.


So greed really is good in this case.
 
2013-11-09 03:09:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Clear your cookies and cache, use an incognito/private window and you won't have that problem.


Less drastic, so you don't suddenly have to relog on every site in the world:

Right click -> View Page Info -> Security -> View Cookies -> Remove All Cookies

Only removes the current site's cookies.
 
2013-11-09 03:24:24 PM  

Somacandra: Politco keeps telling me that I've already viewed a few articles and is demanding payment to see the linked article. Anyone else have this issue, or does everyone secretly have a Politico account? I don't really go there except for Fark.


Who reads the articles? I mean, really?
 
2013-11-09 03:29:27 PM  

dookdookdook: cameroncrazy1984: Clear your cookies and cache, use an incognito/private window and you won't have that problem.

Less drastic, so you don't suddenly have to relog on every site in the world:

Right click -> View Page Info -> Security -> View Cookies -> Remove All Cookies

Only removes the current site's cookies.


Oh neat, I didn't know that. Thanks!
 
2013-11-09 03:29:53 PM  
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-11-09 03:34:01 PM  

Somacandra: cameroncrazy1984: Clear your cookies and cache, use an incognito/private window and you won't have that problem.

Thanks. Worked perfectly. Decent article too on disputes between different strategies.


Their free mobile app does not have a paywall...for now.
 
2013-11-09 03:39:26 PM  
The idea of spending "unlimited cash" to elect people to cut spending makes my brain hurt.
 
2013-11-09 03:48:33 PM  
The role of money in politics is overblown. Money is necessary but the idea that the person with the biggest war chest wins is false. Having a good candidate with an effective message who has the organizing skills to get out the vote is more important than tens of millions of dollars.
 
2013-11-09 03:48:50 PM  
I click on lots of Politico pages and yet have never seen this paywall thingie.

/running Win8.1 + IE11
 
2013-11-09 03:52:28 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?


We're gonna make you eat our shiat, then shiat out our shiat, and eat that shiat, which is made up our shiat that we made you eat. (NSFW language)
 
2013-11-09 03:52:43 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-11-09 03:57:26 PM  

The Iconoclast: Bareefer Obonghit: When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?

It's like sh*t gone plaid.


Relevant.
 
2013-11-09 03:59:08 PM  

basemetal: [encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 225x225]


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-11-09 04:01:37 PM  

Stone Meadow: I click on lots of Politico pages and yet have never seen this paywall thingie.

/running Win8.1 + IE11


Do you have your cookies disabled?
 
2013-11-09 04:02:49 PM  

vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.


Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.
 
2013-11-09 04:09:10 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.

Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.


Oh wait You're serious.jpg
 
2013-11-09 04:11:31 PM  

worlddan: The role of money in politics is overblown. Money is necessary but the idea that the person with the biggest war chest wins is false. Having a good candidate with an effective message who has the organizing skills to get out the vote is more important than tens of millions of dollars.


The fact that the biggest pile of cash doesn't always win does not change the fact that big money corrodes and corrupts politics. It means that you need deep pockets behind you to run. You must have superwealthy "sponsors."
 
2013-11-09 04:14:20 PM  

POPCORN HERE!



farm2.staticflickr.com



GET YOUR POPCORN!!!

 
2013-11-09 04:18:46 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.

Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.


No, they don't. The Tea Party will cease to exist as soon as their  powerful friends realize the money has dried up at which time they'll take their place among the small right wing fringe rural/southern groups.
 
2013-11-09 04:19:44 PM  
blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2013-11-09 04:19:48 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?


img.fark.net
 
2013-11-09 04:21:46 PM  
www.generalfunny.com
 
2013-11-09 04:22:44 PM  
The clown car that's crashed into the circus elephant: today's GOP
 
2013-11-09 04:24:26 PM  

shastacola: shower_in_my_socks: vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.

Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.

No, they don't. The Tea Party will cease to exist as soon as their  powerful friends realize the money has dried up at which time they'll take their place among the small right wing fringe rural/southern groups.


