(November 7, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: In order to make it fair you have to curtail the speech of some.....and this is blatantly unconstitutional. The constitution guarantees you the right to exercise speech. It does not guarantee everyone have the same amount of it.

No, it's not unconstitutional. The constitution promises free speech. It doesn't promise you can buy more.

As conservatives are fond of saying when we're talking about Occupy Wall Street, free speech has limits. We all know and accept this. The question is what limits?

Since we agree there should be limits, I'd rather structure those limits to be fair and help ensure democracy, not oligarchy.

(November 7, 2014 at 1:07 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 7, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: In order to make it fair you have to curtail the speech of some.....and this is blatantly unconstitutional. The constitution guarantees you the right to exercise speech. It does not guarantee everyone have the same amount of it.

No, it's not unconstitutional. The constitution promises free speech. It doesn't promise you can buy more.

What your saying is you have a right to speech and the government can't prevent you from speaking.....but the government can prevent you from buying poster board or markers or a megaphone. Is that your position?

If so consider this: The constitution guarantees freedom of press. Can it make it illegal for you to buy a printing press and paper, lest you have more freedom of press than the next guy?

Freedom of speech allows you the freedom to spend your money to engage in that speech....just as freedom of the press allows you the freedom to spend your money to engage in press.

Regarding Occupy Wall Street. Since your position is the government can prevent you from buying speech....could the government prevent someone from buying a plane ticket and flying to Wall Street so they might be part of the protest? Wouldn't such a purchase then disenfranchise someone who wanted to go to the counter protest but could not afford the plane ticket?

To level the playing field, were just going to have ban travel too when the purpose of it is to engage in speech.

Trying to keep money out of speech is a ludicrous proposition.

(November 7, 2014 at 1:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: What your saying is you have a right to speech and the government can't prevent you from speaking.....but the government can prevent you from buying poster board or markers or a megaphone. Is that your position?

If so consider this: The constitution guarantees freedom of press. Can it make it illegal for you to buy a printing press and paper, lest you have more freedom of press than the next guy?

Freedom of speech allows you the freedom to spend your money to engage in that speech....just as freedom of the press allows you the freedom to spend your money to engage in press.

I'm just going to repost the rest of my post that you ignored:

DeistPaladin Wrote:As conservatives are fond of saying when we're talking about Occupy Wall Street, free speech has limits. We all know and accept this. The question is what limits?

Since we agree there should be limits, I'd rather structure those limits to be fair and help ensure democracy, not oligarchy.

Until you explain why free speech has limits but we shouldn't limit the rich to prevent them from creating an oligarchy, I'll just keep reposting that statement.

(November 7, 2014 at 1:31 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm just going to repost the rest of my post that you ignored:

DeistPaladin Wrote:As conservatives are fond of saying when we're talking about Occupy Wall Street, free speech has limits. We all know and accept this. The question is what limits?

Since we agree there should be limits, I'd rather structure those limits to be fair and help ensure democracy, not oligarchy.

Until you explain why free speech has limits but we shouldn't limit the rich to prevent them from creating an oligarchy, I'll just keep reposting that statement.

Fair for you is you get to spend all the money you want on speech....but someone richer than you can't be allowed to spend more than you.

Quote:Corporations are tools of citizens.

That's where YOU go wrong, Woodie.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pr...-democracy

Quote:Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

Quote:A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.

Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

Welcome to the Plutokleptocracy of Amerika.

(Brought to you by dumb fucks like Woodie and the corporate masters he serves.)

(November 7, 2014 at 1:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Fair for you is you get to spend all the money you want on speech....but someone richer than you can't be allowed to spend more than you.

Buying a bullhorn is not the same as buying a several million dollars worth of TV ads. I favor limits that apply no matter how rich you are.

The Koch brothers are welcome to buy a bullhorn, too.

(November 7, 2014 at 2:43 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 7, 2014 at 1:37 pm)Heywood Wrote: Fair for you is you get to spend all the money you want on speech....but someone richer than you can't be allowed to spend more than you.

Buying a bullhorn is not the same as buying a several million dollars worth of TV ads. I favor limits that apply no matter how rich you are.

The Koch brothers are welcome to buy a bullhorn, too.

You favor a law that would allow the government to imprison you and Minimalist for up to five years if you got together, pulled your resources and made a film critical of a candidate a certain time period before an election.

(November 7, 2014 at 3:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: You favor a law that would allow the government to imprison you and Minimalist for up to five years if you got together, pulled your resources and made a film critical of a candidate a certain time period before an election.

What the fuck are you talking about?

(November 7, 2014 at 6:17 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 7, 2014 at 3:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: You favor a law that would allow the government to imprison you and Minimalist for up to five years if you got together, pulled your resources and made a film critical of a candidate a certain time period before an election.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Under BCRA, a movie critical of a particular candidate was considered an ad. Producing that movie(or ad) and broadcasting it without complying with federal regulations regarding campaign finance spending could land you in jail for up to 5 years.

My biggest problem with the combination of Citizens United & all the SuperPACs that have recently been created is that they allow unlimited "dark money" into our political system. Heywood obviously gets wood at the thought of Saudi Arabia, China & Israel getting a huge voice in our elections, but I don't like it one bit.