republicans run ad urging latinos not to vote

Damocles said:
Now, the assumption is that this would hurt only Democrats. This is a bit unrealistic, Tancredo carries more support from hispanic and latino voters in CO than Hickenlooper.
Click to expand...
I find it telling however that they chose to skip over NM. Our republican candidate for governor is Susanna Martinez and is killing Denish with latino voters.
 
Dixie said:
Does Freedom of Speech even exist anymore???
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


BEHOLD the intelligence of your average RightWing goon...


Yes Dix, it still exists...but I know you don't believe anything a liberals says, so...
 
Watermarx said:
The Republican party should be disbanded and all it's supporters should be drawn and quartered. The pictures should be shown for a millenia to show citizens of the Socialist Republic that we care about eliminating evil and distributing justice to those who deserve to die. People should have their brains scanned while looking at the picture and those who show any unwarranted sympathy should be treated simialary. Those who do not bask in the glory of seeing the conservatives purged should be banished to Antarctica to fend for themselves, just as the conservatives they so clearly adore would have it.
Click to expand...

This post makes me feel that Damo should have a "Post of the Day" section.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


BEHOLD the intelligence of your average RightWing goon...


Yes Dix, it still exists...but I know you don't believe anything a liberals says, so...
Click to expand...

Well, apparently it DOESN'T exist... if you are a Latino group of "republicans" expressing your idea of not voting in protest to both parties. The ads were pulled! Why are they denied the freedom to express their political opinions? Because it is perceived it might hurt a Democrat? That's not freedom of speech by ANY stretch! We don't BAN political speech because of the harm it might do to our selected candidates!

As I said... IF this were a religious wacko group running a similar ad during Bush's re-election, urging Christians to not vote out of protest, you atheistic immoral shitstains would be standing on your fucking ear if the ad was pulled!
 
Dixie said:
Well, apparently it DOESN'T exist... if you are a Latino group of "republicans" expressing your idea of not voting in protest to both parties. The ads were pulled! Why are they denied the freedom to express their political opinions? Because it is perceived it might hurt a Democrat? That's not freedom of speech by ANY stretch! We don't BAN political speech because of the harm it might do to our selected candidates!

As I said... IF this were a religious wacko group running a similar ad during Bush's re-election, urging Christians to not vote out of protest, you atheistic immoral shitstains would be standing on your fucking ear if the ad was pulled!
Click to expand...


You're one of those that strictly adheres to the text of the First Amendment aincha? Well, what in the hell does Congress have to do with television stations not running an advertisement? What law has Congress passed via a vis this here advertorial that you find violates the right of this here "Latinos for Reform" group?
 
Dixie said:
Well, apparently it DOESN'T exist... if you are a Latino group of "republicans" expressing your idea of not voting in protest to both parties. The ads were pulled! Why are they denied the freedom to express their political opinions? Because it is perceived it might hurt a Democrat? That's not freedom of speech by ANY stretch! We don't BAN political speech because of the harm it might do to our selected candidates!

As I said... IF this were a religious wacko group running a similar ad during Bush's re-election, urging Christians to not vote out of protest, you atheistic immoral shitstains would be standing on your fucking ear if the ad was pulled!
Click to expand...


Univision and Telemundo...BOTH PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES...can choose what they want to place on the air and what they DON'T want to place on the air.

I know you'd like to think that the SCOTUS "Citizens United" decision means that TV stations should be FORCED to run idiotic propaganda from those shadowy 527's and 501c4's who for some reason won't tell us where the money's coming from, but until you get some more conservative judges on the SCOTUs to force private companies to do what those with all the money want...you're just going to have to deal with it.

It's about pure Capitalism. You know...the "Free Market" and all the other Rightie talking points you like to spew.
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
You're one of those that strictly adheres to the text of the First Amendment aincha? Well, what in the hell does Congress have to do with television stations not running an advertisement? What law has Congress passed via a vis this here advertorial that you find violates the right of this here "Latinos for Reform" group?
Click to expand...
Answer this one Dixie, because the Congress did not pass a law or restrict shit in this case. Univision and Telemundo did. The first amendment has nothing to do with what a network chooses to run or not run on their stations. No first amendment violations here.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You're one of those that strictly adheres to the text of the First Amendment aincha? Well, what in the hell does Congress have to do with television stations not running an advertisement? What law has Congress passed via a vis this here advertorial that you find violates the right of this here "Latinos for Reform" group?
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't have to pass a law, the 1st Amendment covers it!

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States"]Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg/250px-Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/2/26/Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg/250px-Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg[/ame]

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are generally permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

Flag desecration has continually, albeit controversially, been protected by the First Amendment, despite state laws to the contrary. A Constitutional Amendment has been introduced to contravene the First Amendment's protection on flag burning, but it has failed to acquire the requisite enactment by the states.

Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence.
 
So you're not one of those strict constructionist types then. Well, what in the world does the government have to do with a television station not running an advertisement? Or is it your position that the First Amendment protects against actions by private organizations as well as the government?
 
NigelTufnel said:
So you're not one of those strict constructionist types then. Well, what in the world does the government have to do with a television station not running an advertisement? Or is it your position that the First Amendment protects against actions by private organizations as well as the government?
Click to expand...

The 1st most certainly doesn't apply solely to the government. Are you under the misconception that it does? That might explain your profound idiocy!
 
Dixie said:
The 1st most certainly doesn't apply solely to the government. Are you under the misconception that it does? That might explain your profound idiocy!
Click to expand...

But the 1st amendment does not mean the gov't gets to take over programming for a tv network either.
 
Dixie said:
The 1st most certainly doesn't apply solely to the government. Are you under the misconception that it does? That might explain your profound idiocy!
Click to expand...


This is yet another reason why I think Dixie is a spoof. No real person could be so certain of correctness of his position while being so wrong. I mean, the lack of self-awareness is clinical.
 
Dixie said:
The FCC is a state actor! MORON!
Click to expand...


What does the FCC have to do with television networks deciding not to run advertisements? The FCC didn't order them not to run the damned thing.


Edit: Perhaps you could just explain how you think the First Amendment applies to this controversy.
 
NigelTufnel said:
What does the FCC have to do with television networks deciding not to run advertisements? The FCC didn't order them not to run the damned thing.


Edit: Perhaps you could just explain how you think the First Amendment applies to this controversy.
Click to expand...

I second this. If you would, Dixie, just expound on how the First Amendment applies to this particular issue. How one might use it in court to force Telemundo and Univision to run the ads, and what if any prior court cases you rely on for your argument. I eagerly await your reply.
 
NigelTufnel said:
What does the FCC have to do with television networks deciding not to run advertisements? The FCC didn't order them not to run the damned thing.


Edit: Perhaps you could just explain how you think the First Amendment applies to this controversy.
Click to expand...

Socrtease said:
I second this. If you would, Dixie, just expound on how the First Amendment applies to this particular issue. How one might use it in court to force Telemundo and Univision to run the ads, and what if any prior court cases you rely on for your argument. I eagerly await your reply.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
What's wrong?

You seem to be dodging the bigger question.

Where's the 1st Amendment violation if a PRIVATE TV Network decides not to run an ad over the airwaves?
Click to expand...

I am so sorry that you are all so profoundly retarded and incompetent to misconstrue my comments and think that I have stated the Latinos for Reform have some kind of Federal case for violation of the 1st Amendment. I am also sorry you two are so hellbent on finding something, anything, to jump on and proclaim me "wrong" about, that you missed the point entirely. It must really be a sad and pathetic life to be that desperate.

I am indeed avoiding arguing a position I have not taken, and do not wish to take, and I hate that for you guys, because I know you really wanted that to be the discussion here, and not the outright slanderous lie that is told in the title of the thread. Now that we have settled the fact that Republicans didn't run an ad urging Latinos not to vote, and it was actually a 'protest' being run by Latinos, I am satisfied. I can move on. Hope you guys can do the same, but if not, you have fun trashing and bashing me here. Less than 2 weeks... I can't wait!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top