|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation?
There's a fair bit of difference between programming and ads. Also, NBC is incorporated under a different law than what that super pac is incorporated under. The type of corporation makes a difference for those laws; generally speaking, getting non-profit corporation status, which comes with some significant tax benefits, also has some limitations on what you do.
Is that a sufficient explanation, or do you need more? If you need more, please elaborate on what exactly you want.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation?
NBC can run the ads as free speech because corporations are people. This group is not a corporation, it is structured differently with a different mandate that he believes to be incompatible with campaigning for a single candidate.
|
On November 27 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation? NBC can run the ads as free speech because corporations are people. This group is not a corporation, it is structured differently with a different mandate that he believes to be incompatible with campaigning for a single candidate.
So, the government can eliminate the First Amendment using the tax code?
|
Nope, the government can use both the majority and dissenting opinions from Citizens United as a guidepost without eliminating any rights. Your question begging is cute though, keep on it!
|
On November 27 2015 12:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation? NBC can run the ads as free speech because corporations are people. This group is not a corporation, it is structured differently with a different mandate that he believes to be incompatible with campaigning for a single candidate. So, the government can eliminate the First Amendment using the tax code?
this makes me questoin whether you genuinely wanted understanding or were just trying to sneakily gripe about something you dislike.
|
It was never a question. The government has to prove corruption to justify its campaign finance laws per SCOTUS, and all the other lines people attempt to draw boil down to: If you want to pump a candidate during Sunday Night football, you have to buy NBC, not a commercial spot on NBC.
|
On November 27 2015 12:27 cLutZ wrote:
It was never a question. The government has to prove corruption to justify its campaign finance laws per SCOTUS, and all the other lines people attempt to draw boil down to: If you want to pump a candidate during Sunday Night football, you have to buy NBC, not a commercial spot on NBC.
you are rude, and lying.
this started with:
"How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation?"
note the question mark at the end.
That is very clearly a question. If you didn't want to ask a question, then you should have not used a question mark, or asked it in the form of a question; or you could have marked it as rhetorical.
|
It was a rhetorical question, and the fact that your rebuttals are so lacking in principal makes the point quite clearly.
|
It was not worded in such a way as to be obviously rhetorical. and my rebuttal points are quite sound. You cannot count on inflection either, as that is not marked in written words. Also, I was not the only one to mistake it for an actual question.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 27 2015 12:03 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation? NBC can run the ads as free speech because corporations are people. This group is not a corporation, it is structured differently with a different mandate that he believes to be incompatible with campaigning for a single candidate. So, the government can eliminate the First Amendment using the tax code?
The tax code allows people to define what they are. This group has not defined itself as a group that has the freedom of political speech as I understand it. If they wish to exercise their freedom of speech they are free to change their tax status.
You might as well say that most employees don't have free speech because they cannot independently speak to journalists about work without being disciplined for not going through the press department. They can, it's just incompatible with their other roles.
|
On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation?
I think the word's out on this distinction. CNBC showed to 14 million what it looks like to have an axe to grind as a media corp. The delineations in tax code isn't an acceptable guiding principal for the exercise of political speech, it's still the government picking which free speech it wants to tolerate and which it does not. It's bordering on the basic reasons for enshrining a freedom of speech in any constitution in the first place. If we need a second Supreme Court ruling upending provisions in the tax code to make that clear, so be it. Further, a host of organizations use classifications like 501c3 to spend funds in a political manner contrary to law (Just spend 10 minutes at mediamatters.org and call it nonpolitical), so the soil is ripe for selective enforcement from whoever holds the reins of political power.
|
I'm surprised to read that Marco Rubio agrees with Sharia law being above the national law. Or is he dumb enough to think his statement only applies to Christians?
|
Norway28874 Posts
I would assume it is the latter.
|
He probably was dehydrated.
|
On November 26 2015 10:25 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 09:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 26 2015 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2015 09:12 Yoav wrote:
So here's an idea: shoot the D lawmakers a note that you're gonna have a meeting on ways to implement police reforms (body cameras, recording statistics, increasing accountability, making them easier to fire, maybe paying them more) and invite R lawmakers to the meeting but tell them its about implementing teacher reforms.
