I had no idea Rebecca Howe had ANYTHING to do with this either

One nice thing is the lt gov and others got clearance letters from the US attorney, so all that Zimmer Hoboken nonsense amounted to nothing.

Kelly's presser yesterday was kind of weird. Thanking all her friends for their support, completely innocent, blah, blah. Nary a mention of the Big Guy that I recall (didn't hear start to finish)

Federal Elections Commissioner: “The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/po ... -news&_r=1

Welp, I guess the tea party was right all along. Can't trust voting results. Oh wait, oh, this is about campaign financing? Go on...

Watchdog groups have gone to the F.E.C. with complaints that probable presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley are skirting finance laws by raising millions without officially declaring that they are considering running.

She said she was resigned to the fact that “there is not going to be any real enforcement” in the coming election.

“The few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore,” said Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democratic commissioner.

Republican members of the commission see no such crisis. They say they are comfortable with how things are working under the structure that gives each party three votes. No action at all, they say, is better than overly aggressive steps that could chill political speech.

“Congress set this place up to gridlock,” Lee E. Goodman, a Republican commissioner, said in an interview. “This agency is functioning as Congress intended. The democracy isn’t collapsing around us.”

at least he's honest.

A disagreement over how to treat online political ads, for instance, turned tense when Ms. Ravel received anonymous online threats over charges that she was trying to “regulate” the Internet. She angrily confronted Mr. Goodman, charging that he had unfairly “fanned the flames” against her by mischaracterizing her position in an interview he did on Fox News. But Mr. Goodman said he had no regrets about challenging her position, which he saw as opening the door to greater regulation of Internet activities.

man has "no regrets" over his mischaracterizion of a person leading to death threats. seems like a good dude.

“What’s really going on,” she said, “is that the Republican commissioners don’t want to enforce the law, except in the most obvious cases. The rules aren’t being followed, and that’s destructive to the political process.”

but, as we all, know, this is all fine and has no bearing on who eventually gets elected.

Bucky, there is no way anonymous groups making 100s of millions of dollars of donations to the campaigns of people who govern our country is a bad thing. It's just capitalism in action.

“If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman,” Santorum, who is weighing running for president again in 2016, said in response to a question from BuzzFeed News during a roundtable with reporters at the South Carolina Republican Party’s convention. “My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are. I can criticize, and I do, for what people do, for their behavior. But as far as for who they are, you have to respect everybody, and these are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody.”
“So these are tough issues. I haven’t got into the whole issue, and I don’t think the federal government should get into the whole issue of bathrooms,” Santorum said after being asked whether he thinks Jenner should be able to use women’s public restrooms. “I think those are things that the business community and local agencies and organizations should deal with.”

later on fb:

Rick Santorum wrote:Many of you may have read a story published by the website BuzzFeed where I was asked for my thoughts regarding Bruce Jenner. My comment affirmed Jenner as a person, made by God in His likeness as we all are. It was meant to express empathy not a change in public policy. ‪#‎compassion‬

this is...unexpected.

so many Republicans are really convinced every person who doesn't agree with them reads Saul Alinsky, when in reality who reads Saul Alinsky?

Youseff wrote:so many Republicans are really convinced every person who doesn't agree with them reads Saul Alinsky, when in reality who reads Saul Alinsky?

OBAMA READS IT

No surprise here but I am a little confused. Is the American Freedom Defense Initiative pro-First Amendment so long as they agree with what is being said? Or is it that they only are in favor of the freedom of speech portion of the Amendment and fuck freedom of religion? I wonder if Pamela Geller is so blinded by her hatred that she fails to see the paradox of her organization's position regarding Muslims and Islam.

it seems that most of the conservatives in this country want the right to say whatever fucked up thing they want without any consequences. it's why you see the right get all butthurt when someone gets fired for being homophobic/racist/etc...

you can't have freedom of speech without the freedom for people to be offended by your speech.

SK790 wrote:it seems that most of the conservatives in this country want the right to say whatever fucked up thing they want without any consequences. it's why you see the right get all butthurt when someone gets fired for being homophobic/racist/etc...

you can't have freedom of speech without the freedom for people to be offended by your speech.

Three recent examples - Eich leaving Mozilla; the gay cake business immortalized in this thread's name; the anti Muslim Muhammad drawing folks

1) Eich Prop 8 Donation...people were well within their legal rights to be upset by his donation or to push for his ouster. I thought they were very wrong to do so. By all accounts at the time, as an executive there had never been an issue with gay and straight employees being treated differently. It is my right to disapprove of the way the offended people reacted to the initial donation/speech, yes? That's sorta how this works.

2) Gay wedding cake baking...here the issue is not people being offended by your speech, but the state's involvement in doling out punishments for refusing to bake the cake. I'm not sure whether it's freedom of speech issue or free exercise of religion or some combination of those plus private property rights on the part of the baker, but I don't think the state should be levying six figure fines on the non compliant. People very much have the right to express displeasure at a business that refused to provide a service for a gay wedding (and in these cases I would feel the boycott is more justified than with the Mozilla example given the direct relevance to the business). My issue is the activity or lack thereof being made illegal. This isn't a question of the right of people to be offended by your speech.

