2A advocates should pray for a full recovery

[Jason73]

Coined by Keyshawn Johnson the football player and made kind of mainstream. The President picked it up. Man. mtmuley

Ahh...I thought it was Randy Moss.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ahh...I thought it was Randy Moss.

No, that is either, “I play when I wanna play”, or “straight cash homey”

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I understand you don’t like it, but your post is simply incorrect.

I think the good gentleman from WA is stating that he does not believe that money constitutes speech.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think the good gentleman from WA is stating that he does not believe that money constitutes speech.

Read his words. He said it was not about free speech. But it was.

Of course some would say free speech does not apply to organizations, only humans. One could also say that limits on money doesn’t limit speech. Or, as SCOTUS has decided, the opposite on both accounts.

But arguing CU is not about free speech is like arguing Heller is not about gun ownership and Roe is not about abortion.

Plus - the left’s reversal as champion of free speech is broader than just election funding. Some law school professors are now teaching judges of the future that free speech is a hateful concept that preserves power in the hands of the oppressors and the government should begin regulating acceptable forms of speech to reign in an inherently racist system. This is not a joke - it is real.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Read his words. He said it was not about free speech. But it was.

Of course some would say free speech does not apply to organizations, only humans. One could also say that limits on money doesn’t limit speech. Or, as SCOTUS has decided, the opposite on both accounts.

But arguing CU is not about free speech is like arguing Heller is not about gun ownership and Roe is not about abortion.

Plus - the left’s reversal as champion of free speech is broader than just election funding. Some law school professors are now teaching judges of the future that free speech is a hateful concept that preserves power in the hands of the oppressors and the government should begin regulating acceptable forms of speech to reign in an inherently racist system. This is not a joke - it is real.

... yeah I just think the bowler hat is a fashion faux pas

 

[Carl]

Some law school professors are now teaching judges of the future that free speech is a hateful concept that preserves power in the hands of the oppressors and the government should begin regulating acceptable forms of speech to reign in an inherently racist system. This is not a joke - it is real.

Having had my sliver of exposure to academia on the inside, this rings true.

It seems like we're in the silken slippers stage of US/western history, but I keep crossing my fingers...

 

[Irrelevant]

Read his words. He said it was not about free speech. But it was.

Of course some would say free speech does not apply to organizations, only humans. One could also say that limits on money doesn’t limit speech. Or, as SCOTUS has decided, the opposite on both accounts.

But arguing CU is not about free speech is like arguing Heller is not about gun ownership and Roe is not about abortion.

Now Sir, while I hold no legal title or position like yourself, I did not formulate my opinion based on mere simpleton conjecture alone. While my opinions were not supported by the majority of the SCOTUS on that day, as you pointed out, they most certainly have merit and were discussed and supported by members of the court.

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens declared that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government." He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

So while you may not like my opinion, and you can clearly call me wrong, since in fact, the court ruled against it. It is not some fantasy offer up by an eastern Washington crack pot (at least not only).

 

[LWC55]

Plus - the left’s reversal as champion of free speech is broader than just election funding. Some law school professors are now teaching judges of the future that free speech is a hateful concept that preserves power in the hands of the oppressors and the government should begin regulating acceptable forms of speech to reign in an inherently racist system. This is not a joke - it is real.

This is really amazing. Throughout my life, free speech has been one of the left's greatest causes. Now, censorship is applauded. It is difficult to wrap my brain around this.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is really amazing. Throughout my life, free speech has been one of the left's greatest causes. Now, censorship is applauded. It is difficult to wrap my brain around this.

Personally I think a lot of what's going on is wrapped up in this R v. D contrived culture war. IMHO this is the spectrum for any issue. Most people are in the center, they kinda a bit one way or the other, the the parties frame the position of " the other side" meaning 40% of the population as some crazy extreme that isn't true, sure maybe the 2% extreme left or right think that but definitely not the majority.

So then you have us, the 80% in the middle arguing and accusing each other of crazy ass shit when we more or less agree with some caveats.

"Left want to take you guns"
-Most folks are just uncomfortable with ARs and high capacity mags, and don't totally understand how firearms work, and want to know there are gun laws on the books.

