| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 04 2014 14:46 Yurie wrote: You could also start empowering unions and ignore minimum wage. Worked in other countries. In which countries ? Germany ? lol The effect of minimum wage on employment are overrated anyway. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
We've really created a monster with these intelligence agencies. If what Feinstein alleges is true, the CIA is completely disregarding the checks that should be imposed by congressional oversight. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
On April 04 2014 17:56 WhiteDog wrote: In which countries ? Germany ? lol The effect of minimum wage on employment are overrated anyway. Hmm if the market targeted by the companies is national, the price of the goods or service provided will more or less rise to make up for it but in the case of global firms, which compete with the exterior it makes them less competitive. | ||
Falling
Canada11412 Posts
After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill Thursday that supporters say will assure unfettered practice of religion without government interference but that opponents worry could lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. The bill, called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will become law July 1. It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal. An early version of the bill, considered weeks ago, was similar to one Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed after business groups said it could hurt that state's economy. Supporters say the finalMississippi bill bears little resemblance to the failed Arizona measure. Outside the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 75 gay-rights supporters protested against the bill. Jeff White of Waveland, a founder of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Lesbian and Gay Community Center, said as someone who is gay and Jewish, he worries such a new law could make him more vulnerable to unfair treatment. "It's the first time in my life that I've actually considered moving out of Mississippi," said White, 32. "It made me physically ill the past few days, realizing what they're trying to do." Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday, during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is vaguely worded, supporters said an example of would be a zoning law to limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the location of a secular business. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote: I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds.*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy | ||
|
Falling
Canada11412 Posts
What's up with people use of scare quotes on Jon "Stewart" or Jon Leibowitz Stewart. Do they do the same thing with "Michael Caine" or Katy "Perry" or Kirk Demsky Douglas? It's obviously not all commenters, rather it is a minority. But it a commonality I've noticed. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11412 Posts
On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote: I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. So you think there should be no donation limit at all? I think that is a horrible idea. That incentivizes politicians to go after a rich few patrons to support their campaign and thus narrowing the focus of politicians for funding. I much prefer the idea that politicians are forced to search out financial support from the broadest spectrum of people, thus ensuring that the politician with the most money to spend is the one whose campaign hoofed around to the most amount of people. Broad support rather than rich patrons. After watching the nominee process of two presidential elections, I do agree with you that there is a barrier to entry to be considered a 'main' candidate with the (in my opinion) arbitrary inclusion or exclusion of candidates from certain debates as well as length in speaking times. But I don't think lifting donation limits is the answer to the problem. Or if it is an answer, then we are summoning a great evil to slay another evil. There has to be a better answer. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) says Republicans can still repeal Obamacare. He was asked on Bloomberg TV's "Political Capital With Al Hunt" about the impracticality of fully repealing Obamacare now that more than 7 million people have signed up on the insurance marketplaces, and more are benefiting from other provisions. "I'd question the premise of that entire argument. No, I don't know that [we can't repeal it]," Ryan said in the interview, which is set to air Friday night. "So this whole thing that, oh, we have 7.1 million people, which, by the way, we won't even get into the legitimacy of that statistic. So we have -- let's just take it for argument. Seven million people on Obamacare; there's no way you can change it. It's just going to have to learn to live with it. I don't buy that for a second." Source WASHINGTON -- The growth of wind power in the United States is putting a significant dent in emissions, according to a forthcoming report from the American Wind Energy Association. Wind generation avoided 95.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013, which is equivalent to taking 16.9 million cars off the road. That's a 4.4 percent cut to power sector emissions, when compared to the level of emissions that would have been generated if that power had come from fossil fuels. Wind proponents say that's evidence that the wind industry is playing a major role in meeting U.S. emissions goals. "Every time a megawatt of wind power is generated, something else is not generated," said Elizabeth Salerno, AWEA's vice president for industry data and analysis. Source | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2014 03:19 Falling wrote: Still not a sufficient cause for abridging their first amendment rights to political speech. Maybe I'm a sucker for reading the whole decisions through and through, but that is one argument covered and recovered and referred to in other major decisions in the supreme court opinions.So you think there should be no donation limit at all? I think that is a horrible idea. That incentivizes politicians to go after a rich few patrons to support their campaign and thus narrowing the focus of politicians for funding. I much prefer the idea that politicians are forced to search out financial support from the broadest spectrum of people, thus ensuring that the politician with the most money to spend is the one whose campaign hoofed around to the most amount of people. Broad support rather than rich patrons. After watching the nominee process of two presidential elections, I do agree with you that there is a barrier to entry to be considered a 'main' candidate with the (in my opinion) arbitrary inclusion or exclusion of candidates from certain debates as well as length in speaking times. But I don't think lifting donation limits is the answer to the problem. Or if it is an answer, then we are summoning a great evil to slay another evil. There has to be a better answer. At the same time, we have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. See, e.g., Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett , 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 24–25). Many people might find those latter objectives attractive: They would be delighted to see fewer television com- mercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or disparaging an opponent’s character. Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 05 2014 03:13 Falling wrote: By the way, there's a peculiar thing I've noticed in the comment section of Conservative blogs or news. What's up with people use of scare quotes on Jon "Stewart" or Jon Leibowitz Stewart. Do they do the same thing with "Michael Caine" or Katy "Perry" or Kirk Demsky Douglas? It's obviously not all commenters, rather it is a minority. But it a commonality I've noticed. Stage names are obviously for evil Communist motherfuckers. + Show Spoiler + like "John Wayne". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote: I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Naturally, if you can group people into 600-700 people groups, then it's perfectly fine to deny them their rights. That's what free speech is all about, isn't it? Some people can't be trusted with free speech.You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? Preaching "undue influence" is still not sufficient to abridge the first amendment rights of individuals or groups of individuals. Whine and caterwaul all you want. We have plenty of the hand wringing crowd that dislike liberties written in stone instead of changing due to popular opinion. Oh, and what exactly is your point about voter ID laws? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On April 05 2014 06:14 Danglars wrote: Naturally, if you can group people into 600-700 people groups, then it's perfectly fine to deny them their rights. That's what free speech is all about, isn't it? Some people can't be trusted with free speech. Preaching "undue influence" is still not sufficient to abridge the first amendment rights of individuals or groups of individuals. Whine and caterwaul all you want. We have plenty of the hand wringing crowd that dislike liberties written in stone instead of changing due to popular opinion. Oh, and what exactly is your point about voter ID laws? It helps if you actually read the post before replying to it Danglers. I'm not going to argue whether money = speech with you, you can have your opinion and me mine without it really mattering here. I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process Yet you support Voter ID laws, which republicans have admitted, were not coincidentally, going to EMPLACE "barriers to the democratic process" particularly on those less likely to vote republican. Your arguments here and elsewhere come off as disingenuous to say the least. Had you read/comprehended my post you would of noted that I actually am in support of unlimited donations. My question to you is do you want to remove the secrecy curtain which donors are able to hide behind, or do you want people to be able to donate anonymously in unlimited amounts so campaigns or parties could be entirely funded by an anonymous source/s? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2014 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote: You can make that argument in my absence should you desire it, and it appears you do. I have no desire to engage with you if you continue in that manner.It helps if you actually read the post before replying to it Danglers. I'm not going to argue whether money = speech with you, you can have your opinion and me mine without it really mattering here. Yet you support Voter ID laws, which republicans have admitted, were not coincidentally, going to EMPLACE "barriers to the democratic process" particularly on those less likely to vote republican. Your arguments here and elsewhere come off as disingenuous to say the least. Had you read/comprehended my post you would of noted that I actually am in support of unlimited donations. My question to you is do you want to remove the secrecy curtain which donors are able to hide behind, or do you want people to be able to donate anonymously in unlimited amounts so campaigns or parties could be entirely funded by an anonymous source/s? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) You're doing fine on mischaracterization and filling in every blank with your own pen, and I would hate to interrupt. You don't actually need another person to argue with as is easily grasped by your post. On April 05 2014 06:37 IgnE wrote: Do or don't you support transparency of donations? I support transparency of large contributions pursuant to its ability to mitigate corruption. This also applies to situations such as union employees having a right to know how their union dues are used by their representatives to support candidates that may be opposed to their interests. If you have the time, the rest of my thoughts from my agreement with parts of the opinion of Buckley v. Valeo. Injured parties may now easily demonstrate injury, in that the compelled disclosure of contributors' names will nowadays cubject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals in violation of their First Amendment associational rights. Back to the first amendment, the freedom of association is now impacted (see: Mozilla) by compelled disclosure laws. I hope for a Supreme Court challenge on contributions with no fear of corruption, only the denial of their freedom of association rights. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2014 09:07 oneofthem wrote: Likewise, corporations can't make political donations in one respect. You don't go to the brownstone at 1200 Main St. and ask the bricks how much they donated, or question the articles of incorporation how many candidates those papers supported. People make donations, individually or alongside others. If you think only stupid people can agree with Citizens United vs. FEC, go read through the majority opinion again. All I'm seeing is a careless approach to the rights of the individual enshrined in the constitution.this corporate personhood thing with respect to political campaign contribution is just a huge troll. don't believe anyone is stupid enough to actually believe in the arguments for it. and they are more or less just committing a logical move on par with russell paradox. it can be proven to be a fatal confusion | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On April 05 2014 08:05 Danglars wrote: You can make that argument in my absence should you desire it, and it appears you do. I have no desire to engage with you if you continue in that manner. You're doing fine on mischaracterization and filling in every blank with your own pen, and I would hate to interrupt. You don't actually need another person to argue with as is easily grasped by your post. I support transparency of large contributions pursuant to its ability to mitigate corruption. This also applies to situations such as union employees having a right to know how their union dues are used by their representatives to support candidates that may be opposed to their interests. If you have the time, the rest of my thoughts from my agreement with parts of the opinion of Buckley v. Valeo. Injured parties may now easily demonstrate injury, in that the compelled disclosure of contributors' names will nowadays cubject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals in violation of their First Amendment associational rights. Back to the first amendment, the freedom of association is now impacted (see: Mozilla) by compelled disclosure laws. I hope for a Supreme Court challenge on contributions with no fear of corruption, only the denial of their freedom of association rights. What did I mischaracterize? As for transparency, what I am gathering is that you want people to have to disclose but you believe that they have a constitutional protection that should allow them to avoid disclosing because they may face "threats, harassment, or reprisals" as a result of that disclosure? Or that they should have to disclose and have the ability to sue if they are damaged? I would just like some clarification of what your intending to advocate. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Winter Champion…
OSC
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
LiuLi Cup
Reynor vs Creator
Maru vs Lambo
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
Clem vs Rogue
SHIN vs Cyan
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