3) Muhammad drawing...here the issue is not people being offended by your speech, but people expressing this offense with bullets rather than words or boycotts or other non lethal means. This seems fairly straightforward.

I do think in general there is too much people being offended by speech and looking to extract a pound of flesh as payment for their offense. It extends beyond politics. We saw another example of it last week with the Houston Rockets social media person getting fired over the shooting the horse tweet. People get offended and outraged over stupid shit and demand someone's head on a platter, then quickly move onto the next inane firestorm. It is not a healthy environment for ideas to be exchanged and debated, for jokes to be told, etc. People have the right to offended by speech and the right to respond, but explaining how a person is wrong in words and maybe getting an apology would be better than this automatic mob escalation to 100. Not every infringement needs to be treated as a capital offense.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:it seems that most of the conservatives in this country want the right to say whatever fucked up thing they want without any consequences. it's why you see the right get all butthurt when someone gets fired for being homophobic/racist/etc...

you can't have freedom of speech without the freedom for people to be offended by your speech.

Three recent examples - Eich leaving Mozilla; the gay cake business immortalized in this thread's name; the anti Muslim Muhammad drawing folks

1) Eich Prop 8 Donation...people were well within their legal rights to be upset by his donation or to push for his ouster. I thought they were very wrong to do so. By all accounts at the time, as an executive there had never been an issue with gay and straight employees being treated differently. It is my right to disapprove of the way the offended people reacted to the initial donation/speech, yes? That's sorta how this works.

and it's my right to find your disapproval to be irrelevant to the larger point. if you don't see why some people would be wary of doing business with or working for someone who contributes to causes that are discriminatory to a large portion of the population, idk what to tell you. would you support a business that donated money to the "Fuck all White Republicans Foundation"? I bet not.

2) Gay wedding cake baking...here the issue is not people being offended by your speech, but the state's involvement in doling out punishments for refusing to bake the cake. I'm not sure whether it's freedom of speech issue or free exercise of religion or some combination of those plus private property rights on the part of the baker, but I don't think the state should be levying six figure fines on the non compliant. People very much have the right to express displeasure at a business that refused to provide a service for a gay wedding (and in these cases I would feel the boycott is more justified than with the Mozilla example given the direct relevance to the business). My issue is the activity or lack thereof being made illegal. This isn't a question of the right of people to be offended by your speech.

i guess it's about whether you care more about the rights of an individual over the rights of a business. clearly we know which one you support.

3) Muhammad drawing...here the issue is not people being offended by your speech, but people expressing this offense with bullets rather than words or boycotts or other non lethal means. This seems fairly straightforward.

yes, shooting people is stupid.

I do think in general there is too much people being offended by speech and looking to extract a pound of flesh as payment for their offense. It extends beyond politics. We saw another example of it last week with the Houston Rockets social media person getting fired over the shooting the horse tweet. People get offended and outraged over stupid shit and demand someone's head on a platter, then quickly move onto the next inane firestorm. It is not a healthy environment for ideas to be exchanged and debated, for jokes to be told, etc. People have the right to offended by speech and the right to respond, but explaining how a person is wrong in words and maybe getting an apology would be better than this automatic mob escalation to 100. Not every infringement needs to be treated as a capital offense.

i don't think it's for you or anyone else to decide what should and should not offend people so let me shut you down right there.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ze-revenue

Helluva job Brownback is doing down in Kansas.

it really does blow my mind that jh thinks people shouldn't be offended about people/businesses donating millions of dollars to forward discriminatory policies or just generally refuse to acknowledge the existence of someone or some idea(by refusing service).

In response to larger-than-projected revenue losses, Brownback proposed slowing the rate of future tax reductions in January as well as boosting levies on cigarette and liquor. Those suggestions have been resisted by lawmakers, and the path to a budget resolution remains unclear.

Since tax cuts pay for themselves shouldn't he enact MORE tax cuts???

I do not always agree with JH but when I do it is after he posts something like that last paragraph. I am not sure when the transition started but we have really become an insanely thin-skinned and intolerant society. Maybe I just was not following close enough in my youth but it seems like maybe the last 10 to 15 years? Maybe less? And I do not mean to imply that it is only liberals or only conservatives, either. Both sides have contributed to the Us vs. Them mentality that has become the United States. And the media certainly does not help matters at all; IMHO, it worsens the divide by pushing the narratives of their leaders. It is twisted but for all the worry and talk of Jihad in the Middle East, there appears to be a holy war going on right now in America.

pacino wrote:

In response to larger-than-projected revenue losses, Brownback proposed slowing the rate of future tax reductions in January as well as boosting levies on cigarette and liquor. Those suggestions have been resisted by lawmakers, and the path to a budget resolution remains unclear.

Since tax cuts pay for themselves shouldn't he enact MORE tax cuts???

Just helping the move to privatized schools. See, the government can't afford to subsidize education any longer! My biggest political worry is the collapse of the DOE and the complete privatization of schools. With the decline of the middle class how many people will be able to afford education for their children?