Ok if limbagh wants to change Conservatism...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What? What does free speech have to do with corruption?

 

[WRL]

Well we disagree on the fact that if money = speech that means less first amendment rights for 99% of the rest of us.

Obama's an ass for giving his speech at the same time McCain is...

 

[Timshel]

Well we disagree on the fact that if money = speech that means less first amendment rights for 99% of the rest of us.

Obama's an ass for giving his speech at the same time McCain is...

Now, like McCain, you are using stupid leftist rhetoric.

Money does not equal speech. But limits on how one may use their property to advance speech is clearly a limit on speech. Your own rhetoric acknowledges your desire to limit the effectivness of speech of the rich. And their speech is not a limit on yours. That's fucking ridiculous and an acceptance of more leftism, e.g., viewing all matters as zero sum games while utilizing class warfare rhetoric.

And McCain Feingold has nothing to do with corruption. If it were narrowly tailored to corruption you would have a point. But it is not and so your point is worthless. It is broad and attacks speech, regardless of whether it fosters corruption or not.

 

[Timshel]

What? What does free speech have to do with corruption?

I am unclear of your point here. It has nothing to do with it just as McCain Feingold has nothing to do with corruption but rather is a broad attack on speech.

 

[WRL]

Now, like McCain, you are using stupid leftist rhetoric.

Money does not equal speech. But limits on how one may use their property to advance speech is clearly a limit on speech. Your own rhetoric acknowledges your desire to limit the effectivness of speech of the rich. And their speech is not a limit on yours. That's fucking ridiculous and an acceptance of more leftism, e.g., viewing all matters as zero sum games while utilizing class warfare rhetoric.

And McCain Feingold has nothing to do with corruption. If it were narrowly tailored to corruption you would have a point. But it is not and so your point is worthless. It is broad and attacks speech, regardless of whether it fosters corruption or not.

You seem to think it does, if protecting the first amendment for those not rich, equals a violation of some rich guys undue ability to overly influence elections, you obviously equate money = speech. No a system that grants more speech rights in an election to the super-rich or corporate money is corrupt and violating the first amendment. I'm not trying to limit anyone's speech, the goal of the bill was to ensure just because money can buy airtime, and virtual votes, their has to be protections for our first amendment rights, otherwise, big money will dominate the process, as it has for so long.

 

[Timshel]

You seem to think it does, if protecting the first amendment for those not rich, equals a violation of some rich guys undue ability to overly influence elections, you obviously equate money = speech.

I clearly stated how it is designed to limit speech and that money is not speech. Make a substantive response or stfu.

McCain Feingold does not protect the right of free speech of "those not rich." It violates their speech rights as well. It places limits on all regardless of wealth.

No a system that grants more speech rights in an election to the super-rich or corporate money is corrupt and violating the first amendment.

You are arguing that money is speech. You just stated that a system that allows individuals to spend money to facilitate speech grants more speech to the rich. That amounts to money = speech. If money is not speech then how do the rich have more speech?

Your argument is complete horseshit. Nothing in the first amendment says that speech must be regulated to ensure equality of speech.

I'm not trying to limit anyone's speech, the goal of the bill was to ensure just because money can buy airtime, and virtual votes, their has to be protections for our first amendment rights, otherwise, big money will dominate the process, as it has for so long.

You have stated that you are attempting to limit the speech of the rich because you make the ridiculous claim that the first amendment promotes egalitarianism. Your argument amounts to regulating and limiting speech in order to protect free speech. It's newspeak and clearly not at all what the founders intended.

Again, the right to free speech has nothing to do with the process. It is not a collective right whose purpose is to protect the state. Just as the second amendment is not a collective right aimed only at protecting the state. Stupid fascist. Both are individual rights and are designed to protect the self interest of the individual from the state.

Be honest for once in your miserable life. You like McCain because he is prowar and that's all you really care about. Your understanding of limited government might be more pathetic than McCains's.