Constitutional Oligarchy?

[editec]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

Yes,

What more I want an absolutely limit on the amount of money contributed by individuals, no money contributed by corporations and DEATH to any POL who takes foreign contributions.

We have GOT to get foreign money out of our election process, folks.


I don't care if your right or left wing if you cannot understand why that is going to screw this nation, you'd dumber than a ******* brick.

And foreign money being laundered through US political action committees is still allowing foreign influence to decide the outcomes of elections, too.

The US Chamber of Commerce leadership ought to be brought up on charges of treason, folks.

 

[Sallow]

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

Money is not speech.

The Constitution doesn't define money as speech.

And the Supreme Court has been know to make some really bad decisions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow. You've already confirmed that you are a stupid pile of shit.

Now you have simply reconfirmed that.

In the meanwhile, moron, you have no authority to demand that the NAACP turn over its donor list. This must gall you, you poor bombastic dolt.

You are way too dishonest, as well as being an arrogant ass. BTW, my comment in re your sanity should not be judged as an ad hominem attack.
Of course the devil is in the details of any law, and by suggesting full and total transparency may not be practical a rational person might suggest such a law restrict full disclose to anyone who donates over $100.
Suggesting as you do the right of privacy (btw, where is that right codified?) is absurd, for it provides cover for both those who have legitimate purpose and those who do not. The absurdity of your argument lies in the possibility that a foreign nation will have the ability to launder money into a campaign making our great experiment in self rule a shame.
Restricting campaign donations and providing for full disclosure surely comes under the guise of providing for our nations defense, a legitimate role of government even a RW Fringer such as yourself might support.

You are projecting again, Shit.

Unlike you, I happen to be honest. And if you dislike what you perceive as my arrogance, that's just because you don't like any competition, you puss.

Your "comment" about my sanity is irrelevant since you obviously don't have a clue. But it was certainly an ad hominem you lying sack of self (i.e., shit).

In any event, trying to decipher the gibberish you call writing is complicated since you really appear not to grasp the rules of construction. Nonetheless, it appears that you mistakenly believe that I have spoken in "absolutes." There is no valid basis for that idiotic conclusion you came to, stupid. I have not spoken in absolutes (except that you are absolutely a dishonest piece of shit).

The absurdity of your postilion is that like many ******* arrogant asswipe liberoidals, you imagine that you have some justifiable authority to tell others that they are not free to give to the candidates of their choice without having to submit their names to you for inspection. Suck shit, you moron. You have no such authority nor will you ever have any such authority.

No. Foreign nations may not contribute to OUR political candidates. And I'd wager real money that assholes like President Obama have nevertheless been beneficiaries of foreign campaign contributions, like algore was. And if some foreign nations WERE to contribute to the re-election campaign of President Obama, you can rest pretty much assured, you ******* imbecile, that they wouldn't comply with the disclosure laws, either.

What makes you such a stupid shit? Were you dribbled like a basket ball at birth?

By the way, retard, do you in your infinite liberoidal arrogance disagree with the SCOTUS relative to NAACP v. Alabama?

Why do you care for my opinion on NAACP v. Alabama?
As for absolutes (maybe in your martini, which your prose suggests is ample) I detect a hint of the superlative in "Foreign nations may not contribute to OUR political candidates". I suppose if you mean a law prohibits such, that is one thing, but if believe that cannot and do not that is something else - delusion.
As for your unproven allegations and freely calling the President an Asshole, what more evidence is necessary to prove you are as characterized, an arrogant ass.
Oh, and the sanity issue, of course it was a personal attack, though by no means one without some element of truth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

Money is not speech.

The Constitution doesn't define money as speech.

And the Supreme Court has been know to make some really bad decisions.

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

 

[Sallow]

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

Money is not speech.

The Constitution doesn't define money as speech.

And the Supreme Court has been know to make some really bad decisions.

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

This is a bit confusing..

Could you elaborate?

How exactly does the price of a newspaper, run by a private company, equate to free speech?

Or donations?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Money is not speech.

The Constitution doesn't define money as speech.

And the Supreme Court has been know to make some really bad decisions.

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

This is a bit confusing..

Could you elaborate?

How exactly does the price of a newspaper, run by a private company, equate to free speech?

Or donations?

The same way you imagine that suppressing the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on advertising somehow enhances free speech

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

This is a bit confusing..

Could you elaborate?

How exactly does the price of a newspaper, run by a private company, equate to free speech?

Or donations?

The same way you imagine that suppressing the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on advertising somehow enhances free speech

I'd abandon the Newspaper analogy, as it is specifically protected by the Constitution. Trying to say advertising in the paper is or is not free speech is a moot point when it comes to the press.

 

[Liability]

You are way too dishonest, as well as being an arrogant ass. BTW, my comment in re your sanity should not be judged as an ad hominem attack.
Of course the devil is in the details of any law, and by suggesting full and total transparency may not be practical a rational person might suggest such a law restrict full disclose to anyone who donates over $100.
Suggesting as you do the right of privacy (btw, where is that right codified?) is absurd, for it provides cover for both those who have legitimate purpose and those who do not. The absurdity of your argument lies in the possibility that a foreign nation will have the ability to launder money into a campaign making our great experiment in self rule a shame.
Restricting campaign donations and providing for full disclosure surely comes under the guise of providing for our nations defense, a legitimate role of government even a RW Fringer such as yourself might support.

You are projecting again, Shit.

Unlike you, I happen to be honest. And if you dislike what you perceive as my arrogance, that's just because you don't like any competition, you puss.

Your "comment" about my sanity is irrelevant since you obviously don't have a clue. But it was certainly an ad hominem you lying sack of self (i.e., shit).

In any event, trying to decipher the gibberish you call writing is complicated since you really appear not to grasp the rules of construction. Nonetheless, it appears that you mistakenly believe that I have spoken in "absolutes." There is no valid basis for that idiotic conclusion you came to, stupid. I have not spoken in absolutes (except that you are absolutely a dishonest piece of shit).

The absurdity of your postilion is that like many ******* arrogant asswipe liberoidals, you imagine that you have some justifiable authority to tell others that they are not free to give to the candidates of their choice without having to submit their names to you for inspection. Suck shit, you moron. You have no such authority nor will you ever have any such authority.

No. Foreign nations may not contribute to OUR political candidates. And I'd wager real money that assholes like President Obama have nevertheless been beneficiaries of foreign campaign contributions, like algore was. And if some foreign nations WERE to contribute to the re-election campaign of President Obama, you can rest pretty much assured, you ******* imbecile, that they wouldn't comply with the disclosure laws, either.

What makes you such a stupid shit? Were you dribbled like a basket ball at birth?

By the way, retard, do you in your infinite liberoidal arrogance disagree with the SCOTUS relative to NAACP v. Alabama?

Why do you care for my opinion on NAACP v. Alabama?

LOL. Nice evasion. I am not actually terribly concerned with your opinion about anything in this universe. But it DOES serve as a useful point of departure to address the topic. And, Fly Catcher, that is kind of the point of any debate or discussion. The NAACP case kind of undermines you stupid argument, so it's clear why you prefer ducking it.

As for absolutes (maybe in your martini, which your prose suggests is ample) I detect a hint of the superlative in "Foreign nations may not contribute to OUR political candidates". I suppose if you mean a law prohibits such, that is one thing, but if believe that cannot and do not that is something else - delusion.

Assholes like you truly cannot follow simple and straightforward lines of reasoning. Try to pay attention this time, stupid. A LAW prohibits the behavior. IF a foreign donator elected to violate that law (or if a candidate chose to illegally accept the foreigner's contribution), then the DISCLOSURE LAW you seem to so highly cherish wouldn't be too much of a ******* impediment. Now, would it? I mean, even a shithead of your abysmally low intellectual capacity SHOULD be able to reason it out. IF a person is willing to VIOLATE one law, then does it not stand to reason that he MIGHT choose to violate another law that would compel him to "tell on himself?"

I realize this analysis sails over your pinhead at mach speeds, Shit, but maybe you can get some adult to assist you here.

As for your unproven allegations and freely calling the President an Asshole, what more evidence is necessary to prove you are as characterized, an arrogant ass.

I consider this President to BE an asshole That is called an opinion, you ******* moron. Having that opinion doesn't make me "arrogant." It makes me a person with an opinion., You have an opinion,. too. And, coincidentally, you ARE an arrogant piece of shit. But that's just a coincidence.

On a side note: I'm afraid your prose is once again totally unclear since you offer no clue as to which of my allegations you deem to be "unproven." You really need to get some help in your composition, Shit.

Oh, and the sanity issue, of course it was a personal attack, though by no means one without some element of truth.

It was of course a personal attack DESPITE your dishonest prior claim that it wasn't an ad hominem, you self-contradicting imbecile. And, no. Like most of the shit you spew, there was and is no element of truth in it. You wouldn't recognize truth, anyway, you scumbag pissant.

 

[Liability]

You "read into" it that I have somehow declared that I will meekly accept being silenced. Yep. You are a ******* imbecile.

Its ok. I'll care what you think when you're willing to stand behind your words.

I already do stand behind MY words. You are the dishonest one, so there's no particular reason for anybody to "care" about your words, fucktard.

I'm not sure why Conservatives, who generally defend things like the NSA wiretaps, preach the line "If you've got nothing to hide...." but then lose it when asked to disclose sources of funding for their candidates. It's like you believe in a right to privacy when it's your privacy at stake, but when it's someone else, screw 'em.

Wrong again, shithead. I happen to support the NSA Surveillance program. And while there IS a modicum of rationality behind the logic "if you've got nothing to hide . . ." THAT is not the basis for my support of the NSA Surveillance Program. So your putrid analysis kind of just crumbles and decomposes there.

Take a look at the hypocriscy folks. How many threads do we see a week demanding Obama disclose all manner of crap. Transcripts, donor lists, grocery lists, etc. Yet when asked to be willing to give the election process transparency.... no way.

LOL! The hypocrisy is all President OBama's. He LOVES to make demands of others for full disclosure, but he won't even share his own birth certificate or his own transcripts from college and law school.

