Exactly.

Campaign cash
 

It's a bad idea at any time to give to Kerry. That said, I imagine they will try to channel donations to the DNC/RNC, who can spend willy-nilly, whereas the campaign is limited to the federal funds.

Campaign cash
 

My understanding -- quadruple hearsay, perhaps -- is that he's using money raised now to pre-pay for ad time.

Iraq insurrection Big? Bigger? Biggest? Biggestester?
 

Iranians are foreign?


(Shhh..... I'm trying to annoy certain people)

Iraq insurrection Big? Bigger? Biggest? Biggestester?
 

Try as I might, I cannot get that fucking "bottles of beer" song out of my head now.

Fine. then you are bothered by hecklers thrown from sen. fatso's talk, and once we have another dem. President you will continue to post such watchdog articles, i trust. if so, we agree.

Heckling is a problem if they are interfering with the speaker's ability to be heard: the so-called "heckler's veto." If not, let them stay. But they usually want to be thrown out, anyway.

I would like to think that the law enforcement types who make these decisions are doing so without any direction at all from the White House, and will continue to make bad decisions in the Kerry Administration, at which you and I will be completely sympatico, unless they're ejecting Penske, in which case they have my full support and I hope they rough him up a little.

Campaign cash
 

Which part would this circumvent? The McCain part or the Feingold part?

Campaign cash
 

I won't pretend to understand the campaign finance laws, so why don't you tell me.

You should put me back on ignore. Getting your ass cyberkicked can be bad for your blood pressure.

This raises the question, who is the fattest senator? women have come a long way, baby! the 2 fattest Senators are women! mikulski wins for highest body fat %. But she's short.
http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/news/p...oliceboat2.jpg

http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/SoundOFF...images/sos.jpg

I'll trust Penske to put up the best hill picture. i think hill being taller probably wins for most weight to lose. am i forgetting anyone?

Getting my ass kicked? My mistake was in thinking that you were talking about the same facts that the rest of us were. If you were arguing about federal employees in the workplace, you were having that argument alone. And I didn't need the ignore feature to ignore you -- your posts were enough there.

eta: You're completely fucked up on the First Amendment, too. You seem to think that content-based restrictions are OK outside public fora, and dodged my BART hypo by saying that it was a public forum. But it wouldn't OK for San Francisco to ban privately-owned billboards carrying only anti-Bush messages.

Whether you are aware of it or not, the USSC makes a distinction between non-public and public forums when it comes to publicly owned spaces and the first amendment. The USSC defines these things, not me.

What I said was not particular to federal employees, but to publicly owned, non-public forums. Federal workplaces are just one example of these publicly owned non-public forums. What the government can do in terms of restricting speech based on content varies depending on whether it is a public or non-public forum. It is not specific to federal employees. It applies to anyone in these publicly owned non-public forums. Content-based regulations in these non-public forums are subject to a rational relationship test regardless of whether the person is an employee or not. In public forums, it is a strict scrutiny test.

Read the cases if you want to know more.

Please point me to a single case that says that it is presumptively OK for the government to regulate speech, based on its content,* so long as the speech occurs somewhere other than a public forum.

Just one case. One of the cases you've been reading, presumably.

* Setting aside false statements of fact, nonnewsworthy disclosures of private information, commercial speech, and obscenity. I'm talking about political speech.

Whifferooneriski, as the Paigow might say (I miss her much, [sniff]).

I have been riding herd, roughly, over Mario the cubicle mate all afternoon. Plus, no pictures. Remember. Follow. the. Pictures. connect. the dots.

Thanks for playing though.

I'm fairly sure its illegal to call a Senator fat in SF. I know I could be fined, but don't about prior restraint.

It's not classy or fancy, but I don't know about illegal.

beachball anyone?
 

This probably doesn't count because she was pregnant (with Satan's spawn) but that's some pooch (enough to wilt my preggo fetish):

http://www.la4israel.org/images/fat-hillary-clinton.jpg

Myth Debunked
 

Memo to File:

If this name-changing crap and incessant praise is your lead-up to another Starkanian-RB bait and switch scheme whereby she returns as Spartan and you revert to Self Employed Fluffer, something on a coke can or another one of your socks, I'm flagging it
:flag:

Btb, just in case anyone was worried that I was slipping, I’m not. It just took me a while to dig down deep into my trove of political commentary to come out with an oldie but goodie on the esteemed Senator Porky…..Chubby?

Senator Mikulski is Porker of the Month for September ‘02

That was just the latest in a long line of honours in a distinguished career that reaches back to her childhood acting days where she was a member of the reknowned pioneers of television, Our Gang aka the Lil' Rascals, and portrayed Chubby (then):

http://www.actwin.com/toaph/life/rascals/chubby.jpg


And now:
http://www.evote.com/evotepix/congre.../mikulski4.jpg

Myth Debunked
 

It wasn't Stark. It was Bert Harbinson.

CORNELIUS v. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & ED. FUND, 473 U.S. 788 (1985)

• The issue presented is whether respondents have a First Amendment right to solicit contributions that was violated by their exclusion from the CFC. To resolve this issue we must first decide whether solicitation in the context of the CFC is speech protected by the First Amendment, for, if it is not, we need go no further. Assuming that such solicitation is protected speech, we must identify the nature of the forum, because the extent to which the Government may limit access depends on whether the forum is public or nonpublic. Finally, we must assess whether the justifications for exclusion from the relevant forum satisfy the requisite standard. Applying this analysis, we find that respondents' solicitation is protected speech occurring in the context of a nonpublic forum and that the Government's reasons for excluding respondents from the CFC appear, at least facially, to satisfy the reasonableness standard. We express no opinion on the question whether petitioner's explanation is merely a pretext for viewpoint discrimination. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
  
  . . . .
  
  Having identified the forum as the CFC, we must decide whether it is nonpublic or public in nature. Most relevant in this regard, of course, is Perry Education Assn. There the Court identified three types of fora: the traditional public forum, the public forum created by government designation, and the nonpublic forum. Traditional public fora are those places which "by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate." 460 U.S., at 45 . Public streets and parks fall into this category. See Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In addition to traditional public fora, a public forum may be created by government designation of a place or channel of communication for use by the public at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the discussion of certain subjects. Perry Education Assn., supra, at 45 and 46, n. 7. Of course, the government "is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility." Id., at 46.
  
  . . . .
  
  Control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral. Perry Education Assn., supra, at 49. Although a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum, see Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974), or if he is not a member of the class of speakers for whose especial benefit the forum was created, see Perry Education Assn., supra, the government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject. The Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to resolve whether the government's denial of access to respondents was viewpoint based, because it determined that respondents' exclusion was unreasonable in light of the purpose served by the CFC.
  
  . . . .
  
  Based on the present record, we disagree and conclude that respondents may be excluded from the CFC. The Court of Appeals' conclusion to the contrary fails to reflect the nature of a nonpublic forum. The Government's decision to restrict access to a nonpublic forum need only be reasonable; it need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation. In contrast to a public forum, a finding of strict incompatibility between the nature of the speech or the identity of the speaker and the functioning of the nonpublic forum is not mandated. Cf. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983); Lehman v. City [473 U.S. 788, 809] of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974). Even if some incompatibility with general expressive activity were required, the CFC would meet the requirement because it would be administratively unmanageable if access could not be curtailed in a reasonable manner. Nor is there a requirement that the restriction be narrowly tailored or that the Government's interest be compelling. The First Amendment does not demand unrestricted access to a nonpublic forum merely because use of that forum may be the most efficient means of delivering the speaker's message. See United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U.S., at 129 . Rarely will a nonpublic forum provide the only means of contact with a particular audience. Here, as in Perry Education Assn., supra, at 53-54, the speakers have access to alternative channels, including direct mail and in-person solicitation outside the workplace, to solicit contributions from federal employees.
  
  The reasonableness of the Government's restriction of access to a nonpublic forum must be assessed in the light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances. Here the President could reasonably conclude that a dollar directly spent on providing food or shelter to the needy is more beneficial than a dollar spent on litigation that might or might not result in aid to the needy. Moreover, avoiding the appearance of political favoritism is a valid justification for limiting speech in a nonpublic forum. See Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S., at 839 ; Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, supra, at 304. In furthering this interest, the Government is not bound by decisions of other executive agencies made in other contexts. Thus, respondents' tax status, while perhaps relevant, does not determine the reasonableness of the Government's conclusion that participation by such agencies in the CFC will create the appearance of favoritism.
  
  The Court of Appeals' rejection of the Government's interest in avoiding controversy that would disrupt the workplace and adversely affect the Campaign is inconsistent with our [473 U.S. 788, 810] prior cases. In Perry Education Assn., supra, at 52, we noted that "exclusion of the rival union may reasonably be considered a means of insuring labor peace within the schools." Similarly, the exclusion of respondents may reasonably be considered a means of "insuring peace" in the federal workplace. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals rejected this reason for lack of conclusive proof of an actual effect on the workplace, it ignored the teachings of this Court that the Government need not wait until havoc is wreaked to restrict access to a nonpublic forum. 460 U.S., at 52 , n. 12.
  
  Finally, the record amply supports an inference that respondents' participation in the CFC jeopardized the success of the Campaign. OPM submitted a number of letters from federal employees and managers, as well as from Chairmen of local Federal Coordinating Committees and Members of Congress expressing concern about the inclusion of groups termed "political" or "nontraditional" in the CFC. More than 80 percent of this correspondence related requests that the CFC be restricted to "non-political," "non-advocacy," or "traditional" charitable organizations. Deposition of P. Kent Bailey, Program Analyst for OPM, App. 275, 276. In addition, OPM received approximately 1,450 telephone calls complaining about the inclusion of respondents and similar agencies in the 1983 Campaign. Id., at 286. Many Campaign workers indicated that extra effort was required to persuade disgruntled employees to contribute. Id., at 287. The evidence indicated that the number of contributors had declined in some areas. Id., at 305. Other areas reported significant declines in the amount of contributions. See Executive Orders 12353 and 12404 as they Regulate the Combined Federal Campaign (Part 1), Hearing before the House Committee on Government Operations, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 67 (1983) (statement of Donald J. Devine, Director, OPM). Thus, the record adequately supported petitioner's position that respondents' continued participation in the Campaign would be detrimental to the Campaign and disruptive of the federal [473 U.S. 788, 811] workplace. Although the avoidance of controversy is not a valid ground for restricting speech in a public forum, a nonpublic forum by definition is not dedicated to general debate or the free exchange of ideas.The First Amendment does not forbid a viewpoint-neutral exclusion of speakers who would disrupt a nonpublic forum and hinder its effectiveness for its intended purpose.

I think perhaps what you are saying is that the government cannot engage in non-viewpoint neutral suppression of speech in non-public forums. That is true but different from content-based regulation, which includes subject matter restrictions.

I already told you that "I'm talking about political speech." That was in the footnote that you omitted when you quoted my post. As I said in that footnote, there are other types of content-based restrictions that are not a problem. But the government doesn't get to discriminate on the basis of a political viewpoint, whether on government property or private property, without strict scrutiny.

Marketing strategy by Versacorp
 

I hope this wasn't posted already. Well, not really, because it's still funny:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-d...965-2004Jul08L

I'm sure it will pull some votes from the repubs at least. And cement them as the "people's choice"

On the basis of viewpoint, the government can't discriminate at all. But that isn't what you said. You said content-based. Content based is not synonymous with viewpoint based. The question to be answered is was the protester ejected on the basis of viewpoint or rather (as was held by the USSC to be constitutional) to avoid a disruption. The protestor is saying on the basis of viewpoint. Those who ejected the protestor said to avoid a disruption. It is very clear that avoiding a disruption is a valid grounds for suppressing speech in an non-public forum. That is not a time, manner, place restriction. That is content-based.

Read this part of the case I posted again:

"The First Amendment does not forbid a viewpoint-neutral exclusion of speakers who would disrupt a nonpublic forum and hinder its effectiveness for its intended purpose."

Was the purpose of the event to debate the merits of GWB's admin? Were the T-shirts wearers hindering the effectiveness of the event for its intended purpose? Or were they ejected for their viewpoints. Those are questions we can debate. But we cannot debate that the standard for a non-public forum content-based suppression of speech is reasonableness, not strict scrutiny. Read the cases if you want to know more.

Burger previously floated the idea that you are now toying with -- that you can suppress certain political speech on the rationale that it may cause a disruption, and that therefore the discrimination against it is really not viewpoint-based. If you think you have a case that stands for that proposition -- the one you are relying on has to do with organizations seeking to join a fundraising drive in federal offices -- by all means, post it. But Burger was smart enough not pursue that line of thinking, since it would gut the First Amendment's protection of unpopular political speech. They weren't kicking people out with tee shirts with political speech on them -- they were kicking out the two people wearing anti-Bush messages. The First Amendment doesn't allow this.

I will help you educate yourself more:

PERRY ED. ASSN. v. PERRY LOCAL EDUCATORS' ASSN., 460 U.S. 37 (1983)

• In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks which "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 461 (1980). The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U.S. 114, 132 (1981); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 535 -536 (1980); Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra, at 115; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939).
  
  A second category consists of public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity. The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (university meeting facilities); City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167 (1976) (school board meeting); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (municipal theater). 7 [460 U.S. 37, 46] Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest. Widmar v. Vincent, supra, at 269-270.
  
  Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., supra, at 129. In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view. 453 U.S., at 131 , n. 7. As we have stated on several occasions, "`"[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."'" Id., at 129-130, quoting Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 836 (1976), in turn quoting Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966).
  
  . . . .
  
  In the Court of Appeals' view, however, the access policy adopted by the Perry schools favors [460 U.S. 37, 49] a particular viewpoint, that of PEA, on labor relations, and consequently must be strictly scrutinized regardless of whether a public forum is involved. There is, however, no indication that the School Board intended to discourage one viewpoint and advance another. We believe it is more accurate to characterize the access policy as based on the status of the respective unions rather than their views. Implicit in the concept of the nonpublic forum is the right to make distinctions in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity. These distinctions may be impermissible in a public forum but are inherent and inescapable in the process of limiting a nonpublic forum to activities compatible with the intended purpose of the property. The touchstone for evaluating these distinctions is whether they are reasonable in light of the purpose which the forum at issue serves.

Get it now?

I love how Penske's socks move heaven and earth to rationalize and add [sneer]nuance[/sneer] to things that would have given him apoplexy in 1996 or so. Meanwhile, John Kerry has the audacity to serve in a war he grew to oppose, John Edwards has the audacity to be rich, and Hillary Clinton has the audacity to have cankles. If only we could put the board's best minds on the defense of cankles! Think what we could accomplish!

There is no such defense

Because all those R politicians are total hotties. Physically perfect. God, I just want to throw them down and fuck them all!

just desserts
 

Speaking of audacity.....

http://www.la4israel.org/images/shri...q-photo-op.jpg
http://www.la4israel.org/images/hill...aq-urinal3.jpg

Keep dreamin', toots.

just desserts
 

You wish someone would look that happy at having you come in her mouth.

Not a cankle in sight.


http://www.themelesswonder.com/silver-dress.jpg

that is SO HOT!

No, in my DREAM dreams I'm topping you like you've never been topped before.

This is just daydreaming. Mmmmm, Jesse Helms. Orrin Hatch.

just desserts
 

Wrong-o bong-o. The only thing I want to see when I am coming in some chick's mouth is the top of her head. Unless my wine glass is resting on it. Her happy face should be pressed up against my nether regions while I whitewash her tonsils.

Not that I don't like breasts and stuff, but you could lose an eye (or worse!) with those elbows/collarbones/wrists/knees/hipbones.

just desserts
 

And that utter lack of regard for whether I'm enjoying myself is what truly makes R men so fuckable.

You are wrong about the 1st amendment analysis. Did you read the cases I posted? Don't bother answering because clearly you did not. The USSC clearly stated that in a non-public forum, avoiding disruptions is a reasonable restraint on speech as long as it is viewpoint neutral.

Assuming there is state action, the analysis is that first you have to figure out if it is protected speech. If it is protected speech, then you determine if the forum is a public, designated (or limited) public forum, or a non-public forum. If it is a non-public forum and the regulation is viewpoint neutral, then reasonableness is the standard for assessing content-based regulations.

You say they were kicked out based on viewpoint. What if they kicked out those with anti-Kerry T-shirts, too? That would be viewpoint neutral but content based in that any campaign related speech was excluded (i.e., subject-matter regulations which are constitutional in non-public forums - go read the cases if you don't believe me). But if there were no anti-Kerry T-hsirt wearers there, the fact that anti-Bush T-shirt wears were kicked out wouldn't be dispositive of a viewpoint bias.

The union case with the teacher's union that I posted was a political speech case. The issue was the salaries and benefits of public school teachers. The government barred the more liberal union that wanted to attract teacher's support. Show me a case where in a non-public forum, the USSC said that strict scrutiny was required. You cannot because the test is reasonableness. You are just wrong. Read the cases.

You seem to think that the issue is whether it is political speech or not. That isn't the issue in a non-public forum. The issue in a non-public forum is if it is viewpoint neutral.

just desserts
 

Unless someone's coming on to you hard on PM, you realize this is purely valuble to us for curiosity's sake.