01-23-2010, 05:38 AM
I must say Kandrathe that you're exhausting to discourse with, as you don't specify what you're responding to. Your response to the first quote would have been much easier to respond to if you had just used my first sentence about corporation definition that you objected to and not quoted the rest of my response which was the actual meat. Explaining corporation while ignoring the points on rights, access and the very heart of my objection, corruption, leads me to believe you're not actually interested in discourse. I very well could be wrong, but that's how it comes across.
You mentioned MSNBC, NBC, and I believe I said 'shred of creditability'.:P Also, those are specific show hosts not anchors for 'news' and, specifically, they weren't running campaign ads, just commentary.
In no way have I ever felt, nor argued that McCain/Feingold is a good law, nor even about it's constitutionality, but I maintain that it's stopgap effect was a necessary evil. I wrote elsewhere that I'm fine with the philosophical argument for overturning M/F (*), but to ignore the practical effects of what this will do, as well as what it was preventing is seriously shortsighted. Even so, there's nothing particularly wrong with overturning laws like M/F *except* with the way it happened. This ruling was nothing short of spectacular and very disturbing as this was a radical departure from precedent, as well as taking such a limited scope case and applying it to an entire series of laws.
Cheers,
~Frag B)
*I didn't here and I apologize, I overlapped a lot between my FB and Lurker posts.
You mentioned MSNBC, NBC, and I believe I said 'shred of creditability'.:P Also, those are specific show hosts not anchors for 'news' and, specifically, they weren't running campaign ads, just commentary.
In no way have I ever felt, nor argued that McCain/Feingold is a good law, nor even about it's constitutionality, but I maintain that it's stopgap effect was a necessary evil. I wrote elsewhere that I'm fine with the philosophical argument for overturning M/F (*), but to ignore the practical effects of what this will do, as well as what it was preventing is seriously shortsighted. Even so, there's nothing particularly wrong with overturning laws like M/F *except* with the way it happened. This ruling was nothing short of spectacular and very disturbing as this was a radical departure from precedent, as well as taking such a limited scope case and applying it to an entire series of laws.
Cheers,
~Frag B)
*I didn't here and I apologize, I overlapped a lot between my FB and Lurker posts.
Hardcore Diablo 1/2/3/4 & Retail/Classic WoW adventurer.