Because I'm still confused how you are basically normal, not delusional like the majority of O$U fans. Still convinced that you are a closet Michigan fan because of that, but just can't reveal it due to your upbringing, family fallout, etc.But I enjoy that you have to remind yourself of it whenever you agree with me
This thread is why I don't talk about politics with people. I look at you people and think "How the fuck can you think this?!"
Exactly.Originally Posted by morsdraconis
The old saying for bars is that you don't talk about politics or religion. The same, generally, should apply anywhere you have a variety of people with varying backgrounds and perspectives. It never ceases to amaze me when people here try to make every discussion into a political ad for their group of choice.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
As noted above Super PACs are basically groups that enjoy certain tax advantages b/c they spend $ on political advertising.
Short History
1. Congress in the 1940s (all times are approx b/c I'm too lasy to look it up) BANNED $ donations by Unions and Corporations. (IMHO this is where it all went wrong as Unions; Corporations; People shoudl be able to spend their/its money however it sees fit and has a right to do so under the U.S. Constitution i.e. Free Speech).
2. The Unions (and probably some cors as well but I think it was largely a labor movement issue) tried to work around this act by creating PACs
3. 1970s Congress passes law issuing rules/regs limiting how much can be given to a PAC and again prohibiting Corps/Unions from donating "directly" (again a blatant violation of Free Speech)
4. 2010 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down some of these 1970s rules/regs on Unions AND Corps.
In sum, PACs are a creature created because the Federal Government has limited the Free Speech rights of its citizens. If it weren't for these completely unconstitutional rules/regs people would be able to donate directly to the candidate of his/her choice. Instead we have this F'd up system where each side has a proxy war of PACs and candidates can deny being responsible for the ads. (Obama has former Obama people running "his" PACs and Romney is the same).
Its a COMPLETE AND UTTER joke but one that was 100% preventable if the Government stopped violating people's right to speech.
I've never really seen any hard studies but I'd be shocked if it wasn't higher than the % you cite. There are a whole host of reasons for this (too many to go on for this thread as it will be derailed more than it already is). Safe to say that the VAST MAJORITY of lawyers are liberals and the few conservatives in the legal profession are either (1) one of the minority of conservative jurists within the system or (2) have given up all hope as the cancer has spread to the point where it is inoperable from within and short of blowing the system up from the outside (i.e. tort reform legislation from State Legislatures/Congress)Take for example how ticked we all get over the frivolousness of lawsuits today. Most politicians are lawyers, most judges were lawyers, politicians make the laws......they want these lawsuits, it is how they get paid. CLW can fact check me here but I think the last statistic I saw was over 65% of attorneys are Democrats. Then they just stack the jury with the bitter and envious that have been trained to hate the 1% and viola you can see where and WHY we are where we are.
+1Exactly.
The old saying for bars is that you don't talk about politics or religion. The same, generally, should apply anywhere you have a variety of people with varying backgrounds and perspectives. It never ceases to amaze me when people here try to make every discussion into a political ad for their group of choice.
Or better yet if you don't want to talk/read about politics/policy you could just avoid threads where it is clear said topics will be discussed?
Now back to the topic at hand:
You're not talking about policy. You're spouting right wing insanity.
See title of thread: Right Wing "Propoganda" Thread
Your free to start a Communists Manifesto Thread.
Just sayin'
And... that's why talking politics is useless.See title of thread: Right Wing "Propoganda" Thread
Your free to start a Communists Manifesto Thread.
Just sayin'
Yeah, I don't think this thread is really about discussing politics. This thread is the board's Republican National Convention where all the righties can talk about the downfall of America due to the lefties.
Figured with the election comin' up we TGT right wingers could post all of our right wing "propoganda" to share/enjoy. All you Commies GTFO of this thread!
I'll start with something pretty funny that came out today from the RNC:
Yet you keep "talking politics"?
Your right see the 1st post above outlining the general idea of the thread. I bolded the key portion in case anyone had any doubts. If TGT's lefties want a thread they can start one. In fact, just in case the left here at TGT is incapable of starting a thread I'll start one for them.
"Negative rights"
Just figured it would be typical bashing without facts or other solutions.
The commercials on every other hour are enough for that
Muck Fichigan.Because I'm still confused how you are basically normal, not delusional like the majority of O$U fans. Still convinced that you are a closet Michigan fan because of that, but just can't reveal it due to your upbringing, family fallout, etc.
This is a completely uneducated guess, but by chance was this ban around the same time as McCarthy? Because the two would make sense together ... banning unions (thought to be very communist, especially at the time) and a very anti-Communist post-WWII sentiment.
Last edited by JeffHCross; 08-20-2012 at 08:25 PM.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Probably close to that time period. I seem to recall it being put into a larger labor bill (Taft-Hartley?). If I am right it was part of a bill that added unfair labor practice charges on unions. Prior to the bill only an employer could be guilty of "unfair employment" practices. So in theory it added some "balance" to the NLRA/labor laws in the country. In fact, I think it created the ability for states to enact "right to work" laws instead of unions forcing "slavery" upon those who need a job but did not/do not want to join a union.
Yep, that was it. The two were definitely linked.
While I do think Taft-Hartley may have gone a little overboard, in so much as limiting free speech, I also understand that the unions had gone into overdrive in the late 40s and were being more disruptive than beneficial.The amendments required union leaders to file affidavits with the United States Department of Labor declaring that they were not supporters of the Communist Party and had no relationship with any organization seeking the "overthrow of the United States government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional means" as a condition to participating in NLRB proceedings. Just over a year after Taft-Hartley passed, eighty-one thousand (81,000) union officers from nearly 120 unions had filed the required affidavits
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Abortion is murder.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
What if the fetus is Muslim? ...then it's just war, right?
Yeah Unions were much more of a disruptive force back then than they are now. However, I've always felt the NLRA was bad policy then and then you just double down with another wrong to correct a previous wrong which inevitably leaves a mess. Instead of just repealing the NLRA they compound the problem by adding on more regs and bigger government governing a completely private transaction.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks