Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #161
So the Federal government has the biggest voice, enough to drown out any or all of its citizens
In the final analysis, we are the Federal Government. We control who sits in Congress and the Oval.
Knowing where the money comes from is important information on election day.
The theory that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct is belied by law, both statutory and case.
Liability uses ad hominem attacks and inductive reasoning in arguing his point of view - a view I find extreme (not simply because he presents as a jerk) and unconvincing.
The fact is money influences the voters, and the source of the money provides needed information for voters to make an informed choice.
Ads on TV and radio today, and in print, do not name those who contributed money to the political ad; I believe a failure to disclose is a threat to our demoractic institutions and will lead us further into the realm of a plutocracy and eventually America will become an oligarchy.
Fly Catcher a/k/a "Shit" uses ad hominem too, but he (being a complete hypocritical arrogant ass) only objects when others employ that rhetorical tool. Poor little feller.
And while a bombastic and dishonest simpleton like Shit is incapable of appreciating it, the fact remains. Just because a problem exists, has been identified and really does call for some measures to address it (remedy it) does NOT mean that every available law, rule or regulation which can theoretically be brought to bear on it is viable or even desirable.
Sometimes a perfectly effective "remedy" is improper. For example, we might be fully capable of wiping out the threat of al qaeda by nuking the mountainous caves in Afghanistan, but that does not mean we should be launching the nukes. Similarly, if the method for rooting out campaign problems stemming from financing, greed and corruption requires an abridgment of our First Amendment guarantees, then that method MUST be abandoned. Another method has to be found or crafted.
Under these circumstances, the answer is not to just toss up our hands, bemoan our fate and declare that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with. The answer is to find OTHER ways of dealing with it.
Are you always so hysterical?
I call an asshole an asshole; less a personal attack, more like a 'tautology' (I hope that's not too abstract for you, liability? Please explain to CrusaderFrank, he's a bit...slow).
In your rant you fail to acknowledge a problem. Do you deny one exists (deny monied and special interests have the advantage in influencing - many times writing - legislation giving the few benefits at the expense of the many)?
How soon after an Oligarchy - in real terms a monopoly - governs the many and freedom of speech goes away? Look at Iraq, N. Korea or China and consider the consequences of the few controlling the many. Yes it can happen here.
Last edited: