Abortion, redux

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Abortion, redux

    Supreme Court to hear two cases on 'buffer zone' laws. These are laws designed to prevent anti-choicers from barring entry to abortion facilities or getting in peoples' faces in an attempt to intimidate them from entering an abortion clinic open to thepublic in the name of "protest."

    Supreme Court also to hear case involving caps on individual contributions to candidates and political parties.

     

     

    Dangerous times ahead.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    Supreme Court to hear two cases on 'buffer zone' laws. These are laws designed to prevent anti-choicers from barring entry to abortion facilities or getting in peoples' faces in an attempt to intimidate them from entering an abortion clinic open to thepublic in the name of "protest."

    Supreme Court also to hear case involving caps on individual contributions to candidates and political parties.

     

     

    Dangerous times ahead.



    Buffer laws are an unfortunately necessity.

    Good to keep zealot abortion foes from legal facilities, also good for;

    keeping protest zealots away from service men funerals,

    keeping PETA away from fur fashion shows

    keeping Greenpeace away from oil platforms

     

    No Caps on donations............unless they also go after bundlers, 501cs, unions etc.

    Let's just ban all money from politics.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    Dangerous times for the First Amendment...which isn't the progressive's favorite Amendment these days....Nancy Pelosi wants to repeal it, by amending it. 

    Didn't Obama famously tell his supporters to "get in people's faces"?

    And Government trashing the First Amendment by picking winners and losers in "regulating" campaign contributions...what could possibly go wrong with that?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Dangerous times for the First Amendment



    Ok, Ms. O'Donnell, show me where in the Constitution it says that cash money is speech.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux


    So the First Amendment protects freedom of speech for religious folks, but the Government can "ban money" , so it can prohibit believers from contributing one cent of their own money to build a Church , or hire a Minister...

    Cash money isnt speech. The freedom to associate with others , and contribute your own property, including cash,  and your time,  to a political cause is free speech.

    The First Amendment is construed by liberals to entirely prevent the Government from regulating pornography, but liberals somehow allow the Iron Hand of Government to prevent citizens (Citizens United!) from freely associating with others of like minds to rent a billboard, or buy ad time for a political cause, or publicize a movie made about Hillary Clinton.

    That is called censorship.

     

    Strangely, the current state of Supreme Court decisions is that is a billionaire can spend all his money to elect himself, but a modest middle class businessman can't contribute to a campaign because he may be a "corporation"...absurd.

    Besides the Constitutionality, the effect of Government "campaign reform" has been deform: protection of incumbents , and more corruption by driving loopholes and backdoor channels and PACs....

    Transparency and freedom, the way to healthy political debates...

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Dangerous times for the First Amendment

     



    Ok, Ms. O'Donnell, show me where in the Constitution it says that cash money is speech.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Constitution didnt, supreme court did!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Dangerous times for the First Amendment

     



    Ok, Ms. O'Donnell, show me where in the Constitution it says that cash money is speech.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Show me where it says government controls healthcare.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Let's just ban all money from politics.

     



     

    I whole-heartedly agree.

    [/QUOTE]

    Or, take the opposite view.  Other than foriegn money, ban nothing(i.e. money) in terms of political speech.

    That is more in line withthe constitution

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    Dangerous times for the First Amendment

     

     



    Ok, Ms. O'Donnell, show me where in the Constitution it says that cash money is speech.

     

     



    Show me where it says government controls healthcare.

     




    It doesn't.  You're the one spouting that.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Cash money isnt speech. The freedom to associate with others , and contribute your own property, including cash,  and your time,  to a political cause is free speech.



    The second sentence contradicts the first. The court said that money = speech.

    Citizen United paves the way for doing away with pretty much any and every limitation on political donations. Buy your candidate openly and proudly, the American Way!

    It's perverse that you seem to cheer this on. You do realize there are rich Ds out there. Do you want them purchasing elections?

     

    The only thing they can hang their hat on s that Citizens United was predicated on the assumption that there was no appearance of corruption in the whole political donations arena.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Transparency and freedom, the way to healthy political debates...



    Except when the pacs don't want to disclose their wealthy donors, right...?

    Can't have the people knowing who gave what to whom...that would be too ...transparent.

     

    With such legalized bribery, is it any wonder we have legislatures full of corrupt-licans and corrupt-ocrats.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    The premise is also logically flawed. When you give money to a political cause you aren't engaging in any speech yourself. You aren't communicating anything to anyone in particular. What you are doing is amplifying your beneficiary's speech in the hope that it drowns out other peoples' speech.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    The premise is also logically flawed. When you give money to a political cause you aren't engaging in any speech yourself. You aren't communicating anything to anyone in particular. What you are doing is amplifying your beneficiary's speech in the hope that it drowns out other peoples' speech.



    I don't see anything in the constitution limiting my right to amplify someone else's free speech.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    Dangerous times for the First Amendment

     

     



    Ok, Ms. O'Donnell, show me where in the Constitution it says that cash money is speech.

     

     



    Show me where it says government controls healthcare.

     

     




    It doesn't.  You're the one spouting that.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your reply made all sorts of sense until the second sentence.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    Supreme Court to hear two cases on 'buffer zone' laws. These are laws designed to prevent anti-choicers from barring entry to abortion facilities or getting in peoples' faces in an attempt to intimidate them from entering an abortion clinic open to thepublic in the name of "protest."

