Support NeoGAF

[JeTmAn81]

How does that make sense in the context of what he wrote? If anything, Pelosi is Princess Laia.

Depending on which aspect of her you are considering, I'd say Pelosi is more like Salacious Crumb:

Edit: added comparison pic

 

[-PXG-]

Depending on which aspect of her you are considering, I'd say Pelosi is more like Salacious Crumb:

:lol

 

[Duane Cunningham]

????

Rove. He's not going anywhere.

 

[Wallach]

You could probably convincingly photoshop Biden as Solo. :lol

 

[siddx]

I'm from Maine.


Fuck my state.

me too, (more or less) and I agree. Although at least we kept our streak going of having democratic house reps.

 

[WillyFive]

Guys, it was a great comment, but I don't think it was meant to be looked upon so in-depth.

It just means the president might be re-elected. In fact, as brought up last night on Comedy Central, every time this has happened as led to a second term.

 

[empty vessel]

The healthcare bill is similar but on a federal scale. To be honest my only hope is that the price controls/mandated efficiency audits are so stringent that companies buckle and public health care has to take over... but what will really happen is consumers with get stuck in the middle of the fight between populist politicians and the biggest insurance companies playing fast and loose with rhetoric to push voters to place all blame on the federal regulatory body. Voters then vote against their actual interests because they're not well informed. Favors will be done, bribes will happen, and in the end consumers will get fucked in the ass and the price controls won't matter to companies that have the buying power to keep some legislators in their pocket.

I believe this to be correct.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama = Luke
Biden = Chewbaca
Pelosi = Laia
Boehner = Vader
Emperor = Cheney

Solved.

Looks like all that's left in Oregon is Multnomah County, and - if the trend line holds - that last 23% will give Kitzhaber 26,000 votes. He'll win by about 1%.

 

[JayDubya]

Corporations exercise powers granted by the government. They are not people--the unit of popular sovereignty--which is what the First Amendment explicitly references.

I don't think you know how to use that word right. When I use it, I can quote the plain text.

You seem to think you can use it to apply to that which is invisible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please point out the "explicit reference." Failing that, which you will, point out the subtle nuance that establishes that Congress may pass law that abridges free speech based on the speaker's affiliations, the chronological proximity to an election, or other such matters.

 

[-PXG-]

Rove. He's not going anywhere.

Bill Clinton as Obi-Wan?

How could I forget Cheney? He'd be a perfect fit for the Emperor :lol

 

[wayward archer]

I don't even know what you're on about here.

The ruling simply asserted the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

I suppose you're not going to say that McCain-Feingold (and similarly stricken legislation) was not a law, nor that it was not made by Congress, so I'm guessing you're going to tell us it doesn't abridge the freedom of speech?

It really depends on whether or not you think the first amendment applies only to individuals or not.

Corporations are not treated the same legally as individuals. Also the inner workings of a corporation can be very different from the united states constitution. There ain't no freedom of speech within a corporation. If there is dissension within a corporation, and the majority gets to decide who to give money to, how are the rights of the minority within the corporation NOT being infringed on here?

I suppose they could leave, but assuming they are responsible for helping the corporation be profitable, and were hired before the Citizens United ruling, why should you have to? Allowing only individual campaign contributions in no way infringe upon freedom of speech. If you want to use corporate money to buy ads for your favorite candidate, get your board of directors to give you a raise so you can do it yourself.

 

[TL4E]

Who the fuck else do you think the founding fathers intended the 1st amendment to reference?

The bill of rights was made as a means of protecting the people from the government's potential power. The other amendments clearly deal with mattes concerning the people.

From wiki:

Ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists threatened the final ratification of the new national Constitution, and the Bill addressed the concerns of some of the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the fundamental principles of human liberty.

 

[Wallach]

Solved.

Looks like all that's left in Oregon is Multnomah County, and - if the trend line holds - that last 23% will give Kitzhaber 26,000 votes. He'll win by about 1%.

It'll definitely be close. I'm in Clatsop and he won here by about 5%.

 

[eznark]

Who the fuck else do you think the founding fathers intended the 1st amendment to reference?

I don't think they intended it to reference any specific body. They were explicitly speaking about speech itself, not the source of said speech.

 

[afternoon delight]

2008: A New Hope
2010: The Empire Strikes Back
2012: Return of the Jedi

It is written. Restore sanity.
And the prequel to all three was The Phantom Menace. Iraq, anyone?

Dear dog this is hilarious. :lol

 

[otake]

I agree with the rest, but you're wrong on the class size issue. Amendment 8 failed, meaning class sizes won't change.

Well I'm glad I was wrong but it still came close.

 

[ToxicAdam]

This is great, in that the GOP can now say "look, we've got colored folk too!!!1 - see, we totally don't hate you at all. Some of our best friends are coloreds!"

This of course is the fakest of fake hustle, though - the GOP is only doing this to cut into the Democratic advantage with minorities. If they didn't need minorities in their demography to win elections, they'd never have anything to do with us since most of their voting bloc doesn't have anything to do with us either.

It's your right to be that cynical. I can't take that away from you. But, in some of those districts, there was no benefit in having a minority run in those positions. Especially in those deep southern states, it might even be a detriment.

Regardless of what you think is the intention, it's still a minority assuming a role previously held by whites for centuries. It's still a real person in a real position of power making a difference in the world. So, not only did they have to overcome all the prejudices and stereotypes that hold back people of their own color, but they have to overcome the small-mindedness of their own community that sneers at them as a sell-out or an Uncle Tom. Just because they didn't intellectually "get in line" with the rest.

I would rather celebrate minority achievement than attempt to diminish them for cheap political gain. mckmas gets it, maybe you will one day too.

 

[Yoritomo]

While there is issue to be taken with the money=speech principle, Citizens United is, in fact, different. It is a direct attack on the principle of popular sovereignty: that the source of governmental power is popular consent. Corporations, which are endowed with power by governments, are by the Citizens United decision placed beyond regulation by the government. That means that the people, exercising popular sovereignty, created the corporate form through their government, but are disallowed to regulate it once created, placing corporate behavior outside the reach of the people. No more popular sovereignty.

How much money individuals qua individuals may spend, i.e., whether limits on individual monetary donations is a speech regulation, is an entirely different issue.

Corporations own the means of speech in this country.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think you know how to use that word right. When I use it, I can quote the plain text.

You seem to think you can use it to apply to that which is invisible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please point out the "explicit reference."

It's bolded. Unless you think corporations have religion, the amendment is clearly, and explicitly, about people.

Failing that, which you will, point out the subtle nuance that establishes that Congress may pass law that abridges free speech based on the speaker's affiliations, the chronological proximity to an election, or other such matters.

A corporation is not a speaker's "affiliation." It is a separate entity with its own legal and financial existence. We are not talking about a person's speech. Citizens United was specifically about a corporate entity's speech. You seem to not know what a corporation is.

 

[JayDubya]

Who the fuck else do you think the founding fathers intended the 1st amendment to reference?

Like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, it protects our natural right to liberty - note: I don't care if you personally believe in such things, said founders did (see DoI) - by way of limiting Congressional power.

If that limitation that protects our personal liberty means unions and corporations can't be censored by Congress as a result - and you want such entities to be censored - then what you have is a problem with the text of the First Amendment getting in the way of something you think to be proper / practical / good / appropriate / etc.

To that end, I would suppose you would want to seek remedy through constitutional amendment. In the meantime, the actual text of the Citizens ruling is not what many of you think it is.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

I give up America, the circus continues..

edit: my mom just called to tell me we are taking American back from the socialists.. FML

 

[giga]

What’s the Death Star? Fox News?

 

[PistolGrip]

2008: A New Hope
2010: The Empire Strikes Back
2012: Return of the Jedi

It is written. Restore sanity.

We should have this theme on the OP... Imperial's march
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWhmXoEr9z0

 

[otake]

What’s the Death Star? Fox News?

I say it's the Tea Party.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Rick Scott victory speech is making me rage.

 

[eznark]

It's bolded. Unless you think corporations have religion, the amendment is clearly, and explicitly, about people.

The right to peaceably assemble is clearly about people. The clauses before however are clearly separated by punctuation.

 

[empty vessel]

Corporations own the means of speech in this country.

That is a problem that can be solved (assuming you are referencing print, radio, and television media).

We all, however, are able to speak without regard to those media, and that is the speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

The right to peaceably assemble is clearly about people. The clauses before however are clearly separated by punctuation.

That's ridiculously pedantic, although I expect it to be repeated, probably ad nauseum, by other apologists.

 

[Gary Whitta]

I say it's the Tea Party.

Tea Party = Sith. Palin = Palpatine.

 

[Dram]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/the_gop_plan_to_investigate_obama_the_first_four_potential_investigations.php?ref=fpa

The GOP Plan To Investigate Obama: The First Four Potential Investigations

Here are a few of the controversies you can expect to hear more about in the next two years.

1. New Black Panther Party

2. Joe Sestak's Job Offer

3. ACORN's Offspring

4. BP Oil Spill

 

[TL4E]

The right to peaceably assemble is clearly about people. The clauses before however are clearly separated by punctuation.

Sounds pretty desperate that you're relying on punctuation to make your case.

 

[PistolGrip]

I say it's the Tea Party.

brilliant!

 

[Lambtron]

Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Montana don't deserve 2 senators.

Why?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I wonder how this election would have looked if democrats had reduced the medicare age requirement to 55 and held the vote on the Bush tax cuts.

