sprawl15

Umeraken Ideut: karnal: "It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

When Republicans start acting like Democrats we all lose.

I realize you're trolling but I'd love your rationalization. I need a good chuckle.

Well, when Obama moves to the center, it makes trolling that much harder to do.


The president dribbles, pivots and fakes to center.

Doc Daneeka: Lost Thought 00: All you need to do in order to accomplish that is amend the Constitution to remove the first amendment protections from political speech. That shouldn't be difficult at all.

Only if you agree with the Supreme Court that money = speech. Which is asinine.

But in a world were corporations = people, I guess their Constitutional rights will always come first.


In fact a simple thought experiment can prove that money != speech.

Suppose an american citizen sends al-qaeda a letter of support. This is speech and legal.

Suppose an american citizen sends al-qaeda money. This is funding terrorism and illegal.

Doc Daneeka: Only if you agree with the Supreme Court that money = speech. Which is asinine.

The two are inextricably linked. A single voice can only shout so loudly. You need money to get a megaphone, you need a thousand dollars to buy a full speaker system, and corporate financiers for a multi-million dollar national ad campaign. Same goes with print media. How can you have "speech" if you don't buy paper and ink to make pamphlets? Money isn't exactly the same thing as speech, but the two go hand in hand.

Shaggy_C: Doc Daneeka: Only if you agree with the Supreme Court that money = speech. Which is asinine.

The two are inextricably linked. A single voice can only shout so loudly. You need money to get a megaphone, you need a thousand dollars to buy a full speaker system, and corporate financiers for a multi-million dollar national ad campaign. Same goes with print media. How can you have "speech" if you don't buy paper and ink to make pamphlets? Money isn't exactly the same thing as speech, but the two go hand in hand.

Public funding, distributed fairly and evenly.

Money is not speech for the same reason that a cab ride isn't an airport. You may need the one to use the other, but that doesn't make them identical.

Shaggy_C: The two are inextricably linked. A single voice can only shout so loudly. You need money to get a megaphone, you need a thousand dollars to buy a full speaker system, and corporate financiers for a multi-million dollar national ad campaign. Same goes with print media. How can you have "speech" if you don't buy paper and ink to make pamphlets? Money isn't exactly the same thing as speech, but the two go hand in hand.

I notice you don't have a next to your name.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."

How frequently do you figure he was stuffed in his locker?

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."

How frequently do you figure he was stuffed in his locker?

Do you mean placed in his locker or, uh...

Well, either way, I'd imagine it was a lot.

sprawl15: Do you mean placed in his locker or, uh...

No, that wasn't a Santorum joke either :)

sprawl15: Public funding, distributed fairly and evenly.

So every person in the country should be supplied a "speech allowance" for which they can spend as they choose, and if they dare spend a penny above it on political speech they can be imprisoned? Sounds exactly like what the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.


Skleenar: I notice you don't have a img.fark.net next to your name.

Derwood: Shaggy_C: Derwood: Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.

So, essentially, you think that only powerful, monied candidates should bother running for President. If you don't have the cash to mount a national campaign, don't bother showing up!

Way to fight the plutocracy, brother.

Oh, and this is EXACTLY how it works now, so how is my system any worse? When was the last time a middle class person got anywhere in a national election?

Romney is currently the frontrunner, and according to several of his speeches, he considers himself to be middle class.

badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: rynthetyn: And if he'd won Florida, the rules would be great and he'd say the system worked. Dude thinks he's above the law.

[a1.twimg.com image 128x128]

+

[upload.wikimedia.org image 199x300]

someone make my photoshop dream come true

And possibly turn the gun into a fudge-sickle?

Shaggy_C: So every person in the country should be supplied a "speech allowance" for which they can spend as they choose, and if they dare spend a penny above it on political speech they can be imprisoned? Sounds exactly like what the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.

No what they had in mind was white land owning men.

badhatharry: Doc Daneeka: Lost Thought 00: All you need to do in order to accomplish that is amend the Constitution to remove the first amendment protections from political speech. That shouldn't be difficult at all.

Only if you agree with the Supreme Court that money = speech. Which is asinine.

But in a world were corporations = people, I guess their Constitutional rights will always come first.

Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech. Corporations are just organized groups of people.