"Right are crazy nuts who want no rules"
-Most folks, don't want criminals to have access to firearms, think background checks are fine, and mainly have issues like things like ARs bans because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how a firearm works.

If there was actual dialogue, we could probably get 70% onboard with something.

But that doesn't get your guy votes, so the other side are child killing murders so let's burn it all down.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Personally I think a lot of what's going on is wrapped up in this R v. D contrived culture war. IMHO this is the spectrum for any issue. Most people are in the center, they kinda a bit one way or the other, the the parties frame the position of " the other side" meaning 40% of the population as some crazy extreme that isn't true, sure maybe the 2% extreme left or right think that but definitely not the majority.

So then you have us, the 80% in the middle arguing and accusing each other of crazy ass shit when we more or less agree with some caveats.

"Left want to take you guns"
-Most folks are just uncomfortable with ARs and high capacity mags, and don't totally understand how firearms work, and want to know there are gun laws on the books.

"Right are crazy nuts who want no rules"
-Most folks, don't want criminals to have access to firearms, think background checks are fine, and mainly have issues like things like ARs bans because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how a firearm works.

If there was actual dialogue, we could probably get 70% onboard with something.

But that doesn't get your guy votes, so the other side are child killing murders so let's burn it all down.

View attachment 217401

I agree with you and I almost hate to say it, because I don't want to start a pissing match, but I think the shift on the left also has alot to do with Trump and others like him, who just don't let facts get in the way of their message. It's a scary thing when a politician can say something that is just demonstrably false and anyone actually fact checking is labeled as "fake news." We've seen this play out on the right and the left, but Trump put on a master class and really changed the game. 10 years ago, I would have dropped my coffee cup to read a news article from a major journalistic organization saying something like, "The president (or former president) repeated his lie that..." Over the last 5 years, these lines have become common place as journalists try to hang on some standard of what is fact and what is not. Many are unsure what to do about a reality where truth has no meaning and so it's no surprise they're flirting with limits on free speech.

 

[Sytes]

This is not a pandered R vs D post. This is a collection of my own opinions and historical quotes related to various posts viewing the political lean of our SCOTUS, taking past SCOTUS front and center.

Considering the rulings and dissenting opinions of SCOTUS cases over the past century, it would be interesting to see Congressional D & R queries and subjective commentary of each sitting Judge. I'd imagine with the ever etched writing of each Judge - Congress would have SNL put up their hands, walk away muttering, "I give up..." Hah!

Aside from George Washington, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt nominated the most Judges over his multi Presidential terms. Nine! All confirmed. Up in arms, Republicans damned his actions as, "Court Packing", FDR's personal agenda! FDR's push for the New Deal legislation among other news column highlights of the times. Of course this was met with resistance by Hughes via the Judiciary Reorganization Bill.

The Warren Court (Considered the most liberal) is likely the most significant, IMO. The timing of our Nation's growing pains and Warren ready to embrace what many proclaimed as, Judicial Activism... Racial inequality addressed via Brown v. Board of Education. Miranda Rights born from Miranda v. Arizona. Amazing to think the most liberal leaning SCOTUS was led by Republican, Earl Warren!

Go figure, right?

With that, here are some other notable Presidential flips:

Theodore Roosevelt nominated and confirmed Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that the Republican's proclaimed, "Our kind right through!" - quote from Cabot Lodge. However later, Theodore Roosevelt was pissed as hell when Justice Holmes voted against TR's biggest railroad trust-busting case, United States v. Northern Securities. "I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that..."

The above mentioned, Republican, Warren - This one is a wildly interesting declaration by President Dwight Eisenhower, "The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made!"

The purpose of this post: Even John Adams was angry as hell over political power plays of our SCOTUS. This is nothing new and, IMO, most importantly, I believe our Justices do their best - with their positioned often etched from experience and opinioned readings of our founding fathers. I oppose Roe v Wade though Ginsberg is a person way too far beyond my depth of knowledge. Does it turn my opinion? Hell no - however, it's our court within a country that votes for one party or the other and is framed from that fashion. I believe thread after thread on Hunt Talk present this very sentiment. One reason I value this site and aside from an unrelated website - the reason I visit only this site.

