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.
You have to spend money to buy air time. And air time is speech. If you ban the spending of money, you are banning access to free speech.
It's very simple to grasp if...you know...you want to.
Oh, and Bernie is not going to be President. Bank it.
Bank it! Get it? BWA-HA-HA-HA!
Using money to buy air time and print time creates an unlevel playing field and and prevents honest, open and critical debate on candidates and issues.
It's really that simple, for those capable of understanding.
Using print has been part of campaigning since the founding of the Country. Proxies used to campaign for candidates in local areas. How is that different from current print/internet and TV commercials?
Internet and TV political commercials weren't used by Jefferson to win his first election as POTUS? And print attacks were limited to large population centers not every farm house in the states.
Propaganda didn't become a science until the 20th Century and no such thing as SuperPACS existed untl recently.
The world has changed and so have the rules. Soon the Supreme Court will act on labor unions right to use dues of its members to support initiatives, and elected officials who support the working men and women which will benefit of SuperPACS and corporate power.
Propaganda has been around and applied since a neanderthal painted a dirty cave picture of his opposition for Chief.
People used to go to the town squares and markets to espouse the virtues of the candidates, its the same thing as TV commercials and internet broadcasts today, except it costs more money.
You may be so brainwashed, partisan and closed of mind that your ability to think has been extinguished.
You can donate your hard-earned nickles and dimes to an association which can greatly amplify your voice. That's another freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Free association.
There's a big megaphone outlet for every cause. No one is excluded or locked out. Those who say otherwise are lying to you.
The evidence is right in front of you. The very politicians who whine about big money in politics are raking it in.
Again, each side will try to tailor any money restrictions to help their side, and hurt the other.
Letting everyone spend as they see fit is better than trying to control it.
Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day
Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day - CNNPolitics.com
Why don't Republicans want YOU (all of us) to know who gives them money?
You really think the Dem senators wanted it to pass? They knew they had a safe "no vote" to play up for the rubes, like you.
Take your personal attack and shove up your ass, assuming the unlikely that with your head there room still exists.
You have no way of knowing what motivated a senator to support disclosure, yet it is self evident why the Republicans voted against it.
Many conservatives wish to dumb down Americans, as do many liberals. Libertarians are already dumbed down, so no need to worry about them.The hypocrisy of this post has opened up a rift in the time space continuum.Yup, Marty does not have much to offer.Let's see, you used 50 + words to post an ad hominem; and not one word to rebut what I posted.You must be one of those people that believe the Ideal Gas Law applies to all situations as well. Reality impinges upon the fantasy that seems to muddle in your head. And the fact that you blame this only on "conservatives" means you are either blind, a hack, or a bit of both.
Also, your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever, I suggest taking a breath and trying to re-type it.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
You can donate your hard-earned nickles and dimes to an association which can greatly amplify your voice. That's another freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Free association.
There's a big megaphone outlet for every cause. No one is excluded or locked out. Those who say otherwise are lying to you.
The evidence is right in front of you. The very politicians who whine about big money in politics are raking it in.
Again, each side will try to tailor any money restrictions to help their side, and hurt the other.
Letting everyone spend as they see fit is better than trying to control it.
Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day
Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day - CNNPolitics.com
Why don't Republicans want YOU (all of us) to know who gives them money?
You really think the Dem senators wanted it to pass? They knew they had a safe "no vote" to play up for the rubes, like you.
Take your personal attack and shove up your ass, assuming the unlikely that with your head there room still exists.
You have no way of knowing what motivated a senator to support disclosure, yet it is self evident why the Republicans voted against it.
If you read between the lines of the votes and the rhetoric, you can see that the dems knew this wasn't going to pass, and simply got themselves a "gotcha" vote for a 1 minute sound-bite.
Dems are funded by mostly the same big corporations as republicans are.
Many conservatives wish to dumb down Americans, as do many liberals. Libertarians are already dumbed down, so no need to worry about them.The hypocrisy of this post has opened up a rift in the time space continuum.Yup, Marty does not have much to offer.Let's see, you used 50 + words to post an ad hominem; and not one word to rebut what I posted.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
"Independent minded"? Hardly, the first order of the mind of an independent thinker seeking to solve a problem is to define the problem and then seek a "what works" solution.
Limiting the range of ideas so that they will mesh with a dogmatic ideology is not what I would consider the practice of intelligent and independent thinker.
Again, each side will try to tailor any money restrictions to help their side, and hurt the other.
Letting everyone spend as they see fit is better than trying to control it.
Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day
Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day - CNNPolitics.com
Why don't Republicans want YOU (all of us) to know who gives them money?
You really think the Dem senators wanted it to pass? They knew they had a safe "no vote" to play up for the rubes, like you.
Take your personal attack and shove up your ass, assuming the unlikely that with your head there room still exists.
You have no way of knowing what motivated a senator to support disclosure, yet it is self evident why the Republicans voted against it.
If you read between the lines of the votes and the rhetoric, you can see that the dems knew this wasn't going to pass, and simply got themselves a "gotcha" vote for a 1 minute sound-bite.
Dems are funded by mostly the same big corporations as republicans are.
Mostly funded doesn't tell the whole story. The R's get more money from organizations, the D's from individuals:
Soft Money Backgrounder | OpenSecrets
Full disclosure of this money ought to be given to the public by the Political Parties (BOTH OF THEM) and Individuals who donate more than $99.00, IMO.
Many conservatives wish to dumb down Americans, as do many liberals. Libertarians are already dumbed down, so no need to worry about them.The hypocrisy of this post has opened up a rift in the time space continuum.Yup, Marty does not have much to offer.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
"Independent minded"? Hardly, the first order of the mind of an independent thinker seeking to solve a problem is to define the problem and then seek a "what works" solution.
Limiting the range of ideas so that they will mesh with a dogmatic ideology is not what I would consider the practice of intelligent and independent thinker.
Yes, independent minded. It doesn't mean "coming to the same conclusions WryCatcher comes to". You progs are so freaking full of yourselves.
And when it comes to dogmatic ideology, Progressives take the fucking cake, followed closely by social conservatives. This isn't an accusation or a condemnation, its just my observation.
Again, ideas are the Religion of Progressives, and those ideas become dogma.
Say what?!?!Using money to buy air time and print time creates an unlevel playing field
Say what?!?!Using money to buy air time and print time creates an unlevel playing field
BWA-HA-HA-HA!
What an incredibly stupid, ignorant, and un-American thing to say.
I wish I still had a copy of the original McCain-Feingold bill.
In the original bill, the Congressional franking privilege was removed during an election year.
That provision lasted about as long as the proverbial snowball in hell.
This is just more proof we have an American Politboro. There was no way in hell Congress was going to pass a bill which took away the advantages of incumbents.
All that matters is the actual legislation, not someone's wishes and desires.I wish I still had a copy of the original McCain-Feingold bill.
In the original bill, the Congressional franking privilege was removed during an election year.
That provision lasted about as long as the proverbial snowball in hell.
This is just more proof we have an American Politboro. There was no way in hell Congress was going to pass a bill which took away the advantages of incumbents.
You might do some research before spotting off on this issue. There are a number of incumbents who support full disclosure and some who want to keep it out of the public domain:
Lacking votes, Senate GOP delays action on donation disclosures
From the link:
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) has pushed unsuccessfully for days to garner support for legislation that would drop reporting on political contributors' employers and allow unions and corporations to give money to political parties and legislative campaign committees. Wealthy donors also could give as much as they wanted to those entities controlled by party and legislative leaders, which could then pass them on to candidates.
Many conservatives wish to dumb down Americans, as do many liberals. Libertarians are already dumbed down, so no need to worry about them.The hypocrisy of this post has opened up a rift in the time space continuum.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
"Independent minded"? Hardly, the first order of the mind of an independent thinker seeking to solve a problem is to define the problem and then seek a "what works" solution.
Limiting the range of ideas so that they will mesh with a dogmatic ideology is not what I would consider the practice of intelligent and independent thinker.
Yes, independent minded. It doesn't mean "coming to the same conclusions WryCatcher comes to". You progs are so freaking full of yourselves.
And when it comes to dogmatic ideology, Progressives take the fucking cake, followed closely by social conservatives. This isn't an accusation or a condemnation, its just my observation.
Again, ideas are the Religion of Progressives, and those ideas become dogma.
You're entitled to your opinion but I would like a bit more explanation as to what dogma a progressive might have, especially one which conflicts with your libertarian bent.
What comes to mind is liberty, the Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Marriage? In short the freedom to be treated equally by law and equity (fairness or justice in the way people are treated).
I admit, the progressive income tax does not benefit the higher earner, and will take that on if you choose to go there.
Many conservatives wish to dumb down Americans, as do many liberals. Libertarians are already dumbed down, so no need to worry about them.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
"Independent minded"? Hardly, the first order of the mind of an independent thinker seeking to solve a problem is to define the problem and then seek a "what works" solution.
Limiting the range of ideas so that they will mesh with a dogmatic ideology is not what I would consider the practice of intelligent and independent thinker.
Yes, independent minded. It doesn't mean "coming to the same conclusions WryCatcher comes to". You progs are so freaking full of yourselves.
And when it comes to dogmatic ideology, Progressives take the fucking cake, followed closely by social conservatives. This isn't an accusation or a condemnation, its just my observation.
Again, ideas are the Religion of Progressives, and those ideas become dogma.
You're entitled to your opinion but I would like a bit more explanation as to what dogma a progressive might have, especially one which conflicts with your libertarian bent.
What comes to mind is liberty, the Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Marriage? In short the freedom to be treated equally by law and equity (fairness or justice in the way people are treated).