 

[sc0la]

You could probably convincingly photoshop Biden as Solo. :lol

I am looking for that picture where bidden does the crouch and point thing but I can't find it. It is basically the Han solo pose

 

[mckmas8808]

How has health care worked "to a degree" for most Americans as of November 1st, 2010? The problem here is that democrats put themselves in a horrible position by passing the bill so late. Many provisions won't go into effect until 2014, and the ones that have gone into effect so far clearly haven't swayed public opinion; the elderly collected their $200-300 medicare rebates and used a dollar of it to take the bus to the polls, where they voted democrats out in mass. It was a vote in the dark.

At least the stimulus provided some cash for states and allowed lawmakers to build things downtown "with their name on it" as they say in The Wire. But even there the grand scheme of the stimulus is hard to defend with unemployment so high and the funds perceived to have "run out."

A lot of this is sound policy that was poorly explained to the American people. The WH seemed to sit back helplessly as republicans smeared the health care bill for months before Obama hit the trail. To make matters worse, democrats were so divided on the bill in public that many Americans began to believe the worst about the bill; people either believe the bill covers abortions or did cover abortions until Catholic democrats objected. That type of stuff matters.

Health care hasn't more "most" Americans. I was really speaking for the Recovery Act. I agree that the WH did a bad job framing the debate with the Health Care bill while it was being created.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Why?

There's two of them! Dakota is clearly cheating.

 

[Wallach]

I am looking for that picture where bidden does the crouch and point thing but I can't find it. It is basically the Han solo pose

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking of. Something about him just kind of reminds me about Harrison Ford in general.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Why?

The two Senator system dramatically inflates the power of small states. I can't remember the exact stat, but it's something like, states totaling 10% of the population have half the Senators. That tilts national policy toward interests of the very few.

 

[Evil Benius]

The two Senator system dramatically inflates the power of small states. I can't remember the exact stat, but it's something like, states totaling 10% of the population have half the Senators. That tilts national policy toward interests of the very few.

That was kind of the point when the system was developed.

 

[ggnoobIGN]

Remember when everyone was reporting the Republican's party death 2 years ago? lol


Love it or hate it, the Tea Party has been the most influential political movement in this country in pretty much decades. Even if some of their candidates lost, it acted as a great calling card for a lot of people.

 

[APF]

Sounds pretty desperate that you're relying on punctuation to make your case.

Wait what, punctuation is pretty? I guess so, but what does that ha... oh sorry, I completely reordered your quote in my head for no reason.

 

[Trurl]

The two Senator system dramatically inflates the power of small states. I can't remember the exact stat, but it's something like, states totaling 10% of the population have half the Senators. That tilts national policy toward interests of the very few.

The Senate only makes sense to me if you think of the states as little nations.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Love it or hate it, the Tea Party has been the most influential political movement in this country in pretty much decades. Even if some of their candidates lost, it acted as a great calling card for a lot of people.

It also cost republicans the senate, and could cost when the presidency in 2012.

 

[sc0la]

Why?

Because everyone knows Dakota is really one state that split itself just to get extra Senators.

 

[leroidys]

Palin = princess laia?

Nah she's just a dumb Bith.

Spoiler

zingggggggggggggggggggggggggg

 

[TL4E]

Why?

Wyoming has 1/80th the population of California and they're still represented equally in the higher chamber of Congress.

Likewise, North & South Dakota as well as Montana has very small populations as well.

I say Cali (and other very large states) get 3 senators and Wyoming/Montana etc get 1. This would ensure the original intent is kept (one house to have precisely calculated representation based on population, and another moreso dependent on representing the states as entities regardless of population).

Even if Wyoming had 1 senator and Cali had 3, Wyoming would still be far over-represented in the Senate in terms of population.

 

[JayDubya]

I say it's the Tea Party.

And they would say they're the Rebel Alliance, but the metaphor would be just as labored.

If things were that obviously black and white, we'd already be in a civil war or revolution.

 

[RurouniZel]

I give up America, the circus continues..

edit: my mom just called to tell me we are taking American back from the socialists.. FML

We Americans are like battered spouses. No matter how abused we get, we stick it out. Then we reach a point where, only for a little while, we leave our abusive spouse for someone who actually cares and loves us.

But then, they come back with flowers and apologies. "Give me another chance! I've changed, believe me!". And every time, without fail, we believe them. We want to believe them. No matter how many times the cycle repeats, we want to believe.

 

[ivysaur12]

The two Senator system dramatically inflates the power of small states. I can't remember the exact stat, but it's something like, states totaling 10% of the population have half the Senators. That tilts national policy toward interests of the very few.

That's my state's compromise!

 

[JGS]

The two Senator system dramatically inflates the power of small states. I can't remember the exact stat, but it's something like, states totaling 10% of the population have half the Senators. That tilts national policy toward interests of the very few.

This is a good thing