That'll be around January 20th, 2017. Unless another black democrat gets elected in 2016. In which case, it will continue to be a grassroots movement that deserves attention instead of a fringe group of mentally ill racists.
 
2013-11-09 04:25:08 PM  
i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-09 04:26:58 PM  
"THIS ISN'T SOME DAMN GAME"!!

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-09 04:29:59 PM  

Weatherkiss: shastacola: shower_in_my_socks: vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.

Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.

No, they don't. The Tea Party will cease to exist as soon as their  powerful friends realize the money has dried up at which time they'll take their place among the small right wing fringe rural/southern groups.

That'll be around January 20th, 2017. Unless another black democrat gets elected in 2016. In which case, it will continue to be a grassroots movement that deserves attention instead of a fringe group of mentally ill racists.

 
2013-11-09 04:37:23 PM  
So... in the battle of the Super PACs the Dems have a couple of umbrella groups who look after all the Dem House races with very little in-fighting, lowered overhead and skim off by lawyers and the like.

Meanwhile over on the GOP side you've got internecine warfare between a whole bunch of little groups (some of whom have only one donor but are named "Americans for...") some advocating for ideological purity and some for electability. Teatards and old school GOP fighting it out for the brand name of RepublicanTM.

Kinda like watching two junkies fighting over a plastic spoon.
 
2013-11-09 04:37:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Stone Meadow: I click on lots of Politico pages and yet have never seen this paywall thingie.

/running Win8.1 + IE11

Do you have your cookies disabled?


Nope...just whatever "Medium High" security gives me.
 
2013-11-09 04:38:56 PM  
Twilight is upon you, and soon, night must fall. And when it does, you'll wish it was that Stephanie Meyers bullshiat.
 
2013-11-09 04:43:27 PM  
Somebody needs to convince the Tea Party that publicly funded elections is the best possible path to eliminating corruption in Washington.

Mainly because it's true, but it's also something they can cooperate on with non-insane Americans.
 
2013-11-09 04:44:08 PM  
"Your mind tricks will not work on me, Obama."

"Nevertheless, I am implementing the Affordable Care Act. You can either profit by this, or be destroyed. It's your choice, but I warn you not to underestimate my powers.
 
2013-11-09 04:44:13 PM  
The "establishment" Republicans don't scare me. They still suck, but at least their motives are very clear and rational, if overwhelmingly greedy and self-serving.

The Tea Party does scare me; not in the sense that I feel they would ever gain enough political clout to permanently shift and alter policy, but the rank-and-file grassroots members are so goddamn ridiculous that constantly being able to throw out these derpy candidates only continues to give the derpy a public voice. Their mere presence only further distorts whatever worthwhile political discourse still exists.
 
2013-11-09 04:44:20 PM  

worlddan: The role of money in politics is overblown. Money is necessary but the idea that the person with the biggest war chest wins is false. Having a good candidate with an effective message who has the organizing skills to get out the vote is more important than tens of millions of dollars.


Looks like someone hasn't asked their nearest Republican congressman which corporation has a cushy, six-to-seven-figure job lined up for them after congress!

You have to be willfully blind or completely idealistic not to see the overriding influence of money in US politics.
 
2013-11-09 04:45:38 PM  
Party infighting that will prevent both the GOP and the Teabaggers from winning in 2014 and 2016?  Bueno.
 
2013-11-09 04:52:48 PM  
Declarations of victory keep coming yet the GOP keeps sticking around stinking up the place.

The whole, "we'll be primaried," argument doesn't make any sense to me.

The teabaggers are relevant, no denying.  Their GOTV efforts and ground game are pretty much all the Republicans still have, since the nobility doesn't do grunt labor very well.  And without that effort most of the evangelicals tend to just stay home unless a particularly "godly" nutjob is running.

But if you win the primary, and the big spenders still generally do, most of those would-be teabagger votes end up going for you instead of just not voting at all in the general.

The teabaggers are 30% of your vote, just spend enough knocking on doors to get 40% of the rest to show up for the primary and you are good to go.
 
