Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807080]nice attempt at trolling but ideological purity is really ignorant; I'm a gun owner and fully support gun rights (against the AWB and would like the MG registry to be reopened with heavy regulation, such as licensing and etc), that doesn't make me a conservative, that just makes me pro-gun. what do you want me to rebut, as far as the case is concerned I'd agree that if the movie was as much of a campaign advertisement as the FEC claimed it was then it should be subjected to campaign laws. I haven't seen the movie and you probably haven't either so I can't really expand on that. as far as I have read into the case I would disagree with the supreme court's decision in that it would allow corporations and unions to cut the middleman (PACs) and run campaign ads themselves ("mcdonalds likes low prices and so does barack obama. vote for him")[/QUOTE] I am saying you are an ideological conservative if your primary concern is stability and prosperity above individuality and sanctity of rights. [editline]05:26PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19807457]Citizens United is a non-profit corporation. Citizens United paid to create the movie, which was judged to be an extended length campaign ad. Therefore, corporate money paid for a campaign ad, which was illegal.[/QUOTE] Proof. Now. Have you actually read the ruling? See, this was addressed in the case. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know what the FUCKING RULING WAS. I'm tired of your unsupported claims. I want you to PROVE them, right now.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807418]Prove it, now. Given the ruling states specifically that this was NOT the case, you're fucking wrong. [editline]05:25PM[/editline] Liberal ideology, not democratic party. The American Constitution is a purely Liberal doctrine.[/QUOTE] you contradicted yourself there; why is gun control a liberal ideology if the constitution is a liberal doctrine

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807474]you contradicted yourself there; why is gun control a liberal ideology if the constitution is a liberal doctrine[/QUOTE] Gun control is NOT a liberal ideology, it is a stance of the Democratic Party. Liberal =/= Democrat. Conservative =/= Republican. Jesus Christ you know nothing about politics, do you?

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807474]you contradicted yourself there; why is gun control a liberal ideology if the constitution is a liberal doctrine[/QUOTE] He said gun control was a Democratic party ideology. They can claim they're liberals, but that doesn't mean they are.

Politics 101: A Liberal ideology is one that is unafraid of taking risks and is willing to see its nation destabilized, all for the sake of protecting individual rights. A Conservative ideology is one that holds prosperity, security and stability above all else, and rights are purely secondary beneath national success. Communism, for instance, is a heavily CONSERVATIVE practice in its purest, Marxist sense. Capitalism, additionally, and a system of Free Market economy is a LIBERAL system of economy. Liberalism = Taking risks, i.e. what the word LIBERAL MEANS. Conservatism = safe practice and restraint, i.e. what the word CONSERVATIVE MEANS.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807517]Gun control is NOT a liberal ideology, it is a stance of the Democratic Party. Liberal =/= Democrat. Conservative =/= Republican. Jesus Christ you know nothing about politics, do you?[/QUOTE] [quote]Liberal ideology, not democratic party. The American Constitution is a purely Liberal doctrine.[/quote] responding to a question asking why liberals were so anti-gun if they are pro-individual liberty you should have made your post more clear so it didn't sound like you were saying gun control wasn't a platform of the democratic party but rather of liberals (which would make sense given how gun control really isn't on the table at the moment and probably won't be, on top of how many centrist democrats there are) [editline]10:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;19807543]Politics 101: A Liberal ideology is one that is unafraid of taking risks and is willing to see its nation destabilized, all for the sake of protecting individual rights. A Conservative ideology is one that holds prosperity, security and stability above all else, and rights are purely secondary beneath national success. Communism, for instance, is a heavily CONSERVATIVE practice in its purest, Marxist sense. Capitalism, additionally, and a system of Free Market economy is a LIBERAL system of economy. Liberalism = Taking risks, i.e. what the word LIBERAL MEANS. Conservatism = safe practice and restraint, i.e. what the word CONSERVATIVE MEANS.[/QUOTE] i misread your post, stop acting like i am 4 years old