Both sides bitch about unions, agree on reforms, and then they're enacted for both teachers and cops. Hooray! Accountability and not shuffling people into school to prison pipeline! Yup that's what I was thinking. That's a more clever way to present it than I had come up with. I just wonder whether politicians and t heir supporters realize how bullshit that is or whether they are truly so blind as to not see the absurdity of why such a proposal makes such good satire. Out of curiosity, what reforms would you guys like to see enacted for teachers' unions and teachers? All of the reforms. Public employee unions existing makes no sense, particularly with how much we understand about public choice theory nowadays. It is creating a state-sanctioned bargaining monopoly, who's very interests are against the state and the citizens of the state.
Speaking as a public employee computer programmer, unions are the only thing that have prevented nepotism in the government. Women weren't being promoted to managers and high pay disparities existed before standardized pay grades and pay steps. An example would be in public schools, where prior to unions, women would do most of the teaching and were expected to retire once they were married. Men would be administrators, a high paying position no woman could hope to attain. There's a reason why the public sector tends to be way more equitable in pay than the private sector is equitable in pay.
|
On November 27 2015 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 00:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in a video posted Tuesday that he believes people of faith should ignore laws that violate their religion.
Rubio told the Christian Broadcasting Network that no law is "settled," making reference to Supreme Court decisions that legalized same-sex marriage.
“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that," Rubio said. "We cannot to abide by that because government is compelling us to sin."
“So when those two come into conflict, God’s rules always win,” he added.
That rhetoric deviates a bit from when Rubio weighed in on defiant Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed because she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, earlier this year. Rubio said in September that the clerk's office had the "governmental duty to carry out the law," but that there should be religious freedom protections for individuals working in the office. Source Looking forward to when a reporter asks "Should only Christians ignore laws in conflict with their religion or should Muslims ignore them too?" An honest response might sound a little like "no I only meant Carson/Cruz supporters, can't you see I'm trying to win a primary, I don't actually believe this crap, check my record!"
Should Feminists ignore laws that are Patriarchal? 
|
On November 27 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 11:37 cLutZ wrote:
How can they be breaking the law, when, if NBC decided to run the same ads, except call them programming there would be no violation? NBC can run the ads as free speech because corporations are people. This group is not a corporation, it is structured differently with a different mandate that he believes to be incompatible with campaigning for a single candidate.
I'm pretty sure the rules would apply to NBC as well. The rules apply to people and groups of people (corporate form or otherwise).
|
On November 27 2015 19:47 Acrofales wrote:
I'm surprised to read that Marco Rubio agrees with Sharia law being above the national law. Or is he dumb enough to think his statement only applies to Christians?
Nonono, Christians are good and Muslims are evil, so it's okay.
|
Canada11588 Posts
Well, it's a little different to ignore a law as a matter of conscious (draft dodging during Vietnam?) vs setting up a system of laws of your own. So the feminist example would be more akin... or civil disobedience. Of course there are the dominionists, but I have no idea how popular or unpopular that line of thinking is.
|
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson, facing increased scrutiny over his views on foreign policy, flew to Jordan overnight on Thursday. He was scheduled to meet Syrian and Iraqi refugees, his campaign told media outlets, confronting an issue that has upended the immigration debate.
The New York Times reported that secret service agents had travelled with Carson for the visit, which would also take in a hospital and a clinic.
“I find when you have firsthand knowledge of things as opposed to secondhand, it makes a much stronger impression,” Carson told the newspaper.
Carson, like other Republican presidential candidates, has said the US should not accept refugees from Syria’s nearly five-year war “at this time”, citing security concerns.
Republicans have been highly critical of Barack Obama’s relatively modest proposal to admit 10,000 more refugees from Syria in the next fiscal year, raising concerns about the screening process, arguing that it could allow terrorists to slip into the country.
The administration has forcefully derided such criticism, emphasizing its lengthy and thorough vetting process.
Carson, a retired neurosurgeon with no experience of foreign policy, has repeatedly stumbled on the issue. Last week, he suggested refugees of the Syrian conflict should be screened and likened them to rabid dogs.
In the last Republican debate, he made the baseless assertion that the Chinese were in Syria, alongside the Russians and the Iranians. In a recent Fox News interview he failed to name a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State militants.
As Carson’s poll numbers have suffered, a handful of his foreign policy advisers have suggested he has difficulty grasping complex global issues, despite rigorous briefings on the subject.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
