PDA

View Full Version : You like the Citizens united ruling?



Qtec
06-15-2011, 04:48 AM
........this is what you get.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/dccc-demands-gop-candidat_n_877146.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a statement on Tuesday evening denouncing what could very well be the most outrageously sexist and racist ad in political history. </div></div>

LOL. Its way over the top but it is just a taste of what's coming.

Q

LWW
06-15-2011, 05:24 AM
1 - What points of the ad are you claiming to be inaccurate?

2 - How can it be "RACIST" when the huge majority of criminals portrayted were white?

Gayle in MD
06-15-2011, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">........this is what you get.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/dccc-demands-gop-candidat_n_877146.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a statement on Tuesday evening denouncing what could very well be the most outrageously sexist and racist ad in political history. </div></div>

LOL. Its way over the top but it is just a taste of what's coming.

Q </div></div>

Is this for real?

G.

LWW
06-15-2011, 08:31 AM
Who nows ... it was posted by Snoopy, and he confuses:

- Osama with Obama

- The Comedy Channel with a news channel

- Tina Fey with Sarah Palin

- Dear leader's fatwahs with the truth

so it is, at the very best, highly suspect.

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 11:24 AM
Actually, think back to the Willie Horton ad. That was entirely legal prior to the Citizens United ruling, and most likely, so this would have been as well.

The bright line before Citizens was the ad had to stop short of saying 'vote for' or 'vote against.' The ways it would say that short of saying it would be to list some purported facts and then say, 'bad for the district, bad for the state,' words to that effect, or advocating something other than a vote for or against, as in: 'call Congressman X and tell him the people don't want or need his program.'

Didn't watch it twice to be sure, but I think this ad stays short of the line of advocating a vote, and thus would have been quite legal before the ruling.

And that's why Prof. Jonathan Turley said he supported the CU ruling. They could already get right up to the line legally, and simply banning the obvious takeaway words (VOTE!) didn't prevent that message from being heard loud and clear anyway.