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807460]I am saying you are an ideological conservative if your primary concern is stability and prosperity above individuality and sanctity of rights. [editline]05:26PM[/editline] Proof. Now. Have you actually read the ruling? See, this was addressed in the case. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know what the FUCKING RULING WAS. I'm tired of your unsupported claims. I want you to PROVE them, right now.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United[/url] It is "a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." God you're bitchy today. They're a non-profit corporation directly funding campaign ads, that's the reason for the suit in the first place. Why don't you prove to me how this ruling can possibly be a good thing for the average person? As in, actual voting, existing, breathing person, and not some legal definition.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807235]why are you so angry lankist, we can discuss this and chill out at the same time it's not like you need to be in a state of indignant rage to get your point across[/QUOTE] He's just dramatic. But it makes his posts OH so fun to read so it's all good.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807568]responding to a question asking why liberals were so anti-gun if they are pro-individual liberty you should have made your post more clear so it didn't sound like you were saying gun control wasn't a platform of the democratic party but rather of liberals (which would make sense given how gun control really isn't on the table at the moment and probably won't be, on top of how many centrist democrats there are) [editline]10:32PM[/editline] i misread your post[/QUOTE] Liberals AREN'T anti-gun. Liberals are pro-gun. Democrats are anti-gun. Our political terminology has flipped. Democrats USED to be a liberal party that represented the blue-collar working-middle-class interests, and Republicans used to represent the proletariat and the gentry. Now it is the opposite. Our parties are now Democratic Conservative and Republican Conservative. Neither embrace Liberalism. [editline]05:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19807586][url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United[/url] It is "a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." God you're bitchy today. They're a non-profit corporation directly funding campaign ads, that's the reason for the suit in the first place. Why don't you prove to me how this ruling can possibly be a good thing for the average person? As in, actual voting, existing, breathing person, and not some legal definition.[/QUOTE] That proves they are Not-For-Profit. NOT that they were hired by a corporate interest to make a film. Proof. Now. It should be very easy, given all non-profit organizations are transparent via FoIA, and you can legally acquire all of their tax records and many of their financial records by simply asking for them.

Wow, argument between Lankist and someone Grab the popcorn! :munch:

[QUOTE=Haxxer;19807640]Wow, argument between Lankist and someone Grab the popcorn! :munch:[/QUOTE] I actually am eating popcorn. Damn I am so well prepared for this.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807627]Liberals AREN'T anti-gun. Liberals are pro-gun. Democrats are anti-gun. Our political terminology has flipped. Democrats USED to be a liberal party that represented the blue-collar working-middle-class interests, and Republicans used to represent the proletariat and the gentry. Now it is the opposite. Our parties are now Democratic Conservative and Republican Conservative. Neither embrace Liberalism. [editline]05:35PM[/editline] That proves they are Not-For-Profit. NOT that they were hired by a corporate interest to make a film. Proof. Now.[/QUOTE] you can cut out the little lessons because I'm not stupid, Lankist, and I don't appreciate the fact that you assume that I am.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807672]you can cut out the little lessons because I'm not stupid, Lankist, and I don't appreciate the fact that you assume that I am.[/QUOTE] Well given you think Liberal = Democrat, I am fairly secure in the notion that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. [editline]05:39PM[/editline] Plus you seem to be under the impression that the political spectrum is a single line with left and right, rather than a much broader spectrum.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807681]Well given you think Liberal = Democrat, I am fairly secure in the notion that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.[/QUOTE] Umm...it does...surely you can be a Liberal Conservative and whatnot but generally speaking Liberal=Democrat Stop being an asshole Lankist

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807627] That proves they are Not-For-Profit. NOT that they were hired by a corporate interest to make a film. Proof. Now. It should be very easy, given all non-profit organizations are transparent via FoIA, and you can legally acquire all of their tax records and many of their financial records by simply asking for them.[/QUOTE] Dude, fuck you. I'm not going to screw around with FoIA requests just to argue with some douchebag on the internet. I'm tired of being your source errand boy, go do your own research if you want to refute me. File your own request to prove that a far-right nonprofit that churns out insane smear documentaries isn't funded by conservative corporate interests.

[QUOTE=Haxxer;19807640]Wow, argument between Lankist and someone Grab the popcorn! :munch:[/QUOTE] and where would lankist be without the crowd of adoring onlookers posting in threads to contribute nothing except to slather praise over his every word?

