Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We have a deficit so fucking huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.
What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?
Actually he is dead wrong. When it comes to Elections Money does equal speech.
Dead wrong?
People, for the most part, left Europe for the United States for a multitude of reasons but primarily for Religious/Ethnic Freedom..and the right to "get paid".
That was impossible in cultures that were so steeped in Aristocracies.
"Elections Money" does not equal speech.
What it represents is a return to the very thing most people left in the first place.
Most of Michele Bachman's/Sharron Angle's/Christine O'Donnell's/Scott Brown's donations were around 50 bucks each.
Hardly "aristocracies."
We have a deficit so fucking huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.
What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?
After Obamacare and the massive payout of cash to big Pharm with the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, of course its good to be concerned about how much money corporations are spending.
Individuals I could care less. If you want to spend your personal wealth on a candidate, be my guest. Just be willing to stand behind it.
We have a deficit so fucking huge it has to be expressed in scientific notation 1.3 *10^12 but we're worried about someone spending a few bucks on campaign ads.
What major fucked up priorities do you need to come to that?
After Obamacare and the massive payout of cash to big Pharm with the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, of course its good to be concerned about how much money corporations are spending.
Individuals I could care less. If you want to spend your personal wealth on a candidate, be my guest. Just be willing to stand behind it.
As I said in Cairo, when you start to give a fuck about how much the government spends I'll start to take you more seriously when you talk about what the people can spend
Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.
Odd that people who don't support limits on government spending support limits on campaign contributions
Odd that you really believe such a stupid comparison has merit.
You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big fucking deal!
Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!
Odd that you really believe such a stupid comparison has merit.
You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big fucking deal!
Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!
One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.
When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?
Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.
When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.
But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.
And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.
So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.
And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.
If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.
I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.
Why? Nobody is compelled to disclose who they vote for. What's the difference?
The purpose of a corporation is to generate profit or to operate as a public service. The purpose of a union is to prevent exploitation of workers. There are no similarities or comparisons between the three entities.When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?
A corperation is a people?
What are the UNIONS but Coprporations? Their products are manipulation of their membership and politicians.
I don't know what the OP thinks but I believe the speech of no citizen, rich or poor, should be limited by how much money (property) he can afford to give to political representatives.I wonder if the OP thinks Unions should have limits on their speech too?
You're so busted! You lost your media monopoly! No one believes your bullshit anymore just because you say so! The 1.3 TRILLION deficit is really a big fucking deal!
Now that we can let sunlight in on your bullshit and you can't take it!
One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.
What crap! Total utter crap!
Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!
It appears that you are too young to remember what life in America was like before the union movement gave birth to the Middle Class, the benefits of which you probably enjoy today in spite of your obvious contempt for the very source of those benefits. But whatever your situation, unless you are among the wealthy it will serve your interests to learn about the union movement in America and what your life would be like had it not occurred.I will be happy to yank your union's and non-profit's constitutional rights too then.
There is no difference.
Oh wait... no no... I mis-spoke. The difference is that Corporations produce a product or service the public wants and employing people at typically fair wages (unless the employees are extra stupid). Unions are parasites for lazy fucks who want to protect themselves from being legitimately fired for incompetence and lining their own pockets while claiming to be 'for the little guy." Government unions and 'non-profit' style organizations, doubly so.
My bad.
Why? Nobody is compelled to disclose who they vote for. What's the difference?
Because I am not content to permit you (not you in particular, of course) to subject me to ANY form of harassment as a result of my political donations. As policy, demanding such things might tend to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.
When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.
But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.
And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.
So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.
And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.
If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.
I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.
One more Red Herring. Grow up CF, and btw, consider the deficit left by your hero President Reagan. You're enitre political beliefs are built on a false foundation; sadly, you are willfully ignorant and only read that which supports your emotions.
What crap! Total utter crap!
Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!
CF, you seem to be getting dumber. In 1980 we purchased our home for $58,950, today its value is 10 times that price.
Reagan spent $$$ on a huge military build-up, cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and totally ignored the American infrastructure, cities, a drug crisis (Just Say NO, how did that work) and an emerging health crisis (AIDS), likely because he and others of his kind figured it only killed gays so it was not worth worrying about.
BTW, the issue was not the debt, that you injected it into the debate is cause for my to accuse you of posting another red herring.
You really are dumb, aren't you.
What crap! Total utter crap!
Obama deficit is bigger than Reagans entire budget!
CF, you seem to be getting dumber. In 1980 we purchased our home for $58,950, today its value is 10 times that price.
Reagan spent $$$ on a huge military build-up, cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and totally ignored the American infrastructure, cities, a drug crisis (Just Say NO, how did that work) and an emerging health crisis (AIDS), likely because he and others of his kind figured it only killed gays so it was not worth worrying about.
BTW, the issue was not the debt, that you injected it into the debate is cause for my to accuse you of posting another red herring.
You really are dumb, aren't you.
Reagan beat the crap out of your home team the USSR, sorry if you're still having a hard time coming to terms with it. Since the New Deal, they spent all that time effort and money infiltrating US government and culture and media only to go home to find Reagan telling them to "Tear down this wall!"
You Progressives are so pathetic.
The only thing you left off your list of "Banal, Stupid Things a Progressive Needs to Know about Reagan" is the whole ketchup as a vegetable nonsense.
Clue: Get one today!