It is really unfortunate that you are so comfortable being an asshole. If it were otherwise you might have the ability to persuade. At present though, you merely make noise.

So tell me, genius, was Alabama RIGHT (back in those days) to insist that the NAACP should be obligated to disclose its donors TO the State of Alabama? If not, why not?

 

[Sallow]

Money..does not equal speech.

According to the Supreme Court it does. Take it up with them.

And everything coming down from the Supreme Court is the correct decision? Is the Supreme Court infallible?

 

[Liability]

Money..does not equal speech.

According to the Supreme Court it does. Take it up with them.

And everything coming down from the Supreme Court is the correct decision? Is the Supreme Court infallible?

No. Of course not. But when they're right, they're right.

And money does not always equal speech. Otherwise there could never be ANY legitimate restrictions on where we may permissibly spend our income. But there ARE such restrictions. For example, if I REALLY wanted to buy an ounce of cocaine, knew where to get it and had sufficient disposable income to purchase it, any such effort could get me arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated. And if I tried to protest "You're stifling my First Amendment Right To FREEDOM of SPEECH," I'd also be properly and justifiably mocked on my way into the prison cell.

Yet there are times when spending money IS absolutely the same as speech.

It is not invalid for the SCOTUS to recognize as much.

 

[Big Fitz]

Money..does not equal speech.

According to the Supreme Court it does. Take it up with them.

And everything coming down from the Supreme Court is the correct decision? Is the Supreme Court infallible?

Never claimed it was. Just pointing out your error. then again, if you want to go down this road, free speech is limited to words, not actions. That would slit the throat of lots of stupid protesters antics.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

[

I already do stand behind MY words.

Except of course when you're worried about intimidation. [sarcasm]Good to know you have principles though.[/sarcasm]

Look, I can't help it you're scared to actually let people see the causes you support. I really hope you can dig deep and find some balls one day. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be spending time trying to clean up the corruption that's infested our political system on both the Left and the Right sides of the aisle. Let me know when you have the courage to help.

 

[Sallow]

According to the Supreme Court it does. Take it up with them.

And everything coming down from the Supreme Court is the correct decision? Is the Supreme Court infallible?

Never claimed it was. Just pointing out your error. then again, if you want to go down this road, free speech is limited to words, not actions. That would slit the throat of lots of stupid protesters antics.

Error? What error?

And how would that curtail protesting? The right of assembly is specifically protected by the Constitution.

 

[Liability]

[

I already do stand behind MY words.

Except of course when you're worried about intimidation. [sarcasm]Good to know you have principles though.[/sarcasm]

Wrong again. Or just deliberately dishonest of you. Standing behind my word, you imbecile, does not mean I have to do so in a manner that exposes my loved ones to intimidation from your fellow travelers. You are one stupid ************. [Note: no sarcasm whatsoever.]

Look, I can't help it you're scared to actually let people see the causes you support. I really hope you can dig deep and find some balls one day. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be spending time trying to clean up the corruption that's infested our political system on both the Left and the Right sides of the aisle. Let me know when you have the courage to help.

I can't help it if you can't argue logically or with honesty and integrity. But there you are.

My balls are not your concern, you dishonest little *****.

There ARE ways of cleaning up corruption, too, you ******* shithead. But the viable methodology for doing so does NOT have to include suppression of free speech to suit your partisan motives. So, eat some more shit, asshole, bark at the moon and stick it up your ass.

Let me know if you ever find the courage necessary to be honest. I will not hold my breath waiting for that glorious day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is a bit confusing..

Could you elaborate?

How exactly does the price of a newspaper, run by a private company, equate to free speech?

Or donations?

The same way you imagine that suppressing the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on advertising somehow enhances free speech

I'd abandon the Newspaper analogy, as it is specifically protected by the Constitution. Trying to say advertising in the paper is or is not free speech is a moot point when it comes to the press.

Newspapers aren't specifically protected in my copy of the Constitution, which oddly enough, does not mention limits on political advertising either

 

[Wry Catcher]

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

Money is not speech.

The Constitution doesn't define money as speech.

And the Supreme Court has been know to make some really bad decisions.

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Money is not speech.

The Constitution doesn't define money as speech.

And the Supreme Court has been know to make some really bad decisions.

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

 

[Liability]

Seriously? So the SCOTUS should regulate the prices of newspapers because it's money and not speech?

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

According to the "logic" of some liberals here, if a person wished to write an editorial, but wished to make his identity anonymous, he would not enjoy the Freedom of the Press (i.e., in that case, evidently, these libs think it would be ok to abridge the freedom of the press)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not a clue, have you Frank. Newspapers report news and print editorials. Most keep the two sections separate, and the name of those who own the paper, run the paper and write for the paper are known - not hidden or private. Letters to the editor, op-eds have attribution.

Are editorials not protected by the Constitution?

According to the "logic" of some liberals here, if a person wished to write an editorial, but wished to make his identity anonymous, he would not enjoy the Freedom of the Press (i.e., in that case, evidently, these libs think it would be ok to abridge the freedom of the press)

They must be using Constitution 2.0.