Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Did he REALLY say that?!?!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Did he REALLY say that?!?!

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) commented on today's Supreme Court overturning of certain provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform by saying...

    that he thought it was one of the top Supreme Court decisions that undermined our democracy.

    OH, you can't be serious!!! Schumer is an accomplished attorney and a smart guy. He either misspoke out of passion or thought we are all too stupid to call him out on that!

    Um...how about Plessy v. Ferguson? How about Dredd Scott? Everson v. Bd of Ed (written the radically anti-Catholic Hugo Black)? Korematsu? These are roundly, widely criticized opinions that did horrible things to setting back our democracy. He can't possibly meant to equate today's decision with those!!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Was it on the scale of those decisions? Perhaps not but I'm not thrilled about Wal-mart OR the AFL-CIO taking over the airwaves every fall for the rest of my life, either. I do believe that it just got a LOT harder for the average American to run for office. I mean, on a National level, you already had better be pretty well loaded but now I think it's going to trickle right down to local politics. PTA level politics.

    What also it's likely to do is hasten the death spiral of non-cable television. Who in their right mind is going to want to sit and listen to that crap?

    Jenn

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by DCJenn View Post

      What also it's likely to do is hasten the death spiral of non-cable television. Who in their right mind is going to want to sit and listen to that crap?
      Good riddance! I can't remember the last time I watched non-cable anything, except for "24."

      Comment

      • #4
        I'm annoyed with cable, too. Remember years back when we were much younger and cable was so awesome (or rad or totally cool) because there were no commercials? Now I can't watch anything on cable without having to sit through a whole bunch of annoying commercials as well.

        And, Hulu is going to start requiring payment soon - but that's another argument for another thread.... grrrr....
        Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
        With fingernails that shine like justice
        And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

        Comment

        • #5
          I definitely think his expression was over exaggerated (and not well thought out) but I would assume he said it immediatially after the release of the decision and was enraged and therefore was not careful with his words.
          Loving wife of neurosurgeon

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by MarissaNicole View Post
            I definitely think his expression was over exaggerated (and not well thought out) but I would assume he said it immediatially after the release of the decision and was enraged and therefore was not careful with his words.
            As I'm not lawyer, I'm only familiar with the cases quoted b/c I've heard the names before -- but I will say I think this decision is catastrophic. Corporations will finance infomercials to suit their desired outcome, and the litmus test of "truth" will be gone (and it was already plenty sketchy in political commercials anyway). I would assume that any falsehoods would have to be dealt with in court via liable or slander laws, and the elections in question will be long over, and the lies will already be in the minds of America. Think of how firmly "Obama is a Muslim" or "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" or "Death Panels" (or even that stupid picture of Palin in an American flag bikini holding a rifle) caught on, and they weren't coming to you under the big, shiny spotlight of TV production. These days you only have to get an idea out there for it to be thought of as truth by some, and a legitimate possibility by many.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Shakti View Post
              As I'm not lawyer, I'm only familiar with the cases quoted b/c I've heard the names before -- but I will say I think this decision is catastrophic. Corporations will finance infomercials to suit their desired outcome, and the litmus test of "truth" will be gone (and it was already plenty sketchy in political commercials anyway). I would assume that any falsehoods would have to be dealt with in court via liable or slander laws, and the elections in question will be long over, and the lies will already be in the minds of America. Think of how firmly "Obama is a Muslim" or "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" or "Death Panels" (or even that stupid picture of Palin in an American flag bikini holding a rifle) caught on, and they weren't coming to you under the big, shiny spotlight of TV production. These days you only have to get an idea out there for it to be thought of as truth by some, and a legitimate possibility by many.
              ITA. What little bit of commen sense and rational decision making might be left among Congress and the Senate will now be erased and gone to the highest bidder. Frankly, I think this is what is wrong with our current government. All decisions are made by the the large lobby groups.
              Wife of Ophthalmologist and Mom to my daughter and two boys.

