Kochs buying the election

[The T]

Since citizens united legalized oligarchies.

It only legalizes freedom of speech. We understand that you liked it better when only unions and other left-wing institutions had the right to speak about elections.

Free speech was already legal idiot. Why do they have more freedom on speech than others? How is that good for anyone? Dem or Repub?

NO ONE has more liberty than another...this point YOU idiots on the left keep getting wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Koch Brothers Plan To Funnel Tens Of Millions To Conservative Allies To Influence 2012 Elections

And if they can't buy the election, they've always got all those voter suppression laws.

Much worse than corrupt GObP/Repubs is that so many anti-American rw's are in favor of it.

So this is how you're going to sale the obama lose?

Give him time. I'm sure he has more absurity on tap...he is trying to earn his pay.

Well if he wants to spin it that way obama very well may lose even with the help of soros billions. What a waste of money if you ask me.

 

[bripat9643]

So lewman, are you saying it's bad when both do it?

That's how democracy works, turd.

H.L. Mencken called elections "present auctions on future goods."

When politicians are promising vast hoards of parasite voters the property of every productive person in America, you can bet people are going to spend vast sums trying to control the outcome of that process.

I didnt ask you how democracy works dummy, I asked Lewman if he thinks it's bad when both sides do it or not?

You didn't ask, but you made it obvious you don't like the way democracy works. Otherwise, why are you complaining about one of it's fundamental properties?

Do you think it's bad when either side uses its right to express its opinion?

 

[ClosedCaption]

It only legalizes freedom of speech. We understand that you liked it better when only unions and other left-wing institutions had the right to speak about elections.

Free speech was already legal idiot. Why do they have more freedom on speech than others? How is that good for anyone? Dem or Repub?

They don't have more freedom of speech than anyone else. Previously, they weren't allowed to speak because of McCain/Feingold.

The liberal conception of free speech is where only liberals get to say what they want.

If money equals free speech and they have more money Dem or Repub, that means they have more free speech than others. Are you denying this or just crying about it?

 

[The T]

So this is how you're going to sale the obama lose?

Give him time. I'm sure he has more absurity on tap...he is trying to earn his pay.

Well if he wants to spin it that way obama very well may lose even with the help of soros billions. What a waste of money if you ask me.

Statists are know as large wasters of other people's money...

 

[bripat9643]

Free speech was already legal idiot. Why do they have more freedom on speech than others? How is that good for anyone? Dem or Repub?

They don't have more freedom of speech than anyone else. Previously, they weren't allowed to speak because of McCain/Feingold.

The liberal conception of free speech is where only liberals get to say what they want.

If money equals free speech and they have more money Dem or Repub, that means they have more free speech than others. Are you denying this or just crying about it?

No it doesn't. That's like saying if the 5th Amendment protects your right to own property, then rich people have more of a right to own property than other people.

Only morons are buying the Stalinist conception of free speech you're selling.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They don't have more freedom of speech than anyone else. Previously, they weren't allowed to speak because of McCain/Feingold.

The liberal conception of free speech is where only liberals get to say what they want.

If money equals free speech and they have more money Dem or Repub, that means they have more free speech than others. Are you denying this or just crying about it?

No it doesn't. That's like saying if the 5th Amendment protects your right to own property, then rich people have more of a right to own property than other people.

Only morons are buying the Stalinist conception of free speech you're selling.

So money doesnt equal speech? Or you are against the concept that money equals speech?

 

[LockeJaw]

If money equals free speech and they have more money Dem or Repub, that means they have more free speech than others. Are you denying this or just crying about it?

No it doesn't. That's like saying if the 5th Amendment protects your right to own property, then rich people have more of a right to own property than other people.

Only morons are buying the Stalinist conception of free speech you're selling.

So money doesnt equal speech? Or you are against the concept that money equals speech?

Money doesn't equal free speech...

 

[paulitician]

Lots of heads need to roll if the Taxpayers end up paying this Bill. The Democrats will have to be held accountable. This is their farce. I'm anxious to see if the Taxpayers are forced to pay.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No it doesn't. That's like saying if the 5th Amendment protects your right to own property, then rich people have more of a right to own property than other people.

Only morons are buying the Stalinist conception of free speech you're selling.

So money doesnt equal speech? Or you are against the concept that money equals speech?

