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.
So it does influence but it doesnt influence grown ups. I'm guessing you mean money doesnt influence grown ups but again you just said YOU WONT SAY MONEY DOESNT INFLUENCE BECAUSE....IT DOES you duplicitous whore.
Wow...reading comprehension problem?
Once again, I'm not claiming to know how money influences some vs others. I don't care. What I do care about is that people should be able to spend their money as they see fit. So did the Supreme Court. Sorry if that burns your ass.
And thanks again for proving your inability to avoid ad hominen attacks. Really, really pathetic.
QW entire agruement goes: I'm not saying money doesnt influence it can, but it doesnt everyone, not all the time, but it does.
If that's how your mind works, well, I don't think I can help you.
Good luck.
No one is claiming to know how money influences vs others. Thats like asking how long is a piece of string.
Spending money how they see fit isnt the point either.
So you keep quoting me talking about shit no one else is then say you dont have time to explain. OF COURSE YOU DONT. You cant explain nonsense.
Earl Warren and darling-of-the-Left FDR understood this issue. Worth a read, if you have even a modicum of open mindedness...
Citizens United Decision Fulfilled Earl Warren's First Amendment Vision - Reason.com
Appeal to Authority
If you are so ignorant that you don't know how to educate yourself, then I dont know that I can help you. But i recommend starting with books. Look at facts. Learn how to think and analyze. Learn how to ask questions. Learn logic. etc Basics really.
No one can educate you. You can only educate yourself.
LMAO. So much for teachers.
Fuck you. And here I thought you weren't as stupid as I first thought. Then I will be damned if you don't post up right away and prove once again how fucking stupid you are. Ah well, who gives a flying fuck. I was just making conversation.
But nice of you to prove once again that you can't fix stupid. And make no doubt about it, you are stupid.
If teachers could educate people who don't educate themselves then everyone in school would know everything the teacher does, and no more. It is the innate ability to educate ourselves that allows real people to surpass their teachers.
Wow...reading comprehension problem?
Once again, I'm not claiming to know how money influences some vs others. I don't care. What I do care about is that people should be able to spend their money as they see fit. So did the Supreme Court. Sorry if that burns your ass.
And thanks again for proving your inability to avoid ad hominen attacks. Really, really pathetic.
If that's how your mind works, well, I don't think I can help you.
Good luck.
No one is claiming to know how money influences vs others. Thats like asking how long is a piece of string.
Spending money how they see fit isnt the point either.
So you keep quoting me talking about shit no one else is then say you dont have time to explain. OF COURSE YOU DONT. You cant explain nonsense.
So what is the point? Try stating it clearly without childish name calling and ad hominen attacks. What exactly makes you think it acceptable to ban speech, be that from an individual or a group of people? Why is it okay for the government to effectively ban books and movies? More Marxist nonsense?
Earl Warren and darling-of-the-Left FDR understood this issue. Worth a read, if you have even a modicum of open mindedness...
Citizens United Decision Fulfilled Earl Warren's First Amendment Vision - Reason.com
Appeal to Authority
Got it, we should value your vaguely stated opinion over that of Earl Warren and FDR. Got it...
Yes, yes, we all know that ad hominen attacks are the best you're capable of.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with editing my comment and getting away with it. I framed that remark based on every post of yours I've read, sufficient evidence you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as critical thinking is not your forte.
The rest of my response which made my point clear was that your comment ( "Speech is good. More speech is better' ) is ridiculous when said 'speech' can be delivered anonymously and paid for by China (Bamboo Curtain) or Russia (Iron Curtain). References you left out as a means of censorship to make your thread look sensible.
Right, because only you are capable of determining what speech is worthy for others to hear...'cuz you know what's best for everyone else. Yea, pass.
LMAO. So much for teachers.
Fuck you. And here I thought you weren't as stupid as I first thought. Then I will be damned if you don't post up right away and prove once again how fucking stupid you are. Ah well, who gives a flying fuck. I was just making conversation.
But nice of you to prove once again that you can't fix stupid. And make no doubt about it, you are stupid.
If teachers could educate people who don't educate themselves then everyone in school would know everything the teacher does, and no more. It is the innate ability to educate ourselves that allows real people to surpass their teachers.
Quantum, the question was; how do you educate the willfully ignorant? That was the question.
Not; does a teacher teach or whether or not people educate themselves.
Willfully ignorant meant that regardless of the information presented, the viewer of that information refuses to believe or accept what is being presented. No matter how valid and accurate that information is.
"Willfully ignorant" has not much to do with "teaching" being that people being "taught" generally want to learn the truth about the subject being taught.
No one is claiming to know how money influences vs others. Thats like asking how long is a piece of string.
Spending money how they see fit isnt the point either.
So you keep quoting me talking about shit no one else is then say you dont have time to explain. OF COURSE YOU DONT. You cant explain nonsense.