              Comment

              • #8
                Bleh. I heard that Roberts responded to the concern about stockholder's opinions by stating that they could sell their stock. So true - but do we really need to mix the political system in to every freaking thing? The same conversation said that Congress may pass legislation requiring companies to disclose their political contributions to stockholders. *sigh* I hope my stock purchases don't go to pay for .32 seconds of prime time ad space instead of ...say....new machinery or R&D. So far, I think a large chunk of it goes to pay those insane CEO salaries. Do we really need to give businesses a new way to waste money? They seem to be terribly good at it already. I'm hoping for a HUGE sell off against any company that exercises this "privilege" by twisting the truth in the next election. HUGE. I think their stockholder should make them suffer for it.
                Angie
                Gyn-Onc fellowship survivor - 10 years out of the training years; reluctant suburbanite
                Mom to DS (18) and DD (15) (and many many pets)

                "Where are we going - and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Did he REALLY say that?!?!

                  Originally posted by Shakti

                  As I'm not lawyer, I'm only familiar with the cases quoted b/c I've heard the names before -- but I will say I think this decision is catastrophic. Corporations will finance infomercials to suit their desired outcome, and the litmus test of "truth" will be gone (and it was already plenty sketchy in political commercials anyway). I would assume that any falsehoods would have to be dealt with in court via liable or slander laws, and the elections in question will be long over, and the lies will already be in the minds of America. Think of how firmly "Obama is a Muslim" or "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" or "Death Panels" (or even that stupid picture of Palin in an American flag bikini holding a rifle) caught on, and they weren't coming to you under the big, shiny spotlight of TV production. These days you only have to get an idea out there for it to be thought of as truth by some, and a legitimate possibility by many.
                  I agree 100%

                  Kris


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                  ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
                  ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    There's a section on campaign contributions and their impact on campaigns in Freakonomics:
                    http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections

                    Anyway, I do think that was a ridiculous statement by Schumer. Even those who don't like this have to admit that there have been far worse decisions in our history.
                    Back in the Midwest with my PGY-2 ortho DH and putting my fashion degree to good use.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Shakti View Post
                      As I'm not lawyer, I'm only familiar with the cases quoted b/c I've heard the names before -- but I will say I think this decision is catastrophic. Corporations will finance infomercials to suit their desired outcome, and the litmus test of "truth" will be gone (and it was already plenty sketchy in political commercials anyway). I would assume that any falsehoods would have to be dealt with in court via liable or slander laws, and the elections in question will be long over, and the lies will already be in the minds of America. Think of how firmly "Obama is a Muslim" or "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" or "Death Panels" (or even that stupid picture of Palin in an American flag bikini holding a rifle) caught on, and they weren't coming to you under the big, shiny spotlight of TV production. These days you only have to get an idea out there for it to be thought of as truth by some, and a legitimate possibility by many.
                      This is honestly not any different from presidential elections since Thomas Jefferson kicked off some rabid campaign politics. Truth has always been optional in presidential elections. Slander was pretty common even two centuries ago in presidential campaigns. Businessmen have been able to finance advertisements in media for our history. This is really nothing new. Chuck's comments were definitely hyperbole.
                      Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                      With fingernails that shine like justice
                      And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rapunzel View Post
                        Chuck's comments were definitely hyperbole.
                        And this is nothing new either. In fact, it's more noteworthy today when a politician says something genuine.
                        Wife of Ophthalmologist and Mom to my daughter and two boys.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Well, except that Thomas Jefferson didn't have the wide reach of 24 hour news / internet. I don't find it to be the same at all.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            I think beyond the campaign finance issue, the idea that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional protections as individuals is pretty radical. This may prove to be a complete game changer.
                            Julia - legislative process lover and general government nerd, married to a PICU & Medical Ethics attending, raising a toddler son and expecting a baby daughter Oct '16.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...
                            X