Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:31 pm 
 

I will never understand why the decision to abort a rape baby is not entirely up to the woman. I like to discuss different viewpoints around here, but that's one that I just don't get. I have to warp my mind in uncomfortable ways to even try to understand that view, and I just don't want to.

I mean obviously, just for the sake of common decency, even fervent opponents of abortion should recognize that there have to be exceptions. But they don't. They're rather surrender their fucking humanity that be even a little bit wrong.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9641
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:19 pm 
 

GTog wrote:
I will never understand why the decision to abort is not entirely up to the woman.

FTFY
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 11843
Location: In the Arena
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:51 pm 
 

Honestly I don't understand why people don't understand why people believe that. If you really, actually, 100% believed that a fetus wasn't significantly different from a baby and had an immortal soul, you'd probably be against abortion too. Of course science says otherwise, but a lot of these people favor religion or "common sense" or whatever first and science second. They aren't scientifically-minded and to them science is complex and seems ever-changing and uncertain. Also a lot of them are being disingenuous for political reasons and actually have nothing against abortion if it's convenient, and even the honest pro-life stance has a lot of old-timey patriarchal "we get to say how and when and with whom you reproduce" running through it. But, that said, a lot of people really do believe fetuses are babies. If you saw a baby in a cradle at the hospital and the doctor told you "that one's father raped the mother, so we're gonna kill it," you'd probably have something to say about it. I again want to make clear that THEY ARE WRONG IN THIS BELIEF AND FETUSES ARE NOT BABIES. But many of them do believe it.
_________________
MorbidBlood wrote:
So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9641
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:58 pm 
 

failsafeman wrote:
Honestly I don't understand why people don't understand why people believe that.

I do understand why they believe that. But their beliefs are shit because you can't force a woman to give birth, period.
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 11843
Location: In the Arena
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:00 pm 
 

I dunno, seems like they've been doing a pretty good job for thousands of years.






Just kidding I know it's a serious issue please don't kill me.
_________________
MorbidBlood wrote:
So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Top
 Profile  
Subrick
Metal freak

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:27 pm
Posts: 8030
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:21 pm 
 

The incredible irony of super-ultra “moral” religious types being against abortion is that the Bible itself clearly states throughout the Old Testament that life begins at first breath, not conception. There’s even a section of Numbers 5 that is commonly referred to as God ordering fetuses to be aborted in any instances of an unfaithful wife.

But when exactly would modern Christians actually following the Bible mean anything, now?
_________________
Earthcubed wrote:
I'm just perpetually annoyed by Sean William Scott and he's never been in a movie where I wasn't rooting for his head to sever by strange means.

Blacksoul Seraphim Gothic Doom Metal
Autumn's Ashes Melodic Death/Doom Metal

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:33 pm 
 

Once artificial wombs or allowing the fetus to grow in a man becomes every bit as viable as a human woman's, then we at least can have a discussion (even if my opinion remains the same). But as long as a fetus cannot survive without the mother, every single argument stripping bodily autonomy from the woman, no matter how well-intentioned and reasoned, can FOAD.

Think about it you morons: woman dies, fetus dies; ergo, she and only she has dominion over the fetus. Unlike fsm and morrigan I cannot even comprehend the argument to the contrary. It's like Flat Earth or Young Earth Creationism, it bears no reasonable line of thinking.
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9641
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:52 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Think about it you morons: woman dies, fetus dies; ergo, she and only she has dominion over the fetus. Unlike fsm and morrigan I cannot even comprehend the argument to the contrary. It's like Flat Earth or Young Earth Creationism, it bears no reasonable line of thinking.

Oh, I agree. I just, unfortunately, can "comprehend" why people have this belief, because I understand that people are stupid assholes who want to control women because I've seen it all my life. :)

Moving on from abortion... how about AOC calling out campaign finance laws and corruption in a rather brilliant, concise take-down? :thumbsup:

Youtube: show
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
acid_bukkake
SAD!