I admit, the progressive income tax does not benefit the higher earner, and will take that on if you choose to go there.
The issue isn't the end result or the goal, its how to get there. What would an ERA accomplish besides enriching lawyers? People are people legally, but genders are different biologically. Why shouldn't some laws or regs be tailored to men/women as needed? An ERA would end that.
Gay marriage is not a problem, forcing states to issue them via vague notions of "rights" is the problem.
Progressive income taxes are a symptom of the idea that taxes are some great correcter of wrongs instead of their actual purpose, funding government.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
"Independent minded"? Hardly, the first order of the mind of an independent thinker seeking to solve a problem is to define the problem and then seek a "what works" solution.
Limiting the range of ideas so that they will mesh with a dogmatic ideology is not what I would consider the practice of intelligent and independent thinker.
Yes, independent minded. It doesn't mean "coming to the same conclusions WryCatcher comes to". You progs are so freaking full of yourselves.
And when it comes to dogmatic ideology, Progressives take the fucking cake, followed closely by social conservatives. This isn't an accusation or a condemnation, its just my observation.
Again, ideas are the Religion of Progressives, and those ideas become dogma.
You're entitled to your opinion but I would like a bit more explanation as to what dogma a progressive might have, especially one which conflicts with your libertarian bent.
What comes to mind is liberty, the Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Marriage? In short the freedom to be treated equally by law and equity (fairness or justice in the way people are treated).
I admit, the progressive income tax does not benefit the higher earner, and will take that on if you choose to go there.
The issue isn't the end result or the goal, its how to get there. What would an ERA accomplish besides enriching lawyers? People are people legally, but genders are different biologically. Why shouldn't some laws or regs be tailored to men/women as needed? An ERA would end that.
Gay marriage is not a problem, forcing states to issue them via vague notions of "rights" is the problem.
Progressive income taxes are a symptom of the idea that taxes are some great correcter of wrongs instead of their actual purpose, funding government.
#1 See: ERA: FAQ
#2 There is nothing vague about a marriage contract, it is enforceable by law and allows a couple to forge a long term mutually beneficial relationship.
#3 Progressive taxes serve a purpose far beyond simply funding government (which do to unfunded wars and other acts of congress don't even do that). A nation which elects representatives to do the public business is at great risk when a single person or corporation has influence far and beyond the ability of We the People to establish policy and law.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
How smart do you have to be to play "follow the leader?"
"Independent minded"? Hardly, the first order of the mind of an independent thinker seeking to solve a problem is to define the problem and then seek a "what works" solution.
Limiting the range of ideas so that they will mesh with a dogmatic ideology is not what I would consider the practice of intelligent and independent thinker.
Yes, independent minded. It doesn't mean "coming to the same conclusions WryCatcher comes to". You progs are so freaking full of yourselves.
And when it comes to dogmatic ideology, Progressives take the fucking cake, followed closely by social conservatives. This isn't an accusation or a condemnation, its just my observation.
Again, ideas are the Religion of Progressives, and those ideas become dogma.
You're entitled to your opinion but I would like a bit more explanation as to what dogma a progressive might have, especially one which conflicts with your libertarian bent.
What comes to mind is liberty, the Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Marriage? In short the freedom to be treated equally by law and equity (fairness or justice in the way people are treated).
I admit, the progressive income tax does not benefit the higher earner, and will take that on if you choose to go there.
The issue isn't the end result or the goal, its how to get there. What would an ERA accomplish besides enriching lawyers? People are people legally, but genders are different biologically. Why shouldn't some laws or regs be tailored to men/women as needed? An ERA would end that.
Gay marriage is not a problem, forcing states to issue them via vague notions of "rights" is the problem.
Progressive income taxes are a symptom of the idea that taxes are some great correcter of wrongs instead of their actual purpose, funding government.
#1 See: ERA: FAQ
#2 There is nothing vague about a marriage contract, it is enforceable by law and allows a couple to forge a long term mutually beneficial relationship.
#3 Progressive taxes serve a purpose far beyond simply funding government (which do to unfunded wars and other acts of congress don't even do that). A nation which elects representatives to do the public business is at great risk when a single person or corporation has influence far and beyond the ability of We the People to establish policy and law.
The issue is not that you want to take money out of politics, you want to take the other sides money out of politics.
The only way to remove money from politics is to elect robots.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
The issue is not that you want to take money out of politics, you want to take the other sides money out of politics.
Nah. You just pretend we do. Boring.
The only way to remove money from politics is to elect robots.
Strawman. Nobody ever said money could be completely removed from politics. The other western democracies use varying degrees of public campaign financing. Therefore, money has much less influence on their politics. And it certainly hasn't caused their democracies to dissolve from some imaginary lack of free speech.
Small "l" libertarians are usually independent minded, and tend to be smarter than the average bear.
It's funny to watch herds of libertarians bleating "We're so independent!" in unison.