So what is the point? Try stating it clearly without childish name calling and ad hominen attacks. What exactly makes you think it acceptable to ban speech, be that from an individual or a group of people? Why is it okay for the government to effectively ban books and movies? More Marxist nonsense?
There should be less money in politics not more. Agree or Disagree?
If teachers could educate people who don't educate themselves then everyone in school would know everything the teacher does, and no more. It is the innate ability to educate ourselves that allows real people to surpass their teachers.
Quantum, the question was; how do you educate the willfully ignorant? That was the question.
Not; does a teacher teach or whether or not people educate themselves.
Willfully ignorant meant that regardless of the information presented, the viewer of that information refuses to believe or accept what is being presented. No matter how valid and accurate that information is.
"Willfully ignorant" has not much to do with "teaching" being that people being "taught" generally want to learn the truth about the subject being taught.
The answer was, and is, that we educate ourselves.
Good luck with editing my comment and getting away with it. I framed that remark based on every post of yours I've read, sufficient evidence you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as critical thinking is not your forte.
The rest of my response which made my point clear was that your comment ( "Speech is good. More speech is better' ) is ridiculous when said 'speech' can be delivered anonymously and paid for by China (Bamboo Curtain) or Russia (Iron Curtain). References you left out as a means of censorship to make your thread look sensible.
Right, because only you are capable of determining what speech is worthy for others to hear...'cuz you know what's best for everyone else. Yea, pass.
That's one piss poor defense. I didn't determine that 'speech', i.e. propaganda manufactured by Russia or China was unworthy for others to hear, I simply pointed out my opinion that example is one of the foolish parts of CU v. FEC, it allowed our friends and foes alike to have an impact on our elections by buying advertising anonymously.
Quantum, the question was; how do you educate the willfully ignorant? That was the question.
Not; does a teacher teach or whether or not people educate themselves.
Willfully ignorant meant that regardless of the information presented, the viewer of that information refuses to believe or accept what is being presented. No matter how valid and accurate that information is.
"Willfully ignorant" has not much to do with "teaching" being that people being "taught" generally want to learn the truth about the subject being taught.
The answer was, and is, that we educate ourselves.
And sadly some do, if you're an example of someone who educated themselves. My guess is you needed to put your hand on the stove, since you seem to reject the concept we can learn from others.
Quantum, the question was; how do you educate the willfully ignorant? That was the question.
Not; does a teacher teach or whether or not people educate themselves.
Willfully ignorant meant that regardless of the information presented, the viewer of that information refuses to believe or accept what is being presented. No matter how valid and accurate that information is.
"Willfully ignorant" has not much to do with "teaching" being that people being "taught" generally want to learn the truth about the subject being taught.
The answer was, and is, that we educate ourselves.
And sadly some do, if you're an example of someone who educated themselves. My guess is you needed to put your hand on the stove, since you seem to reject the concept we can learn from others.
No one is claiming to know how money influences vs others. Thats like asking how long is a piece of string.
Spending money how they see fit isnt the point either.
So you keep quoting me talking about shit no one else is then say you dont have time to explain. OF COURSE YOU DONT. You cant explain nonsense.
So what is the point? Try stating it clearly without childish name calling and ad hominen attacks. What exactly makes you think it acceptable to ban speech, be that from an individual or a group of people? Why is it okay for the government to effectively ban books and movies? More Marxist nonsense?
There should be less money in politics not more. Agree or Disagree?
Appeal to Authority
Got it, we should value your vaguely stated opinion over that of Earl Warren and FDR. Got it...
appeal to authority
You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
Good luck with editing my comment and getting away with it. I framed that remark based on every post of yours I've read, sufficient evidence you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as critical thinking is not your forte.
The rest of my response which made my point clear was that your comment ( "Speech is good. More speech is better' ) is ridiculous when said 'speech' can be delivered anonymously and paid for by China (Bamboo Curtain) or Russia (Iron Curtain). References you left out as a means of censorship to make your thread look sensible.
Right, because only you are capable of determining what speech is worthy for others to hear...'cuz you know what's best for everyone else. Yea, pass.
That's one piss poor defense. I didn't determine that 'speech', i.e. propaganda manufactured by Russia or China was unworthy for others to hear, I simply pointed out my opinion that example is one of the foolish parts of CU v. FEC, it allowed our friends and foes alike to have an impact on our elections by buying advertising anonymously.
No one on this planet has unlimited funds. Even if the entire Fortune 500 list put every penny they have into one politician's pocket the rest of the world would still have more money than that one person.
context
at some point an amount of money is spent that is just throwing good after bad. at what point has the message machine saturated the market so much that nothing else can penetrate?
ask the right wingers in the GOP primaries of 2012 who went with Mitt Romney because of all the "limited" funds spent
Damn, Dante has discovered something no one else on the planet has ever seen.
Funny thing, corporations are throwing lots of money at PACS, even though they have it, and don't know about your theory. They haven't been doing it in California, even though there has never been any limits on the amount of money corporations can spend that way in the state.
Or maybe, just maybe, you are not the first person to figure this out.
