We should vote for VP as well ?

Watermark said:
US, you can throw a bunch of stupid independent platitudes if you like, but it doesn't make them any more true. Why should the majority have to negotiate with the minority? American government is bad government because nothing gets done because everyone has their own agenda and there aren't any strong parties. We should make the party system stronger, not weaker.
Click to expand...
It was designed to be slow and divided so that the state and local governments could get most of the work done...
 
uscitizen said:
Nope you are purchasing artificailly amplified free speech.

but then many feel the need of artificial enahncement.
Click to expand...
Total rubbish. The platform may be purchased but the speech is definitely being exercised. Especially during political runs, it is then even political speech. Directly effecting what it was all about. People purchase ads in papers, on the radio, etc.

That you are jealous that they can afford to "amplify" it doesn't change what it is.
 
uscitizen said:
One man one voice. Or one woman one voice.
Click to expand...
Again, just because you do not like what they have to say, or the fact that they can say it louder doesn't change what it is. Thankfully it is protected against people like you that would artificially limit speech solely because you want to socialize the "amplification".
 
Damocles said:
Again, just because you do not like what they have to say, or the fact that they can say it louder doesn't change what it is. Thankfully it is protected against people like you that would artificially limit speech solely because you want to socialize the "amplification".
Click to expand...

Umm you support socializing the voice my amplifying it with input from others.

My concept is true one person one voice.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm you support socializing the voice my amplifying it with input from others.

My concept is true one person one voice.
Click to expand...
I support people being able to use their ability to "amplify" as they see fit. I'm not one to complain when an actress speaks out, or a rockstar. I don't object to people who give to campaigns.

I believe that they have the right to support a candidate, even if they use means to pay for the platform to speak.
 
Damocles said:
I support people being able to use their ability to "amplify" as they see fit. I'm not one to complain when an actress speaks out, or a rockstar. I don't object to people who give to campaigns.

I believe that they have the right to support a candidate, even if they use means to pay for the platform to speak.
Click to expand...

One big reason why we have the best government that money can buy.
Money buys a piss poor government for the citizens that cannot afford to ante up.
 
We started going down hill in this area when we recoginzed corporations as individuals with the rights and none or very few of the penalties associated with individuals.
 
Threedee said:
If porn is free speech, then anything of a political nature most certainly is, and that includes financing campaigns.
Click to expand...

The difference being that the nature of expression through porn is not to influence how the government operates. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
The difference being that the nature of expression through porn is not to influence how the government operates. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
Click to expand...

The chief purpose of free speech is political freedom and expression. Limiting the amount of money someone can spend is unacceptable, and saying they use it to "influence how the government operates" is a value judgement that has no business being legislated over the First Amendment.
 
Threedee said:
The chief purpose of free speech is political freedom and expression. Limiting the amount of money someone can spend is unacceptable, and saying they use it to "influence how the government operates" is a value judgement that has no business being legislated over the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

It would be wrong to limit the amount an individual politician could spend, not politicians in general.

Personally I think we should just make it so that we have public financing, and everyone who opts out has their opponents receive two dollars in public financing for every one they receive from their masters.
 
Watermark said:
It would be wrong to limit the amount an individual politician could spend, not politicians in general.

Personally I think we should just make it so that we have public financing, and everyone who opts out has their opponents receive two dollars in public financing for every one they receive from their masters.
Click to expand...

Or you could stop trolling for a while. It is completely rediculous that political speech is being so blatantly curteiled via these financing laws.
 
Threedee said:
Or you could stop trolling for a while. It is completely ridiculous that political speech is being so blatantly curtailed via these financing laws.
Click to expand...

No, free speech is being curtailed by the corporations you love blasting over the common man. Corporations have no rights. They are a piece of paper. You have an utterly retarded political opinion, and you'd allow the republic to be put at stake just because of your idiotic belief that corporations need to be supported above the common man at all costs, even if it destroys society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top