Col Hogan wrote:Democrats = Tax and spendChizzang wrote:
Agreed,
How about deficit spending - is that a Democrat thing too..?
Republicans = Borrow and spend
Both are equally wrong...
Spend what you make...no more!!!
Chizzang wrote:Col Hogan wrote: Democrats = Tax and spend
Republicans = Borrow and spend
Both are equally wrong...
Spend what you make...no more!!!
Always jumping my traps and ruining my fun....
Chizzang wrote:Agreed,OL FU wrote:
Here is the interesting thing. While of course technically correct, any one that says the above Can't see the forest for the trees. I love clichés.
How about deficit spending - is that a Democrat thing too..?
Col Hogan wrote:Chizzang wrote:
Always jumping my traps and ruining my fun....
CAA Flagship wrote:If Money is Speech...the Donks would tax the spoken words.
dbackjon wrote:CAA Flagship wrote:If Money is Speech...the Donks would tax the spoken words.
Hmm - maybe the Donks should get behind the movement to make English the official language of the US. Once it is a federally-mandated language, then all your word belong to us.
DOH! *SnapI didn't think about it that way, but that's an interesting point.Ibanez wrote:If Money = Speech, is it your contention that the poor have no right to a voice?
kalm wrote:I didn't think about it that way, but that's an interesting point.Ibanez wrote:If Money = Speech, is it your contention that the poor have no right to a voice?
Sure they have a right. But the reality is money buys favorable legislation, favorable regulation, favorable politicians, and often times government contracts. Money buys access. And it's not just the poor getting squeezed, it's also main street businesses and the middle class. One could make the argument it's a majority of this country.
The reality is our current political and economic system is based almost entirely on bribery. To argue otherwise is naive and foolish.
Now, one might be perfectly fine with that…they've earned it, just deserves and the constitution and all, but then how can you in any way be an advocate for the free market or the ability to amend the constitution as some of the framers suggested.
Nope, crony capitalism is insurmountable!
Plenty of home made videos go viral and get on national TV. If you are clever with your words and actions, you can gain a huge audience with very little money.OL FU wrote:Ok I understand the money is speech thing, but once again it is people playing with words. IMHO. Speech should not be limited. In todays world, speech, to reach any sized audience (unless you are the president or some other major league politician and can tell the press to cover you), requires money.
Yeah...it happens all the time in politics, economics, and life!Cluck U wrote:Plenty of home made videos go viral and get on national TV. If you are clever with your words and actions, you can gain a huge audience with very little money.OL FU wrote:Ok I understand the money is speech thing, but once again it is people playing with words. IMHO. Speech should not be limited. In todays world, speech, to reach any sized audience (unless you are the president or some other major league politician and can tell the press to cover you), requires money.
You get plenty of air time on this site...but it isn't cost that is keeping your ideas from gaining traction and reaching a wider audience.kalm wrote:Yeah...it happens all the time in politics, economics, and life!Cluck U wrote:
Plenty of home made videos go viral and get on national TV. If you are clever with your words and actions, you can gain a huge audience with very little money.
Touché! And that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.Cluck U wrote:You get plenty of air time on this site...but it isn't cost that is keeping your ideas from gaining traction and reaching a wider audience.kalm wrote:
Yeah...it happens all the time in politics, economics, and life!
I think there is a huge difference in someone attempting to make a serious statement and someone doing something stupid to gain attention. Not even comparable. Other the other hand, there is Michelle BachmanCluck U wrote:Plenty of home made videos go viral and get on national TV. If you are clever with your words and actions, you can gain a huge audience with very little money.OL FU wrote:Ok I understand the money is speech thing, but once again it is people playing with words. IMHO. Speech should not be limited. In todays world, speech, to reach any sized audience (unless you are the president or some other major league politician and can tell the press to cover you), requires money.
The tax vs. borrow is not even the biggest difference between the two parties. The biggest difference is in the "spend" (the how and where).Col Hogan wrote:Democrats = Tax and spendChizzang wrote:
Agreed,
How about deficit spending - is that a Democrat thing too..?
Republicans = Borrow and spend
Both are equally wrong...
Spend what you make...no more!!!
It's not a matter of buying greater rights. It's a matter of having the right to buy what you can buy.Answer the question. Should you be able to buy greater rights?
