PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on September 23, 2016, 06:50:04 AM
-
These 3 stories need to be read in context of each other
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/11/dad-tells-cops-they-need-a-warrant-to-search/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/
http://abc11.com/1286419/
Digest:
This is straight-up Bullshit
Longer & equally fucked-up version: Police show up looking for someone who used to own the home, he's obviously not there. Current owner denies access until they secure a warrant. Police kick the door down and kill him in the ensuing struggle. SCROTUS screws us all and says the cops don't need one. Cops get away with murder.
Excuse my French
-
4th amendment has been deceased for some time. It died the day the SCOTUS said they could use evidence from a warrantless search. Good news is it could return if a more liberal court were to weigh some cases.
-
4th amendment has been deceased for some time. It died the day the SCOTUS said they could use evidence from a warrantless search. Good news is it could return if a more liberal court were to weigh some cases.
That would be (mildly) funny if a more liberal court didn't bring with dire consequences.
btw - I notice you said "more liberal"...
I wonder if you understand that the SCOTUS should be apolitical.
-
Liberal (Progressive Communists) courts want to nullify the Constitution. It is just a barrier to their activist totalitarian agenda.
-
That would be (mildly) funny if a more liberal court didn't bring with dire consequences.
btw - I notice you said "more liberal"...
I wonder if you understand that the SCOTUS should be apolitical.
It should be but isn't. But it has been very conservative court that ruled on Citizens vs. United, and on fruit of the poisoned vine. Both have been disasters for the nation.
-
It should be but isn't. But it has been very conservative court that ruled on Citizens vs. United, and on fruit of the poisoned vine. Both have been disasters for the nation.
don't be a drama queen
-
It should be but isn't. But it has been very conservative court that ruled on Citizens vs. United, and on fruit of the poisoned vine. Both have been disasters for the nation.
I get you don't like Citizens United v. FEC...
You believe that the government should be able to censor movies about politicians and prevent their distribution.
-
Many members of the FEC would prefer to decide for all of us what political discussion we are ALLOWED to hear. The democrats just tend to be a little out in front of them.
-
"Goodbye" depends on the courts. Or The Court as the case may be. If there were a conservative, originalist supreme court, these kinds of things probably would not happen.
-
If Hillary wins, she will appoint three to four far left, activist judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Bolshevik Hag. The 4th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment, a probably others will be essentially nullified, and government will totally make all the rules, and destroy many if not most of our Natural Rights as human beings. We are close to that now, one more Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsburg and we are totally there.
-
It should be but isn't. But it has been very conservative court that ruled on Citizens vs. United, and on fruit of the poisoned vine. Both have been disasters for the nation.
Free speech as long as it's my speech, huh, Doc?
-
Free speech as long as it's my speech, huh, Doc?
Only if you equate money with speech, something I myself don't see.
-
Only if you equate money with speech, something I myself don't see.
Direct question:
Should the federal government have the power to stop distribution of a movie about a political candidate?
-
Direct question:
Should the federal government have the power to stop distribution of a movie about a political candidate?
As in many things, it depends on the circumstance. Should the POTUS be allowed to use federal money to make a movie about him or herself for the purposes or campaigning?
-
As in many things, it depends on the circumstance. Should the POTUS be allowed to use federal money to make a movie about him or herself for the purposes or campaigning?
Nice attempted deflection.
Should the government have the right to ban movies?
-
Nice attempted deflection.
Should the government have the right to ban movies?
The the POTUS should be able to make campaign movies using public funds. Sorry, no deflection. The point isn't the movie, it's how it's funded. I don't think there should be a free flow of money into politics, it presents ready conflicts of interest, reduces faith in Democracy and is highly corrupting. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to stop it, but that's what Constitutional Amendments are there for. Problem is all the politicians are happy with the status quo and don't want to see any changes. The ones if would benefit are the electorate.
-
The the POTUS should be able to make campaign movies using public funds. Sorry, no deflection. The point isn't the movie, it's how it's funded. I don't think there should be a free flow of money into politics, it presents ready conflicts of interest, reduces faith in Democracy and is highly corrupting. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to stop it, but that's what Constitutional Amendments are there for. Problem is all the politicians are happy with the status quo and don't want to see any changes. The ones if would benefit are the electorate.
Citizens United was not public ally funded. It was funded with entirely private funds.
So, again, should the government have the authority to ban movies? How about books?
