Zero2Cool
5 years ago
Holy crap, this feels like pretty damn big news. What do you think about this?




UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
Z, it is huge news. Some observations and thoughts follow.
First, when Sotomayor and Ginsberg are on the OTHER side of a decision, you know it’s the right decision.
Second, Vegas must be incredibly pissed off. They make huge money on sports book with no competition. For example, the first weekend of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament is the biggest weekend in Vegas. Now there will be other options.
Third, bookies will hate this because the cost of legitimately betting will go down. Whenever you inject competition in to a market, costs decrease.
Fourth, the feds will hate this decision also because with more and more people having a economic interest in the outcome of the game, the more parties there are that would have the economic motivation to fix a game. Remember, the corruption in a sport is generally not on who wins or who loses, but by how many points.
This is big.

In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
isocleas2
5 years ago
Citizen's United was the worst decision in decades and Sotomayer and Ginsberg will certainly be seen in history as on the right side of that one. Although this decision won't be as detrimental to our country as a whole it will certainly devastate alot of people.

Gambling addiction is real and there will be thousands if not millions of new addicts born from this bill. I play alot of poker will be Vegas for the world series in a few weeks, and one of the saddest things about going into these places is seeing the zombies plugging away juniors college money into the slot machines. Atleast before you could get yourself banned from entering a casino, or you had to find a bookie which many couldn't/wouldn't do. Now it will be everywhere, and forgive me for having little faith in us providing credible treatment options. Considering how we deal with alcohol/drug addiction I feel for the families who will now have to deal with the fallout.

That's not even addressing how it will affect the integrity of sports....

KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
The Citizens United decision was a GLORIOUS decision. It finally leveled the playing field restoring free speech. It was a sweeping victory against government censorship of free speech especially political speech. It allowed for a lifting of the blanket ban on advocacy groups which had been imposed by McCain Feingold.

It has brought about the defeat of incumbents as their ability to kept their offices through monopolizing the media and the power of incumbency was mitigated. It has leveled the playing field against unions who extort money from their members.

In short it has enabled associational free-speech. Advocacy groups whether conservative or liberal to advertise.

And please don’t hand me the “special interest money will decide elections” BS. Jeb Bush is super PAC raised $86 million, but DJT kicked his low energy ass. Hillary out raised Bernie 93mm to 4mm and she still needed debate questions in advance to win.

But I guess if one believes in the nanny state... that the government should supervise every freaking aspect of our lives...then one will think that both of these supreme court decisions are bad.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
isocleas2
5 years ago
This seems to be going off track but you couldn't be more wrong about citizens united. The only people it has benefited are corporations and super rich who now can buy their politicians and dictate our politics (and often from the shadows). If you support your politicians being beholden to the voter you want money to have as little effect on them as possible. Its why most other modern countries have strict campaign finance laws and limit advertising, so it doesn't turn into the circus we now have with politicians spending 75% of their time fund raising.

Also every country has restrictions on what should be legal or not, its why we don't let people sell meth out of gas stations or scream fire in a crowded theatre. Sometimes you have to have common sense restrictions for the good of society. Reasonable people can understand that, some can't...

Edit: Check out this video/article and you get what i'm talking about, it shows how much influence we have on politicians making decisions. Unless you are donating money they really don't care...that should concern you.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think 
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
My opinions on Citizens United are based upon the first Amendment and freedoms explicitly guaranteed by them, especially including freedom of speech and expression.
Let me explain to you why I disagree with your assertions
1. The only people who benefited from CU are the super rich
- even if true, so what? why should the super rich have their freedom impinged.
- you don't seem to have a problem taxing the shit out of them, so why can't they spend their money to convey their ideas in proportion with how much you tax them
- who are you to say what anyone can spend their money on, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
- who are you to say who is super rich or rich...you should get your nose out of other peoples' bank accounts or tax returns
- groups like Greenpeace, the Audubon society, and the NRA can organize and have a voice.
- Bill Proxmire had no problems winning elections without raising money, but that was his choice...it wasn't mandated.
- Prior to Citizens, anyone could get around these limits via Superpacs anyway. Now they can be more forthright.
2. We don't let people sell meth or yell fire in a crowded theater
- that argument sounds like its from someone on meth. How can someone compare either of these with voicing an opinion on a candidate or issue. If you can't see the difference between freedom of expression and causing direct harm to others, you need to take a step back and smell the coffee.
3. The survey cited is fraught is illogical. If politicians don't listen to voters, then the voters can vote them out. These voters would rather bitch than organize or vote. I have a bigger problem with the fact that over 50% of people don't pay any federal income tax, yet can vote to confiscate wealth from producers in society...the ones who create jobs.
4. I noticed you did not address the abuses and advantages labor union before CU...which have now been rightfully mitigated.
In conclusion....and to repeat....anyone against these decisions is for a big government nanny state.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
gbguy20
5 years ago
I'd like to skip out on the federal income tax, how the heck do I pull that off?
isocleas2
5 years ago

My opinions on Citizens United are based upon the first Amendment and freedoms explicitly guaranteed by them, especially including freedom of speech and expression.

Originally Posted by: KRK 



Does the government’s legitimate interest to protecting our democracy justify infringement on the freedom of speech? Also should Corporations be given the same rights as actual citizens? These are the important questions to consider.

Hint: Yes our democracy does need to be protected against undue influence and no corporations should not be treated like people. So by allowing billions to be spent on lobbying legislators they are undermining democracy and defrauding voters out of their chance of legitimate representation. I'd say you probably would be concerned about democracy being undermined but telling from your rant about defending the super rich it seems you prefer a plutocracy (government run by the rich). You may want to read up on what a democracy looks like and who its supposed to work for (all of us, equally).

- Bill Proxmire had no problems winning elections without raising money, but that was his choice...it wasn't mandated.



Candidates like Bill Proxmire (or DJT) are outliers, normally when you are outspent you lose the election. Money is the biggest decider in who wins.

94 percent of biggest House race spenders won
82 percent of biggest Senate race spenders won


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections 

- Prior to Citizens, anyone could get around these limits via Superpacs anyway. Now they can be more forthright.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.09faf9762d7e 

3. The survey cited is fraught is illogical.



Please specify how the survey is illogical and/or provide information to support that. Forgive me if I don't take you at your word.

4. I noticed you did not address the abuses and adva
ntages labor union before CU...which have now been rightfully mitigated.



For someone who claims not to like illogical comparisons you sure seem to make alot of them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ 

If I was to hand you a sandwich that was 95% bullshit and 5% ham, would you be prepared to call that a ham sandwich?

KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
5 years ago
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Our freedoms are from God, not the government. We, the people, choose to convey certain of those rights, with limitations delineated in the Constitution to the government. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are not conveyed to the Government. The government cannot over step those rights. Also,
1. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic.
2. Corporations are ultimately own by, for the economic benefit of people. Shouldn't the people who own those corporations have the same rights as people who own anything else? You can use your car to pass out fliers for candidate...should the government be able to say to you, Sorry your proportional use of that car is too highly skewed to politics. Why is a rich man'scash any different.
3. My points were mainly to protect individuals and associations who want to exercise their constitutional right of expression.
4. Most of the Founding Fathers were rich, and lost fortunes in the war to provide our freedoms. They exercised their God given right of expression.
5. People and 501c 3's generally give to politicians who agree with their views. The more people agree with their views, the more money they receive AND the more likely they are to get votes. You seem to think the politicians just stick their fingers up in the air and vote for whatever will get them the most money. Most politicians are not straight up whores who get economic benefit from foundations they form then sell out their country....although there are some.
6. Outlier or not, Proxmire and other candidates win, because they take centrist practical views which can be easily defended.
7. There is more spending....so what? Most people are ignorant of issues which affect our constitutional republic. For example, many ill-informed people they we live in a democracy and don't understand neither the foundational logic nor the genius behind the electoral college.
8. You seem great as asking questions and pointing to left wing articles (the Atlantic, Washington Compost and Socialist Public Radio). Go read National Review and get some balance. Perhaps, however, you can contemplate the core ideals behind these questions:
- why should the super rich have their freedoms impinged?
- you don't seem to have a problem taxing the shit out of them, so why can't they spend their money to convey their ideas in proportion with how much you tax them?
- who are you to say what anyone can spend their money on, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?
- who are you to say who is super rich or rich...you should get your nose out of other peoples' bank accounts or tax returns...
- what if an individual feels so strongly on an issue, they want to take a second mortgage and take out ads for or against a candidate or issue....who are you to stop them? what right do you have to stop them?

And back to the point, why should the government prohibit gambling on sports events, especially when it has lotteries and allows casino gambling. Nanny state thinking....we, the government will tell you what you can and can't do with your money
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
DarkaneRules
5 years ago
I personally detest gambling, but whatever other people want to do with their money is up to them. I have more of an issue with state lotteries. At least be honest with the public, it's gambling.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
Fan Shout
dfosterf (2h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (3h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (4h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (6h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (6h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (9h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (10h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (20h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.