Credibly promising to be irresponsible...since 2004!
Labels: campaign finance, the law
posted by Mungowitz @ 2/20/2010 12:23:00 PM
Links to this post
Munger, you sure let that other guy talk an awful lot. He ignored whatever you said and went on and on against foreigners and money interfering with his perfect political order. I think jingoist is the word for it? He seemed down-right giddy at the idea of Americans losing their ability to speak just by associating with foreigners! And you let him get away with all of it? The 1st Amendment does not say citizens, Americans, or any such crap, but I suspect he would like to also shut up recent immigrants or anyone whose grandfather was not born here, the racist.
The moderator says "right" a lot.
That guy's wearing a wig, right?So what exactly is your beef with how far the court went? They should have made a distinction b/t for- and non-profit corporations? Why wouldn't restrictions on for-profit electioneering be unconstitutional as well? ("congress shall make no law...[blahblah]")I thought you jumped a little quickly from calling lawyers building inspectors to starting and ending your speech with 1st amendment points. Isn't that, um, lawyer's turf? Best umpire story: A dad takes his daughter to a baseball game. She asks her dad after the game how an umpire knows whether to call strikes or balls. He sees a few umpires walking to their car, and tells her to go ask them. The first one says "I just call them the way they are." The second one, "I just call them how I see 'em." The third one, "Honey, there aren't balls or strikes until I call them."
1) Awesome speech etc., etc.2) You are rockin' the Louis Ruykeyser/George Washington pompadour.
Almost finished watching. This is insane. What's with the dude who made the statement that the majority of the SCOTUS thinks money is speech, and that the minority thinks speech is speech and money is money. Great point! People who favored the Citizens United ruling can't make a distinction between talking and money! So there! No wonder you were basically silent for the last quarter of an hour. What does a thinking person say to such an allegation?
Golly, Eric, try to pay attention. My argument was that groups can do what they want. Including spend money.The "speech is speech, and money is money" point is moronic. A thinking person would be embarrassed that a professor would make, or that a commenter would raise, such an idiotic claim.
I think Eric was being sarcastic. Mung-nuts probably got punched by his wife again this morning and is taking it out on internet strangers.
There's still and John Edwards poverty center at UNC law? Seriously?!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Create a Link
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]