It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ziggystrange
Originally posted by jeffkingman
I know the problem, I know it sucks, but you can't start taking rights away just because some people can abuse it.
It really was a no-lose solution for the supreme court.
Either they rule against the film makers, and the whole thing turns into a big stink about them restricting our rights, or we go into where we're at now.
It's not the end of the word. Really.
You are saying that it's ok because it offers relief to something politically driven, and specifically designed to pervert elections, to make a ruling that changes the American system by giving foreign powers the ability to buy the vote with unlimited funds?
That is the most insane, and moronic defense I have heard yet.
Sorry friend but you are just refusing to see what it was that happened.
The world did not end, just the citizens ability to pick their representatives.
Originally posted by jeffkingman
J - I know the problem, I know it sucks, but you can't start taking rights away just because some people can abuse it.
J - It really was a no-lose solution for the supreme court.
J - Either they rule against the film makers, and the whole thing turns into a big stink about them restricting our rights, or we go into where we're at now.
J - It's not the end of the word. Really.
Z - You are saying that it's ok because it offers relief to something politically driven, and specifically designed to pervert elections, to make a ruling that changes the American system by giving foreign powers the ability to buy the vote with unlimited funds?
Z - That is the most insane, and moronic defense I have heard yet.
Z - Sorry friend but you are just refusing to see what it was that happened.
Z - The world did not end, just the citizens ability to pick their representatives.
Z - Completely absurd.
Z - You sound exactly, I mean frighteningly similar to a person I debated just a couple of days ago. Just like you, he had just registered. But let me respond.
Z - Buying advertisement before a campaign is not the problem. It's who now can spend however much they want in our political process. Whom in this case being foreign agencies.
Z - Irrelevant, faith has no bearing on any of this. Do you know someone named Jaundice?
Z - Really? I thought the reason billions were spent was because they sway opinions. Specially the ones that are full of lies, and deception. But what exactly is the experience you mention?
Z - That's exactly what Jaundice would have said. 2 falsehoods are required in NLP to establish the concept as plausible. You so cleverly omit the fact that Corporations and other groups have been bribing politicians or their equivalents since the beginning of time.
Z - So it's preferable that they become propaganda machines, rather than profitable enterprises. Engels, or Trotsky might have said that drunk one night, but never wrote it. Are you a confused Marxist caught somewhere between Engels and Trotsky?
Originally posted by inthesticks
Oh, the world is ending! Oh, this is so horrible! Yada, yada, yada!
Quit the bi*ching and do something. You can start by going to the Fair Elections NOW website and reading about it.
Originally posted by jdub297
[edit on 23-1-2010 by jdub297]
J - Why did these media corporations enjoy the right to spend or publish freely about their preferred candidates, but not me?
These "media corporations" were exempt from the McCain- Feingold and prior restrictions.
Z - They are Media Corporations. They have more "reach" than you, and you had less "regulation" than they did. Is that fair? I don't know. I think I understand why they would be subject to laws given the nature of media. Now they have less regulation than you do. You should be freaking out.
J - Why? What makes them so special?
Z - The Press had demonstrated a penchant for slander, and libel, as well as character assassination, also fraudulent practices, and other criminal activities. The system worked, and began regulating what the media could and could not do. Precedents were set, even in the SCOTUS. The Media evolved, so did the laws. However the Freedom of the Press had to be maintained. The Press needed special deferment from some of the laws governing other type of Corporations, or there would not have been freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
J - There is no reason for one "group" of people to have special privileges under the Constitution at the expense of others.
Z - Not true. It is not written in it, but it is embodied in the spirit in which it was written. It is a living document. Intended to evolve as we do.
A child has privileges at the expense of others. To assure "due process" moneyless arrestees facing trial, have to be given free counsel. Without representation there would be no justice. Negating the suspects right to a fair trial is unconstitutional. Those are the types of reasons why some have more rights than others at times.
Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by jdub297
You are wrong on all points.
Your problem is you only know one way to debate,
By yelling, and calling people names.
You don't understand squat. Posting pieces of the constitution hop scotch is a crutch. Means nothing. Get it!
Your fear becomes evident in your inability to respond in substance and resort to ad hominem. How sad.
You are either ignorant, or plain dumb. For sure arrogant.
You ignore my explanation, and indict with baseless logic. Brilliant thinking Einstein.
Freedom of the press is directly connected to freedom of speech, only an idiot would deny that. But to you is a gotcha moment. That's why I posted the link about legal person. To give you a taste of how you come off.
You want to argue BS, when the issue at hand is just not what you are blabbing about. You understood nothing about the decision, or you are lying.
You think I ignored your last post to me, because I'm afraid to debate, You? Wrong again pal, your just too dense to debate.
Your're a moron with delusions if intellectualism.
Go waste someone elses time, The last time you crossed the line I hit the alert button. Do it again and I'll do the same.
You obviously you ignore rules, just go off like a teed off 8 year old.
Get a life, and a brain. post all you want if you make sens I may respond otherwise, you can site and spin big mouth.