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:45 am
Posts: 1326
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:16 pm 
 

When can she run for POTUS again? Another 8 years?
_________________
darkeningday wrote:
Everyone knows the Easter Bunny died for our sins when he was chopped up into little pieces so Judas Priest could feed the 5000 animals in the Ark.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:58 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Oh, I agree. I just, unfortunately, can "comprehend" why people have this belief, because I understand that people are stupid assholes who want to control women because I've seen it all my life. :)

No, I mean the rationalization for that control; my mother is pretty much a Susan B. Anthony-era feminist and has no desire to control women's bodies, but is opposed to abortion because "all the genetic material is there." It just doesn't make sense to me.

acid_bukkake wrote:
When can she run for POTUS again? Another 8 years?

She can run in 2024, which is the single silver lining to another Republican in 2020 (still a massive net loss tho).

On the other side of the fence:

Youtube: show

:lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
Xlxlx
Argentinian Asado Supremacy

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:16 pm
Posts: 7845
Location: The Land Down Under (no, not THAT one)
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:56 am 
 

Make Ze Reich Wunderbar Again.
_________________
Resident_Hazard wrote:
People do not just "have" self-esteem issues. An alien put a finger in your bum. You now see a stranger looking back from the mirror.

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:13 am 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Moving on from abortion... how about AOC calling out campaign finance laws and corruption in a rather brilliant, concise take-down? :thumbsup:


That corporations are "people", and money is their version of "speech", is one of the dumbest Supreme Court decisions in American history. Not just the 20th century mind you, but all of history. I believe it's right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson in terms of the damage done to America. And just like it took over 60 years to undo, legally speaking, the "separate but equal" thing, so will it take decades to fix Citizens United v. FEC.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3694
Location: eccaira nare epë Anar
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:21 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
On the other side of the fence:
Youtube: show

:lol: :lol: :lol:


I always wonder if people like this possess enough awareness to be torn apart by internal conflicts or if they really are so stupid that they cannot feel cognitive dissonance.



On another note, I think that is the first time I have ever seen someone try to apply Socialism in One Country to Nazism, where it makes even less sense.
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:
That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9641
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:11 pm 
 

GTog wrote:
That corporations are "people", and money is their version of "speech", is one of the dumbest Supreme Court decisions in American history. Not just the 20th century mind you, but all of history. I believe it's right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson in terms of the damage done to America. And just like it took over 60 years to undo, legally speaking, the "separate but equal" thing, so will it take decades to fix Citizens United v. FEC.

Have to agree. This was a huge fuck-up that will be felt for generations.
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:13 pm 
 

GTog wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
Moving on from abortion... how about AOC calling out campaign finance laws and corruption in a rather brilliant, concise take-down? :thumbsup:


That corporations are "people", and money is their version of "speech", is one of the dumbest Supreme Court decisions in American history. Not just the 20th century mind you, but all of history. I believe it's right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson in terms of the damage done to America. And just like it took over 60 years to undo, legally speaking, the "separate but equal" thing, so will it take decades to fix Citizens United v. FEC.

Maybe this well help dispel the myths about Citizens United....
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2661
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:50 pm 
 

BastardHead wrote:
droneriot wrote:
EzraBlumenfeld wrote:
Obviously, if a victim chooses to take legal action, they can do that as well.

Again, rule of law is optional, biological quick fix is the way to go. Just no.


You've had an unprecedented streak of good takes lately so we all knew it had to end eventually, but still yikes.

I'm not even sure what you're implying here. That we're more okay with rape if it ends in an abortion? Like that somehow makes the rape less bad? Or women are using rape as an excuse for an abortion? Like "oh boy finally I'm carrying a rape baby now I can get an abortion just like how I always wanted"? Or it's a "biological quick fix" in the sense that like... getting an abortion effectively means the rape never happened? Or just aborting a rape baby is exactly as good as putting the rapist away? Or you can only do one or the other and women choose to do the latter out of convenience?

There are so many directions this can go and every last one of them is its own little self-collapsing vortex of stupid.

EDIT: Somehow I missed that you actually did directly say the first one. Holy shit man are you ill?


My one-off joke about Kavanaugh/Republican mindsets has spiraled wildly out of control.

