(June 27, 2014 at 8:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: Stopping people from buying more free speech is imposing a restriction on their ability to speak. They simply have less ability than they would have before they were stopped from buying more free speech.Purchased speech isn't free. Therefore, it's not free speech.
Quote:You are happy with restricting the free speech of people wealthier than you.
I'm not.
Quote:Would you be happy if people poorer than you decided you were spending too much of your wealth on your speech?I would ask why they feel it is so. I haven't purchased control of any political figures. None of them would even know who I was.
Quote:You can't separate these two issues.Sure you can.
Quote:Unfettered free speech means there is going to be money in politics.No, it's doesn't.
Quote:I'd rather have unfettered free speech than have money removed from politics.You don't have to make that choice. It's a false dilemma.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
