posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
I'm seeking the advice or opinion of any Constitutional law or other legal expert, or anyone who's knowledgeable enough. I want to know how the
spending of money equals free speech. Please elucidate the most scholarly argument possible for the justification for the entirely psychotic (as I
see it) notion of money (ownership) and free speech being one in the same.
Money equals ownership or possession of goods and/or services. Period. What else does money do?
Okay, first of all, you may disregard my reply as it is neither scholarly or legally binding. It is just an opinion; my own.
If that fails your entrance exam, that's a drag and I sure do apologize.
I dislike the buying and selling of law and legislation but it does happen that it cost to run a decent campaign these days. You could be Einstein but
without dollars to tell everyone who you were, you could lose an election.
We are a big, diverse nation and so too we should be smart enough to know that we have to wade into, and then dig out of, the loads of BS that are set
before us on nearly every single matter of importance.
Ignorance does not happen by way of random, natural event. God did not make ignorance as a secondary thing. It must be embraced, homogenized and then
wed by us, on purpose.
Even the illiterate know when someone is yanking their chain.
But let's do be honest here... we want to be led sometimes when the leader is someone we happen to be politically aligned with. In these instances,
ignorance and denial are entirely selective and all the dollars in the world would not change a thing.
People will believe what they want to believe no matter how much money, or how many words you throw at them. The difference finally comes when the
words mean something... after that, the money is merely sauce for the goose.
You cannot invent zombies. You can only breed them.