General Discussion

tblue37

(68,422 posts)

46. Elections should be publicly financed, candidatees should have to campaign within

Reply to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Apr 6, 2014, 10:38 AM

Apr 2014

a restricted time frame, and there should be "truth in advertising" rules similar to those imposed on commercial advertisers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The USSC does not say that "money is speech" [View all] cthulu2016 Apr 2014 OP

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #1

Dumb slander from Prosense: "spin in an attempt to defend both decisions" cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #3

Now, you're proving that you don't know the definition of "slander." n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #4

Ummm. while I might be inclined to agree with your STRICTLY Kelvin Mace Apr 2014 #36

While your reply would be apropos in a courtroom, we aren't in one cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #40

It was Roberts who fast tracked Citizens United and it was likley the most egregious case imo, of Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #2

I believe the conservatives are motivated by partisan hackery cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #5

Clearly, and he knew who would side with him. We need to push it back. Senator Sanders: Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #7

The Supremes sort of did say corporations are people, in the sense that The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2014 #6

Well said. Yes, ProSense Apr 2014 #10

If only natural persons had constitutional protections, all sorts of horrible things could happen. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #11

In the case of a hypothetical PP raid The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2014 #25

Do you see another way to keep money out of the political arena? cheyanne Apr 2014 #12

The 1976 Court did Metatron Apr 2014 #8

Money IS speech. Sorry folks. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #9

That doesn't ProSense Apr 2014 #13

Would you be OK with banning corporations from publishing books that criticized election candidates Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #14

Again ProSense Apr 2014 #15

Well, would you? (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #16

Ask me if I would ban "handmade signs." ProSense Apr 2014 #17

So where do you draw the line? Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #19

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #20

I understand that these are difficult questions to answer for those who want to limit free speech. Nye Bevan Apr 2014 #23

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #27

You will find that arguing with a nihilist approach to argument is fruitless cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #18

Did you look up the meaning of "slander"? n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #21

Yes. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #26

"It said that slander is whatever Prosense says it is, at any given point in time." ProSense Apr 2014 #28

How is your name-calling somehow "fruitful"? BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #22

In this context it is hardly name-calling. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #24

Sorry but your argument for making ad-hominems is weak BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #29

Have a nice day. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #32

"In the context of any online argument, Prosense is a nihilist." ProSense Apr 2014 #30

There SHOULD be no context SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #31

Then alert on it. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #33

No I think my point was made SunsetDreams Apr 2014 #34

I think your assessment of Pro is spot on. Laelth Apr 2014 #38

Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #39

Fair enough. Laelth Apr 2014 #41

No, ProSense Apr 2014 #42

I will let you have the last word on this. Laelth Apr 2014 #43

"Now, please, buzz off." ProSense Apr 2014 #44

Don't give them any ideas. eom Frustratedlady Apr 2014 #35

What is critical is that they did not say "Money is NOT speech and has no 1st amendment protection". stevenleser Apr 2014 #37

"It is vital to regulate....to prevent my speech...from being drowned out." BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #45

Elections should be publicly financed, candidatees should have to campaign within tblue37 Apr 2014 #46