Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The characterization of buying elections is yours. I am for no limits on speech. The Constitution did not equivocate on freedom of speech. Nor should we. You will note "My Status" about inequality. It applies to speech as well.
Your comments, my comments on this board, indeed everyone here is exercising freedom of speech. In applying Voltaire's sentiment to forums I would say something like,
The real misfortune is to forbid anyone from commenting, (speech), because we disagree with them, or think what they post is irrelevant, without merit, logic or value is. Not that some posters are better equipped, or perhaps better able to comment, than other posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
So if I understand you correctly, you are actually in favor of unlimited funds to candidates given by wealthy persons who want to buy an election?
The characterization of buying elections is yours. I am for no limits on speech. The Constitution did not equivocate on freedom of speech. Nor should we. You will note "My Status" about inequality. It applies to speech as well.
Your comments, my comments on this board, indeed everyone here is exercising freedom of speech. In applying Voltaire's sentiment to forums I would say something like,
The real misfortune is to forbid anyone from commenting, (speech), because we disagree with them, or think what they post is irrelevant, without merit, logic or value is. Not that some posters are better equipped, or perhaps better able to comment, than other posters.
Does your idea of free speech include unlimited funds to presidential candidates and elected officials?
Pay attention. It is the Supreme Court's idea - learned folks would call it opinion or ruling - not mine. Citizens United. Do you pay attention at all? No more conversation with you. You are not able to carry on in other than a petulant way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Does your idea of free speech include unlimited funds to presidential candidates and elected officials?
Pay attention. It is the Supreme Court's idea - learned folks would call it opinion or ruling - not mine. Citizens United. Do you pay attention at all? No more conversation with you. You are not able to carry on in other than a petulant way.
I am asking for your opinion. Is Clinton Cash nothing but practicing free speech?
No, most voters won't care, but an overwhelming majority of Americans are sick to death of this perverse idea that money = speech and that wealthy donors can effectively hand pick the candidates we all vote on. See how every "Move to Amend" referendum passes overwhelmingly on any local ballot.
Citizens United is based on a very real misinterpretation and also an off handed note from a court clerk almost a century ago. Look into it if you truly care.
Does your idea of free speech include unlimited funds to presidential candidates and elected officials?
The left shouted that Obama was projected to raise $1 Billion dollars, claiming it was a sign that the people support him.
Clintons' are projecting $2.5 billion, while laughable, clearly it should be allowed because people should be allowed to give their dam money to whoever they want.
The left shouted that Obama was projected to raise $1 Billion dollars, claiming it was a sign that the people support him.
Clintons' are projecting $2.5 billion, while laughable, clearly it should be allowed because people should be allowed to give their dam money to whoever they want.
The left shouted that Obama was projected to raise $1 Billion dollars, claiming it was a sign that the people support him.
Clintons' are projecting $2.5 billion, while laughable, clearly it should be allowed because people should be allowed to give their dam money to whoever they want.
To me the big difference is that Clinton as a candidate is required to list these contributors, they are a matter of public record. There is now and were no such surviving records when she was SoS. To me, an element of free speech is knowing what is being said and who said it, we have no way to discern the message relayed.
I am asking for your opinion. Is Clinton Cash nothing but practicing free speech?
You can always exercise your own free speech and write a book outlining a timeline for donations to (pick one) a Republican candidate. Might be a pretty small book, though compared to Clinton Cash.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
