Well, for starters, you two lovebirds should just stab and make up.
Or someone should try to have a substantive discussion instead of using insults to desperately avoid it.
The you start. Provide some straw-free substance.
You show me what I’ve posted that you think is a straw man, and WHY you think so.
Here’s the thing, lance, old chap. These issues have all been extensively discussed, for example here and here and here. Why are you still discussing them? Because, lance, old boy, you keep repeating the same crap over and over again as if it was a brand new idea of astonishing brilliance instead of a tedious repetition by a deranged zealot with a serious case of Alzheimer’s, and it’s crap that never made any sense the first time.
You make flat-out dogmatic pontifications as if prior court rulings affirming spending limits never happened, as if the progressive dissenting justices in recent cases never existed, as if their arguments aren’t even worth acknowledging, as if no one else’s arguments except yours have any merit, as if the deleterious effects of unconstrained political spending haven’t been extensively documented for decades in studies and books. You seem to believe the Constitution is some kind of religion for its own sake instead of an instrument for social good in the service of the people. There’s no point in debating with you. I don’t waste my time debating politics with my dog, either, and it’s not because I’m afraid he might win.
Well, we could start with post #113 of which you are so proud. There is absolutely nothing there but noise.
So far, the same can be said for you too. So we’re even.
Again, I say your crap made no sense the first time.
And now, after declaring that we’ve already discussed it and you were right all along and you definitely aren’t going to discuss it with me, you do:
You make flat-out dogmatic pontifications as if prior court rulings affirming spending limits never happened,
[/QUOTE]
Never said that, and it doesn’t matter anyway.
What stupid rubbish. Of course they existed. So what? They were wrong.
No, that’s YOU doing that to ME, genius.
Oh my God! You mean, I think I’m right? Good thing you’re not like that.
Plenty of people have tried to justify violations of the Constitution or civil rights with “extensive documentation.” So what? You still can’t do it.
You seem to think the Contsitution is toilet paper you can just ignore when you feel like it.
You’re right, there’s no point in you debating me, because you’ve already lost. So why are you even talking to me? Live up to your boasts and ignore me.
You’re just like any other two-bit dictator who decides you know better than the people so you can, for their own good, of course, meddle with freedom of speech. That answer is no. You may not. Get over it. The First Amendment protects us from people like you. The Founding Fathers feared YOU when writing it.
You also can’t just bully and insult your way through a discussion like this. It doesn’t surprise me that you think you can, but you can’t.
Why do you think so? Explain.
Do you think those scenarios are okay too? Or do you think they are somehow different from the one we’re discussing?
Go ahead and actually make an argument.
P.S. Not sure how you can declare it to be a straw man or “noise” given that I included pretty much the ACTUAL FACTS of the Citizens United case right there in my examples:
Where’d you go?
**Bricker **here is a cautionary tale of the risks of First Amendment absolutism. Once a clever barrister, now an advocate of absolute political corruption.
A lot of Americans are “those people.”
These bleeding-heart liberals are easy pickings, and thus their age is ending. But the backlash against anything-goes corruption will be moralistic & authoritarian.
Can you kindly point out where exactly in the constitution it states that freedom of speech is a fundamental right only as long as it is equitable?
Slee
When you point to where I suggested or implied that is does in my reply to a hypothetical.
It’s simply absurd to say that speech can be corruption.
The concept of speech being corrupt because it has value to a candidate could easily extend beyond money. Should we limit the ability of labor unions to organize volunteers to speak on behalf of candidates door to door? That’s certainly something of value to the candidate - paying for the work would cost thousands of dollars. Should prominent political figures or celebrities be limited in their speech in favor of a candidate? Their speech attracts more attention and is therefore of more value to a candidate.
Still waiting for you to respond to my hypotheticals in #113. Oh, and the one that’s the actual facts of the CU decision too.
What about freedom of the press? Shouldn’t we be rationing how much access rich corporations have to print newspapers and broadcast on the airwayes? They can say whatever they want all day long with no limits. They can openly endorse candidates and produce highly biased opinions, or let others do it. The average citizen doesn’t own a newspaper or TV news station. So shouldn’t we be limiting the media in the same way? After all, the guys who run ads are simply renting time in 30-second increments on TV. What if the Kochs just went and bought their own TV station and broadcast their opinions all day? Why is that any different? Why are they corrupt, but Murdoch and Fox News get a pass?
So what?
So, I expect that the people in charge of protecting me should follow the rules. Or I would expect that if I didn’t know better.
And the legislature crafted rules about bribery that are essentially unenforceable? So, which is it, they are really that dumb or really that smart?
I have worked for a few large corporations. When I was oriented in those corporations, they had me spend quite a bit of time learning what types of gifts I could receive, under what circumstances, and when it needed to be reported. I was not really in a position to be taking gifts as bribes, as I was among the lowest ranks, but the rules were put in place largely in relation to the upper management and VP’s.
What is the real difference between upper management of a large corporation, and politicians? Why can the govt not adopt a version of those rules for itself?
I do not say it is easy to tell when the line has been crossed into corruption, but others have found it, pointed it out, and told their employees not to cross it. Is there a good reason as to why this model cannot be adopted to politicians? (Other than the obvious practicality of getting politicians to vote for something that will limit their own power.)