Rape is never okay.
Abortion is more than okay.
What a woman wants to do with a pregnancy is her decision. Men have literally no say.

How any assumption could be made from my joke that "an abortion retcons a rape" is beyond me. You might as well have invoked Jedi powers for all the sense this made.
_________________
Warm Fuzzy Cynical comics.
Warm Fuzzy Cynical Facebook page.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:55 pm 
 

mjollnir wrote:
GTog wrote:
Morrigan wrote:
Moving on from abortion... how about AOC calling out campaign finance laws and corruption in a rather brilliant, concise take-down? :thumbsup:


That corporations are "people", and money is their version of "speech", is one of the dumbest Supreme Court decisions in American history. Not just the 20th century mind you, but all of history. I believe it's right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson in terms of the damage done to America. And just like it took over 60 years to undo, legally speaking, the "separate but equal" thing, so will it take decades to fix Citizens United v. FEC.

Maybe this well help dispel the myths about Citizens United....
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united

That's honestly the single worst thing I've ever read from the ACLU, and I mean that both morally and in that it appears to have been written by a child. "Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process."

Cynicism all right. And a fucking goldfish brain.
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:09 pm 
 

Citizens United does not allow Corporate donations to campaigns. That’s been prohibited since 1907. It allows corporations, unions, or any other organization to spend unlimited money on independent political speech. Meaning, if a organization wants to spend 5 million dollars on any type of media for any certain candidate or issue, they can. Any limits is a limit to free speech. I don’t care how anyone feels about it, if you have a right to speak your mind, so does the person who holds the opposite view....even if it is repugnant to social norms. You fuck with the first amendment, they will come after your rights too.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:20 pm 
 

I'd strongly encourage you to read the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens. It's at least a good place to start. The issues are complex, and go far, far beyond patronizing superficial reads of Free Speech laws.

EDIT: Actually, Wikipedia has a good summary of it.
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:03 pm 
 

Nobody is arguing about the necessity of the 1st Amendment. But since you brought it up, it is already limited. Nobody took away anyone's rights, but the Supreme Court has already decided that the right for a person to express themselves freely does have its limits.

Schenck v. United States, 1919. Kind of a dumb case, but decided unanimously. Had to do with a guy who was distributing anti-draft propaganda during World War I. In the opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is usually recognized as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices, he stated that it was ok to limit that dude's speech in that case, because Congress has the right to prevent false speech that can cause substantive damage.

We get the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" from that decision. Though actually, Holmes specifically wrote that you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, causing a panic. If there is one, you should certainly shout it, whether panic ensues or not. In other words, saying true things that are potentially damaging is protected speech, but saying false things that are damaging is not.

Strangely, although no one seems to have a problem with that concept, sometimes there is some confusion over how that applies to the Citizens United decision. Remember that the issue was specifically about the right to air Hillary: The Movie, a bullshit smear piece full of right wingers talking about conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton. Obviously full of falsehoods, and obviously intended to cause damage, it should have been easily decided that it was not protected speech.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:24 pm 
 

GTog wrote:
Nobody is arguing about the necessity of the 1st Amendment. But since you brought it up, it is already limited. Nobody took away anyone's rights, but the Supreme Court has already decided that the right for a person to express themselves freely does have its limits.

There are truly people in this world and on this site that think hate speech should be prohibited. It should be ignored not prohibited. Negative publicity is still publicity.
Quote:
Schenck v. United States, 1919. Kind of a dumb case, but decided unanimously. Had to do with a guy who was distributing anti-draft propaganda during World War I. In the opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is usually recognized as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices, he stated that it was ok to limit that dude's speech in that case, because Congress has the right to prevent false speech that can cause substantive damage.

And that was a sign of the times. What was considered to be false speech? Who makes that determinaton? Obviously a decision that, if challenged, could be overturned.
Quote:
We get the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" from that decision. Though actually, Holmes specifically wrote that you can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, causing a panic. If there is one, you should certainly shout it, whether panic ensues or not. In other words, saying true things that are potentially damaging is protected speech, but saying false things that are damaging is not.

