And so you advocate government seizing/taking property to not only fund themselves, but distribute it to others.  Kim Jong Il did that starting back in the early '50's.  How has that worked out?

The religious right were in power during the crusades, witch hunts and scientific persecution. How did that work out? Past experiences of those that wielded power in a terrifying way are not always the best examples to prove an argument. 

---

The religious right were in power during the crusades, witch hunts and scientific persecution. How did that work out? Past experiences of those that wielded power in a terrifying way are not always the best examples to prove an argument. 

 

Why? Those examples are just as valid. Doesn't disprove the argument.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You are saying that spending money on political campaigns is a corrupt practice and the government should be able to stop citizens from doing so in spite of First Amendment guarantees protecting political speech.

 

Just to be clear.

It is very clearly a corrupt practice. Why are you even questioning it? Political speech is not the same as political bribes. The first amendment has nothing to do with the purchasing of elections, politicians, favors, and the overall corruption of the democratic process. I think you think it does though. The right loves to stump about the founders this and the founders that. They would be rolling in their graves to see the corrupt plutocracy we have become and that some people defend it. 

---

It is very clearly a corrupt practice. Why are you even questioning it? Political speech is not the same as political bribes. The first amendment has nothing to do with the purchasing of elections, politicians, favors, and the overall corruption of the democratic process. I think you think it does though. The right loves to stump about the founders this and the founders that. They would be rolling in their graves to see the corrupt plutocracy we have become and that some people defend it. 

 

The First Amendment is VERY clear that speech shall not be limited by the government. If you get to say my speech is illegal then the whole system collapses.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It is very clearly a corrupt practice. Why are you even questioning it? Political speech is not the same as political bribes. The first amendment has nothing to do with the purchasing of elections, politicians, favors, and the overall corruption of the democratic process. I think you think it does though. The right loves to stump about the founders this and the founders that. They would be rolling in their graves to see the corrupt plutocracy we have become and that some people defend it. 

 

“While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglaries — actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment." - John Paul Stevens

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

“While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglaries — actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment." - John Paul Stevens

 

You forgot your headline:

 

"Retired Liberal Still Has Liberal Ideas!"

 

You're welcome.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

“While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglaries — actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment." - John Paul Stevens

 

The Citizens United case was about airing a film critical of Hillary Clinton. That was 100% about speech. It was not about money being used to buy political favors.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The religious right were in power during the crusades, witch hunts and scientific persecution. How did that work out? Past experiences of those that wielded power in a terrifying way are not always the best examples to prove an argument. 

 

Religious Right?


 

Political Right during the Crusades?


 

Really?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Religious Right?


Political Right during the Crusades?



Yes...Popes, Kings and Emperors = The Republican Party.


Didn't you know?

Really?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato