Dr. Tyler; Captain America

Next time the NAACP burns a cross on my yard, I'll call you, Mike.

Your comment was doltish, Mike. Menstruation is something that happens only to women. If someone is anemic and they cut their finger, they're not menstruating. Since you equated menstruation to idiocy, he rightfully called you a sexist fuckwad.

For the record, that was the dumbest insult I've ever heard.

Welcome to Current Events, where no one (or Mike) can even come to a logical conclusion if it was first suggested by someone who was initially arguing with him!

Yeah, uh, making fun of Joementum isn't going to faze 90% of Democrats. I'd suggest a different method of attack.

I'm not even gonna bother going point by point on this one, because you're still ignoring the fact that YOU haven't made a first amendment argument here either. The burden of proof isn't on me here to prove money ISN'T convered under the first amendment. It's on you to prove that it is.

You were. However, you had to do it legally, i.e. through a 527 organization with legally raised fundraising dollars. The reason your idea is horrible is because it just opens the door for large corporate interests to pour a ridiculous amount of money in to BOTH sides and essentially purchase influence in both parties. That's horrifically stupid, not to mention the fact that your idea leaves no room for enforcement of the "full disclosure" and loopholes (i.e. subsidiary companies, joint ownership, etc.) would make it nearly impossible to tell where the money is actually coming from. In addition, if someone dirty is donating to both parties, neither party would call the other on it because they'd risk losing that extra income. If they did, the election would almost certainly swing to the person who accepts dirty money. It's stupid, stupid, stupid.

You seemingly ignore the fact that politics isn't about the media, it's about voting. If you don't want someone to represent you, you vote against him. You don't contribute $789 million to his opponent's campaign. And you still haven't made a legal argument as to why it is. Straw man that has nothing to do with the argument.

Money isn't political speech. I've never heard money make a 10 minute empassioned argument for the war in Iraq. Courts arguing that money is a form of speech is a bigger stretch than Roe v. Wade.

You should also notice that DeLay's case is the most extraordinary in terms of salary.

If we have full total disclosure, nobody's going to give a fuck about this dirty shit. Nobody's going to bother actually combing through the shit, and total disclosure isn't going to help curb the problem of too much money in politics. It's a wretchedly stupid idea.

What ALL of these politicians are doing is dirty and they should all be put up in front of the ethics committee and stripped of any leadership posts they might have. They should all have to pay fines for skirting campaign finance laws, if not worse.

What baffles me, though, is your complete inability to admit that DeLay did something wrong, too. You're vigorously trying to make us realize how bad everyone else is so that you can diffuse the blame and make it less of an outrage that your boy is corrupt.

It's probably impossible.

Probably mine!

Oh, come on. The NAACP isn't seeking to bar people from interracial dating.

But it's not required that you waste billions of dollars on projects from which we see no return. And if you eliminate most of the pork, you've probably cut the deficit in half. Of course, I haven't done the numbers, but let's be honest here. If we cut even HALF of what we waste, we'd be almost there already.

NAACP isn't as radical as BJU.

Or you could cut back on pork spending... but that's something that Congress doesn't believe in. We can cut back a lot of the deficit by removing graft and waste, but that would require listening to people like you complain about slashing the Pentagon's budget, too.

President Bush has spoken at Bob Jones U. several times. They ARE theocratic fascists.

It was never making a profit, though. We've had a national debt for many years. Even when we have a surplus, all we're doing is using it to pay down the debt. Once you finish paying down the debt, you pay back the bonds and lower taxes until it's at an equilibrium with the government's expenses.

Oh please. I was lumping the evangelical groups together. He speaks to evangelical groups all the freakin' time.

Tom DeLay, for one.

That's the thing, we don't usually have much trouble selling them. You're right. But the stock market isn't really a good indicator of our economy anyways, and quite frankly, there is a lot more money going into t-bonds anyways. However, with a massive deficit, people are less likely to do that, and suddenly, the capital starts flowing out of the country. They don't just switch to the stock market -- which would be preferrable, of course, because that capital stays within our borders -- they're more likely to invest in, say, Japan. (I'm using this for example purposes only; I know Japan's economy is in the shitter) With a mounting deficit, it makes investors shy away from our country unless we raise interest rates considerably. Plus, you're at an interesting point in this argument because you've advocated dropping taxes to the lowest possible point, and that would minimize tax revenues from stock dividends. Just a side note. Either way, you can't deny that the deficit is a real threat to our country's economic health. It's never good to borrow with no hope of paying it back.

You're basing this on absolutely nothing.