Saying something that could cause immediate panic in a crowded space is not a free speech issue. It is wreckless endangerment.

Quote:
Strangely, although no one seems to have a problem with that concept, sometimes there is some confusion over how that applies to the Citizens United decision. Remember that the issue was specifically about the right to air Hillary: The Movie, a bullshit smear piece full of right wingers talking about conspiracy theories involving Hillary Clinton. Obviously full of falsehoods, and obviously intended to cause damage, it should have been easily decided that it was not protected speech.

And the morons have the right to say whatever they want just as Hillary has the right to refute. If it was libelous in any way, she could have sued. Propaganda works both ways but neither side wants to accept the other’s right to it. Both sides lie without compunction.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:50 pm 
 

How many times have we heard "both sides do it, so whatever" around here? And how many times has that absolutely not worked as a valid argument? I'm going to say... let's see here... every fucking time.

And anyway, you miss the point. The fire-in-a-theater thing is not protected speech. Doesn't matter if you call it reckless endangerment instead, it's still just a thing that you say that can cause harm, and therefore is not protected. If you want to quibble about what "damage" is, then I'll know you're just intentionally ignoring that fact.

Which is what SCOTUS did in 2010. To make that decision, they had to strike out part of McCain-Feingold, overturn a previous 1990 SCOTUS decision, and willfully wave away a 91 year precedent. Ridiculous on every level.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:29 pm 
 

Citizens united had nothing to do with the Tillman Act of 1907. Corporate donations to campaigns is still banned. President Obama was mistaken when he said the SCOTUS reversed a century of law.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:05 am 
 

Gods below. Nobody mentioned Tillman except you. You're talking to yourself. Citizens United had nothing to do with Tillman, and nothing to do with whatever Obama may have said, and everything to do with everything I've already stated.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:01 am 
 

GTog wrote:
Gods below. Nobody mentioned Tillman except you. You're talking to yourself. Citizens United had nothing to do with Tillman, and nothing to do with whatever Obama may have said, and everything to do with everything I've already stated.

So what 91 year precedent are you talking about? The myth is that Citizens United said that corporations are people and that is highly inaccurate. It is about the first amendment rights of people in groups to be free from limits on spending independently on political speech. It includes unions too...the darlings of any true blue blooded Democrats. There a a good reason why the ACLU defends it.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:27 am 
 

Citizens United (2010) not only helped Trump get elected, it may have been the straw that broke Hillary's back.

When you can anonymously funnel your tax-exempt money to targeted unofficial (but 100% professional) election campaigns, why ever do anything else? It's win-win-win. Then you won't even get blowback for helping elect the rape ogre.

No one is literally saying companies directly contribute to campaigns or that politicians are actually owned by big business. It's instead a symbiotic relationship: if elected I'll pass a tax or deregulation bill that helps you or your company, so therefore you'll make sure I get elected.

Can you not see the conflict here? If you believe in democracy, you recognize the need for a leveller playing field.
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:12 pm 
 

I do not know what political affiliation you must have, where the Tillman Act of 1907 + 91 years equals 2010, the year of Citizens United, but Schenck v. United States 1919 (which I have been talking about the whole time) + 91 years does not. Seriously.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:25 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Citizens United (2010) not only helped Trump get elected, it may have been the straw that broke Hillary's back.

Once again Corporations can not donate money to campaigns. Citizens United did not help Trump get elected. The Russians did not help Trump get elected. The Democratic Party propped up the wrong candidate. The rust belt white vote, that is union and predominately votes Democrat could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary so they went the angry white man route. Don't doubt for a second that the rust belt union guy that voted for Obama twice turned and jumped ship to Trump because of his America First rhetoric. The far left stayed home because they could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary. She was not able to sway the metoo and the Bernie crowd.
GTog wrote:
I do not know what political affiliation you must have, where the Tillman Act of 1907 + 91 years equals 2010, the year of Citizens United, but Schenck v. United States 1919 (which I have been talking about the whole time) + 91 years does not. Seriously.