2013-11-09 04:53:02 PM  
Interesting. This is a straightforward admission on the part of the GOP that besides the creation of the Tea Party being a terrible, terrible mistake (but of course, we all knew that), they really are the party of the wealthy, and if need be have unlimited piles of cash with which to do what they want. The question is whether the repub base is stupid enough to be swayed by relentless anti-TEA advertising on TV and radio. I'd like to think not, but then, they're stupid enough to buy into the Tea Party bullshiat in the first place.
 
2013-11-09 04:58:18 PM  

quatchi: So... in the battle of the Super PACs the Dems have a couple of umbrella groups who look after all the Dem House races with very little in-fighting, lowered overhead and skim off by lawyers and the like.

Meanwhile over on the GOP side you've got internecine warfare between a whole bunch of little groups (some of whom have only one donor but are named "Americans for...") some advocating for ideological purity and some for electability. Teatards and old school GOP fighting it out for the brand name of RepublicanTM.

Kinda like watching two junkies fighting over a plastic spoon.


It's really beautiful, actually. Like seeing an old ugly factory imploded in slow motion.
 
2013-11-09 05:18:41 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Bareefer Obonghit: When a turd cannibalizes itself does it sh*t out sh*t? And doesn't that mean there will still be sh*t everywhere?

We're gonna make you eat our shiat, then shiat out our shiat, and eat that shiat, which is made up our shiat that we made you eat. (NSFW language)


Heh. I named my fantasy team "YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ARE THE BALL LICKERS"

That move is friggin stupid, but awesome.
 
2013-11-09 05:29:11 PM  

shastacola: shower_in_my_socks: vpb: The money will win.  Crazy doesn't have the staying power that greed has.

Except that the Tea Party has all of the grass roots support that the traditional big business-backed candidates don't have. That's why the 'baggers have stuck around so long. They have more than just the Koch's writing them checks.

No, they don't. The Tea Party will cease to exist as soon as their  powerful friends realize the money has dried up at which time they'll take their place among the small right wing fringe rural/southern groups.


What I suspect/hope will happen is that if the RINO GOP candidate wins primary, the disgruntled TP will put up a Real Conservative guy and split the vote.

Would be consistent with their beliefs of 'purity' more correct than 'reality'
 
2013-11-09 05:30:33 PM  
"Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is
 
2013-11-09 05:50:29 PM  
Good. I hope the Tea Party and GOP get slaughtered in many elections to come.
 
2013-11-09 05:53:02 PM  
Ask Senator Mourdock from Indiana what he thinks about exclusive Teatard support. But to be fair, it's not like the seat was held by a man who literally has a letter of merit from President Ronald Reagan and has served consistently since the Carter administration; a man who would have been President Pro Tempore  of the Senate and third in line for the Presidency (if the GOP took the Senate).
 
2013-11-09 06:06:04 PM  

cchris_39: "Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is


If you had to look up internecine, you are a Teabagger. If you already knew what it meant, you are a Democrat.
 
2013-11-09 06:18:06 PM  
Three thoughts:

1) This will play out like 2012's presidential election over a wider scale, wherein the Republican candidates wear themselves out defending themselves from each other, leaving a lot of nice vulnerable spots for the Democratic candidate to pick on.

2) Romney outspent Obama in 2012, so money definitely distorts our elective process but the bigger pile of money and more dedicated corporate backing does not guarantee the bigger pile of votes.

3) This is all going to come down to who the usual conservative media blowhards decide to support.

3a) If we're lucky we'll get infighting between those too.
 
2013-11-09 06:18:26 PM  

ghare: cchris_39: "Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is

If you had to look up internecine, you are a Teabagger. If you already knew what it meant, you are a Democrat.


And if you didn't know what it meant but refused to look it up, you're an establishment Republican?

I suppose that makes sense.

/oh wait.  I think I had it confused with interregnum.
 
2013-11-09 06:29:16 PM  

HooskerDoo: "THIS ISN'T SOME DAMN GAME"!!

[img.fark.net image 300x168]


Where's the juggalo version?
 