Anyhow, I enjoyed the research for this post. It's America. God Bless America.

 

[LWC55]

Personally I think a lot of what's going on is wrapped up in this R v. D contrived culture war. IMHO this is the spectrum for any issue. Most people are in the center, they kinda a bit one way or the other, the the parties frame the position of " the other side" meaning 40% of the population as some crazy extreme that isn't true, sure maybe the 2% extreme left or right think that but definitely not the majority.

So then you have us, the 80% in the middle arguing and accusing each other of crazy ass shit when we more or less agree with some caveats.

"Left want to take you guns"
-Most folks are just uncomfortable with ARs and high capacity mags, and don't totally understand how firearms work, and want to know there are gun laws on the books.

"Right are crazy nuts who want no rules"
-Most folks, don't want criminals to have access to firearms, think background checks are fine, and mainly have issues like things like ARs bans because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how a firearm works.

If there was actual dialogue, we could probably get 70% onboard with something.

But that doesn't get your guy votes, so the other side are child killing murders so let's burn it all down.

View attachment 217401

I agree mostly. But we have all seen in recent months that dissenting opinions that differ from the mainstream narrative "science" have been largely censored. As well as a sitting president being taken off of virtually all social media. This was cheered by left or at least not called out. Big departure from years and years of championing free speech of all kinds.

 

[Jason73]

I agree with you and I almost hate to say it, because I don't want to start a pissing match, but I think the shift on the left also has alot to do with Trump and others like him, who just don't let facts get in the way of their message. It's a scary thing when a politician can say something that is just demonstrably false and anyone actually fact checking is labeled as "fake news." We've seen this play out on the right and the left, but Trump put on a master class and really changed the game. 10 years ago, I would have dropped my coffee cup to read a news article from a major journalistic organization saying something like, "The president (or former president) repeated his lie that..." Over the last 5 years, these lines have become common place as journalists try to hang on some standard of what is fact and what is not. Many are unsure what to do about a reality where truth has no meaning and so it's no surprise they're flirting with limits on free speech.

"I did not have sexual relations with that women" "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ". This has been going on forever. I just chose two examples, one from each political party. Nothing new at all.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Personally I think a lot of what's going on is wrapped up in this R v. D contrived culture war. IMHO this is the spectrum for any issue. Most people are in the center, they kinda a bit one way or the other, the the parties frame the position of " the other side" meaning 40% of the population as some crazy extreme that isn't true, sure maybe the 2% extreme left or right think that but definitely not the majority.

So then you have us, the 80% in the middle arguing and accusing each other of crazy ass shit when we more or less agree with some caveats.

"Left want to take you guns"
-Most folks are just uncomfortable with ARs and high capacity mags, and don't totally understand how firearms work, and want to know there are gun laws on the books.

"Right are crazy nuts who want no rules"
-Most folks, don't want criminals to have access to firearms, think background checks are fine, and mainly have issues like things like ARs bans because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how a firearm works.

If there was actual dialogue, we could probably get 70% onboard with something.

But that doesn't get your guy votes, so the other side are child killing murders so let's burn it all down.

View attachment 217401

I agree completely. The only answer I can see is for the "average joe" to start showing up in mass to the precinct primary endorsement meetings of both parties. Demand that moderates of either flavor (left or right) get on the ballot. Then vote in the primaries and make sure those candidates make the November ballots.

Democracy is not driven by "one man, one vote" - it is driven by participation. We haven't had greater than 70% voter turnout in a presidential election in the last 120 years. That means no president in modern history has ever actually been elected by a majority of eligible Americans. And pre-primary precinct meetings, where candidates are general set, attendance is tiny. Literally, 27 of your most politically passionate neighbors will have major input on who you get to vote for in November.

It's like state F&G policy. Show up at the meetings or expect to be ignored by the passionate minority pushing crap you don't want.

