|
Hollismason posted:Has this gotten posted yet? And people were saying Wasserman-Schulz didn't want more debates. (Unless she could troll the RNC with them.)
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Accretionist posted:TPP full-text, it seems: http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/01-Treaties-for-which-NZ-is-Depositary/0-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Text.php That text doesn't appear in that document. It's also incorrect - the copyright term TPP requires is life plus 70, not 75 - as well as weirdly fear-mongering - Internet memes are already covered under copyright law. Nice to see the full text. So far most of the bullshit people cried about being in the IP section isn't there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If you really believe that Bernie has no chance (which I basically agree with) what is your motivation to continue the idiotic "Bernie is racist" meme or your constant attacks on Bernie supporters? Why do you even care? Why are Bernie supporters more worthy of engagement than say O'Malley or Lessig supporters? It seems to me that the only answer is that you enjoy making people angry. O'Malley and Lessig supporters would have to exist in order to be engaged.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Ben Carson is a man of honesty and integrity. Politifact rates this statement Mostly Untrue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Pander and fundraise. But you repeat yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The right of free speech doesn't exist on private property That's inaccurate. The right of free speech exists. But so does the right of the property owner to tell you to get the hell off his lawn. (Cross-burning is a little bit different - you don't have the right to burn a cross, even if you did so on your own property, if it's intended to intimidate or threaten violence.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Did anyone other than right wing nuts take that seriously? It was a tough sell 10 years ago, I can't imagine it would catch on very well post 2008. Pretty sure their point was that the lack of antitrust enforcement is what damaged the economy, not increased wages. Not sure why that's a controversial point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh before we have a multi page thing about how racist and dumb the south is: Michigan is doing it too. Michigan outside of Detroit and Ann Arbor basically is the south.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Mulva posted:The law Rand Paul is pushing is, by definition, unconstitutional. Nothing new there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Experience generally shows the best way to push a candidate in a direction in a way that will stick after the election is to get them to take specific positions on specific issues. "I'll break up the big banks....if it's necessary(and I'll never think it's necessary" is just a line of disposable rhetoric that translate into human as "I just want to stop getting asked this question". It's less about trust or distrust and more about getting them to add concrete planks to their platform. You mean, like a graduated risk fee based on institutional size (i.e. reinternalization of the external risk posed by large entities), a high frequency trading tax, additional authority for US regulators to reorganize or break up banks, providing authority to regulators to regulate shadow banking activities, reinstating the rule that requires banks to push derivatives transactions to non-banking affiliates, extend the statute of limitation on securities fraud, and legislatively reverse case law making insider trading hard to prosecute? Those kind of concrete plans in the candidates platform? (Use loving Google if you're too dumb to know how to get to a paywalled article.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:This is what I don't get with your disregard for the 5th Amendment/due process in re: linking gun purchases to the terrorist watchlist in the now, whatever your ultimate vision for American gun laws are. Due process does not and never has required judicial process in all cases. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. This conception that "something happened without a court therefore no due process" is, legally speaking, completely wrong. For example: Do you think that the VA has to go to court when they want to take a veterans' benefits away? No, they just do it. There are judicial avenues for appeal (and the lack of those mechanisms for the no fly list was successfully challenged), but there's absolutely no requirement for an initial judicial determination to exist for due process to be satisfied.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay so how about you start broadcasting a talk radio show on the same frequency as Limbaugh's show, and see how long you can keep that up. Oh shut the hell up this is basic First Amendment and broadcast jurisprudence and your lack of knowledge is appalling. Look up "viewpoint-based discrimination" in the context of the First Amendment. That's why restrictions on what you're allowed to broadcast are very suspect. The ban on broadcast of obscenity is borderline as hell to start with, and only possible because its arguably content-based, not viewpoint-based, and bans on broadcasting over someone else are content neutral and thus prima facie permissible. And there's no government monopoly on cable systems, national or local.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Proving that someone was deliberately lying is an incredibly high bar to reach. Setting that bar does not endanger public discourse. When you can reach it there should be punishment severe enough to make others think twice about doing the same. Defamation in the US used to work that way, and it absolutely inhibited public discourse and was used to shut down speech people disliked. I mean, it's not even arguable - go read the facts behind NYT v Sullivan, which is where the modern standard came from.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
zoux posted:Who employs the parliamentarian? The Senate as a whole, though technically they're employed by the Secretary of the Senate (who is technically elected by the Senate, and in practice selected by the Majority Leader, currently Julie E Adams, a former McConnell staffer). In practice, the parls do not give a gently caress about what any given Senator thinks and will make the decision they think should be made. (Current head parliamentarian is great, even if she made my life difficult a few times.) The presiding officer doesn't have to listen to them, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 05:41
|
|