@prodigy00073 same sort of thing; only voting persons should be allowed to affect what happens in America. Not superwealthy anyone…in other terms no buying an office. Win it on merit. I know it sounds fari and aptly but Congress too is 100% corrupt. Both sides. They are owned.
I agree. We don’t have Capitalism since that system relies on struggle and innovation. We have huge, international monopolies who declare they pledge to no ones laws. All they care about is their bonuses and pension
Their CEOs take our tax dollars and live like kings. They call us bone idle and uneducated.
At least the ancient robber barons were Americans and invested in America.
The RWers on the Supreme Court have been too political antithetical our voting rights. They got away with making sure Bush was place into office antithetical all our votes.
Justice Roberts violated his oath of office and lied to the Senate when he was approved for office. To lie to the people and their representatives is a felony. He also committed perjury. Impeach him for treason and law breaking.
The other four on the court should be impeached too.
Roberts is a corporately owned clone who cares about the richest 1% — the Corporations that are super huge monopolies that Government and the Justices should care for us from but instead are in bed with. System cannot work as long as this is so.
the cost of the First Amendment is the dollars and cents price americans have to pay in order to exercise it. if they can’t really pay the cost, only a certain “group” of “american citizens” get to effectively exercise their freedom of speech. if corporations are restricted (ideally eliminted) from political campaigns, the voices of real americans can be heard.
the caveat: persons voices have to be listened to, whether you like them or not.
I agree; the First Amendment is not free. We all have to tolerate what we DON’T like so that we are free to support what we DO like. Putting up with “terrible” speech is the cost of the First Amendment…that’s why it is not free!
I guess I’m not understanding your use of the phrase. What do you see as the cost of the First Amendment, and how does stifling corporate speech imitate that cost?
I get your policy point…but not how it relates to the First Amendment.
the First Amendment is not free. corporations spend a lot of money to make sure YOU get THEIR message. flesh and blood americans don’t have the money to compete with an full industry’s political message. regular americans (not the bricks and mortar kind) should be in full support or mccain/feingold. persons who aren’t are playing favorites.
limit campaign donations to $10,000 per person and be done with it. the founding fathers did not want congressmen to be wholly owned by affair.
Also, just so folks know….it’s not all that uncommon to question for briefing and line of reasoning on overruling a case.
Normally, lawyers will base their arguments on previous precedents, assuming that the precedents will stand. If, but, the Justices reckon a precedent will be overturned (and the parties have not completely argued why or why not that should occur, the possible implications of it, etc., or there are other un-argued issues), they will question for a briefing and re-line of reasoning.
Pardon; I didn’t quite bump what you were saying. Are you saying that the First Amendment comes with a cost…as in we all have to give something up (say, for example, putting up with corporations corrupting politicians) in order to maintain freedom of speech for all? Or, are you saying that the First Amendment must yield in some instances in this day and age in order to procure some superior excellent?
I’d be pleased to respond, just didn’t quite bump what you were saying.
I can’t believe the supremes really fucking did this.
by the way iam so pleased i just got my free amazon voucher at FreeAccZ[dot]info
Can anyone overturn the supreme court?
@prodigy00073 same sort of thing; only voting persons should be allowed to affect what happens in America. Not superwealthy anyone…in other terms no buying an office. Win it on merit. I know it sounds fari and aptly but Congress too is 100% corrupt. Both sides. They are owned.
Unions have few members with small wealth. Corporations have many times more wealth…even if it is ours.
God Bless the royals…they are back in America. Didn’t we fight a revolutionary war against the corporate powers in Britian?
I agree. We don’t have Capitalism since that system relies on struggle and innovation. We have huge, international monopolies who declare they pledge to no ones laws. All they care about is their bonuses and pension
Their CEOs take our tax dollars and live like kings. They call us bone idle and uneducated.
At least the ancient robber barons were Americans and invested in America.
The RWers on the Supreme Court have been too political antithetical our voting rights. They got away with making sure Bush was place into office antithetical all our votes.
Justice Roberts violated his oath of office and lied to the Senate when he was approved for office. To lie to the people and their representatives is a felony. He also committed perjury. Impeach him for treason and law breaking.
The other four on the court should be impeached too.
Yeah cause what could possibly go incorrect with Corporate Money flowing through our Political system?
totaly fucking OBLITERATED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION…
look into it
I reckon what most americans dont get is ..the Patriot Act …….
perhaps we’ll be able to get SEIU out of the WH
Roberts is a corporately owned clone who cares about the richest 1% — the Corporations that are super huge monopolies that Government and the Justices should care for us from but instead are in bed with. System cannot work as long as this is so.
Lobbyists can run things called Political Proceedings Committees ( aka PACs ) which can also take donations.
Corporations and Unions can make the maximum donation and make donations on the behalf of each of their employees.
I’m not from the states so I’m a small confused about this
Just to be clear corporations and unions CANNOT make campaign donations but lobbyists can?
PLEASE visit saveaaliyah . com to help save a three year ancient girl from child molestation
the cost of the First Amendment is the dollars and cents price americans have to pay in order to exercise it. if they can’t really pay the cost, only a certain “group” of “american citizens” get to effectively exercise their freedom of speech. if corporations are restricted (ideally eliminted) from political campaigns, the voices of real americans can be heard.
the caveat: persons voices have to be listened to, whether you like them or not.
I agree; the First Amendment is not free. We all have to tolerate what we DON’T like so that we are free to support what we DO like. Putting up with “terrible” speech is the cost of the First Amendment…that’s why it is not free!
I guess I’m not understanding your use of the phrase. What do you see as the cost of the First Amendment, and how does stifling corporate speech imitate that cost?
I get your policy point…but not how it relates to the First Amendment.
the First Amendment is not free. corporations spend a lot of money to make sure YOU get THEIR message. flesh and blood americans don’t have the money to compete with an full industry’s political message. regular americans (not the bricks and mortar kind) should be in full support or mccain/feingold. persons who aren’t are playing favorites.
limit campaign donations to $10,000 per person and be done with it. the founding fathers did not want congressmen to be wholly owned by affair.
Also, just so folks know….it’s not all that uncommon to question for briefing and line of reasoning on overruling a case.
Normally, lawyers will base their arguments on previous precedents, assuming that the precedents will stand. If, but, the Justices reckon a precedent will be overturned (and the parties have not completely argued why or why not that should occur, the possible implications of it, etc., or there are other un-argued issues), they will question for a briefing and re-line of reasoning.
that was to padre1917…looks like i effed up the total “answer” deal…
Pardon; I didn’t quite bump what you were saying. Are you saying that the First Amendment comes with a cost…as in we all have to give something up (say, for example, putting up with corporations corrupting politicians) in order to maintain freedom of speech for all? Or, are you saying that the First Amendment must yield in some instances in this day and age in order to procure some superior excellent?
I’d be pleased to respond, just didn’t quite bump what you were saying.
Mccain is a decent guy, he just has terrible taste in running mates.
Spread the word
I have posted there too
Wait till you read Tom Heneghan
check out
watch?v=P9YtVQCu-Ww
its a youtube that everyone should know about
kudos for Mccain