Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*****David Hogg Thread***** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
squistion
Footballguy
I'll bet on the kids.
David Hogg @davidhogg111 19h
Kids vs the NRA this November. #USAoverNRA
https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/987782052501245953
David Hogg @davidhogg111 19h
Kids vs the NRA this November. #USAoverNRA
https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/987782052501245953
squistion
Footballguy
David Hogg @davidhogg111 19m19 minutes ago
So only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?
https://twitter.com/i/moments/988087363887943686
Meet the man who disarmed the Waffle House shooter
US news 41 minutes ago
James Shaw Jr., 29, is being regarded as a hero for disarming the shooter and throwing his weapon over the counter in Antioch, Tennessee, early Sunday morning. Four people were killed as a result of the incident and a manhunt is underway for the suspected shooter.
So only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun?
https://twitter.com/i/moments/988087363887943686
Meet the man who disarmed the Waffle House shooter
US news 41 minutes ago
James Shaw Jr., 29, is being regarded as a hero for disarming the shooter and throwing his weapon over the counter in Antioch, Tennessee, early Sunday morning. Four people were killed as a result of the incident and a manhunt is underway for the suspected shooter.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Guy got his butt kicked by two skinny sophomores. Given that, I am guessing that Non-epic Beardman would not be able to handle even four kindergarteners if they were hopped up on Hawaiian Punch and Pop Tarts. Sad to see the low state to which Jim "the Anvil" Neidhart has sunk.McJose said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
And I am guessing that there was a prior a court order prohibiting him from being within 100 feet of kids in a park. The media needs to start digging.What a dooshnozzle.
"He JUST ASSAULTED ME!!!"
I'm guessing that guy is a gun owner...I wouldn't trust him driving a motor vehicle if he can't control his emotions around 30 kids giving some speeches in a park.
timschochet
Footballguy
ITS THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY AND I’M TRYING TO TAKE A NAP!
squistion
Footballguy
David Hogg @davidhogg111 22m
I dream of an America with morally just leaders and without citizens united.
Simply put if you need to take millions of dollars from major corporations you shouldn’t be running for two reasons
1. You now work for those corporations
2. You’re clearly unpopular with the people
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I wonder how young Mr. Hogg would differentiate between corporations, assemblages of people with specific legal rights, and unions, assemblages of people with specific legal rights, or Movement organizations, assemblages of people.
David Hogg @davidhogg111 22m
I dream of an America with morally just leaders and without citizens united.
Simply put if you need to take millions of dollars from major corporations you shouldn’t be running for two reasons
1. You now work for those corporations
2. You’re clearly unpopular with the people
Doug B
Footballguy
I'm sure it's way too late to close this barn door ... but in a fantasy world, I'd like to see a nation where people running for office could not accept money from any entity. Maybe the government could ensure an equal amount of radio/TV airtime, commercials, coverage in print, etc. Candidates would have to rely much more on public appearances.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It's the batsignal for FBGs from parliamentary countries!
Also, we need snap elections and Question Time.
Doug B
Footballguy
Really? Places like England prohibit donations of all kinds to political campaigns? Or they just have different donation parameters from the U.S.?
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I don't think there are outright prohibitions but lots more limitations. The nature of the electoral system, in particular, has a kind of self-limiting effect. If you don't need to run a campaign for upwards of a year, why whore yourself out to special interests? And how beneficial is it to back certain candidates against others from the same party? A Liberal Party candidate isn't going to be stood in the first place if he hasn't signed on fully to the party platform; he won't earn the nomination based on his ability to outfundraise other Liberals.
the rover
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
He'd probably refine it to "for-profit corporations and partnerships, or groups funded largely by for-profit orgs" and that would mostly cover it. The point being that if the law requires you to maximize profits and you do so by making political donations, you are by definition expecting a return on your investment in the form of financial gain that exceeds the amount of money spent. That doesn't apply to any of those other categories.
For example the Nature Conservancy or the National Right to Life Organization might make a donation, but the return they expect is not a financial one and therefore IMO (and I'm guessing the opinions of others) not as corrupting. In contrast a Wall Street Bank or a trade group isn't spending money on politics unless they expect a return that that bank or the trade group members value more than the money they donated.
squistion
Footballguy
You have been disproven wrong on this so many times, but you still keep trotting this falsehood out. I am not going to bother to provide links again because you will just ignore them and will repeat the same nonsense again the next time CU is mentioned in a thread.
The Commish
Footballguy
Does it really matter if it was "about" it or one of the "significant downsides"? It certainly was part of it. I'm not sure how you'd even go about claiming otherwise, but I suspect we will see here shortly
It absolutely does. Free Speech is our most important right and that law was an assault on the people.Does it really matter if it was "about" it or one of the "significant downsides"? It certainly was part of it. I'm not sure how you'd even go about claiming otherwise, but I suspect we will see here shortly
squistion
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
You didn't answer my question....maybe because I didn't define "it". By "it" I meantIt absolutely does. Free Speech is our most important right and that law was an assault on the people.Does it really matter if it was "about" it or one of the "significant downsides"? It certainly was part of it. I'm not sure how you'd even go about claiming otherwise, but I suspect we will see here shortly
So I'll ask again just to make sure and to be clear. It's your assertion that because Citizens United wasn't about directly that it doesn't matter that in politics became a significant issue with the ruling? This is why I ask the question. I can't think of a single reason to ignore the "unintended consequence" because the original ruling wasn't framed via that lens......not one, but I've been wrong before, so I'm hoping you can help me see why the money aspect of Citizens United doesn't need to be addressed.How can average people organize to put out a message if not through a corporation? Citizen United allowed a mega wealthy person to put out a message, but not thousands of teachers or veterans or workers. It really shocks me that Democrats of all people are against citizens speaking. The law went way too far.
squistion
Footballguy
The same way they did before the Citizens United decision which allows Corporations to buy elections.
Because the actual consequences far outweigh the unintended consequences. If McCain-Feingold would have been written against for profit corporations only it would have withstood the challenge. It was a very poorly crafted law which went too far.You didn't answer my question....maybe because I didn't define "it". By "it" I meant
The Commish
Footballguy
You've quickly gone down a rabbit hole. I was asking why it mattered. This is the holding. They seemed to think it was about money.Because the actual consequences far outweigh the unintended consequences. If McCain-Feingold would have been written against for profit corporations only it would have withstood the challenge. It was a very poorly crafted law which went too far.You didn't answer my question....maybe because I didn't define "it". By "it" I meant
The ACLU agrees with my so-called wrong assessment. I really think you have no idea what 'disproven wrong' (sic) means since you so often use it when it is obviously not true.
"We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech."
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I have long believed that the influence of corporations in the political sphere is mostly benign. Many of the social gains of recent years- the gay rights movement, the #metoo movement, etc. would not have been possible without corporations leading the way, boycotting states and politicians and talk show hosts who tried to prevent positive change. Now they’re doing the same for gun control and I believe they will be a big part of the reason that David Hogg and his friends will win in the end. And next up is climate change.
For every Koch Brothers there are even more Starbucks, and Apple and Amazon , and all the rest, determined to have a positive social impact on the world. Remove their influence on elections and what are you left with? Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders. Populism from the right and from the left. Not at all beneficial.
For every Koch Brothers there are even more Starbucks, and Apple and Amazon , and all the rest, determined to have a positive social impact on the world. Remove their influence on elections and what are you left with? Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders. Populism from the right and from the left. Not at all beneficial.
joffer
Footballguy
two different things. The NFL moving a Super Bowl because of a bathroom bill isn’t the same thing as a Texas Congressman that gets 80% of his campaign money from the oil and gas industry.
-fish-
Footballguy
The entire article, instead of the single out-of-context quote, shows that they are recognize that there is a problem (you know how I know? it's in the part you didn't quote), but they disagree that limiting corporate spending is the answer...instead, they want more public financing--what a surprise. They also want limits to campaign contributions (not supporting "free speech" there, either). They also want disclosure rules (wait, that isn't free speech). And they want better enforcement on coordination between candidates and superPACs (huh, that isn't free speech either).
They just don't think overruling Citizens United solves the problem. But they're for limits on campaign contributions. So regulate all contributions to paid political speech, instead of just to individual candidates. If a corporation wants to be a person, they can have the same limits as a person. Simple fix. No citizen (including any corporation, association incorporated or not) may make more than $500 per year in contributions toward paid political speech. Playing field leveled.
timschochet
Footballguy
The latter is on his way out. So are the oil and gas industries. Tomorrow’s congressperson is going to get most of her money from Apple and Amazon. And I’m good with that.
-fish-
Footballguy
They will run out of oil well before they ever run out of money, and there's a ton of oil left.
joffer
Footballguy
the quote was not out of context. I too recognize there is a problem. I don't agree with their solution, but that does not mean they disagree with my assessment of what a bad law McCain-Feingold was. Out of context? Yeah, right. They meant exactly what they said and in the context I quoted them.
Last edited by a moderator:
honky kong
Footballguy
What you say is true for social policy but I don't think it is so clear in terms of economic policy. They adopt social policies that they feel benefit their business and, because you agree with the results, you see it as a positive but that's only half of the equation.
-fish-
Footballguy
except for the context you didn't include that doesn't support your point. there's a term for that...
What point are you referring too? I was using the ACLU to show that McCain-Feingold was an assault on free speech. That was perfectly in context.
squistion
Footballguy
Jon-mx trying to mislead people by taking a statement out of context? That is totally out of character...oh, wait...
pathetic. Can you explain how a point that ACLU absolutely agrees with me on was out of context? You guys are obsessed with saying I am wrong. Up is down seems to be your point.
squistion
Footballguy
That was covered by others in previous posts.
-fish-
Footballguy
You claimed that the ACLU supported your view of Citizens United and free speech. You provided a single paragraph and no link. The rest of the article (we call this "context") showed that they didn't necessarily align with your view, they identified that there was a problem, they identified three specific ways they would restrict political speech, and they wanted to counter corporate spending with more public spending. Do you agree with all of that? Because if not, you took your statement out of context.
Here is the entire ACLU statement which is completely against the types of assault that McCain-Feingold was on Free Speech and firmly opposes attempts to overturn Citizen United via Constitutional Amendment. I suppose quoted their complete statement is out of context too. Good Lord people
THE ACLU AND CITIZENS UNITED
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.
That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.
We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.
At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.
In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.
Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. 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.
Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.
It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.
Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
THE ACLU AND CITIZENS UNITED
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.
That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.
We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.
At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.
In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.
Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. 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.
Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.
It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.
Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
No. That was not my claim. My point was that Citizen United was not about corporate money....it was free speech (the point which squistion simply declared I was proven wrong on so many times). I was not making a claim that the ACLU and I have the same solutions. You are attempting to put words in my mouth. My point was very straight forward and rebukes squistion's ignorant and unsupported claim that there is no free speech issue here. The ACLU absolutely thinks so and so do I.-fish- said:
-fish-
Footballguy
Citizen United had nothing to do with campaign contributions although the ruling impacted them. It was about a group which wanted to air an ad independent of any campaign. That is free speech. I have not taken a position on any campaign contribution being free speech.
The heinous crime of McCain-Feingold was it prohibitting free speech by outsiders not part of the campaign. That is where the ACLU and I are united behind in agreement on free speech and McCain-Feingold. The actual case itself had nothing to do with a single dime being contributed to a campaign.
-fish-
Footballguy
But you're not in agreement, because they recognize that the problem is about corporate money as much as it is about free speech. That's why their solution is to increase public funding to counter corporate spending. They aren't suggesting that in response to the free speech issue in Citizens United we need to increase public funding of political campaigns.
-fish-
Footballguy
If it had "nothing to do" with corporate money, why was there an entire dissent and a separate concurrence about corporate money?
