Democrat traitors attack the Constitution

Wrong, Wrong, and fiction, no one is taking away the First Amendment nor eliminating the Second Amendment and the last is just pure fantasy

You went from posting a bogus study to citing opinion pieces from overt partisan bloggers as real, you better take a break
 
BulletBoob is an attention whore. One attention seeking post after another. He must lead a very miserable and sad existence.
 
BulletBoob is an attention whore. One attention seeking post after another. He must lead a very miserable and sad existence.
 
Bulletbob said:
Democrat traitors attack the Constitution
Click to expand...

< Section 1 of the proposed amendment says: “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” >
https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment

It’s about time the US had something like that.

Do you know how it works in the UK? Parties and non-party campaign groups are limited by law in the amount they can spend on a campaign. In the 2017 general election, 75 parties and 18 campaign groups spent £41.6m between them. That’s small change by US standards.

Television advertising is limited to clearly designated “party political broadcasts” allocated according to the parties’ representation in Parliament.

There is still freedom of speech and expression.
 
 
Concart said:
Use your words Bobby. YOUR words. Tell us in your own words how democrats are 'attacking the Constitution' when they are advocating the legal process for amending that Constitution? Spell out your argument.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately his own words would leave Bevis and Butthead awestruck, so it's better for him just to post his sewer links and let them speak.
 
Concart said:
Use your words Bobby. YOUR words. Tell us in your own words how democrats are 'attacking the Constitution' when they are advocating the legal process for amending that Constitution? Spell out your argument.
Click to expand...

well now they want to change it m thats attacking it.nothing wrong with it .
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
< Section 1 of the proposed amendment says: “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” >
https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment

It’s about time the US had something like that.

Do you know how it works in the UK? Parties and non-party campaign groups are limited by law in the amount they can spend on a campaign. In the 2017 general election, 75 parties and 18 campaign groups spent £41.6m between them. That’s small change by US standards.

Television advertising is limited to clearly designated “party political broadcasts” allocated according to the parties’ representation in Parliament.

There is still freedom of speech and expression.
Click to expand...

I dont care how it works in the UK , or Russia or Iran or china only here
 
Tacomaman said:
BulletBoob is an attention whore. One attention seeking post after another. He must lead a very miserable and sad existence.
Click to expand...

no taco fg I live a pretty happy existence, I retired 7 yeas early have a comfortable home , good friends and family,Im financially secure . I do have health issues however .
not a attention whore at al , I just like exposing liberals for the deviant perverted anti American , radical socialist scum bags they are and printing the truth about them,.
It draws out the real morons like you to desperately try and fight the truth .
I do this in hopes of preventing as many youth as possible from becoming liberal scum bag deviants.
In your case its far to late taco fag but ever time you post there are hopes that our youth will see how ignorant and small minded you are and anti American and prevent them from becoming like you .
 
Bulletbob said:
I dont care how it works in the UK , or Russia or Iran or china only here
Click to expand...

How about France?

By law, campaign expenses are subjected to a maximum ceiling, and spending in excess of that is illegal … In 2007 Sarkozy spent 21 million euros to win the presidential contest, while his main opponent, the socialist Ségolène Royal, spent 20 million euros. French politicians are therefore not enslaved to special interests or Super-PACs as they are in the U.S.

Televised political ads are banned — only a small number of “statements” by each candidate, following strict rules on time and editing, can be broadcast on television.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/france-election-laws_b_1438456

Nah, you don’t want to hear about any dang foreigners. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top