Timelordwho wrote:
Varus only wants Obama to be looking at dudes, apparently.
But, see, that wouldn't matter if Obama doesn't remove "Dont ask, don't tell" soon enough then Varus wouldn't know that Obama is only looking at dudes.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- State of the Union
State of the UnionFollow
But, see, that wouldn't matter if Obama doesn't remove "Dont ask, don't tell" soon enough then Varus wouldn't know that Obama is only looking at dudes.
#103REDACTED,
Posted: Jan 28 2010 at 10:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The three branches of government function in part to keep each other in check. Checks and Balances and all that.
This thread has become pretty retarded even by the usual standards around this place.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
I don't believe elections are won by money.
Then you are a ******* moron.
Just as Planned.
Spazzledorf wrote:
Quote:
@spaz Do you support the change to what businesses can contribute?
Yes. I don't believe elections are won by money. In fact, one of the huge differences of conservatism vs liberalism is the idea that you can't throw money at things expecting things to get better. In most cases, business will not be supporting liberals, because liberal policies don't support businesses. So its a good thing as far as I see it.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Jophiel wrote:
This thread has become pretty retarded even by the usual standards around this place.
Atomicflea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
This thread has become pretty retarded even by the usual standards around this place.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You don't get forty six thousand, three hundred and sixty two posts through judicial replying.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
This thread has become pretty retarded even by the usual standards around this place.
Not ****. Quit pissing on it.
Spazzledorf wrote:
If that's the case, then I agree we shouldn't. However, the fact remains that Big businesses, which liberals, Obama included, love to hate on, can now work against them.
The fact remains that those "big businesses" can be located in Venezuela or China or Russia or the Middle East or wherever and influence our elections in the same manner as Shell Oil or whoever you're thinking of. Which is what Obama actually spoke out against. You can believe he holds whatever secret resentments in his heart but the thing he actually spoke about at the Address, the thing you're currently ******** about, was opening our elections to foreign influence due to this ruling.
Quote:
Of Course he can bring pressure to bear on the Judiciary branch, but I what he did was call them out on national television. An obvious attempt to turn the people against the Supreme Court.
And then what? They'll vote the Supreme Court out of office? The Supreme Court won't poll as well among females aged 21-35?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
You don't get forty six thousand, three hundred and sixty two posts through judicial replying.
You get it through judicial activism.
I'm posting from the bench!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113REDACTED,
Posted: Jan 28 2010 at 11:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I would refer you to the Governor race in New Jersey. Jon Corzine was a multi-millionaire using his own money to finance his campaign. He reportedly received 400 million dollars after leaving Goldman-Sachs in 1999, so he had quite a bit.
I'm actually surprised the supreme court would rule on something like that. It seems like an issue that should just go through the government. Do you guys have a notwithstanding clause?
@Spaz, I'd refer to to pretty much every election in recent memory dipsh*t. The idea that money doesn't have a huge role is simply absurd. And this isn't just in terms of getting elected mind you. Money is necessary for that, and so you're somewhat indebted to people who give you that money. It's a matter of influence on many levels, and you're a tool if you try and minimize that importance.
I don't like the system, but denying it and making up some imaginary faery world is stupid.
Edited, Jan 28th 2010 11:05am by Xsarus
@Spaz, I'd refer to to pretty much every election in recent memory dipsh*t. The idea that money doesn't have a huge role is simply absurd. And this isn't just in terms of getting elected mind you. Money is necessary for that, and so you're somewhat indebted to people who give you that money. It's a matter of influence on many levels, and you're a tool if you try and minimize that importance.
I don't like the system, but denying it and making up some imaginary faery world is stupid.
Edited, Jan 28th 2010 11:05am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
**** is all part of the nitrogen cycle. As a plant, no **** means urine trouble.
Quote:
The three branches of government function in part to keep each other in check. Checks and Balances and all that.
So you took a Civics course in middle school. Good For You.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#117REDACTED,
Posted: Jan 28 2010 at 11:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah, well there's the difference between you and me. You believe Obama. The man has broken promises and outright lied many times, and expresses a contentment for things that are necessary for this country to function. He doesn't seem to care that businesses or banks or whatever make a profit, as long as there is 'fairness' or some such thing.
