Hillary Promises To End Freed Speech

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,001
60,456
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
We are looking into the abyss...and, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'the abyss stares back' in the form of Bill's wife.


"Mrs. Clinton's own announced agenda attacks the very foundation of American Constitutional government, on which Americans' own freedom depends. She has already said that she will appoint Supreme Court justices who will specifically overturn a recent Supreme Court decision, "Citizens United versus FEC."

That decision said that both corporations and labor unions have freedom of speech,... ...extension of the political left's other attempts to stifle the free speech of those who oppose their agenda."
Thomas Sowell - Words Versus Deeds




1. Perhaps the most powerful weapon of the Left is control of the dissemination of information. They control the media, academia, and the education industry, so they control the language of the argument.
Case in point.... the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare,...which we have all found to be far from affordable.
George Orwell named it 'NewSpeak' ....a controlled language created by the totalitarian state.



2. Today's example of the iniquity of the Left is based on the phrase 'campaign finance reform.' It suggests the bettering of a situation....political contributions: it is no such thing.

Central to the issue is " Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations." Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia


3. To see a Liberal sputter with rage, simply mention "Citizens United"! They have been programmed to fume at the case result, claiming that it is geared toward allowing well funded Republicans/conservatives to 'buy' elections.

The truth is, the court decision is the basis for preventing the Left....which is far better funded than the Right...from steam-rollering government on every issue.

It is the only hope for those who endorse free speech.





4. Let's take a prime example, and bring in the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, as our expert witness. " McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.

His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible -- and potent -- only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.

But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history.

.... the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.

Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born." Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts


Starting to see where the truth is?
 
"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.
 
The VOR ,
the wingnuts are gathering every crazy-assed anti-left fantasy they can find so they'll have more reasons to start their little revolution on November 9th.
 
What can one say to the truly ignorant, e.g., post #2?

They have been trained like the intellectual seals that they are to flap their flippers in agreement to whatever their controllers tell them to...

...even when the message is a complete reversal of an earlier bumper-sticker.

Dunces.


Case in point....right from the OP:

4. Let's take a prime example, and bring in the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, as our expert witness. " McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.

His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible -- and potent -- only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.

But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history.

.... the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.

Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born."Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts



Did the Liberals have a problem with McCarthy's campaign against the war?

Is the establishment going to allow it to happen again?

And that's what 'campaign finance reform' means....and that's exactly what Bill's wife plans to shut down.....freedom of speech.
 
After all of PC's maniacal rants about Bill Clinton 'the rapist', isn't it sheer delight to see her emerge as a zealous supporter of Donald Trump?
 
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.
 
"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.



And?
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.


You can't possibly be as stupid as you try to appear.


"Union Is Top Spender for Democrats

By
MELANIE TROTTMAN and

BRODY MULLINS
Updated Nov. 1, 2012 8:07 p.m. ET

The Service Employees International Union has emerged as the top outside spender on Democratic campaigns this year, surpassing even President Barack Obama's main super PAC.

SEIU, like other large entities that spend money on elections, doesn't have to disclose all of its expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. But according to disclosures it has made so far this year, the union has funded almost $70 million..."
Union Is Top Spender for Democrats
 
Last edited:
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.
That's the effect, sure. But the effect is caused by private entities being given civil rights. AKA FoS.
I want it gone. Hell, I would rather elections by funded by the tax payers.
 
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.



This fact, from the OP, doesn't seem to have sunk in:

".... the Left....which is far better funded than the Right..."



Far, far better.
 
We are looking into the abyss...and, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'the abyss stares back' in the form of Bill's wife.


"Mrs. Clinton's own announced agenda attacks the very foundation of American Constitutional government, on which Americans' own freedom depends. She has already said that she will appoint Supreme Court justices who will specifically overturn a recent Supreme Court decision, "Citizens United versus FEC."

That decision said that both corporations and labor unions have freedom of speech,... ...extension of the political left's other attempts to stifle the free speech of those who oppose their agenda."
Thomas Sowell - Words Versus Deeds




1. Perhaps the most powerful weapon of the Left is control of the dissemination of information. They control the media, academia, and the education industry, so they control the language of the argument.
Case in point.... the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare,...which we have all found to be far from affordable.
George Orwell named it 'NewSpeak' ....a controlled language created by the totalitarian state.



2. Today's example of the iniquity of the Left is based on the phrase 'campaign finance reform.' It suggests the bettering of a situation....political contributions: it is no such thing.

Central to the issue is " Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations." Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia


3. To see a Liberal sputter with rage, simply mention "Citizens United"! They have been programmed to fume at the case result, claiming that it is geared toward allowing well funded Republicans/conservatives to 'buy' elections.