My bad. I thought you were referencing what Obama said after the ruling nine years ago. As for Schenck, the majority said that Schenck did not apply here as the dissenters tried to do. All the decision did was say that a portion of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional....namely the part where a corporation or labor union could not engage in electioneering communication within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before an election or spend independent funds advocating the election or defeat of a certain candidate. The court found that part of the law to be in violation of the first amendment. The majority opinion said, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Citizens in a group do not lose their first amendment rights.

Citizens United did not put big money into politics. It was already there. Everybody wants big business out of politics but at the same time they want the government to be the watchdog of big business. Once again, fox watching the henhouse. Massive deregulation is the only way to remove the prospect of corruption. The people are the regulators of the market. Government interference has actually helped shitty businesses stay afloat when the market should have allowed them to fail. It's much more effective to boycott and force a business to shut its doors if it refuses to make a gay wedding cake than it is to force them to make the fucking cake!!
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:44 am 
 

Yeah and Multi-level Marketing isn't technically a pyramid scheme because pyramid schemes are illegal.

C'mon, dude. Campaign funding by any other name would smell as much like astroturf.
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:50 pm 
 

WTF are you talking about? An organization using independent funds for political speech is not campaign funding nor anything close to it.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
Unorthodox
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 1218
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:41 pm 
 

mjollnir wrote:
WTF are you talking about? An organization using independent funds for political speech is not campaign funding nor anything close to it.


Now, on a more general and philosophical and tangential note, let's consider this idea of "freedom". Civilization exists because we as people sacrifice freedom for civility. Pure freedom existed 10,000+ years ago when we were all hunters and gatherers, living off the animals we hunted and food we gathered from natural growth. Ever since the invention of Agriculture (which happen about 10,000 years ago), and subsequently the invention of trade, we've slowly grown to become dependent upon one another. Therefore, as time went on, our freedom was minimized, because we readily sacrificed freedom for the efficiencies that dependence gave us.

That said, the people who will consistently be the most "free" in a civilized society are those that can be more independent. And those that can be more independent are wealthy, because they often find themselves at the center of trade. Remember that money, into of itself, was created out of the necessity of trade, which means your net worth reflects how free you are as a citizen because you're bringing more to the trade table.

This has huge implications for freedom, because it infers that any laws that create freedom in any sort of way will give it more to the wealthier and less to everyone else. And, if you've gotten your freedom based on how the system works, it's less likely you'll want to see that system be changed. Therefore, those who are the most free will spend their money to keep society at a status quo. They will do everything to make sure nothing changes.

Thus, the problem with Citizens United. Because of corporate funding, whether it be third party or to a campaign directly (which you adamantly say isn't happening, fair enough), we have a system that gives incredible support to people that want to keep things the way they are. Whether it be the Koch Brothers or the ACLU, these aren't institutions that are advocating for a change in our political thought process. They are advocating for the status quo.

Now, thanks to the Internet, the freedom of thought has never flowed so vividly as it do es now. But in order to create pure freedom of thought, freedom of speech must be limited so that thoughts and ideas are normalized. The slippery slope logical fallacy you state that it will "eventually move to us" (the common folk), is stated without any evidence.
_________________
Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:27 pm 
 

Since when is the ACLU trying to maintain the status quo? They fight for civil liberties....which without we have no civility. You seem to think that with liberty there is chaos and no order.

Corporate donations to campaigns are banned and have been so since the Tillman Act of 1907. The case of Citizens United said that one part...just one....of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. That was that part that set limitations on independent spending by an organization of citizens for political speech. That violated the first amendment. It is very plain. Citizens do not lose their first amendment rights just because they are part of a corporation, labor union, the ACLU....whatever. That is why the ACLU, who is usually labeled quite the liberal organization by most neoconservatives, supports the ruling.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
Unorthodox
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 1218
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:56 pm 
 

mjollnir wrote:
Since when is the ACLU trying to maintain the status quo?