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807681]Well given you think Liberal = Democrat, I am fairly secure in the notion that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. [editline]05:39PM[/editline] Plus you seem to be under the impression that the political spectrum is a single line with left and right, rather than a much broader spectrum.[/QUOTE] are you sure

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;19807695]Umm...it does...surely you can be a Liberal Conservative and whatnot but generally speaking Liberal=Democrat Stop being an asshole Lankist[/QUOTE] No, Democrats are not a Liberal party. They are a politically Conservative party. Pure Libertarianism is a Liberal ideology, though the Libertarian Party has of course too become Conservative. I will not explain it again. Liberal = Risks and freedoms, minimal bans and controls. Conservative = Prosperity and security, maximum control in exchange for maximum safety. Democrats and Republicans both strive for equal amounts of control in different areas. Conservatives want theocracy and illegal abortion, Democrats want illegal guns and mandated environmentalism. NEITHER party is Liberal.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19807718]and where would lankist be without the crowd of adoring onlookers posting in threads to contribute nothing except to slather praise over his every word?[/QUOTE] There isn't a single word of praise in that post. He's merely pointing out that some rather entertaining shit is going down.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19807716]Dude, fuck you. I'm not going to screw around with FoIA requests just to argue with some douchebag on the internet..[/QUOTE] Then piss away if you can't prove your claims.

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;19807695]Umm...it does...surely you can be a Liberal Conservative and whatnot but generally speaking Liberal=Democrat Stop being an asshole Lankist[/QUOTE] If you had read about 10 posts up he just said that Democrats aren't necessarily liberal.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;19807761]There isn't a single word of praise in that post. He's merely pointing out that some rather entertaining shit is going down.[/QUOTE] Verily. I rather like Pvt. Ryan as well which makes this argument doubly entertaining.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19804350]Obama can't trump the Supreme Court. If the fucking SUPREME COURT deems something unconstitutional, neither the Executive nor Congress can reenact it. The Supreme Court has the FINAL say.[/QUOTE] I believe he means he's going to influence decision...

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;19807769]If you had read about 10 posts up he just said that Democrats aren't necessarily liberal.[/QUOTE] Maybe I don't give a fuck what he said?

lankist i don't see how you can get off calling me pretentious when almost every other post of yours is some sort of snide patronization i'd say if anyone is being pretentious here it's you, given your posts and histrionics about free speech

[QUOTE=InsanePyro;19807793]Maybe I don't give a fuck what he said?[/QUOTE] It helps if you read what he said before arguing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806566]This is America. It's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, motherfucker. Individual rights are the single most important thing in this country. More important than security, more important than prosperity, more important than wealth or poverty or sickness or health. Our entire doctrine was WRITTEN to enforce this. We have RIGHTS for this very reason. They are fucking RIGHTS, not suggestions. The reason they are RIGHTS is because they are NEVER to be violated under any circumstances, even if it would result in the complete collapse of the nation. [/QUOTE] yup you're a lawyer.

[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19807718]and where would lankist be without the crowd of adoring onlookers posting in threads to contribute nothing except to slather praise over his every word?[/QUOTE] His arguments are interesting

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19807795]lankist i don't see how you can get off calling me pretentious when almost every other post of yours is some sort of snide patronization i'd say if anyone is being pretentious here it's you, given your posts and histrionics about free speech[/QUOTE] This

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806566]This is America. It's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, motherfucker. Individual rights are the single most important thing in this country. More important than security, more important than prosperity, more important than wealth or poverty or sickness or health. Our entire doctrine was WRITTEN to enforce this. We have RIGHTS for this very reason. They are fucking RIGHTS, not suggestions. The reason they are RIGHTS is because they are NEVER to be violated under any circumstances, even if it would result in the complete collapse of the nation. [/QUOTE] Seems as though I missed this little gem. Do you not get how completely the average person's rights have been trampled by this ruling? If I want to support a candidate, I donate to their campaign because I don't have the wealth to produce my own ads and buy my own airtime. My contributions to a campaign are limited by law. Corporations, which do have massive amounts of money, now get to spend as much as they want in support of a candidate, while my realistic contributions are limited. Corporations aren't people. They don't live, they don't breath, they don't vote, they're just a legal definition. So why is it okay for them to be given rights that far supersede my own? Why are the rights of a non-person so much more important that the rights of a real citizen that they are allowed to so completely trample them? You're dodging the actual issue of the decision with your source-demanding stonewalling and petty little political definitions.