Buying a car and buying a politician or favorable legislation regulation are WAY different animals. Terrible analogy.JohnStOnge wrote:It's not a matter of buying greater rights. It's a matter of having the right to buy what you can buy.Answer the question. Should you be able to buy greater rights?
Let's say one person has $1,000 to buy an ad to broadcast their position. The fact that another person does not have $1,000 to buy such an ad does not mean that the second person has lessor rights. If they had the $1,000 they could buy the ad just like the first person does.
The implication of your statement is kind of like asking if one person has a "right" to buy a $40,000 car while another person does not because they can't afford it. Everybody has the "right" to buy a $40,000 car. It's up to them to accrue the money to do it.
But a rich man's money buys more "speech", and can stifle the "speech" of others.Ivytalk wrote:You can be a millionaire...and never pay taxes!
How can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?
First, get a million dollars!
Rich man's money and poor man's money. All spends the same way.
Mekka-lekka-hi, mekka hiney ho.
Long live Jambi.
I'm not sure but, I think he's saying "yeah... So what?"kalm wrote:But a rich man's money buys more "speech", and can stifle the "speech" of others.Ivytalk wrote:You can be a millionaire...and never pay taxes!
How can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?
First, get a million dollars!
Rich man's money and poor man's money. All spends the same way.
Mekka-lekka-hi, mekka hiney ho.
Long live Jambi.
Watched too much PeeWee Herman when my kids were young.Chizzang wrote:I'm not sure but, I think he's saying "yeah... So what?"kalm wrote:
But a rich man's money buys more "speech", and can stifle the "speech" of others.
I could tell by the Mekka-lekka-hi, mekka hiney ho part, that was the dead give away
Oh I know. It's really all he has.Chizzang wrote:I'm not sure but, I think he's saying "yeah... So what?"kalm wrote:
But a rich man's money buys more "speech", and can stifle the "speech" of others.
I could tell by the Mekka-lekka-hi, mekka hiney ho part, that was the dead give away
How is their speech "stifled"? Are they not allowed to say something? Elaborate, please.kalm wrote:But a rich man's money buys more "speech", and can stifle the "speech" of others.Ivytalk wrote:You can be a millionaire...and never pay taxes!
How can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?
First, get a million dollars!
Rich man's money and poor man's money. All spends the same way.
Mekka-lekka-hi, mekka hiney ho.
Long live Jambi.
Buying up enough advertising to drown out the opposition. Ownership of media companies and control of editorial decision making. Censorship of certain ideas and ideologies. The net neutrality debate.GannonFan wrote:How is their speech "stifled"? Are they not allowed to say something? Elaborate, please.kalm wrote:
But a rich man's money buys more "speech", and can stifle the "speech" of others.
Whoa, you took quite a leap from drowning out the opposition to now censoring. And then throwing net neutrality in there to boot.kalm wrote:Buying up enough advertising to drown out the opposition. Ownership of media companies and control of editorial decision making. Censorship of certain ideas and ideologies. The net neutrality debate.GannonFan wrote:
How is their speech "stifled"? Are they not allowed to say something? Elaborate, please.
To name a few.
Hate to break it to ya, but speech has evolved quite a bit from stumping in the town square. The founders had no way of fully anticipating that evolution and how information would be disseminated in the modern world. But they also new the dangers of entrenched power and lack of voice that commoners and later colonialists had (See American Revolution)GannonFan wrote:Whoa, you took quite a leap from drowning out the opposition to now censoring. And then throwing net neutrality in there to boot.kalm wrote:
Buying up enough advertising to drown out the opposition. Ownership of media companies and control of editorial decision making. Censorship of certain ideas and ideologies. The net neutrality debate.
To name a few.
In order then - what does drowning out have anything to do with the freedom of speech? There is no freedom to have your speech heard by whomever you want to hear it. Everyone can say whatever they want to say. Nothing in the Constitution says that everyone's voice has to be equally heard.
What's been censored? What ideas and idealogies are not allowed to be spoken of in this country?
And net neutrality? Hardly about speech being censored or blocked, rather more about how to manage different sizes of data across the Web. More of an alarmist position to say that this really threatens the freedom of speech. I didn't take you for an alarmist, but if the shoe fits...
It's already happening. 