The Great Experiment is over.

[Momanohedhunter]

Whats your problem now?

He obviously gets his ass kicked by kids on Call Of Duty on Xbox and wants the court to fix it for him. LOL

I thought it was Halo ?

 

[Steelplate]

Free speech allows us to be anonymous. If you don't like that, fine. But the government can't silence it. If it could, every internet chat board would be in danger.

Bullshit analogy. Internet Chat Boards are individual people speaking our minds. Forums like this is very much what Freedom of Speech is all about. Funneling money into a Candidate's coffers in a roundabout way is not Freedom of speech... it's buying elections. Possibly with foreign money. Why would you be OK with foreign interests helping to decide OUR Elections?

Internet messageboards, despite the anonymous nature of them - good. Speaking out in the political process before an election while remaining anonymous - bad.

You guys are seriously inconsistant here. Speech is speech whether its online or on television, whether it's during the political offseason or the middle of an election. The standard is the same "Congress shall make no law" - End of discussion.

If you don't like it. Amend the Constitution. But dont tell us we should silence one speech you dont like but allow speech you do like. It's bullcrap. You are a freakin hypocrite if you will fight for your own free speech while attacking that of others.

you are equating money with speech. huge difference.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

The Court has said that Money rules AGAIN. See: Citizens United for a primer

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

So you agree w/ Gingrich that $= speech? Therefore more $ = more speech. Who do you think your Rep is going to spend more time with, some blue collar worker, or any worker from his/her district for that matter, or a lobbyist from Exxon?

What do Bill Clinton or Al Gore charge for a Speech ? Id it bad if they get money for it ? Hell, If I could get a group of people to pay me $100,000 + to prattle on for an hour or two I would do it with out shame.

 

[Steelplate]

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

So you agree w/ Gingrich that $= speech? Therefore more $ = more speech. Who do you think your Rep is going to spend more time with, some blue collar worker, or any worker from his/her district for that matter, or a lobbyist from Exxon?

What do Bill Clinton or Al Gore charge for a Speech ? Id it bad if they get money for it ? Hell, If I could get a group of people to pay me $100,000 + to prattle on for an hour or two I would do it with out shame.

wow... so now you are equating "giving a speech" with Freedom of speech... quite the thin limb you are crawling out on. Damn near crazy

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Oh, I misunderstood. So then are you talking about donations to political parties being considered free speech then ?

 

[Steelplate]

Oh, I misunderstood. So then are you talking about donations to political parties being considered free speech then ?

I am talking about SuperPacs being allowed to donate in an unlimited, anonymous fashion... to any political party.

Let's put it this way. Let's suppose George Soros started a SuperPac and went to every Communist country and collected money from them to get Communists elected... would you be OK with that?

I'm talking REAL Communists, not the Shiites' rantings about Democrats.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Hm. Do you honestly think that thees guys dont have teams of lawyers working on ways to get moneys to politicians ? I mean, its politicians here, they as well as lawyers are not known for integrity.

 

[Steelplate]

Hm. Do you honestly think that thees guys dont have teams of lawyers working on ways to get moneys to politicians ? I mean, its politicians here, they as well as lawyers are not known for integrity.

so... I'll put you down as a "yes... I'm ok with that" then.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why should there be any limit at all on what people can contribute where there no limit on how much the government can overspend?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

So in your opinion a corporation, industry or cartel is a person, with all rights and responsibilities? If correct, shouldn't the CEO, CFO and each and every stockholder of Exxon Mobil be jailed for polluting the Yellowstone River?

Fuck that..how about Warren Anderson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Anderson_(chairman)

That fuck was responsible for the deaths of close to 10,000 people.

And the heads of all tobacco companies who have killed many more.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Hm. Do you honestly think that thees guys dont have teams of lawyers working on ways to get moneys to politicians ? I mean, its politicians here, they as well as lawyers are not known for integrity.

so... I'll put you down as a "yes... I'm ok with that" then.

I guess. I am not seeing ware you are coming from. I say anyone can give what they want, but only above the table. Even the Communist if you like.

 

[Steelplate]

Why should there be any limit at all on what people can contribute where there no limit on how much the government can overspend?

truthfully... as I have said before, I don't care about the limits. i care about the anonymity.

People should know that a SuperPac is a Corporate funded entity looking out for their interests, pretending to be looking out for the "people". Likewise... they should know that another SuperPac is really a Communist front, collecting money from other like minded countries/people.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

So in your opinion a corporation, industry or cartel is a person, with all rights and responsibilities? If correct, shouldn't the CEO, CFO and each and every stockholder of Exxon Mobil be jailed for polluting the Yellowstone River?

Fuck that..how about Warren Anderson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Anderson_(chairman)

That fuck was responsible for the deaths of close to 10,000 people.

And the heads of all tobacco companies who have killed many more.

And alcohol producers who have killed three times as maney.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Why should there be any limit at all on what people can contribute where there no limit on how much the government can overspend?

truthfully... as I have said before, I don't care about the limits. i care about the anonymity.

People should know that a SuperPac is a Corporate funded entity looking out for their interests, pretending to be looking out for the "people". Likewise... they should know that another SuperPac is really a Communist front, collecting money from other like minded countries/people.

Anonymity is not good. I agree.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Bullshit analogy. Internet Chat Boards are individual people speaking our minds. Forums like this is very much what Freedom of Speech is all about. Funneling money into a Candidate's coffers in a roundabout way is not Freedom of speech... it's buying elections. Possibly with foreign money. Why would you be OK with foreign interests helping to decide OUR Elections?

Internet messageboards, despite the anonymous nature of them - good. Speaking out in the political process before an election while remaining anonymous - bad.

You guys are seriously inconsistant here. Speech is speech whether its online or on television, whether it's during the political offseason or the middle of an election. The standard is the same "Congress shall make no law" - End of discussion.

If you don't like it. Amend the Constitution. But dont tell us we should silence one speech you dont like but allow speech you do like. It's bullcrap. You are a freakin hypocrite if you will fight for your own free speech while attacking that of others.

you are equating money with speech. huge difference.

And that is how we got Obama.

So, y'all are cool with that?

 

[Steelplate]

Internet messageboards, despite the anonymous nature of them - good. Speaking out in the political process before an election while remaining anonymous - bad.

You guys are seriously inconsistant here. Speech is speech whether its online or on television, whether it's during the political offseason or the middle of an election. The standard is the same "Congress shall make no law" - End of discussion.

If you don't like it. Amend the Constitution. But dont tell us we should silence one speech you dont like but allow speech you do like. It's bullcrap. You are a freakin hypocrite if you will fight for your own free speech while attacking that of others.

you are equating money with speech. huge difference.

And that is how we got Obama.

So, y'all are cool with that?

oh... a quip from the peanut gallery... why am i not surprised?

 

[P F Tinmore]

All I am saying is that corporate money sold us Obama like a bag of chips.

That is why corporate money should stay out of politics.

 

[Kuros]

Okay, so the thread title is "The Great Experiment is over." And the complaint is, the Supreme Court has struck down a California law outright prohibiting violent video games.

Does the OP fancy hyperbole much?

 

[sitarro]

The Court has said that Money rules AGAIN. See: Citizens United for a primer

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

.....Except (of course) Unions, right?

We wouldn't want anyone....below the grade o' CEO....making life difficult for Corporate America.

I was forced into the extortion of union dues by the asshole Teamsters....... a truly worthless corporation. They produce nothing and make billions a year, bunch of illiterate thugs who bully their way through life. But they claim to have gotten me a 30 cent raise, oh boy. Unions suck.......literally.

 

[Too Tall]

I actually have no problem with the amount of money(unlimited). I have a problem with the anonymity. That part is bullshit. If the "people" want to speak up... let them do so in the open. The problem is, most of these superpacs aren't people... they are Corporations and really rich people trying to sway the public into voting for Corporate interests, not their own. Not only that... but it also leaves a back door for foreign money helping to determine our elections. The Chamber of Commerce may have already done so... they collected huge amounts from foreign countries around the time of the 2010 election... but claim that none of "that" money was used in their SuperPac ads. But the truth is... we'll never know, and they don't have to tell. Like I said... Bullshit.

Free speech allows us to be anonymous. If you don't like that, fine. But the government can't silence it. If it could, every internet chat board would be in danger.

Bullshit analogy. Internet Chat Boards are individual people speaking our minds. Forums like this is very much what Freedom of Speech is all about. Funneling money into a Candidate's coffers in a roundabout way is not Freedom of speech... it's buying elections. Possibly with foreign money. Why would you be OK with foreign interests helping to decide OUR Elections?

They already have! Bill Clinton got MILLIONS in foreign money to put him in office. Do the names James Riady, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung or John Huang ring a bell?
Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
But, after spending this foreign money and getting re-elected, they SAID they returned the money. Sure they did!