By advocating for their capital to be used as a way to drown out other voices, that's how. I do think I painted them in an incredibly bad light, of which I don't really have much negative feelings towards them. Nevertheless, they like all powerful institutions will not seek to give up their power. They will try to hold on to it.

mjollnir wrote:
You seem to think that with liberty there is chaos and no order.


Pure liberty does bring chaos and no order. Pure civility brings authoritarianism. The ideal society should strive for a balance between the two.

Edit: tbh I didn't read the article about the ACLU you posted earlier until now, but what it seems like is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Their form of solving the "escalating cost of political campaigns" is to simply match the outrageous sums of money needed to run a campaign in 2019. This will inherently drown out many different kinds of voices that need to be heard to bring about real change in government.
_________________
Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:32 pm 
 

Unorthodox wrote:
Nevertheless, they like all powerful institutions will not seek to give up their power. They will try to hold on to it.

Kinda like the Democrats and the Republicans.

Quote:
Pure liberty does bring chaos and no order. Pure civility brings authoritarianism. The ideal society should strive for a balance between the two.

And our constitution was designed to preserve civil liberty while establishing the rule of law.

Quote:
Edit: I didn't read the article about the ACLU you posted earlier until now, but what it does seems like is that they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Their form of solving the "escalating cost of political campaigns" is to simply match the outrageous sums of money needed. This is no solution. This will inherently drown out many different kinds of voices that need to be heard to bring about real change in government.

Once again it is up to the people to create these changes. As long as the American electorate keeps consuming the bullshit that the established monopoly spews, there will be no change. No amount of limits on spending will do anything. The media, the parties, and the candidates themselves thrive n the divide and conquer politics that’s at play here. Each side tells you they are the right side but our constitution takes no sides.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
Unorthodox
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 1218
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:47 pm 
 

Our constitution was also created with the power of amendment, to preserve civil liberty. Therefore, the logic that Citizens United isn't immoral due to our first amendment is fallacious just on that premise. Our founding fathers knew very well that many of the problems we'd face as a nation they wouldn't be able to forsee. All the amendments, including free speech, must be constantly questioned, and new ones must be introduced to maintain the balance between civility and liberty.

mjollnir wrote:
Unorthodox wrote:
Nevertheless, they like all powerful institutions will not seek to give up their power. They will try to hold on to it.

Kinda like the Democrats and the Republicans.


Absolutely.
_________________
Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:07 am 
 

I said the court’s ruling upheld the first amendment. As for amending the constitution, some have proved disastrous because the amendment was tantamount to knee jerk reaction or by design to create the shit we are currently in. The 16th and 17th amendment, along with the Federal Reserve Act, is the prime reason for the problem f bankrolled politicians and accumulated wealth creating the divide we have now. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:56 am 
 

mjollnir wrote:
WTF are you talking about? An organization using independent funds for political speech is not campaign funding nor anything close to it.

click
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
GTog
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 988
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:45 am 
 

It doesn't matter. He lives in a fantasy world in which everything conforms to his ideal, and if it doesn't, it can be waved away by some other fantasy ideal.
You're talking to a wall.
_________________
Metalheads never get old. We just become legendary.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 4566
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:36 am 
 

I just wanted to see his argument against Center for Responsive Politics, one of the oldest, least partisan and most esteemed watchdog groups in DC, who have carefully tracked and laid out the disastrous effects of the CU v. FEC and speechnow.org v. FEC decisions.
_________________
\m/ xXdArKen uR dAyXx \m/

Top
 Profile  
mjollnir
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 1841
Location: Versailles, PA
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:46 pm 
 

That site is not giving you accurate information. It did not overturn a century of anything....unless McCain-Feingold is a hundred years old.

Quote:
The money can only be used for independent expenditures -- not direct contributions to the candidates' campaigns. And whatever ads are produced can't be coordinated with the candidates

That is from that site. That is accurate but it did not overturn a century of law. Citizens United was based solely on McCain-Feingold.
Quote:
In the case, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA" (pronounced "bik-ruh").Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures for "electioneering communications".
_________________
Diamhea wrote:
TrooperEd wrote:
Edit: fuck it this whole thing is bait anyway.


Like your reviews?

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Derigin and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group