-
The the POTUS should be able to make campaign movies using public funds. Sorry, no deflection. The point isn't the movie, it's how it's funded. I don't think there should be a free flow of money into politics, it presents ready conflicts of interest, reduces faith in Democracy and is highly corrupting. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to stop it, but that's what Constitutional Amendments are there for. Problem is all the politicians are happy with the status quo and don't want to see any changes. The ones if would benefit are the electorate.
Soooo, if only public money is used to fund candidates, who picks which candidate gets funded?
-
Soooo, if only public money is used to fund candidates, who picks which candidate gets funded?
The public. It can be metered with a necessary number of signatures on a petition, for example.
But here's the rub. This is all academic. The politicians are happy as can be with the status quo, and it appears that some segment of the public is too, though I can hardly see why. This is just a fantasy and nothing more.
-
Direct question:
Should the federal government have the power to stop distribution of a movie about a political candidate?
Never. Even and especially if it is complete garbage.
-
Should the POTUS be allowed to use federal money to make a movie about him or herself for the purposes or campaigning?
Also never. Even if it is the most truly honest and accurate piece of art ever made.
-
The public. It can be metered with a necessary number of signatures on a petition, for example.
But here's the rub. This is all academic. The politicians are happy as can be with the status quo, and it appears that some segment of the public is too, though I can hardly see why. This is just a fantasy and nothing more.
So you basically have an election for the election. The real rub with this plan is the politicians will slant the laws to benefit themselves. Every election now, candidates who were never heard from before get elected, I think your plan would prevent that as more control of elections would be given to the elected, then eventually appointees of the elected. Leave the system alone. If soft money gets stopped, stop all soft money including unions. Otherwise let the chips fall where they may.
-
Citizens United was not public ally funded. It was funded with entirely private funds.
So, again, should the government have the authority to ban movies? How about books?
My answer is no.
But my dilemma is whether the government should have any method to oversee the honesty within those books and movies. If the book or movie is advertised as "true" and contains verifiabally dishonest claims or statements, should the government have any recourse? Or should the only recourse be through civil action through the courts?
-
Steingar is still avoiding answering a simple question:
Should the government have the right to ban a movie about a political candidate?
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Steingar is still avoiding answering a simple question:
Should the government have the right to ban a movie about a political candidate?
Steingar has answered the Canuk's question repeatedly and cogently. Perhaps they don't teach you to read up North.
True story. I was in Montreal with some friends. One was a Canuk and bragged about how all their bills were different colors, so they could tell them apart. She criticized American money because it was all green.. My pal Peter quipped that it was so because Americans know how to read.
-
Steingar has answered the Canuk's question repeatedly and cogently. Perhaps they don't teach you to read up North.
True story. I was in Montreal with some friends. One was a Canuk and bragged about how all their bills were different colors, so they could tell them apart. She departed American money because it was all green.. My pal Peter quipped that it was so because Americans know how to read.
Another deflection, this time to ad hominem. Nicely done.
You keep adding a bs addition about government funding.
Should the government be able to ban a movie, from a private organization, from being distributed? It's a pretty straightforward yes/no question, and has nothing whatsoever to do with government funding.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Steingar has answered the Canuk's question repeatedly and cogently. Perhaps they don't teach you to read up North.
True story. I was in Montreal with some friends. One was a Canuk and bragged about how all their bills were different colors, so they could tell them apart. She departed American money because it was all green.. My pal Peter quipped that it was so because Americans know how to read.
how ironic
-
Another deflection, this time to ad hominem. Nicely done.
You keep adding a bs addition about government funding.
Should the government be able to ban a movie, from a private organization, from being distributed? It's a pretty straightforward yes/no question, and has nothing whatsoever to do with government funding.
From a private organization? Of course not! That's assuming that said private organization used non-governmental funds to make said movie, or that making said movie was within the purview of the government funding. I don't think an NGO should take money they got for feeding babies and use it to make political films (or any other kind of films, for that matter, except perhaps one of them feeding babies).
-
From a private organization? Of course not!
Ok, so then you support the holding in Citizens United v. FEC.
Citizens United was a wholly private organization who made a movie about Hillary Clinton, and were blocked from distributing it.
-
Keep voting for the party of rulers, not leaders; and of ever-expanding size and scope of government. Because "PACISM", or something.
These 3 stories need to be read in context of each other
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/11/dad-tells-cops-they-need-a-warrant-to-search/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/
http://abc11.com/1286419/
Digest:
This is straight-up Bullshit
Longer & equally fucked-up version: Police show up looking for someone who used to own the home, he's obviously not there. Current owner denies access until they secure a warrant. Police kick the door down and kill him in the ensuing struggle. SCROTUS screws us all and says the cops don't need one. Cops get away with murder.
Excuse my French