Aren't Blacks tired of being lied too...and lead around by their noses?

[conan]

@Guilds

There are already limits on speech.

I love libs logic…

[zantax]

@Guilds

@zantax

You don’t think whether Americans should have free speech and free will is a black and white proposition?

Is designating money as speech, black or white? There are already limits on speech. So there is already gray area.

Well defined constitutionally and pre-emptive censorship isn’t one of them. Sure you can sue me for slander or libel, give me due process and punish me financially, what you can’t do is remove the right for me to speak.

[zantax]

@conan

@Guilds

There are already limits on speech.

I love libs logic…

There are already limits on abortion so that means…

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Guilds

@zantax

Oh and there is a difference between spending money to get your political speech heard and buying a politician or specific action by a politician.

Not according to the SCOTUS decisions you have supported in the past.

Hell, the current decisions make foreign money influencing our political process A-OK.

Dark money is what is keeping Pubs in power in many states, and at the federal level.
They can’t win on their ideas.

Heck, in McDonnell v. US, the Supremes lowered the bar on pay to play. This is particularly ironic given all the sturm und drang over in the Biden/Comer thread.

[zantax]

Sure everyone loves what Democrats are offering, see Biden approval rating and country wrong/right track polling.

[Guilds]

@conan

I love libs logic…

It is fact. Do you think any and all speech is protected by the 1st?

[conan]

@Guilds

It is fact. Do you think any and all speech is protected by the 1st?

I think you missed the point…and views you spout off are extremely dangerous to a free society.

[Guilds]

@zantax

Well defined constitutionally and pre-emptive censorship isn’t one of them. Sure you can sue me for slander or libel, give me due process and punish me financially, what you can’t do is remove the right for me to speak.

There can be consequences for some types of speech.

You have the “right” to shoot someone…but there can be consequences depending on the situation.

[Guilds]

@conan

I think you missed the point…and views you spout off are extremely dangerous to a free society.

I am very much on point, y’all are the ones that seem confused.

How are my views “dangerous”?

[conan]

@Guilds

How are my views “dangerous”?

Advocating censorship on opposing ideas that YOU don’t like. So since you don’t think all speech should be protected…than I claim your speech is dangers so it must be censored.

The fact that you’re unable or unwilling to see the dangers in your thought process/pattern is why you’re missing the point…or are YOU confused?

Which is it?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

That has nothing to do what I posted.

[WuWei]

Watch Lucy move the ball on Charlie again.

[Samm]

@Guilds

@zantax

Note I do not and did not support a quid pro quo for that spending. Any more then I support murdering someone with a gun.

When you support laws and/or SCOTUS decisions that enable those things to occur, you are supporting those outcomes.

Both can be fixed with good legislation…but…one party refuses to even acknowledge there are problems.

That is utter nonsense. In fact, the performance of the Legislative branch over the last 40 - 50 years or more essentially makes the phrase “good legislation” an oxymoron.

[Samm]

@Guilds

@zantax

You don’t think whether Americans should have free speech and free will is a black and white proposition?

Is designating money as speech, black or white? There are already limits on speech. So there is already gray area.

Have you never heard the expression “put your money where your mouth is”? In politics, money backing up speech has been the societal norm for hundreds of years in so-called “free societies” all around the world. You castigated Republicans for using “dark” money to gain or retain power, but the truth is, the Democrats practically invented that concept. But like everything else in politics, you © only complain when your own ox is gored by the other guy’s. Perhaps you could gain some insight by taking a good long look in the mirror.

[Samm]

@conan

@Guilds

There are already limits on speech.

I love libs logic…

Yep. They seem to think that being held responsible for what they say is the same thing as limiting what you say.

[Samm]

@zantax

@conan

@Guilds

There are already limits on speech.

I love libs logic…

There are already limits on abortion so that means…

With one major difference … there is no Right for the latter.

[Samm]

@Guilds

@conan

I love libs logic…

It is fact. Do you think any and all speech is protected by the 1st?

Yes … “shall make no law.”

[Samm]

@Guilds

@zantax

Well defined constitutionally and pre-emptive censorship isn’t one of them. Sure you can sue me for slander or libel, give me due process and punish me financially, what you can’t do is remove the right for me to speak.

There can be consequences for some types of speech.

You have the “right” to shoot someone…but there can be consequences depending on the situation.

Now you’re on the right track … consequences.

[Guilds]

@Samm

That is utter nonsense. In fact, the performance of the Legislative branch over the last 40 - 50 years or more essentially makes the phrase “good legislation” an oxymoron.

Spoken like a true Republican, that believes government cannot do anything right, gets elected, and then proves that assertion by doing nothing.

[Guilds]

@conan

Advocating censorship on opposing ideas that YOU don’t like.

I do not advocate that at all…hence, the rest of your post is totally useless.