2013-11-09 06:46:53 PM  

Gyrfalcon: quatchi: So... in the battle of the Super PACs the Dems have a couple of umbrella groups who look after all the Dem House races with very little in-fighting, lowered overhead and skim off by lawyers and the like.

Meanwhile over on the GOP side you've got internecine warfare between a whole bunch of little groups (some of whom have only one donor but are named "Americans for...") some advocating for ideological purity and some for electability. Teatards and old school GOP fighting it out for the brand name of RepublicanTM.

Kinda like watching two junkies fighting over a plastic spoon.

It's really beautiful, actually. Like seeing an old ugly factory imploded in slow motion.


I do NOT like your imagery... It immediately brought to mind the face of Slick Dick Cheney, grinning like an opossum when the towers fell.
 
2013-11-09 06:53:13 PM  

andrewagill: ghare: cchris_39: "Internecine". Rare that an author or subby sends us to a dictionary. Well done.

The Tea Party is prepared for losses.

/at least this one is

If you had to look up internecine, you are a Teabagger. If you already knew what it meant, you are a Democrat.

And if you didn't know what it meant but refused to look it up, you're an establishment Republican?

I suppose that makes sense.

/oh wait.  I think I had it confused with interregnum.


Easy mistake to make.
 
2013-11-09 07:40:21 PM  
2014 is going to be nasty, no good, very bad year.
 
2013-11-09 08:40:05 PM  
Sounds like their could be some very nasty and expensive GOP primaries.
 
2013-11-09 09:34:53 PM  
With any luck the two groups will start shooting each other to bring back jesus before christmas to save us all.
 
2013-11-09 10:03:53 PM  
FTFA: Super PACs - unlike congressional campaigns - are permitted to raise and spend unlimited funds. The downside, however, is that the campaign and the PAC are forbidden from coordinating. The Federal Election Commission requires a strict firewall between a campaign and a super PAC - meaning that a trusted aide usually needs to helm the outside effort.

In my opinion this rule against PACs coordinating with campaigns has been a driving force behind this Republican party schism. Used to be the National Republican Party would be the main focal point of the big money donors, and they would sort of dictate what went where. This gave the GOP a unified strategy and message.

Now You have a lot of the big donors bypassing the National Republican Party and creating their own PACs. Rather than spreading a unified message with a single strategy, you have a bunch of conflicting personal agendas. Naturally with the current "attack" culture dominant in today's conservatism, those conflicting agendas view each other as the enemy who needs to be destroyed for the sake of "AMERICA!TM", "JesusTM", and "Ronald ReaganTM".
 
2013-11-09 10:12:36 PM  

heavymetal: FTFA: Super PACs - unlike congressional campaigns - are permitted to raise and spend unlimited funds. The downside, however, is that the campaign and the PAC are forbidden from coordinating. The Federal Election Commission requires a strict firewall between a campaign and a super PAC - meaning that a trusted aide usually needs to helm the outside effort.

In my opinion this rule against PACs coordinating with campaigns has been a driving force behind this Republican party schism. Used to be the National Republican Party would be the main focal point of the big money donors, and they would sort of dictate what went where. This gave the GOP a unified strategy and message.

Now You have a lot of the big donors bypassing the National Republican Party and creating their own PACs. Rather than spreading a unified message with a single strategy, you have a bunch of conflicting personal agendas. Naturally with the current "attack" culture dominant in today's conservatism, those conflicting agendas view each other as the enemy who needs to be destroyed for the sake of "AMERICA!TM", "JesusTM", and "Ronald ReaganTM".


The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!
 
2013-11-09 10:52:20 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!


Citizens United was the UTTERLY CORRECT decision.  There's a reason why it was 9-4 (as in 4 judges said "Yeah, this is the correct decision, I just don't like what it implies").

/With the 4.  Absolutely correct.  REALLY don't like where it leads.
 