Money doesn't equal free speech...

Money doesnt equal speech? Notice I didnt use the word "free"

 

[bripat9643]

If money equals free speech and they have more money Dem or Repub, that means they have more free speech than others. Are you denying this or just crying about it?

No it doesn't. That's like saying if the 5th Amendment protects your right to own property, then rich people have more of a right to own property than other people.

Only morons are buying the Stalinist conception of free speech you're selling.

So money doesnt equal speech? Or you are against the concept that money equals speech?

Nothing I said supports your idiot notion that preventing you from spending money to promote your beliefs is not a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No it doesn't. That's like saying if the 5th Amendment protects your right to own property, then rich people have more of a right to own property than other people.

Only morons are buying the Stalinist conception of free speech you're selling.

So money doesnt equal speech? Or you are against the concept that money equals speech?

Nothing I said supports your idiot notion that preventing you from spending money to promote your beliefs is not a violation of the First Amendment.

So you dont want to answer the question, you should just say so. Also, I said nothing like that but have fun building strawmen

 

[FJO]

Nobody should be forced to buy what they don't want to buy or can't afford. (Obamacare, anyone??)

Nobody should be stopped from buying what they CAN afford. (Unions, anyone??)

 

[LockeJaw]

So money doesnt equal speech? Or you are against the concept that money equals speech?

Nothing I said supports your idiot notion that preventing you from spending money to promote your beliefs is not a violation of the First Amendment.

So you dont want to answer the question, you should just say so. Also, I said nothing like that but have fun building strawmen

He did answer the question.

 

[Meister]

So lewman, are you saying it's bad when both do it?

That's how democracy works, turd.

H.L. Mencken called elections "present auctions on future goods."

When politicians are promising vast hoards of parasite voters the property of every productive person in America, you can bet people are going to spend vast sums trying to control the outcome of that process.

I didnt ask you how democracy works dummy, I asked Lewman if he thinks it's bad when both sides do it or not?

If no laws are being broken....how do you feel about both sides doing it?

 

[California Girl]

Proof not conspiracy?

Are you suggesting that an article in the HuffPuff is 'proof'?

No dummy, I'm asking if he has proof that Soros is buying the election or if it's just his belief he is. Didn't think I needed to spell that out for you

You did not challenge the OP for the 'Kochs buying the election'... is that because 'proof' is a HuffPuff article? I'm trying to establish a baseline here... a notoriously left wing site is not proof... any more than a notoriously right wing site is proof. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you either. Apparently, I have a higher standard of 'proof' than you do.

 

[peach174]

I don't see Koch Industries listed here;
Romney Top Contributors
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

Obama Top Contributors;
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Notice that JP Morgan gave to both, but they gave a lot more to Obama.
Obama - 808,799
Romney 415,075

How can Koch be buying the elections, when they are not even in the top contributors?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's how democracy works, turd.

H.L. Mencken called elections "present auctions on future goods."

When politicians are promising vast hoards of parasite voters the property of every productive person in America, you can bet people are going to spend vast sums trying to control the outcome of that process.

I didnt ask you how democracy works dummy, I asked Lewman if he thinks it's bad when both sides do it or not?

If no laws are being broken....how do you feel about both sides doing it?

I dont like it...now your turn. How do you feel about both sides doing it?

 

[Meister]

I didnt ask you how democracy works dummy, I asked Lewman if he thinks it's bad when both sides do it or not?

If no laws are being broken....how do you feel about both sides doing it?

I dont like it...now your turn. How do you feel about both sides doing it?

I have no problem with it as long as it's done legally.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are you suggesting that an article in the HuffPuff is 'proof'?

No dummy, I'm asking if he has proof that Soros is buying the election or if it's just his belief he is. Didn't think I needed to spell that out for you

You did not challenge the OP for the 'Kochs buying the election'... is that because 'proof' is a HuffPuff article? I'm trying to establish a baseline here... a notoriously left wing site is not proof... any more than a notoriously right wing site is proof. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you either. Apparently, I have a higher standard of 'proof' than you do.

I also didnt challenge the notion that you are a girl but that isnt because I believe proof is your name. The reason I didnt challenge both things is because that isnt what I chose to talk about. What about it? You want to forward me a breakdown of what my responses should include? Send it to [email protected]