Spazzledorf wrote:
Quote:
The fact remains that those "big businesses" can be located in Venezuela or China or Russia or the Middle East or wherever and influence our elections in the same manner as Shell Oil or whoever you're thinking of. Which is what Obama actually spoke out against. You can believe he holds whatever secret resentments in his heart but the thing he actually spoke about at the Address, the thing you're currently ******** about, was opening our elections to foreign influence due to this ruling.
That's great and all but you haven't addressed the issue. Do you agree or disagree that foreign corporations should have this power? If you think it's a bad thing, why are you complaining about Obama specifically speaking out about it?
Also, I think you misused the word "contentment"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
I would refer you to the Governor race in New Jersey. Jon Corzine was a multi-millionaire using his own money to finance his campaign. He reportedly received 400 million dollars after leaving Goldman-Sachs in 1999, so he had quite a bit.
He lost.
Of course money can influence the outcome, but money doesn't win elections. Appealing to people does. Money only makes it easier.
He lost.
Of course money can influence the outcome, but money doesn't win elections. Appealing to people does. Money only makes it easier.
That's a retarded word game if ever I saw one (retarded is not redundant here - I am not implying that all word games are retarded, only that yours is). Sure, artillery is a factor in war, but it doesn't win wars. Defeating the enemy does.If you have more money than the other guy, you can win a close election you would have lost if you both spent the same amount.
That aside, the point is that money has a significant effect on politics - if it didn't, there would be no point in donating to candidates - and you are fine with lobbyists, corporate or otherwise, having a disproportionate influence through financing the candidate most sympathetic to their views, not to mention corruption.
Quote:
Of course money can influence the outcome, but money doesn't win elections. Appealing to people does. Money only makes it easier.
Easier =/= Win, but does equal an advantageous position to win.
Quote:
One wrinkle in the Citizens United case that has largely escaped notice, O'Connor said, is that the opinion has the potential to unleash more corporate spending in campaigns for state judgeships, a problem she has already been highlighting because of the potential for donations to have a corrupting influence on the legal process.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/oconnor-citizens-united-ruling-problem/story?id=9668044
Quote:
By the way, you guys are proving exactly what your opponents say about liberals. I've been speaking civilly and received nothing but insults and thinly veiled mockery. Why are you guys so angry? :(
We're not angry, you're just stupid. 
Welcome to the internet I guess? I mean, you're spouting of nonsense, tinfoilhattery, and clearly have no idea about the subject at hand, so people are just going to dismiss you. If you're unimportant you're a target for ridicule. Plus, there's a chance you might have a meltdown or something. It's not liberals, it's the internet.
The side of the aisle has precious little impact on whether you're polite or not.
Edited, Jan 28th 2010 11:22am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
21 posts
Quote:
That's great and all but you haven't addressed the issue. Do you agree or disagree that foreign corporations should have this power? If you think it's a bad thing, why are you complaining about Obama specifically speaking out about it?
Also, I think you misused the word "contentment"
Also, I think you misused the word "contentment"
Right.. Contempt is what I meant.
No, they shouldn't. I'm 'complaining' because I don't approve of attacking the supreme court. You want to play politics, fine.. but attempting to embarrass and humiliate people is different. I think everything in his speech had a purpose. He could have opposed the decision without calling them out, so why did he?
Another way to put it - I don't think the ends justify the means. He doesn't need to call people out on television to get things done. (Or does he?). He shouldn't.
Edit: Grammar mistakes.
Edited, Jan 28th 2010 12:26pm by Spazzledorf
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
By the way, you guys are proving exactly what your opponents say about liberals. I've been speaking civilly and received nothing but insults and thinly veiled mockery. Why are you guys so angry? :(
We're not angry, you're just stupid. Welcome to the internet I guess?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It's not liberals, it's the internet.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Spazzledorf wrote:
I'm 'complaining' because I don't approve of attacking the supreme court.
Presidents attack the Supreme Court on a regular basis. You're welcome to think this is wrong but at least realize that it's in no way unique to the current president.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 151
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (151)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- State of the Union
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC