I thought campaign donations were capped at 4.000 bucks per head ? Or am I thinking of something else ? 
It took them damn near thirty seconds to get around that one.
Ok, then please explain why support letting the government ban movies and books.
You mean the candidate who lost? But what difference does it make whether she won or lost?
Lying is not illegal, which might be why it generally doesn’t get punished. And the whole face stomping thing is red herring, having nothing at all to do with free speech. Besides, from your own cite:
Freedom is a bitch. We’re free to be negative and hateful. You could try to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw negative and hateful speech, but I don’t think it would fly.
As has already been noted, they have had certain legal protections afforded to persons going back to before the founding of this country.
A lecture from you on over use of sarcasm? Physician, heal thyself.
But so what? Are we to outlaw speech that is deemed to be a lie (aside from actual slander, of course)? Am I not allowed to stand on the corner and say: Tariffs are good for the country!
Oh, say it a few more times, won’t you please? It just gets zingier every time— like the rest of your tiresome, endlessly repeated “gotcha” questions.
You need a new shtick. Badly.
FWIW, Bricker’s interpretation of the nature of the original confusion is in fact correct. The copula in “money is speech” links “money” to “speech” in such a way as to indicate that satisfaction of one predicate implies satisfaction of another. Something like: For any x, if x is an instance of spending money to convey a message [M(x)], then x is an instance of speech [S(x)]. Formally: ∀x M(x) ⇒ S(x).
Which does not imply ∀x S(x) ⇒ M(x), the original claim in question.
Nuh-uh!
Why isn’t it a legitimate question.
Citizens United was about whether or not the government had the right to ban movies critical of candidates running for office.
Presumably all the people squealing in anger over the decision support this and think that the FEC should have banned Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, but I don’t.
Perhaps you’d be willing to explain why you feel the Supreme Court was wrong to rule that the government can’t ban movies it doesn’t like.
I suppose if the topic were banning books and movies we’d address it. But it’s not. It’s the effect of Citizens United on the elections process. I’m surprised I have to point this out to you.
I’m not following your objections Tom. I agree there has been a lot snarky responses, but the essential question is being addressed: how can candidates stay unbought when there’s so much money flowing into the political system? I used cites to establish the money is flowing. There has been some well-considered debate along the lines of, “Whitman and Fiorina’s defeats demonstrate that money does not ensure electoral victories” and “people who contribute to politics are/are not getting their money’s worth.” I’ve seen much sloppier debates in Great Debates.
I suppose it is difficult to objectively demonstrate that political campaign donations equals political power. But the point can be argued nonetheless, for example, elucidator’s point about the improbability that the wealthy would spend millions on campaign donations if they did not feel they were getting their money’s worth seems a fairly telling point.
On edit, I see the thread is already in the pit. Fuck it, then! I hate everybody!!! EVERYBODY!!!
Now now, they don’t hate you! They mostly don’t know you that well.
I’m not ragging on you for using sarcasm, John, I’m ragging on you for using it so badly.
As I said, physician, heal thyself.
Er… Citizens United was about the banning of a movie.
If you’re having a hissy fit over Citizens United then presumably you feel that the government had the right to ban Hillary: The Movie.
Please explain your reasoning.
The alternative is that you’ve never read the decision and are upset about something you don’t understand.
Which is it?
Jesus, get off it already.
What?
That’s the truth.
Have you actually read Citizens United?
You do realize that it was about a movie that had been effectively banned by McCain-Feingold don’t you?
What it does is make it clear limitations can’t be placed on the ability of people to advocate in favor of or against political candidates.
When you fine the Sierra Club for handing out leaflets criticizing a Republican Senator’s environmental record, or fine a pro-life group for airing radio ads criticizing a Senator up for election then you are infringing on people’s freedom of speech.
Perhaps you don’t like people criticizing candidates you don’t like.
Minorities generally don’t like hate filled bigots spewing racist invectives calling for violence against non-whites, but we have to put up with it because of the First Amendment.
For decades progressive whites have been lecturing us that we have to tolerate such crap due to the First Amendment.
Now many of those same progressive whites are freaking out because their ox is being gored.
Sorry guys, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Suck it up.
Free speech is free speech for everyone.
If we have to deal with the KKK marching through black neighborhoods carrying signs that say things like “FIGHT CRIME! KILL A NIGGER!”, you’ll have to put up with groups you don’t like attacking politicians you do.
Frankly, I think you’re still coming out ahead.
This thread is between Warraq and a hard place.
All this talk about coming out ahead… do we have to sexualize everything in our society?
Yeah, fuck that!