Yeah, but what are you trying to achieve?
I think most people here (with some oft-discussed exceptions…) are going to go away and reflect and what is written, even if they initially disagree and even if they write rebuttals (however terrible or stupid they are in your estimation).
Whether that reflection is upon your arguments or on your hostility is to some extent up to you.
Where, according to you, reprehensible means: “Anyone who dares disagree with me.”
I mean you literally said someone who disagreed with you is “arguing in bad faith.” Which is 100% bullshit. You want to see that, well you can hunt up the gman “discussions” and see what Bad Faith looks like. Saying Timex was doing it for disagreeing with you ain’t it.
I’d like to say the opposite of Strollen and thank you for your posts full of facts and well-supported opinions. They are a stark contrast to most posters here. If people can’t handle their poorly supported arguements and lies being called out, well, they probably should stop with the poorly supported arguements and lies.
I didn’t say that because he disagreed with me; I said it because it was true. There are such thing as bad-faith arguments, and they’re happening here.
No, I reject the idea that they have no agency. If they dismiss me because of my tone, rather than because of my arguments, that’s on them.
I mean, here’s an example:
No one is arguing with Dan that he shouldn’t call people ‘jerks’, or that he won’t get anywhere calling people ‘jerks’. No one faults him for his tone. Apparently that sort of hostility is perfectly OK for Dan, but not for me.
The Constitution guarantees an organization’s right to produce whatever media it wants. But there is no guarantee it can maintain tax free status.
Would you object if Congress banned the DNC from using TV ads to support their candidates in a market of 50,000 people within 60 days of an election? Let’s further assume that the RNC would be exempt.
If that sounds unconstitutional, then CU was decided correctly.
If you disagree with something, make your case with facts. You can be civil or not, as you choose, and that may impact the force of your arguement. But when you make claims you cannot support, like talking about someone else’s feelings (that you are of course unable to actually feel) then you’ve strayed off the path of facts and it has become an opinion piece, not an arguement.
Seems fine to let people know when they have strayed into opinion piece territory, and whether to do it in a civil or confrontational manner is up to the poster. Sometimes conflict leads to change in ways that civility doesn’t.
You see, this is a bad-faith response. Citizens United had nothing to do with campaigning or expenditures by political parties. The entire question is a red herring. Similarly, the law challenged in CU prevented all corporations - non-profit or otherwise - and all unions from such broadcasts, not just for-profit corps, so Amex was treated exactly the same as e.g. Planned Parenthood. So the prior question was a red herring, too. This is bad faith stuff.
A. Bush won election by recounts conduct by all the major media groups.
B. Sebelius was about the individual mandate. As you may recall the individual mandate was repeal by Congress as part of the Republican tax cut. How many people have lost their ACA coverage because the mandate went it away. In the money we spend on healthcare, $462 average penalty paid is not even a rounding error.
C. Obergefell gays are about 5% population so 16 million, at the time my SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) is that probably no more than 5 million lived in states were gay marriage was still illegal in 2015. Of those a large fraction aren’t interested in getting married. So you can say about 3 million folks were affected, or put this way 99% of American aren’t directly impacted.
D. Shelby please demonstrate how the court ruling will effect million much less 10 million people
E. Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby employs about 32,000 people, given the nature of their business lets say it is 20,000 woman of which say 5,000 are post menopause. 15,000 women and what is the horrible impact to their lives they are force to pay $20/month for birth control, and spend $50-75 or so for the morning after pill out of their own pocket, the horrors. Given the narrow scope of the ruling, privately held companies with more than 50 employees (less than that ACA does not apply), with religious affilations, I stand by it affecting hundreds of thousands.
Citizens United had nothing to do with AT&T.
And everything to do with AT&T. Because once the conservative nonprofit organization known as “Citizens United” was protected, AT&T by implication was also protected. Because as far as the Constitution is concerned, AT&T has exactly the same rights as Citizens United.
Likewise, Citizens United has everything to do with political parties. Because if the SCOTUS had decided against Citizens United, courts would be bound to decide against the DNC in my hypothetical example. Because as far as the Constitution is concerned, the DNC lacks exactly the same rights as Citizens United.
Bush v Gore is an example of a SCOTUS decision which impacted the lives of millions. That’s what you asked for.
Sebeliius struck down the mandatory Medicaid expansion, allowing states to opt out, which impacted millions of people.
Obergefell is an example of a decision which impacted the lives of millions.
Shelby County enables vote suppression, which will change the outcome of elections, which will change the resulting government, which will surely impact the lives of millions.
Hobby Lobby established a precedent which allows people and organizations to opt out of legal mandates for moral purposes. If you think that can’t impact millions, you’re not paying attention.
I mean, it took me literally 2 minutes to think of these. I’d say it’s easy to find very consequential SCOTUS decisions.
I’m getting that deja vu feeling.
That is entirely false. If SCOTUS had upheld the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, it would have had no impact on the DNC or the RNC or any other registered political party.
Turns out Commies aren’t much better than fascists.
Also apparently asking for someone to be polite is the same as being an asshole. Because reasons.
No, but saying ‘be polite, asshole!’ ain’t being polite.
Except he didn’t remotely say that and you know he didn’t.
Hell, I quoted him. If you think the sentiment is polite with ‘jerk’ rather than ‘asshole’, you’ve got odd standards.
Tell us more about Bad Faith arguments. No really.
I, however, will call you an asshole. Because you are one.
Except the freedom of assembly pretty much explicitly covers political association.
Good, at least we’ve got over whining about tone.