So the mail clerk in a corporation has just as much pull in how political donations are made as a member of the Board?

Because if not, I may have spotted a fallacy in your statement.

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."

How frequently do you figure he was stuffed in his locker?



We're gonna need a bigger locker

DROxINxTHExWIND


Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."


What do you think your classmates remember about you? That you use to ask the kids from special ed to play naked twister after school at your house?

What your bed might have looked like.

fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

*snort* Boy, now I want someone to try this. Of course if you fail, you go to jail for a very long time. That's a pretty high risk to LULZ ratio.

DarnoKonrad: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

*snort* Boy, now I want someone to try this. Of course if you fail, you go to jail for a very long time. That's a pretty high risk to LULZ ratio.

What if you wrote "do not spend on terrorism" on it?

Shaggy_C: Skleenar: I notice you don't have a img.fark.net next to your name.

www.visi.com

Um. Not sure what you meant by that. Just noting that your message didn't cost you anything to broadcast.

Shaggy_C: So every person in the country should be supplied a "speech allowance" for which they can spend as they choose, and if they dare spend a penny above it on political speech they can be imprisoned?

Yes, and that value should be zero.

Shaggy_C: Sounds exactly like what the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.

Considering the founders assumed political parties wouldn't coalesce, I couldn't really give a flying fark what they had in mind.

buck1138: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

Or a Judge.

Citizens United is just a bottomless pit of inherent contradiction and insanity.

DarnoKonrad: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

*snort* Boy, now I want someone to try this. Of course if you fail, you go to jail for a very long time. That's a pretty high risk to LULZ ratio.


How about an example with less gitmo then.

Find a nice young lady who will have sex with you, then let her know how much you appreciate her enthusiasm with a letter or a check. A court will let you know which one is speech.

Umeraken Ideut: What if you wrote "do not spend on terrorism" on it?

IANAL, but that should do the trick. Let us know if you run into any difficulties.

Umeraken Ideut: DarnoKonrad: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

*snort* Boy, now I want someone to try this. Of course if you fail, you go to jail for a very long time. That's a pretty high risk to LULZ ratio.

What if you wrote "do not spend on terrorism" on it?



Shouldn't matter. SCOTUS has long held that holding abhorrent viewpoints and even advocating them is a first amendment protection. By elevating the expenditure of money to that standard, you should be able to spend money on what the fark ever you please.

Skip the Taliban, they should test this on some whores. "I"m just expressing my desire to sleep with biatches."

buck1138: fracto73: badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.


Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?

Or a Judge.


Are you suggesting using your first amendment rights to convince the judge you are innocent? That seems like it should be legit, everyone has the right to speak in their own defense.

More_Like_A_Stain: GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."

How frequently do you figure he was stuffed in his locker?

[www.death2ur.com image 450x300]

We're gonna need a bigger locker

For Newt, sing it with me:

Farewell and adieu to fare cancer ladies
Farewell and adieu to you ladies of death...

ib_thinkin: I love this guy! That's hilarious. It must suck to be a Republican these days.

Imagine if Newt had won and Romney suggested this! The bile and venom coming out of Gingrinch would be off the charts.

Slightly off topic, but I had a friend who wrote "for sexual favors" on the memo line of every check he wrote, regardless of recipient.

DarnoKonrad: Shouldn't matter. SCOTUS has long held that holding abhorrent viewpoints and even advocating them is a first amendment protection. By elevating the expenditure of money to that standard, you should be able to spend money on what the fark ever you please.

Skip the Taliban, they should test this on some whores. "I"m just expressing my desire to sleep with biatches."

I hired an assassin to express my displeasure with my wife. It's post-modern deconstructionism, and you're stifling my artistic endeavors.

fracto73

badhatharry: Giving your money to political organizations is the same as political speech.

Would it be legal to send the Taliban money?


Legal? What do we care about legal?

Skleenar: Um. Not sure what you meant by that. Just noting that your message didn't cost you anything to broadcast.

I had to pay for the computer and internet access. I guess it would be free in the very narrow confines of a public library?

sprawl15: Yes, and that value should be zero.

So political speech should be entirely illegal in every sense?

Umeraken Ideut: Slightly off topic, but I had a friend who wrote "for sexual favors" on the memo line of every check he wrote, regardless of recipient.