The middle could fix much of this mess in one election cycle if they just demanded full voice at party precinct meetings. So, find where they are, grab your reasonable friends/family/neighbors, go to a few local meetings, reshape America -- or stop complaining - you have the quality of government you are willing to invest in.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree mostly. But we have all seen in recent months that dissenting opinions that differ from the mainstream narrative "science" have been largely censored. As well as a sitting president being taken off of virtually all social media. This was cheered by left or at least not called out. Big departure from years and years of championing free speech of all kinds.

Agreed, though a component of that is the common carrier discussion that we have beaten to death over and over again. The other component is what I'm going to call "boy who cried wolf" if someone flagrantly lies over and over again that is going to have an effect and implications down the road when they say something credible.

I'm not trying to single out Trump with that last statement I'm saying that there has been so much misinformation lately that I think folks are willing to now limit speech, which net net I think is a bad thing.

So yes I agree with you that is what is happening, but it's kinda a chicken or the egg thing in my mind.

 

[406dn]

Montana's history shows how powerful corporate interests can harm democracy.

The Anaconda Company at one time owned most of the major newspapers in the state. They decided what news was worthy of being read by most Montanans. The company dominated the state's politics.

Many of the resulting reforms in laws and the state's constitution were in part a backlash to the dominance of the Anaconda Company. One of those was restrictions on corporate spending on political campaigns. Of course it was swept aside with the Citizen's United ruling.

There will be increasing influence from well moneyed interests for the foreseeable future. It will take longer, I suspect, than my lifetime before enough citizens have had a belly full and do anything about it.

Consider how much influence the Wilkes brothers have over the direction on FWP among other things. You can count on it becoming worse...or better depending on how you see it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree completely. The only answer I can see is for the "average joe" to start showing up in mass to the precinct primary endorsement meetings of both parties. Demand that moderates of either flavor (left or right) get on the ballot. Then vote in the primaries and make sure those candidates make the November ballots.

Hey bro I voted against Trump in the republican primary and then against Biden in the democratic primary 4 years later.

 

[Dougfirtree]

"I did not have sexual relations with that women" "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ". This has been going on forever. I just chose two examples, one from each political party. Nothing new at all.

Politicians have been lying forever, agreed. I'm talking about something different. When confronted with proof, Clinton admitted that he did in fact, have relations with that woman and that fact is not questioned by anyone, whether they be on the left, or the right. Likewise, it is widely accepted by both the right and the left that W was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, even if there is some disagreement about whether he was lying, or just had bad intelligence. The truth caught up, in both cases. pretty quickly, actually.

Today, a majority of Republicans still say they believe Joe Biden stole the election. Whether this is different, or not, it feels very different to many on the left and their belief that misinformation is harming us is fueling a growing acceptance of some limits on free speech. That's my only real point.

 

[noharleyyet]

Politicians have been lying forever, agreed. I'm talking about something different. When confronted with proof, Clinton admitted that he did in fact, have relations with that woman and that fact is not questioned by anyone, whether they be on the left, or the right. Likewise, it is widely accepted by both the right and the left that W was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, even if there is some disagreement about whether he was lying, or just had bad intelligence. The truth caught up, in both cases. pretty quickly, actually.

Today, a majority of Republicans still say they believe Joe Biden stole the election. Whether this is different, or not, it feels very different to many on the left and their belief that misinformation is harming us is fueling a growing acceptance of some limits on free speech. That's my only real point.

Let me get this straight...many on the left own verity therefore censorship, as selectively assigned, is ok?

I smell a pony.

 

[Jason73]

Politicians have been lying forever, agreed. I'm talking about something different. When confronted with proof, Clinton admitted that he did in fact, have relations with that woman and that fact is not questioned by anyone, whether they be on the left, or the right. Likewise, it is widely accepted by both the right and the left that W was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, even if there is some disagreement about whether he was lying, or just had bad intelligence. The truth caught up, in both cases. pretty quickly, actually.

Today, a majority of Republicans still say they believe Joe Biden stole the election. Whether this is different, or not, it feels very different to many on the left and their belief that misinformation is harming us is fueling a growing acceptance of some limits on free speech. That's my only real point.

I'm done. This thread needs to move to Facebook.