NoJingoLingo
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 325
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
How do you like it?
Well, from my pov, you just made yourself look pretty silly. :2wave:
How do you like it?
The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it protects the right of citizens from the government.
Why would you include yourself in that group if you don't believe you belong in it. Are you a low info voter? Are you easily influenced by advertising? Don't be so hard on yourself.Tell you what - if you think you can't handle hearing certain information, throw away your TV and don't read, just in case a corporate ad comes along. Don't tell me and the rest of the voters that we are too stupid to handle it.
Except it wasn't. The First amendment clearly says NO laws abridging freedom of speech. That's it. Nothing about having to be a person, or vote, or any of that. You may think that's the way it ought to be, but it's not.
The light of disclosure always is better than behind the scenes....See, the real rub, maybe not with you, but with many liberals, is that Unions, and 537's Center for American Progress won't be able to work together anymore to hide this. And as for the CfAP, I'd like to see also what role they played in garnering Obama's foreign donations to his campaign....He refuses to release that info, I'd bet it is exactly the thing you are afraid will happen with this ruling already happening on the demo ticket.
j-mac
As we both know, our main disagreement comes on whether the Constitution is written for "The People of the United States of America" or for all things in the universe.Take this a step further and you'll have it.
The government doesn't grant rights, it protects rights by limiting the power of government to abridge them.
In the First Amendment, it limits the power of government to abridge speech. Period.
No, the voters did.
I don't know if you noticed, but we have elections. The people choose. If you don't like who they choose, or why, that's too bad. If they choose the people who spend the most special interest money on ads, that's their choice. Your contempt for the intelligence and responsibility of the American voter is disgusting.
It's not that , young man. It's that I have a few years more on this planet than you do. You sound very naive to me. Are you old enough to vote yet? I have a friend from the army who knew medger evers.
Yes, I do have contempt for some of the american voters. Look at what bush did to this country. Or even worse , Nixon.
Why would you include yourself in that group if you don't believe you belong in it. Are you a low info voter? Are you easily influenced by advertising? Don't be so hard on yourself.
"Amendment I (1791)
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."
Could you please tell us how many periods are in that paragraph and where those periods are located in the text?
LOL!
Now you want to play the naive card, without even knowing my age or my background. That's just not very wise.
I assure you that I'm old enough to vote. As for my knowledge of campaign finance, etc., I garauntee I know alot more about it than you do.
I thought so.
You are downright dangerous.
Medgar Evers (proper spelling) would be disappointed with you.
You offer no information on your profile. You print little person information about your self on your posts. What are you hiding? Are you ashamed of yourself?
Because you want to restrict ME from hearing certain ads, not just the idiots you think are unfit to vote.
Here, this will help you read:
"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."
The constitution is a lot like the 55 mph speed limit. Most time it is not enforced.
Your contempt for the Constitution and democracy couldn't be more clear.
Well, from my pov, you just made yourself look pretty silly. :2wave:
Okay boy scout. Come back when you learn what sarcasm is.
It's awful hard to tell with you.
What are they using for text books in school now days? The cartoons on the inside of bubble gum wrappers?
You're getting even more desperate.
You starting to notice how often this kid finds it necessary to tell people how much more about (insert topic here) he knows than everyone else? That is a great debate tactic that, in the 5th grade.What are they using for text books in school now days? The cartoons on the inside of bubble gum wrappers?
You starting to notice how often this kid finds it necessary to tell people how much more about (insert topic here) he knows than everyone else? That is a great debate tactic that, in the 5th grade.
You starting to notice how often this kid finds it necessary to tell people how much more about (insert topic here) he knows than everyone else? That is a great debate tactic that, in the 5th grade.
Oh yawn...........Mr.Integrity thinks I'm a troll. Ok, I'm a troll, a troll with a spot on point. Now quick, hurry up and you can post three posts back to back where you assure us all that you know a lot more about (insert topic here) than we do. You just can't nut up to admit much less acknowledge when your scintillating superior knowledge proves a wee bit lacking. Many people can't admit their errors or when they are wrong. Particularly on the internet and boy you prove that axiom.:2razz:Only in response to people who say they know more than I do.
You're a troll.
You can tell people are desperate and losing the debate when they start this kind of stuff. This thread is winding down. If anyone has anything more of substance to add, I'm interested. Otherwise, no thanks.