I'll bet that went over well when he paid for those Girl Scout cookies.

More_Like_A_Stain: Derwood: Shaggy_C: Derwood: Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.

So, essentially, you think that only powerful, monied candidates should bother running for President. If you don't have the cash to mount a national campaign, don't bother showing up!

Way to fight the plutocracy, brother.

Oh, and this is EXACTLY how it works now, so how is my system any worse? When was the last time a middle class person got anywhere in a national election?

Romney is currently the frontrunner, and according to several of his speeches, he considers himself to be middle class.

He is solidly in the middle......of the 1%

Shaggy_C: Doc Daneeka: Only if you agree with the Supreme Court that money = speech. Which is asinine.

The two are inextricably linked. A single voice can only shout so loudly. You need money to get a megaphone, you need a thousand dollars to buy a full speaker system, and corporate financiers for a multi-million dollar national ad campaign. Same goes with print media. How can you have "speech" if you don't buy paper and ink to make pamphlets? Money isn't exactly the same thing as speech, but the two go hand in hand.

Money is a resource that can facilitate speech, but is not itself speech. A megaphone isn't speech either, nor is a typewriter.

Money simply can give you a more visible platform to speak from, but is not itself the content of that speech.

The Constitution guarantees your right to say what you want. It doesn't guarantee your right to say it in a multi-million dollar ad campaign on network TV.

The Supreme Court is just wrong. Money is not the same as speech.

More_Like_A_Stain: Umeraken Ideut: Slightly off topic, but I had a friend who wrote "for sexual favors" on the memo line of every check he wrote, regardless of recipient.

I'll bet that went over well when he paid for those Girl Scout cookies.

Paying his grandma back some car money she loaned him...

Shaggy_C: sprawl15: Yes, and that value should be zero.

So political speech should be entirely illegal in every sense?

Private spending on political speech. That's what we're talking about; keep the goalposts right where they are. Both publicly funded and unfunded political speech are fine. People should be free to express themselves. Freedoms do not scale with one's assets.

Shaggy_C: I had to pay for the computer and internet access. I guess it would be free in the very narrow confines of a public library?

ITT: Shaggy_C doesn't understand the difference between a step function and a linear function.

Doc Daneeka: Money is a resource that can facilitate speech, but is not itself speech. A megaphone isn't speech either, nor is a typewriter.

Here's a fun thought exercise. Would it be suppression of speech if the government kicked down the door and took away the typewriter from a political dissident?

DROxINxTHExWIND

karnal: DROxINxTHExWIND


Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."


What do you think your classmates remember about you? That you use to ask the kids from special ed to play naked twister after school at your house?

[cl.jroo.me image 306x396] What your bed might have looked like.



There's nothing wrong with naked twister. And we had to do it at my house because your mother didn't want you to know her shame.


Please....I wear my mother's shame like bad tattoo. But it's your shortcomings that she spoke of most often....and we would laauugh.

karnal: DROxINxTHExWIND

karnal: DROxINxTHExWIND


Newt seems like the type of person who has classmates and people from his hometown looking on at him now in disgust because they know how weak and small he really is. Like, "Man, would you look at this piece of shiat? I used to call him Jelly Doughnut."


What do you think your classmates remember about you? That you use to ask the kids from special ed to play naked twister after school at your house?

[cl.jroo.me image 306x396] What your bed might have looked like.



There's nothing wrong with naked twister. And we had to do it at my house because your mother didn't want you to know her shame.


Please....I wear my mother's shame like bad tattoo. But it's your shortcomings that she spoke of most often....and we would laauugh.

sprawl15: Both publicly funded and unfunded political speech are fine.

I'm confused. Are you saying that political speech should either A) be publicly funded, or B) limited to the volume of one individual voice, and that any other means of spreading political thought should be banned entirely? That sounds like a great way for the government to impose top-down ideology on a nation. That's not freedom.

Shaggy_C: Would it be suppression of speech if the government kicked down the door and took away the typewriter from a political dissident?

Yes(ish), but not for the reason you think. The suppression of speech comes from reason for kicking down the door and taking property, not the fact that they took a typewriter away. It would equally be suppression of speech if they kicked down the door and took a person's TV because he was saying things they didn't like. It would not be suppression of speech if they kicked down the door and took the typewriter in pursuit of actual criminal activity.