The truth is, the court decision is the basis for preventing the Left....which is far better funded than the Right...from steam-rollering government on every issue.

It is the only hope for those who endorse free speech.





4. Let's take a prime example, and bring in the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, as our expert witness. " McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.

His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible -- and potent -- only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.

But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history.

.... the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.

Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born." Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts


Starting to see where the truth is?
she should start with capital letters... :)
 
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.



This fact, from the OP, doesn't seem to have sunk in:

".... the Left....which is far better funded than the Right..."



Far, far better.
Doesn't mean he doesn't want it to end.
 
"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.



And?
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.


You can't possibly be as stupid as you try to appear.


"Union Is Top Spender for Democrats

By
MELANIE TROTTMAN and

BRODY MULLINS
Updated Nov. 1, 2012 8:07 p.m. ET

The Service Employees International Union has emerged as the top outside spender on Democratic campaigns this year, surpassing even President Barack Obama's main super PAC.

SEIU, like other large entities that spend money on elections, doesn't have to disclose all of its expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. But according to disclosures it has made so far this year, the union has funded almost $70 million..."
Union Is Top Spender for Democrats
I'm not picking sides here asshole. Neither unions nor corporations should be allowed to pour money into elections to influence/buy them.
 
We are looking into the abyss...and, to paraphrase Nietzsche, 'the abyss stares back' in the form of Bill's wife.


"Mrs. Clinton's own announced agenda attacks the very foundation of American Constitutional government, on which Americans' own freedom depends. She has already said that she will appoint Supreme Court justices who will specifically overturn a recent Supreme Court decision, "Citizens United versus FEC."

That decision said that both corporations and labor unions have freedom of speech,... ...extension of the political left's other attempts to stifle the free speech of those who oppose their agenda."
Thomas Sowell - Words Versus Deeds




1. Perhaps the most powerful weapon of the Left is control of the dissemination of information. They control the media, academia, and the education industry, so they control the language of the argument.
Case in point.... the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare,...which we have all found to be far from affordable.
George Orwell named it 'NewSpeak' ....a controlled language created by the totalitarian state.



2. Today's example of the iniquity of the Left is based on the phrase 'campaign finance reform.' It suggests the bettering of a situation....political contributions: it is no such thing.

Central to the issue is " Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations." Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia


3. To see a Liberal sputter with rage, simply mention "Citizens United"! They have been programmed to fume at the case result, claiming that it is geared toward allowing well funded Republicans/conservatives to 'buy' elections.

The truth is, the court decision is the basis for preventing the Left....which is far better funded than the Right...from steam-rollering government on every issue.

It is the only hope for those who endorse free speech.





4. Let's take a prime example, and bring in the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, as our expert witness. " McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.

His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible -- and potent -- only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.

But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history.

.... the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.

Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born." Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts


Starting to see where the truth is?
she should start with capital letters... :)

???
 
"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.



And?
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
"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.
Lol, so yes, they did get FoS
Yeah, well I guess some people will interpret things however way they see fit. To me it is influencing/buying elections, not freedom of speech.


You can't possibly be as stupid as you try to appear.


"Union Is Top Spender for Democrats

By
MELANIE TROTTMAN and

BRODY MULLINS
Updated Nov. 1, 2012 8:07 p.m. ET

The Service Employees International Union has emerged as the top outside spender on Democratic campaigns this year, surpassing even President Barack Obama's main super PAC.

SEIU, like other large entities that spend money on elections, doesn't have to disclose all of its expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. But according to disclosures it has made so far this year, the union has funded almost $70 million..."
Union Is Top Spender for Democrats
I'm not picking sides here asshole. Neither unions nor corporations should be allowed to pour money into elections to influence/buy them.



Clean up your language...you're not at home now.



I direct your attention to the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances



The Constitution represents the guidance I endorse for America.

You don't?
 
What can one say to the truly ignorant, e.g., post #2?

They have been trained like the intellectual seals that they are to flap their flippers in agreement to whatever their controllers tell them to...

...even when the message is a complete reversal of an earlier bumper-sticker.

Dunces.


Case in point....right from the OP:

4. Let's take a prime example, and bring in the late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, as our expert witness. " McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.

His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible -- and potent -- only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.

But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history.

.... the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.

Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born."Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts



Did the Liberals have a problem with McCarthy's campaign against the war?

Is the establishment going to allow it to happen again?

And that's what 'campaign finance reform' means....and that's exactly what Bill's wife plans to shut down.....freedom of speech.

They have been trained like the intellectual seals that they are to flap their flippers in agreement to whatever their controllers tell them to...



She sez, while dutifully regurgitating what Mr. Prager has been paid to tell her.
 

Forum List

Back
Top