2013-11-10 01:28:04 AM  
Winning a political referendum with money doesn't work forever. I can't speak for all examples, but I remember a bit of progressive legislation that came up in our state some time ago. The first time it popped up, the plucky liberal grassroots organization spent, say, one million dollars; the church-backed conservatives spent, say, ten million dollars. The measure went down in defeat.

A few years later, it popped up again. Again, the plucky liberal grassroots organization spent one million dollars, the church-backed conservatives spent ten. Again the measure went down - but the vote was closer.

A few years later, it popped up again.

Now, imagine you're a church-backed conservative with a countermeasure. You're already twenty million into this thing. What's more, polls show a dead heat in this race; even if you do win, it'll probably pop up again in a few years, and next time it'll definitely lose. Do you really want to burn through another ten million dollars of your backers' money on a high risk just to buy a few more years on the winning side of the culture wars? Can you continue to count on your backers' fat checks?

Like gerrymandering, shoveling money into an election seems like it might buy you a couple of cycles, but it won't halt the arc of history. What the church-backed conservatives did third time 'round was gather the usual speechifiers, throw a half-hearted campaign with a few leftover funds, and let the progressives roll right over 'em in a landslide.

I could be wrong about all this. There might be a few referenda that a wheelbarrow of cash have stopped right in their tracks. But I'd be willing to bet that there's a limit to the amount of cash the Koch Bros. are willing to pour into an election before they decide to cut their losses. It's one thing to literally invent your own political party out of the most intransigent of the right-leaners, but if the movement isn't self-sustaining at this point, sooner or later they're going to halt the gravy train.
 
2013-11-10 02:17:10 AM  
Oh I love this so much.  Not only because of the entertainment value and not even because the chickens have come home to roost, but because all this money they are spending against each other is money they are not spending against Democrats.

Go Conservative Teatards go!  No compromise!  Death to RINOs!  Take back America!  Do not surrender in this... YOUR MOMENT OF TRIUMPH!
 
2013-11-10 04:03:58 AM  

worlddan: The role of money in politics is overblown. Money is necessary but the idea that the person with the biggest war chest wins is false. Having a good candidate with an effective message who has the organizing skills to get out the vote is more important than tens of millions of dollars.


Exactly the reason why Republicans have to cheat and gerrymander and disenfranchise to win. History will bury them.
 
2013-11-10 04:36:36 AM  

dr_blasto: My hope is these groups dig in and fight until there is only one standing and don't reach some kind of compromise (not that I'm really concerned with these conservatives finding out what compromise is at this point in the game) that allows for the existence of mildly disgruntled social nutters and teabaggers to remain in the Republican Party.


MY hope is that they rip each other apart until, finally, the Tea Party is kicked forcefully out of the Republican fold. At which point, guided by retardedly uncompromising principles, the Tea Party becomes an actual 3rd party funded by SuperPACs established by rich religious figures and organizations.  The R's and the T's smash each other to bits for a few election cycles while the Dems look on in amusement until the religious right is finally marginalized out of existence and we can conduct our elections in a much more sane fashion henceforth.
 
2013-11-10 04:58:09 AM  

meyerkev: Gyrfalcon: The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!

Citizens United was the UTTERLY CORRECT decision.  There's a reason why it was 9-4 (as in 4 judges said "Yeah, this is the correct decision, I just don't like what it implies").

/With the 4.  Absolutely correct.  REALLY don't like where it leads.



"The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

I don't see how one can read this to mean anything resembling "yeah, this is the correct decision."
 
2013-11-10 05:07:06 AM  

meyerkev: Gyrfalcon: The unintended consequences of Citizens United strikes again! Ooorah!

Citizens United was the UTTERLY CORRECT decision.  There's a reason why it was 9-4 (as in 4 judges said "Yeah, this is the correct decision, I just don't like what it implies").

/With the 4.  Absolutely correct.  REALLY don't like where it leads.


...9 to 4?

Anyway, Citizens United would have had a vastly different outcome had it not been argued as a 1st Amendment case. It was that argument--and only that argument--that kept it from being 9-0 or 8-0.

It was a TERRIBLE and UTTERLY WRONG decision.
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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