Hillary Promises To End Freed Speech

[PoliticalChic]

Something about this thread seems to have set our Liberal pals off. What could it be?

The lie that overturning CU would be the end of free speech.

imo.

I never lie.

Proving your fascistic instincts was a bonus of sorts.

Your posts always contain a lie. Sometime subtle, sometimes not.

Sooooo.....why is it that you have yet to find any?

You certainly try hard in order to assuage your anti-Americanism.

 

[NoNukes]

The woman is a moron.

Son, she pisses out more IQ points every morning than you and NYC combined ever mustered...

So that is where they all went.

 

[BlindBoo]

why is it that you have yet to find any

That's two. Want to got for the hat trick again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

why is it that you have yet to find any

That's two. Want to got for the hat trick again?

The real dunces....e.g., you.....scream 'you lie! you lie!' when the absence of examples is the best proof that I never do so.

That...and the fact that Liberalism is based on , advanced by, and filled with lies.


Your current post a perfect example.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. What is the real motive for 'campaign finance reform'?

"...incumbents generally do not need to spend as much money as their challengers must spend. Hence incumbents write laws making fundraising more difficult.
Those who advocate restricting how much money we can contribute to candidates, or how much money candidates can spend on campaigns, always say the same thing. They say, "We are only restricting money, and money is not speech."


To see how silly this distinction is, consider the following:
The New York Times constantly says that money is not speech and therefore the spending of money can be restricted without restricting freedom of speech. But suppose conservatives controlled Congress and said to the New York Times: We of course would never restrict the freedom of the Times to practice journalism -- Heaven forbid! We are only going to restrict the amount of money the Times can spend on gathering the news and distributing its newspapers -- the amount it can spend on journalists, paper, ink, printing presses, delivery trucks, advertisements, and so on.



... the Times would strenuously object. It would say:
Money is indispensable for making our speech effective. That is true, and not just for the Times." Money in Politics: What's the Problem?



The use of one's money, spent to advance a political view.....is free speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As the United States Supreme Court has decided.....money should be equated with political free speech.....Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

And this is what Bill's wife has sworn to reverse.


11. "Without ample money, no congressional candidate can speak to an entire congressional district; and no Senate candidate can communicate to an entire state; and no presidential candidate can make his or her case to our continental nation. Contributing to candidates is one of the most common forms of political participation. So restricting campaign contributions reduces participation.

The only constitutional way to reduce the amount of money invested in politics is to reduce the role of politics in the distribution of money. If government were not so big, if it were not so busy allocating wealth and opportunity to the politically well-connected, then politics would be less important in our lives, and less money would be spent on it.

So the next time someone says we should make government even bigger by giving it the power to regulate speech, tell that person that what we really need is more speech advocating less government." Money in Politics: What's the Problem?





With the premise of this thread proven and documented, all that remains is to see which political perspectives aims to limit speech, and, thus, political participation.

Whether one refers to that perspective as Liberalism, Progressivism, Fascism, whatever.....the result is the same.

Remember that in November.

 

[OKTexas]

"Citizens United versus FEC."

That decision said that both corporations and labor unions have freedom of speech

No. That decision stated that those entities have the freedom to pour as much money into elections as they want to in order to influence/buy said elections.

That's a lie, it didn't change the financing restrictions in the law one bit. It basically just got rid of the restrictions on speech prior to elections.