Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

An old article, but I think it's a good idea.: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/s...acers.html

They'd all have the same patches.

They would be immobile down by the sheer weight of all the patches.

"People" couldn't retain their anonymous free speech if they did that.

Quote:"People" couldn't retain their anonymous free speech if they did that.

 

Not everyone wants to be anonymous, but it should be an option for those who do. Why do you hate America so much?

Then they would all turn to the left. Ohhh the humanity!

Quote:"People" couldn't retain their anonymous free speech if they did that.

But since campaign contributions was equated with free speech by our judges, now they'd be able to get anonymous contributions?


That drives me nuts. If we limit how much one can contribute to a politician, it would in turn, by proxy, limit their free speech? What? I guess there are those with a helluva lot more free speech than others. Maybe I'm thick headed, but I just don't see that logic. Shoulda asked Spock.


Then we are told corporations are people. Lol. I'll believe that when Texas executes one.

Quote: If we limit how much one can contribute to a politician, it would in turn, by proxy, limit their free speech? What?

 

Do you know how I know you've never given enough to a campaign to reach the FEC limit?

Quote:Do you know how I know you've never given enough to a campaign to reach the FEC limit?

Ummm. Your last name is Snowdon?

Quote:Ummm. Your last name is Snowdon?

 

We already limit how much a person can give to a politician. Its not a matter of "if" we limit free political speech, we already do.

Quote:Not everyone wants to be anonymous, but it should be an option for those who do. Why do you hate America so much?

 

You stooped to this nonsense? You party thanks you, now go shine your boots and get back in line son, it's almost time for war again. 

Quote:You stooped to this nonsense? You party thanks you, now go shine your boots and get back in line son, it's almost time for war again. 

 

Anonymous political speech is a bedrock principle of this country. Why is that so hard to understand?

Quote:Anonymous political speech is a bedrock principle of this country. Why is that so hard to understand?

An informed populace is also a bedrock of this country. Being aware of where that information is coming from is just as important as the information itself. Do you want people to not be informed?

 

There is no similarity between those papers you are referring to and anonymous attack ads. 

Quote:An informed populace is also a bedrock of this country. Being aware of where that information is coming from is just as important as the information itself. Do you want people to not be informed?

 

There is no similarity between those papers you are referring to and anonymous attack ads. 

 

The difference is that the anonymous papers written before the Constitiutional protections would get the author a death sentence. That's why the Founders felt that the protections were inherent and inalienable, they knew what it was like to risk life and limb to speak your mind.  

Quote:The difference is that the anonymous papers written before the Constitiutional protections would get the author a death sentence. That's why the Founders felt that the protections were inherent and inalienable, they knew what it was like to risk life and limb to speak your mind.  

Agreed but again they were ideals in written form, not attack ads to influence voters. I see a huge difference there as you would not get a death sentence these days. If that was the case all the hate speech against Obama or Bush would have put many people in prison. Why try to compare the two?

 

In fact, I am not arguing against free speech are the ability to do so anonymously. I am arguing that anonymity in regards to elections and campaigns should not be allowed. I think campaigns should be one of the most transparent things in our country that has to do with government and I do not understand how anyone could think differently. 

Quote:We already limit how much a person can give to a politician. Its not a matter of "if" we limit free political speech, we already do.

 

We do.  The limit is $2500.  And that limit makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense is that corporations are allowed to give as much money as they like.  You can't infringe on a corporation's free speech because it's not a person.  Is it made up of people?  Sure.  But their duty is to the corporation, and if they don't fulfill that duty, then they say Bye Bye.

 

Every employee, and executive and shareholder at let's say... Verizon is free to donate to whatever candidate they want.  It's not denying them free speech to say that they can't as a company dip into their profits and donate to a particular candidate.  Because rights are guaranteed to people, not corporations. 


If politicians can be bought as a commodity, then it's time to look for a new form of government.

Quote:We do.  The limit is $2500.  And that limit makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense is that corporations are allowed to give as much money as they like.  You can't infringe on a corporation's free speech because it's not a person.  Is it made up of people?  Sure.  But their duty is to the corporation, and if they don't fulfill that duty, then they say Bye Bye.

 

Every employee, and executive and shareholder at let's say... Verizon is free to donate to whatever candidate they want.  It's not denying them free speech to say that they can't as a company dip into their profits and donate to a particular candidate.  Because rights are guaranteed to people, not corporations. 

If politicians can be bought as a commodity, then it's time to look for a new form of government.

In regards to the first:

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-cruz-lift-co...ction.html

 

For the second:

It's done, they are already bought. Not just that though, a lot of them defend it as not only being constitutional but have convinced a myriad of voters that is what the founders intended for our country. 

Quote:In regards to the first:

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-cruz-lift-co...ction.html

 

For the second:

It's done, they are already bought. Not just that though, a lot of them defend it as not only being constitutional but have convinced a myriad of voters that is what the founders intended for our country. 

Let's see Cruz's birth certificate!  He can go back to Canada, eh! 


(The birth of a whole new birther movement if he runs for President)

 

It's sad that our democracy is becoming a plutocracy.

Quote:Let's see Cruz's birth certificate!  He can go back to Canada, eh! 


(The birth of a whole new birther movement if he runs for President)

 

It's sad that our democracy is becoming a plutocracy.

The difference between the right and left is nobody is going to care about that issue with Cruz, and that's fine. It's not a big deal because he is an american, just a very crazy one  :teehee:

Quote:In regards to the first:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://news.yahoo.com/texas-cruz-lift-contribution-limits-campaign-cash-193953501--election.html'>http://news.yahoo.com/texas-cruz-lift-contribution-limits-campaign-cash-193953501--election.html</a>


For the second:

It's done, they are already bought. Not just that though, a lot of them defend it as not only being constitutional but have convinced a myriad of voters that is what the founders intended for our country.

Agreed on the second point. The fact that it costs millions to be elected President means that our system has failed. You're essentially buying your way on to the ballot.