Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
When you resort to name calling like that, I have won again.

Exactly.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap


I read somewhere that giving to Kerry now is a bad idea, because he has plentiful cash on hand and little time to spend it, since he can't save it and spend it after the convention.
. . . .

If it's true that they can't spend pre-convention cash after the convention, then why are both parties still raising it like mad?

It's a bad idea at any time to give to Kerry. That said, I imagine they will try to channel donations to the DNC/RNC, who can spend willy-nilly, whereas the campaign is limited to the federal funds.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Kaus disusses it here. Scroll down about halfway.

My understanding -- quadruple hearsay, perhaps -- is that he's using money raised now to pre-pay for ad time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Debunked by an article in USA today?

Ok then. Contra Gee, look at all those Iranians caught fighting on film the other day.

Iranians are foreign?


(Shhh..... I'm trying to annoy certain people)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Strangely, there are only 30 guys in the cell and only some of them are in the car-bomb sections. Lets say 25 of them are car bomb builders. If they were the suicide people, there wouldn't be 25 tomorrow. There would be 24... or 23. ANd next week there would be 10 and the week after 0.

Try as I might, I cannot get that fucking "bottles of beer" song out of my head now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall you posting that stuff, but I don't see how the identity of the President matters. The First Amendment shouldn't let law enforcement segregate people from a public event because they support or oppose the President. The sort of "safety value" you describe has very little to do with, except as a pretext, and the First Amendment doesn't mean much if it doesn't protect the expression of unpopular views.

Fine. then you are bothered by hecklers thrown from sen. fatso's talk, and once we have another dem. President you will continue to post such watchdog articles, i trust. if so, we agree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fine. then you are bothered by hecklers thrown from sen. fatso's talk, and once we have another dem. President you will continue to post such watchdog articles, i trust. if so, we agree.

Heckling is a problem if they are interfering with the speaker's ability to be heard: the so-called "heckler's veto." If not, let them stay. But they usually want to be thrown out, anyway.

I would like to think that the law enforcement types who make these decisions are doing so without any direction at all from the White House, and will continue to make bad decisions in the Kerry Administration, at which you and I will be completely sympatico, unless they're ejecting Penske, in which case they have my full support and I hope they rough him up a little.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
My understanding -- quadruple hearsay, perhaps -- is that he's using money raised now to pre-pay for ad time.

Which part would this circumvent? The McCain part or the Feingold part?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Which part would this circumvent? The McCain part or the Feingold part?

I won't pretend to understand the campaign finance laws, so why don't you tell me.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Exactly.

You should put me back on ignore. Getting your ass cyberkicked can be bad for your blood pressure.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fat senators bug me too

This raises the question, who is the fattest senator? women have come a long way, baby! the 2 fattest Senators are women! mikulski wins for highest body fat %. But she's short.




I'll trust Penske to put up the best hill picture. i think hill being taller probably wins for most weight to lose. am i forgetting anyone?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
You should put me back on ignore. Getting your ass cyberkicked can be bad for your blood pressure.

Getting my ass kicked? My mistake was in thinking that you were talking about the same facts that the rest of us were. If you were arguing about federal employees in the workplace, you were having that argument alone. And I didn't need the ignore feature to ignore you -- your posts were enough there.

eta: You're completely fucked up on the First Amendment, too. You seem to think that content-based restrictions are OK outside public fora, and dodged my BART hypo by saying that it was a public forum. But it wouldn't OK for San Francisco to ban privately-owned billboards carrying only anti-Bush messages.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you were arguing about federal employees in the workplace,

Whether you are aware of it or not, the USSC makes a distinction between non-public and public forums when it comes to publicly owned spaces and the first amendment. The USSC defines these things, not me.

What I said was not particular to federal employees, but to publicly owned, non-public forums. Federal workplaces are just one example of these publicly owned non-public forums. What the government can do in terms of restricting speech based on content varies depending on whether it is a public or non-public forum. It is not specific to federal employees. It applies to anyone in these publicly owned non-public forums. Content-based regulations in these non-public forums are subject to a rational relationship test regardless of whether the person is an employee or not. In public forums, it is a strict scrutiny test.

Read the cases if you want to know more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Content-based regulations in these non-public forums are subject to a rational relationship test regardless of whether the person is an employee or not. In public forums, it is a strict scrutiny test.

Read the cases if you want to know more.

Please point me to a single case that says that it is presumptively OK for the government to regulate speech, based on its content,* so long as the speech occurs somewhere other than a public forum.

Just one case. One of the cases you've been reading, presumably.

* Setting aside false statements of fact, nonnewsworthy disclosures of private information, commercial speech, and obscenity. I'm talking about political speech.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
.

* Setting aside false statements of fact, nonnewsworthy disclosures of private information, commercial speech, and obscenity. I'm talking about political speech.

I'm fairly sure its illegal to call a Senator fat in SF. I know I could be fined, but don't about prior restraint.