Atticus

happiest of birthdays to you hope the flowers all smile at you today

I do. Unfortunately I think that what is going to have to happen is sufficient harm is going to have to result from corporate ad funding, prompting a new case with an actual record that that the justices will have to address, whereby a harm will be shown as compelling enough to curtail the corporate 1st amendment rights. However much the potential of the ruling may concern me, I think the court should always err on the side of more speech, until a compelling interest convinces it to curtail the speech. This issue should be dealt with by congress, who I doubt will do jack shit about it.

in the same vein that you asked the following: I would ask what inserting this into the Consitution: actually does to effect the intent. Maybe we're just mixing wires on this--I'm trying to figure out what that site actually plans to do to MAKE people's votes and/or participation count, as opposed to simply stating that they count.

ahh. just trying to figure out the intent.

again, is someone being denied the right to vote or participate? I understand that you're saying just because the constitution provides for it doesn't make it so, but is someone complaining of being denied the right to vote or participate?

is someone being denied the right to vote and participate? I'm pretty sure our current constitution has that one covered

he talks about how Seinfeld quit his show when it was on top, then "I'm proud to say this show has been no. 1, we will keep it no. 1, then in '09 I'll say 'Conan, take it over, it's yours'" "this show is like a dynasty--you hold it, then you hand it off to the next person... Conan, it's yours, see you in 5 years" he also talks about how friendships were ruined back when he took over, doesn't want to see that happen again, and a bunch of fighting in the press, etc.

why do you hate children?

sure, debated by wrong people

haven't you read that other thread? America died last Thursday.

We also kinda have this irony/contradiction in this country though, in that we have an "american dream" under which one may work hard and accumulate some goodies, but the minute that person passes another's ideological limit of goodies, he/she gets slammed as a greedy SOB who should be giving it all away to others. Meanwhile some sit on their asses and do nothing. I have trouble at times fairly balancing that out in my mind. I'd like to think that if I work really hard I might be entitled (for lack of a better word) to some creature comforts and security, but I also feel a moral obligation

This I would love, for once, the politicians to say to us "I'll do my best to come up with a fair plan for all, but our economy is currently in the tank, our spending is insane, our foreign debt is terrifying, so I need YOU to put in your share too" I wasn't alive for world war I or II, but the accounts I've heard of both include a sense of civic duty, of sacrifice, for the common good. I feel like I live in a me, me, me country today, and I'd like to see some politicians holding voters accountable, rather than endlessly dangling carrots and badmouthing the opposition.

I really would love to see universal healthcare (I have no idea how to bring it about, but I would love to see it) My point was only that I think our "american dream" has gone a bit sideways. Many talk about the healthcare that should be a right for all, but I don't see anyone ever talking about what they're willing to sacrifice personally to achieve it. The money has to come from somewhere.

[rant]when the country stops believing that there is a universal right to HDTVs, ipods, cellphones, bling and other creature comforts, I think maybe the concept of universal healthcare might become more palatable universally[/rant]

wait, you're proposing that people who voted for a republican did so out of their overwhelming ignorance and stupidity rather than differing opinions than yours on issues? That's a WHOLE new direction for you (I kid)

well fuck it then

sigh

crap did I miss a question? sorry. I think you're right about the degree point--in this opinion, they very clearly set out 3 arguments why some overriding concern might allow a restriction of free speech in this case, and then dismiss those arguments as not compelling (the dissent rightfully points out that the majority is not really relying on the record on those points, more on their own logic). I think when it comes to direct funding, the Court cites the whole quid-pro-quo argument, and feels that same is compelling enough of an interest to abridge free speech in that interest. this po

N.A.P.E.?

and I was just quoting your prior post to point out that you had already pointed out to the thread that calling a corporation a "person" wasn't some new thing that came about from this case I cleaned it up now

see this: this decision does not NOW define corporations as people, people. the United States Code (promulgated by Congress, not this Supreme Court), quoted above, defines "person" to include corporations.

1 U.S.C. 1: § 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things; words importing the plural include the singular; words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well; words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present; the words “insane” and “insane person” and “lunatic” shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis; the words “person” and “whoeve

I can't believe I missed that part of the opinion

"I'd like to yield the balance of my time to the good Poongoogler from Texas"