Hillary Promises To End Freed Speech

[PoliticalChic]

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.

So...you can't find anything to disagree with in the exposition?

In effect....total agreement on your part.

Chalk up another dunce falling in line.

Excellent.

 

[The VOR]

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?

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

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?

I seriously doubt back in 1791 when they wrote those words, they envisioned the SCOTUS interpreting their words to give Citizens United and other organizations --- yes, unions also -- the freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence/buy elections. Kind of got twisted around like those well-regulated militia words in the 2nd.

As for me cleaning up my language, all I can say to that is I will not allow you to abridge my freedom of speech, so go fuck yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And?

Lol, so yes, they did get FoS

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?

I seriously doubt back in 1791 when they wrote those words, they envisioned the SCOTUS interpreting their words to give Citizens United and other organizations --- yes, unions also -- the freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence/buy elections. Kind of got twisted around like those well-regulated militia words in the 2nd.

As for me cleaning up my language, all I can say to that is I will not allow you to abridge my freedom of speech, so go fuck yourself.

1. "... they envisioned the SCOTUS interpreting their words to give Citizens United and other organizations --- yes, unions also -- "

Of course they did.

The document is written in English....didn't you notice?



2. "As for me cleaning up my language, all I can say to that is I will not allow you to abridge my freedom of speech, so go fuck yourself."

I was sooooo hoping you'd be stupid enough to fall for that trap!!!!

Gads, am I good!

I post a thesis opposing restrictions on free speech, you object....and I trick you into revealing that you oppose my 'restricting your free speech'!!!!

Let's try another: Roll over!!! Sit up!!! Good boy!

Doggie treat?

 

[TNHarley]

And?

Lol, so yes, they did get FoS

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?

I seriously doubt back in 1791 when they wrote those words, they envisioned the SCOTUS interpreting their words to give Citizens United and other organizations --- yes, unions also -- the freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence/buy elections. Kind of got twisted around like those well-regulated militia words in the 2nd.

As for me cleaning up my language, all I can say to that is I will not allow you to abridge my freedom of speech, so go fuck yourself.

Do you really care though? You support a woman for PResident that has publically stated she will appoint political hacks to the SC.

 

[BlindBoo]

What she needs to do is close the IRS loop hole that allows the PAC's to parade as charitable organizations in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors.

 

[The VOR]

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?

I seriously doubt back in 1791 when they wrote those words, they envisioned the SCOTUS interpreting their words to give Citizens United and other organizations --- yes, unions also -- the freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence/buy elections. Kind of got twisted around like those well-regulated militia words in the 2nd.

As for me cleaning up my language, all I can say to that is I will not allow you to abridge my freedom of speech, so go fuck yourself.

Do you really care though? You support a woman for PResident that has publically stated she will appoint political hacks to the SC.

Yes, I do care, and who are these political hacks she has publicly stated she will appoint to the SCOTUS?

 

[washamericom]

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...

???

sorry, inside joke from yesterday when the mods are zapping capital letters in thread titles, what's next question marks and exclamation points ?

anyway to your thread, the biggest perceived danger is the "chipping away" of liberties, one at a time, to make it seem gradual (sort of hiding in plain sight).

i can really visualise more of this

i've forgotten how creepy gibbs is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The effect of controlling the language of the debate?

5. One must always look carefully at the Left's terminology....just as the Affordable Care Act isn't, and The Employee Free Choice Act, is one that deprives workers of the secret ballot, .... "Campaign finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption. Let me say that again, slightly rephrased: campaign finance reform corrupts the political system it presumes to save from corruption."

"... campaign finance laws are not written to protect the public from corrupt politicians, they are written to protect incumbents from anyone who might challenge them. So, not only doesn’t campaign finance reform disrupt the status quo; it encases it in cement.
All the laws that ever have regulated campaigns, or ever will regulate them, have had or will have one thing in common: They have been, or will be, written by incumbent legislators." Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts




6. And the same vigilance must be applied when the Supreme Court pretends that some expertise in English is necessary to 'interpret' the United States Constitution.
"... direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’" “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi



Heck, let's not sugar-coat it: the Left lies.

 

[mudwhistle]

"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

SEIU is just ACORN by another name.

 

[mudwhistle]

WHOP AM here in Hopkinsville/Clarksville used to have a lineup of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, but dumped Beck to get their FCC license renewed and replaced it with 3 hours of KY sports talk. They said the fairness doctrine dictated that both sides need equal time. They didn't count that every 15 mins CBS gets to spew liberal propaganda discounting everything that was just said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WHOP AM here in Hopkinsville/Clarksville used to have a lineup of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, but dumped Beck to get their FCC license renewed and replaced it with 3 hours of KY sports talk. They said the fairness doctrine dictated that both sides need equal time. They didn't count that every 15 mins CBS gets to spew liberal propaganda discounting everything that was just said.

"They said the fairness doctrine dictated that both sides need equal time."

"August 23, 2011
On Monday, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced the elimination of 83 regulations, including one of the agency’s most famous: the Fairness Doctrine.

...the FCC began to reconsider the rule in the mid-80s, and ultimately revoked it in 1987, .... the FCC is finally scrapping the rule once and for all. "
Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine in one post

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Campaign finance reform' is Newspeak for the control of the freedom of speech and thought.


7. To get the public to agree, the Left screams that " politicians are bought and sold by big money interests, and we have to stop this!!!!



These reformers argue two propositions.

a. One is that corruption is so pervasive and so subtle that it is invisible.They resemble the zealots who say proof of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy is the fact that no proof has been found.

b. Alternatively, reformers argue that corruption is entirely visible everywhere: If politician A votes in a way that pleases contributor B — particularly if contributor B enjoyed "access" to politician A — that shall be designated corruption.



.... there is abundant research demonstrating that money almost always moves toward the politician with whom the contributor already agrees. In other words money is rarely given in order to change a politicians’ votes; it is given in order to support politicians who already vote the way donors want them to.


Nevertheless, reformers increasingly argue (see their justifications for restricting political action committees or PAC’s) that regulating the timing, amount and content of political advocacy is necessary to improve the tone of politics." Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts



The real motivation: end the ability of those who disagree with the Left to have access to the public.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What she needs to do is close the IRS loop hole that allows the PAC's to parade as charitable organizations in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors.

"... in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors."


Are you corrupt enough to pretend that revealing who the donors are is not a tactic designed to prevent the donors from expressing their right to free speech?

Are you?


Let's see the tactic in action by the thugs of the Left:

Brendan Eich is just the beginning. Let’s oust everyone who donated to the campaign against gay marriage.
Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org has quit as Mozilla’s CEO, forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot measure against gay marriage. There’s no record of Eich discriminating against gay employees—“I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” says the company’s chairwoman, Mitchell Baker. In fact, last week, Eich pledged,
Brendan Eich Is Just the Beginning. Let’s Purge All 35,000 Donors to Prop 8.

 

[BlindBoo]

WHOP AM here in Hopkinsville/Clarksville used to have a lineup of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, but dumped Beck to get their FCC license renewed and replaced it with 3 hours of KY sports talk. They said the fairness doctrine dictated that both sides need equal time. They didn't count that every 15 mins CBS gets to spew liberal propaganda discounting everything that was just said.

In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.

The FCC has never applied the Fairness Doctrine to a talk radio host, nor does the regulation force stations to give equal time for every perspective. Further, the point might be moot without support from the Oval Office — which the doctrine does not currently enjoy. "As the President stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," a White House spokesman said Feb. 18.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

What she needs to do is close the IRS loop hole that allows the PAC's to parade as charitable organizations in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors.

"....also anonymity for their donors"


Ron Paul's nonprofit Campaign for Liberty will fight the Internal Revenue Service's demand that it reveal its donor list to the agency, despite having already been fined for refusing to do so.

"There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty," Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. "We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way."

"Paying this outrageous extortionist fine — just to exercise our rights as American citizens to petition our government — may even be cheaper in the short run," he wrote. "But it’ll just embolden an alphabet soup of other federal agencies to come after us." Paul's email said that the rule requiring that 501(c)(4)s list their donors is "rarely enforced."

Stiles accused the IRS of trying to silence her organization. "The IRS technically requires donor information from 501(c)(4) organizations and is forbidden by law from releasing it to the public, yet despite this they have 'mistakenly' released the information repeatedly over the years," she wrote. "Often these leaks have been made to political opponents of the conservative groups whose information was leaked. Leaking the donor information is intended to harass and to intimidate those donors from donating to political causes.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ron-paul-group-to-defy-irs/article/2547261

 

[PoliticalChic]

What she needs to do is close the IRS loop hole that allows the PAC's to parade as charitable organizations in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors.

'....also anonymity for their donors..."

As one can see in the OP, Liberals/Democrats would like nothing better than to silence opposition voice.


Notice how different that view is from this:

"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."

There is no wiggle room. In the only way to alter that, short of an amendment, is tyranny.

 

[BlindBoo]

What she needs to do is close the IRS loop hole that allows the PAC's to parade as charitable organizations in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors.

"... in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors."


Are you corrupt enough to pretend that revealing who the donors are is not a tactic designed to prevent the donors from expressing their right to free speech?
.

Free speech? Paid for political activism should not be able to hide. Donations to a charitable fund that doesn't involve itself in politics can be hidden.

 

[mudwhistle]

WHOP AM here in Hopkinsville/Clarksville used to have a lineup of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, but dumped Beck to get their FCC license renewed and replaced it with 3 hours of KY sports talk. They said the fairness doctrine dictated that both sides need equal time. They didn't count that every 15 mins CBS gets to spew liberal propaganda discounting everything that was just said.

In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.

The FCC has never applied the Fairness Doctrine to a talk radio host, nor does the regulation force stations to give equal time for every perspective. Further, the point might be moot without support from the Oval Office — which the doctrine does not currently enjoy. "As the President stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," a White House spokesman said Feb. 18.

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

I was waiting for some choad to mention that....but as you like to ignore, this administration doesn't like following the laws as written. They simply refused to renew it without dropping Beck. Seemingly valid reasons could be dreamed up when needed, but to be honest, Beck simply claimed he was starting his own programs on the internet and gave up fighting the powers that be. Now he's something of a pariah and not worth listening to. He could have been replaced with other talented talkshow hosts, but the station decided to play it safe and went with sports talk, which nobody listens to.

 

[BlindBoo]

They simply refused to renew it without dropping Beck.

Proof?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What she needs to do is close the IRS loop hole that allows the PAC's to parade as charitable organizations in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors.

"... in order to claim not only tax free status but also anonymity for their donors."


Are you corrupt enough to pretend that revealing who the donors are is not a tactic designed to prevent the donors from expressing their right to free speech?
.

Free speech? Paid for political activism should not be able to hide. Donations to a charitable fund that doesn't involve itself in politics can be hidden.

"Paid for political activism should not be able to hide. Donations to a charitable fund that doesn't involve itself in politics can be hidden."

Why?

How is it your business, or any interest to any but Fascists, what my religion is, or how I vote???


Can you read English?
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.


Does it say 'except for charities, religious folks, or political reasons'??????



So.....how does that new brown shirt fit, you Fascist?