reddogblitz Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 I think his point is that nothing has really changed over the years, and Citizens United reversed an unconstitutional law that was stifling free speech. But why should you learn about the issue when all you need is an op-ed that tells you what to think. You have your opinion and I have mine.
Magox Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 For years Unions dominated money and influence in politics and for years liberals stayed quiet. Now they shriek with utter contempt. Excuse me if I don't take these feigned outrages with any seriousness. Unless you were someone who decried money and influence in politics back in the 80's 90's and early 2000's when Unions were literally buying off politicians and bankrupting municipalities then please, spare the crocodile tears.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Speech is protected in this country because the Founders deeply feared a government empowered to silence political speech, that's why it was bundled with the freedom to assemble. The Founders engaged in treasonous behavior, in the eyes of their English King, by doing both of those things; and the new Government was put in place with this in mind. It's also incredibly important to point out, for the second time now, that the Founders had no interest at all of giving the common man much say in how government was run. The common man is ignorant, under-educated, and prone to much worse decision making than those in what Jefferson called "the natural aristocracy of men with virtues and talents", whom he argued should always be in charge of the government. In fact, the Founders were all of this natural aristocracy. They were the wealthiest land owners on America, and were men of great vision. To these ends, when they dissolved the old government under The Articles, they did so without the support of the citizens of the several states. The new Government under the Constitution was put in place to pull power away from the common man in favor of their own personal financial interests. Under the Articles, the common citizens of the states refused to pay taxes for the debt incurred by the Revolution; and the Founders themselves would have been on the hook for the debt. The new government they put in place was intended to place permanent insulation between the common citizen (whom himself was narrowly defined in order to further insulate) and the men of means and talents whom they intended the government be run by. The franchise itself was restricted to property owning white males, and even that elite group wasn't permitted to vote for the Senate which was to be elected by whom the states put forward as their own best in their own legislatures. The Presidency was not permitted to be obtained by popular election, but rather by the powerful elite comprising the Electoral College, who are under no legal obligation what-so-ever to cast their ballot for any particular candidate. You may wish that money doesn't equal speech, but in any free society it most certainly does, as my ability to project my opinion extends only so far as my dollars will carry it; and that is fair and that is just, as we all live by that exact same rule. Any argument opposed is nothing more than an admission that you don't like the opinions that run counter to yours that may be supported by more monied interests, and therefor you wish to steal their freedom in order to silence them. Crickets, as always.
Keukasmallies Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Shrill'ry is speaking in Rochester tomorrow. She is slated to speak to economic improvements for the middle class, immigration reform, and a number of other topics aimed at improving the public's lot in life. Unfortunately, the public can not attend the rally. Think about the message that exclusion sends. She is a true Democrat; OK, maybe more rat than Demo.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Speech is protected in this country because the Founders deeply feared a government empowered to silence political speech, that's why it was bundled with the freedom to assemble. The Founders engaged in treasonous behavior, in the eyes of their English King, by doing both of those things; and the new Government was put in place with this in mind. Agree fully. It's also incredibly important to point out, for the second time now, that the Founders had no interest at all of giving the common man much say in how government was run. The common man is ignorant, under-educated, and prone to much worse decision making than those in what Jefferson called "the natural aristocracy of men with virtues and talents", whom he argued should always be in charge of the government. In fact, the Founders were all of this natural aristocracy. They were the wealthiest land owners on America, and were men of great vision. To these ends, when they dissolved the old government under The Articles, they did so without the support of the citizens of the several states. The new Government under the Constitution was put in place to pull power away from the common man in favor of their own personal financial interests. Under the Articles, the common citizens of the states refused to pay taxes for the debt incurred by the Revolution; and the Founders themselves would have been on the hook for the debt. The new government they put in place was intended to place permanent insulation between the common citizen (whom himself was narrowly defined in order to further insulate) and the men of means and talents whom they intended the government be run by. The franchise itself was restricted to property owning white males, and even that elite group wasn't permitted to vote for the Senate which was to be elected by whom the states put forward as their own best in their own legislatures. The Presidency was not permitted to be obtained by popular election, but rather by the powerful elite comprising the Electoral College, who are under no legal obligation what-so-ever to cast their ballot for any particular candidate. Again, I agree fully with this interpretation and history. Where we disagree is the definition of "common man". In the current system it's oligarchs who are monopolizing the government, leaving some very wealthy, very able people without a voice at all in the process. We can agree to disagree on this definition, but I think even you'd have to admit this isn't a meritocracy we're seeing. There are maybe a handful of individuals who can match resources with the corporate giants funneling the dark money into the political system. It's time to update what we consider "common" in this sense. Because it's not really about the 99% vs the 1%. It's the 99.999999999% vs the 0.000000001%. Equating money to speech only amplifies this problem. You may wish that money doesn't equal speech, but in any free society it most certainly does, as my ability to project my opinion extends only so far as my dollars will carry it; and that is fair and that is just, as we all live by that exact same rule. Any argument opposed is nothing more than an admission that you don't like the opinions that run counter to yours that may be supported by more monied interests, and therefor you wish to steal their freedom in order to silence them. This is where we have the largest disagreement. I have no fear of contrary opinions; but I have a great fear of a corrupted political system which prohibits change. We live in a world where virtually everyone has access to not only the internet, but a HD camera either in their smart phone or their computer. It's never been cheaper to produce quality content AND get that content out to a wide audience. You don't need to spend outrageous sums of money to exercise your right to free speech. This becomes doubly true if you get serious about a constitutional amendment allotting a certain amount of free airtime for political ads / information on broadcast networks. At the rate telecommunications are growing, this entire notion becomes more and more outdated by the day. The only reason in today's interconnected world, where literally everyone has cost efficient means of reaching vast numbers of people in real time, to equate speech with cash is to assure that those corporations with extraordinary means can corrupt the political system. It's legalized and codified bribery, nothing more. Crickets, as always. Apologies, I was on the road all day.
B-Man Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Bill Clinton Tries Sister Souljah, the Sequel, but It Won’t Fly with Today’s Progressives http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433860/bill-clintons-black-lives-matter-protesters-clash George Will on Hillary’s Libya debacle. ROGER SIMON: Will Guccifer Upend Hillary?
B-Man Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 New Federal Law....................................If you can't pour a beer.............you can't be president. .
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Bill Clinton Tries Sister Souljah, the Sequel, but It Won’t Fly with Today’s Progressives Interesting article. The left does a really good job trying to scare the country by referring to every GOP candidate as an extremist. And now look at them. Kudos to Bill for speaking truth. It's amazing how far to the left the DNC has moved. You'd think having a devout socialist on the ticket was far enough. Trump makes the GOP's uprising noisy, messy, rude and orange. The DNC is in a similar mess...just quieter. And older. And whiter.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) This is where we have the largest disagreement. I have no fear of contrary opinions; but I have a great fear of a corrupted political system which prohibits change. We live in a world where virtually everyone has access to not only the internet, but a HD camera either in their smart phone or their computer. It's never been cheaper to produce quality content AND get that content out to a wide audience. You don't need to spend outrageous sums of money to exercise your right to free speech. This becomes doubly true if you get serious about a constitutional amendment allotting a certain amount of free airtime for political ads / information on broadcast networks. At the rate telecommunications are growing, this entire notion becomes more and more outdated by the day. The only reason in today's interconnected world, where literally everyone has cost efficient means of reaching vast numbers of people in real time, to equate speech with cash is to assure that those corporations with extraordinary means can corrupt the political system. It's legalized and codified bribery, nothing more. Can you clarify how all of us having the ability to create content that can be immediately consumed by millions, with no filter(unless of course you count a couple of instances of censorship by Facebook and Google, against the right, of course)....somehow...necessitates the need to curtail political free speech $? You said it yourself: you don't need to spend $. Donald Trump has proven that, over and over. You're talking about real change? Real Change is exactly what Trump is doing to our political system. To a lesser extent Bernie Sanders is, but, the story isn't about his message and expert use of the internet. No, his story is that he outraised Hillary Clinton by ~$10 million last month. Do you really think that all $44 million came by way of $32 per person? If so, you're an umitigated moron. IF Trump can do what he has, and, the internet is the internet: then change is upon us. Whether we want to admit it or not...that's for you to think about. What you're talking about is a negation of $ being the sole means of political influence for donors, and success for candidates. What is that if not change? See? Citizens United simply cannot be as big an issue as it once was, for reasons you've already stated, and Trump has recently proven. Your argument contradicts and supports itself at the same time. Time to clean it up. Remember: the little guy with the unbeatable message, going up against the big guy with all the $...is how Lincoln got himself elected. No amount of money in the world can defeat a self-interest free, well reasoned, and well designed message. You may not like the Koch brothers. And your message that their money is bad for our system. However, your other message: "Let's put every coal miner/natural gas worker in the country out of a job" is even is worse. Far worse. So, until you get rid of your message, I'm going to stay fine with the Koch's broadcasting theirs, no matter how much $ they spend. It's really up to you: as I've said many times, business spending $ on politics is as much about protection from government as it is influencing it. You want to say they've been bribed? That's only half the story: they are also running a protection racket as well. See, it's as TTYT says: this entire discussion's only logical conclusion is: you're trying to prevent people you disagree with from availing themselves of their rights. When everybody gets done talking that's where this ends up, 100% of the time. You can tell yourself "they don't NEED to do it". But, and here's the bottom line: that's not YOUR call. Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
Deranged Rhino Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 You're talking about real change? Real Change is exactly what Trump is doing to our political system.
keepthefaith Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 New Federal Law....................................If you can't pour a beer.............you can't be president. . What actual skills does Hillary have?
B-Man Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) What actual skills does Hillary have? Ask Huma. . “Our Eyes Connected And I Thought, Wow!” Aide Huma Abedin Describes First Meeting Hillary Hillary was 49, Huma was a 19 year old intern when they came together...........Via Daily Mail: Added: Roberta Flack "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" HD ... . Edited April 9, 2016 by B-Man
Deranged Rhino Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 What actual skills does Hillary have? She likes chocolate covered almonds. I'm not sure that qualifies as a skill, but when I asked a Hillary supporter who shall remain nameless what they like most about her that was the answer I got. "She likes chocolate covered almonds, just like a real person!" I **** you not.
Doc Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 She likes chocolate covered almonds. I'm not sure that qualifies as a skill, but when I asked a Hillary supporter who shall remain nameless what they like most about her that was the answer I got. "She likes chocolate covered almonds, just like a real person!" I **** you not. I'd believe it. There aren't many answers one can give.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) Oh come on. Lagh all you want, but tell me: Did Jeb Bush spend $3k a vote in NH? Did Donald Trump spend $31? Yes and yes. Unless you're a moron, that's not how "its supposed to go", because "whoever spends the most $ always wins". Do you really want to argue against basic math? You can F around if you want, but your entire argument is disproven by the existence of Trump. If he knew any of this, he'd be laughing. Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
keepthefaith Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Oh come on. Lagh all you want, but tell me: Did Jeb Bush spend $3k a vote in NH? Did Donald Trump spend $31? Yes and yes. Unless you're a moron, that's not how "its supposed to go", because "whoever spends the most $ always wins". Do you really want to argue against basic math? Ask Huma. . “Our Eyes Connected And I Thought, Wow!” Aide Huma Abedin Describes First Meeting Hillary Hillary was 49, Huma was a 19 year old intern when they came together...........Via Daily Mail: Added: Roberta Flack "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" HD ... . Huma's judge of character seems a bit flawed when you consider she's hitched her wagon to Hillary and Weiner. If it were me I'd be hiding rather than talking to the press.
meazza Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 She likes chocolate covered almonds. I'm not sure that qualifies as a skill, but when I asked a Hillary supporter who shall remain nameless what they like most about her that was the answer I got. "She likes chocolate covered almonds, just like a real person!" I **** you not. I destroyed a bag of chocolate covered almonds last night. I guess I know who'd I'd vote for as the leader of North America.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) Oh come on. Lagh all you want, but tell me: Did Jeb Bush spend $3k a vote in NH? Did Donald Trump spend $31? Yes and yes. Unless you're a moron, that's not how "its supposed to go", because "whoever spends the most $ always wins". Do you really want to argue against basic math? You can F around if you want, but your entire argument is disproven by the existence of Trump. If he knew any of this, he'd be laughing. You've yet to accurately surmise my argument so I'm not sure how Trump can disprove it. My argument is not "whoever spends the most money always wins". That's not only far too simplistic, it's missing the larger point. The game is rigged. The election was decided before the first primary was even held. Hillary will be the next president, by hook or by crook. I destroyed a bag of chocolate covered almonds last night. I guess I know who'd I'd vote for as the leader of North America. :lol: Come out on the town with me one night here in LA, that line (along with a HRC campaign sticker) can get you laid. Also, tangentially, my lady friend who is the big Hillary supporter just found out last night that the Hillary campaign has been charging her credit card every month, matching the single donation she made four months ago. There was a recurring charge (unless canceled) buried in the fine print. Gotta hand it to Hillary. Nothing like using the tricky ToS agreements to steal money from your own campaign contributors. .... And she still hasn't received the Hillary scrunchie she ordered all those months ago. FORWARD! Edited April 9, 2016 by Deranged Rhino
Recommended Posts