    There's a difference between "free speech" and harassment. These women should be able to proceed with what I imagine to be an extremely difficult and emotional time without getting harassed. If you are opposed to abortion there are many more appropriate venues to make those opinions known.

     

    [QUOTE]Ok, Ms. O'Donnell, show me where in the Constitution it says that cash money is speech.[/QUOTE]

    No one has to. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the power to regulate political donations to the Federal government so, therefore, they may not.

     

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the power to regulate political donations to the Federal government so, therefore, they may not.

    Somehow I don't think you can cite a Supreme Court case so holding.

    The subject of a particular law does not need to be previously authorized by the founders and memorialized in the constitution. They ennumerated very broad powers - "to regulate interstate commerce" - specifically because they lacked crystal balls and the sci-fi concept of a time machine was still a couple hundred years away.


    You may be describing how you think the constitution should be interpreted, but it sure as hell isn't the way it actually is interpreted.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Cash money isnt speech. The freedom to associate with others , and contribute your own property, including cash,  and your time,  to a political cause is free speech.

     



    The second sentence contradicts the first. The court said that money = speech.

     

    Citizen United paves the way for doing away with pretty much any and every limitation on political donations. Buy your candidate openly and proudly, the American Way!

    It's perverse that you seem to cheer this on. You do realize there are rich Ds out there. Do you want them purchasing elections?

     The only thing they can hang their hat on s that Citizens United was predicated on the assumption that there was no appearance of corruption in the whole political donations arena.

     



    Did you know a single wealthy liberal contributor helped make Eugene McCarthy's shoe string campaign a household name in 1968? Otherwise he would not have had a prayer against an incumbent President...and it resulted in LBJ not running for a second term. 

    Under today's campaign finance reform, or deform, such underdogs have no shot..they have to hire a dozen lawyers to figure out all the paperwork.

    So in the interest of preventing the rich from having too much influence, campaign finance reform gave huge advantages to wealthy plutocrats like Jon Corzine, the Kennedys,  Nancy Pelosi ,  Mitt Romney, who could spend to run for office...

    Government regulated and funded campaigns means the Government purchases the election results...for the Government.

    "Taking money out of politics", means another Government bailout, of politicians.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    The premise is also logically flawed. When you give money to a political cause you aren't engaging in any speech yourself. You aren't communicating anything to anyone in particular. What you are doing is amplifying your beneficiary's speech in the hope that it drowns out other peoples' speech.

    "Drowns out others speech?" How so?

    So logically, you are limited to speaking on a street corner by yourself...and moreover the Government can ban you from usiing a bullhorn, since it may drown out others...

    The truth is, liberals want to rig the election system so they will win ..they will ban "evil" corporation involvement (the dreaded private sector) ,  while rigging it so their public sector employees  unions will be a full time army of campaigners and contributors....

    The Party of Government wants the Government to run elections....talk about corruption!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Cash money isnt speech. The freedom to associate with others , and contribute your own property, including cash,  and your time,  to a political cause is free speech.

     



    The second sentence contradicts the first. The court said that money = speech.

     

    Citizen United paves the way for doing away with pretty much any and every limitation on political donations. Buy your candidate openly and proudly, the American Way!

    It's perverse that you seem to cheer this on. You do realize there are rich Ds out there. Do you want them purchasing elections?

     

    The only thing they can hang their hat on s that Citizens United was predicated on the assumption that there was no appearance of corruption in the whole political donations arena.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only way to bring some resemblance of fairness or accountibility to this system now is to make candidates disclose openly where every campaign dollar comes from!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    Somehow I don't think you can cite a Supreme Court case so holding

    I imagine that you can find many decisions based on the concept of a limited Federal government before Roosavelt coerced the court into expanding the ability to regulate interstate commerce and the "good and plenty clause" to the point where we now have a massive panopticon bureaucracy that is seemingly far beyond having a sense of being beholden to the people.

     

    [QUOTE]You may be describing how you think the constitution should be interpreted, but it sure as hell isn't the way it actually is interpreted.[/QUOTE]

    Just reading it as it was written in plain English.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Just reading it as it was written in plain English.

    Please.

    All reading involves interpretation. You are interpreting it differently than the Supreme Court has for quite a bit longer than you've been alive.

    You're free to disagree with them, but it's absurd to put your position as if you're the only one who is "just" reading it.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

    Transparency and freedom, the way to healthy political debates...

     



    Except when the pacs don't want to disclose their wealthy donors, right...?

     

    Can't have the people knowing who gave what to whom...that would be too ...transparent.

     With such legalized bribery, is it any wonder we have legislatures full of corrupt-licans and corrupt-ocrats.

     



    Of course, PACS are a creature of...guess what? Campaign finance reform....

    ....followed by more campaign finance reform which got after those evil PACS...this resulted in Super PACs ...

    ....more campaign finance reform, we now have "501(c)"s.

    George Soros, the billionaire socialist , sneakily launders his money through dozens of front groups and nonprofits and supposed charitable organizations. The convoluted regulations make it easier to hide attempts to buy elections!

    In the old days, Soros would have to try to buy elections the old fashioned way. A big cash contribution!

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Abortion, redux

    What is absurd is the idea that a political donation can be categorized as "interstate commerce." the intention of that clause was to prevent the individual states from placing tariffs on goods coming in from other states and the like. The intention was to regulate commerce between the states so that it would not be impeded by local concerns such as what we have with international commerce. It was never intended to be a catch all for the Federal government to regulate everything and everyone. Just because it suits the current government that this be so doesn't make it so.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

Share