• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary pledges an amendment to nullify 1st amendment in first 30 days

MrWonka said:
Money is not speech, it is volume. It is the ability to turn your speech up so loud that the speech of others cannot be heard. The point of free speech is to insure that all speech can be heard, not to let those with money drown out the speech of others. That is the antithesis of free speech.
Click to expand...

No, this is just one of the silly things people claim when more people say things they disagree with than those who agree. "Balance" and "fairness," the claim goes. You have to limit speech to make it free, they say.

Sadly for you, "freedom of speech" means exactly that. It's the right to speak. It's not the right to be "heard." It's the right to speak. If someone else's ideas gain more traction or a larger audience than yours, too frickin' bad. Try harder, or be more convincing.
 
Renae said:
No one was buying elections, that's just worthless bumper sticker logic
Click to expand...

makes about as much sense as saying you dont have free speach when you can say what you want but cant spend all the money you want hiring others to say what you want for you
 
azgreg said:
It will never get out of congress.
Click to expand...

Amendments don't have to start in Congress but the other method is even less likely. However, it's actually not that hard to create a de facto amendment. She appoints a SCOTUS member to add to the other partisan hacks that currently infest the court. Then she can just pop out an EO and have it backed up by the SCOTUS when it gets challenged. There's your constitutional amendment right there.
 
Fishking said:
Amendments don't have to start in Congress but the other method is even less likely. However, it's actually not that hard to create a de facto amendment. She appoints a SCOTUS member to add to the other partisan hacks that currently infest the court. Then she can just pop out an EO and have it backed up by the SCOTUS when it gets challenged. There's your constitutional amendment right there.
Click to expand...

Yes...and that's why Hillary is so much more dangerous to our country than Obama is. He didn't have the slanted Supreme Court that she would have.

If any person really thought Hillary was the right person to be President, this certainty should be enough to change their mind.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes...and that's why Hillary is so much more dangerous to our country than Obama is. He didn't have the slanted Supreme Court that she would have.

If any person really thought Hillary was the right person to be President, this certainty should be enough to change their mind.
Click to expand...

Of course, the alternative is Delicate Donald who has said he will strengthen libel laws so people can be sued by his lawyers into silence. He want's to be King, too.

My mind didn't need changing. I won't vote for Sen. Clinton and I won't vote for Donald Trump.
 
blarg said:
makes about as much sense as saying you dont have free speach when you can say what you want but cant spend all the money you want hiring others to say what you want for you
Click to expand...

You need to rethink your positions.
 
Renae said:
Because your position is to restrict free speech, but only the speech you disapprove of. That's immoral.
Click to expand...

money is not free speech you cant inherent extra free speech you cant loose your free speech by being in debt

i want to restrict people from buying political influence they can say whatever they want

when you get taxed the government is not taking your free speech away
 
blarg said:
money is not free speech you cant inherent extra free speech you cant loose your free speech by being in debt

i want to restrict people from buying political influence they can say whatever they want

when you get taxed the government is not taking your free speech away
Click to expand...

Ye syes yes, we know the position you were told to have, the argument's you've been told to use. This is all rehashed silliness.

You want to restrict groups of people that might support political positions you disagree with. However, what's left unsaid on the table is your side leaves Unions and other favorable entities untouched from these restrictions. Please do though, claim how you want to restrict free speech.
 
Renae said:
Ye syes yes, we know the position you were told to have, the argument's you've been told to use. This is all rehashed silliness.

You want to restrict groups of people that might support political positions you disagree with. However, what's left unsaid on the table is your side leaves Unions and other favorable entities untouched from these restrictions. Please do though, claim how you want to restrict free speech.
Click to expand...

um no one told me to have any position so you apparently know ****

i want to restrict evry one form being able to buy unlimited influence

applying that to unions and any one else sounds good
 
blarg said:
um no one told me to have any position so you apparently know ****

i want to restrict evry one form being able to buy unlimited influence

applying that to unions and any one else sounds good
Click to expand...

Sure they did, you're a good parrot.

So you admit you want to restrict free speech. Good, what other rights would you restrict?
 
Renae said:
Sure they did, you're a good parrot.

So you admit you want to restrict free speech. Good, what other rights would you restrict?
Click to expand...

why are you lying baout me?

since money is not free spech i dont want to restrict that ( your not actuly explaining why i should change my mined your jsut being insulting now )

well wait stuff lite threatening people id be ok wiht restricting

not a fan of slander either so could you stop with that
 
blarg said:
why are you lying baout me?

since money is not free spech i dont want to restrict that ( your not actuly explaining why i should change my mined your jsut being insulting now )

well wait stuff lite threatening people id be ok wiht restricting

not a fan of slander either so could you stop with that
Click to expand...

Money is Free Speech.


Game, set, match.
 
Renae said:
Money is Free Speech.


Game, set, match.
Click to expand...


if that weer the case i should be able to demand any money i need in order to send messages to more people poverty should not restrict free spech

and giving money to politicians in order to convince them to vote your way would not be a bribe but just free expression ( not that large campaign donations are much difrent )

nope money and putting politicians in your pocket is not free speach
 
blarg said:
if that weer the case i should be able to demand any money i need in order to send messages to more people poverty should not restrict free spech

and giving money to politicians in order to convince them to vote your way would not be a bribe but just free expression ( not that large campaign donations are much difrent )

nope money and putting politicians in your pocket is not free speach
Click to expand...

Okay, so you've admitted you have no argument. You have the RIGHT to Free Speech, that doesn't mean you have the right to demand others provide for the means to exercise your right. That's where your logic falls apart.


So, you are for restricting rights. Aside speech, what other rights do you want to restrict because you disagree with the people exercising them? Assembly? Religion? Guns?

Do tell us how many Constitutionally protected Rights you want to restrict as well as speech.
 
Renae said:
Okay, so you've admitted you have no argument. You have the RIGHT to Free Speech, that doesn't mean you have the right to demand others provide for the means to exercise your right. That's where your logic falls apart.


So, you are for restricting rights. Aside speech, what other rights do you want to restrict because you disagree with the people exercising them? Assembly? Religion? Guns?

Do tell us how many Constitutionally protected Rights you want to restrict as well as speech.
Click to expand...


so your saying money is not free speech and people Should be able to exercise ther rights more or less then others based on how much cash they have
 
blarg said:
so your saying money is not free speech and people Should be able to exercise ther rights more or less then others based on how much cash they have
Click to expand...

No. Watch the video.
 
blarg said:
money is not free speech you cant inherent extra free speech you cant loose your free speech by being in debt

i want to restrict people from buying political influence they can say whatever they want

when you get taxed the government is not taking your free speech away
Click to expand...

Cable TV and the internet isn't freedom of the press. Ban all media on the TV and internet and have them use town criers.
 
Fishking said:
Cable TV and the internet isn't freedom of the press. Ban all media on the TV and internet and have them use town criers.
Click to expand...

gosh that would be as bad as letting corporations dominate the air waves by purchasing unlimited amounts of time for ther messages well for tv and radio

intent has room for every one i guess
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I'm one of the most anti-Hillary people here and I'll be one of the first to tell you this is nonsense. There is no violation of the 1st Amendment here.
Click to expand...

well i guess you ya'll are right constitutionally speaking ,but the pc culture pushed by the democratic socialist party ( of which hillary is now queen) is a direct attack on the 1st amendment,and welcomed by both clinton and obama.


run don run
 
This nothing more than Clinton trying to separate herself from the correct allegations of BIG MONEY backing her campaign. It's like an incumbent running on a reform platform...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom