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.
So you think freedom of speech should be abridged? Would you apply your restrictions to newspaper editorials? To TV programs? Would you ban books and movies? Would you prohibit the Sierra club from taking out advertisements? How much free speech would you allow us?
Has Zero to do with Freedom of speech but those that believe that seats in Congress and the Whitehouse should be able to be bought like to claim it is. Noted
Has Zero to do with Freedom of speech but those that believe that seats in Congress and the Whitehouse should be able to be bought like to claim it is. Noted
How on Earth do either of you believe that to be a good analysis of the situation.
Volobjectitarian, Your argument is the equivalent of saying one person is equal to a corporation and they are not.
Yes they are.
Quote:
1 person is one person, a corporation can be a couple of hundred thousand, with in your own words more resources.
And one billionaire has more resources than an entire town full of mom & pop businesses too. It works both ways.
Quote:
Most individuals can not pay for a full page spread in the NY Times. They can not personally finance a candidates multimillion dollar campaign.
Then if those people are interested in doing that, they need to get to work to make more money.
Quote:
You can argue that free speech is free speech regardless of where it comes from, but trying to argue that it is equal, when even your own comment says it isnt is just naive.
It isn't naive, it's principled. This is a free country. That means when it's your money you spend it on what you want to spend it on.
Quote:
Your second paragraph does not even make sense. In 2 years, there will be no incumbent in the white house.
And you do realize the Feingold in McCain-Feingold stands for Russ Feinfold (D-WI) right and that 49 of the 60 Yes votes were Democrats right. There were only 51 Dems in the senate at the time counting independents.
The entire Premise of your argument that who is in the White House effects how Dems would vote on the issue is completely wrong.
No it isn't. You talk about naive and then say something like that? Come on. When Bush was in the White House, the Democrats said that changing the Senate debate rules would damage the foundations of the nation. When Obama got into the White House the very same Democrats, not just Democrats but the exact same individuals, then made the exact same changes that they argued against before.
Quote:
Campaign finance reform would not stop anyone from speaking up on an issue, If Nike wants to support an issue, they can, but the law would only stop them from supporting a specific candidate.
Campaign finance reform as proposed would allow Congress to stifle any speech they felt like stifling. It's only being sold to the ignorant as trying to limit the power of the selfish rich elite over the common man so that they can demagogue support. That's the standard operating procedure of Democrats. Everything they do is sold as looking out for the poor against the evil rich, women against chauvinist men, blacks against racist Whites, etc. The Democrat playbook has 1 play and that's it: splinter off a minority group and then pander to that group's sense of victimhood against the majority. And you, the person admonishing other people for their naivete, are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
Campaign finance reform as proposed would allow Congress to stifle any speech they felt like stifling. It's only being sold to the ignorant as trying to limit the power of the selfish rich elite over the common man so that they can demagogue support. That's the standard operating procedure of Democrats. Everything they do is sold as looking out for the poor against the evil rich, women against chauvinist men, blacks against racist Whites, etc. The Democrat playbook has 1 play and that's it: splinter off a minority group and then pander to that group's sense of victimhood against the majority. And you, the person admonishing other people for their naivete, are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
They're not "falling for it". They want it, because they want dissent stifled.
Liberalism is indefensible, it can only prevail if you forcibly suppress dissent. And that's ALL that this is about.
To bad you have not noticed yet that we only have one party anymore. Whatever Wall Street and the large corporations say is policy in Washington.
You got that upside down.
Only your chosen legislator can pass laws. Not big business.
It means your choice of legislator to represent you is ethically flawed. Perhaps this calls for a re-evaluation of the criteria you use to cast a vote.
So What? You seem to think I believe in the Con methodology of one side being able to do something that the other side cannot, that not my mindset or agenda. I want no one to have an advantage, give them all the same amount and let them run on their ideas on how to deal with the issues and let the voters decide..
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.
