Jump to content

WATCH: Clinton Vows To Tackle Citizens United Within First 30 Days


Recommended Posts

Another reason not to vote for HRC. She not only is one of the most opaque politicians in history (while claiming the opposite), she wants to limit the free speech of others. Two traits I personally do not want in a POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason not to vote for HRC. She not only is one of the most opaque politicians in history (while claiming the opposite), she wants to limit the free speech of others. Two traits I personally do not want in a POTUS.

ROTFLMFAO.

 

Name the person whose free speech she would be "limiting".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROTFLMFAO.

 

Name the person whose free speech she would be "limiting".

Well the 'free speech of others' that she is attempting to limit is that of corporations. As you MAY know, corporations are GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Right? Can we agree that corporations are freely assembled groups of people? If not, what are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the 'free speech of others' that she is attempting to limit is that of corporations.

So, you can't name any person who is being denied their right of free speech.

So you are lying. Got it.

 

As you MAY know, corporations are GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Right?

 

No. Corporations are legal entities. Are you saying that the people who work their are being denied the right of free speech? That none of them can advocate for any political candidate they wish?

 

Can we agree that corporations are freely assembled groups of people? If not, what are they?

 

Legal entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name the person whose free speech she would be "limiting".

 

 

Guess Pop! hasn’t heard that the Democrat”IC” Party platform calls for prosecuting global warming skeptics.

 

It's their 11th Commandment ... Thou shalt not speak out against Global Warming alarmism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you can't name any person who is being denied their right of free speech.

So you are lying. Got it.

 

As you MAY know, corporations are GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Right?

 

No. Corporations are legal entities. Are you saying that the people who work their are being denied the right of free speech? That none of them can advocate for any political candidate they wish?

 

Can we agree that corporations are freely assembled groups of people? If not, what are they?

 

Legal entities.

 

As of now, you are correct, no one is being denied. You stipulate that 'corporations are legal entities', I agree. Those 'legal entities' are comprised of a person (ie the owner) or a group of people.

 

"Are you saying that the people who work their are being denied the right of free speech?" - isabell

 

No, of course not. If HRC and those against the CU decision had their way, the owners (ie the legal entity known as a corporation) would have their right to peaceably assemble and disseminate political speech in any way they wish would be limited or denied.

 

So many straw-man arguments from you,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, you are correct, no one is being denied. You stipulate that 'corporations are legal entities', I agree. Those 'legal entities' are comprised of a person (ie the owner) or a group of people.

 

"Are you saying that the people who work their are being denied the right of free speech?" - isabell

 

No, of course not. If HRC and those against the CU decision had their way, the owners (ie the legal entity known as a corporation) would have their right to peaceably assemble and disseminate political speech in any way they wish would be limited or denied.

Name one of the stockholders - any of them - who would be denied their individual right to advocate for any political candidate they wish.

 

So many straw-man arguments from you,,,,

 

I haven't made any strawman arguments, and, seeing as how it is clear you have no idea what that word means, you should probably stop trying to pretend that you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isabel, your questions to me such as "Are you saying that the people who work their are being denied the right of free speech? That none of them can advocate for any political candidate they wish?" appear to infer that I am asserting the affirmative, a position I do not hold. Hence the 'straw-man". Granted you technically ASKED a question.

 

No one is being denied their rights to free speech now, what is the problem? Give one good reason that a freely assembled group of people should NOT be able to express their political viewpoints in any way they wish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the 'free speech of others' that she is attempting to limit is that of corporations. As you MAY know, corporations are GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Right? Can we agree that corporations are freely assembled groups of people? If not, what are they?

We need to get corporate money and corporate influence OUT of politics. This is an outstanding step in the right direction by Hillary. This country is on a fast track to oligarchy. Overturning Citizens United could just save our democracy.

 

We need a government that is "by the people and for the people" (not "by the lobbyist and for the corporation").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like free college for all hillary is wrong

So you prefer that people remain uneducated making low wages? Or that only the children of the wealthy get a higher education?

 

Because college has become unaffordable for the average American. Young people shouldn't be buried six digits in debt by the time they reach their early twenties. Not in the wealthiest nation on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you prefer that people remain uneducated making low wages? Or that only the children of the wealthy get a higher education?

 

Because college has become unaffordable for the average American. Young people shouldn't be buried six digits in debt by the time they reach their early twenties. Not in the wealthiest nation on the planet.

 

"So you prefer that people remain uneducated making low wages? Or that only the children of the wealthy get a higher education?" - rr

 

NOBODY believes that! Don't stay stuck on stupid.

 

 

You think college costs a lot now? Wait until it is "free".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So you prefer that people remain uneducated making low wages? Or that only the children of the wealthy get a higher education?" - rr

 

NOBODY believes that! Don't stay stuck on stupid.

I'm a long, long way from stupid, pus-for-brains. Too many people believe exactly what I stated. Either that or they think it's awesome that young people are leaving college buried in six digits worth of debt. Which is it?

 

You think college costs a lot now? Wait until it is "free".

Bullshit. It will come from our tax dollars. Instead of wasting trillions playing planet police, we could be investing it in our nation's future....i.e. the future of our citizens. Of course, there would have to be a grade requirement to continue - but a four year degree at state universities should be tuition free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Too many people believe exactly what I stated. Either that or they think it's awesome that young people are leaving college buried in six digits worth of debt. Which is it?" - rr

 

Very few believe any of those things. Shouldn't we address WHY college costs so much in many cases? False notions that EVERYONE MUST go to four year university and the ease of getting loans from the US govt. are two of the main drivers behind this massive increase in the cost of college.

 

Despite that, if one tries, you can find reasonably affordable options for college. (ie community college, online schools, some state universities).

 

The demand for college is so high that universities just continue to increase the costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few believe any of those things.

Incorrect, but thanks for playing. Many people believe that. You obviously need to get out more.

 

 

Shouldn't we address WHY college costs so much in many cases?

Once the government is funding education, the cost will undoubtedly be addressed. You can count on it. The same will happen with healthcare.

 

 

False notions that EVERYONE MUST go to four year university and the ease of getting loans from the US govt. are two of the main drivers behind this massive increase in the cost of college.

 

Despite that, if one tries, you can find reasonably affordable options for college. (ie community college, online schools, some state universities).

It's too much. Kids are leaving school now buried in $75,000 or more in debt making it impossible for them to buy a home, manage their healthcare needs, or take on any kind of substantial expense.

 

We need to change our nation's priorities. Instead of dumping trillions into planet policing and regime changes, we need to invest it in our population. It will eventually lower the unemployment rolls as well as eliminate welfare and other government subsidies. Most people WANT to work. Let's help them get educated so they can become productive members of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a long, long way from stupid, pus-for-brains. Too many people believe exactly what I stated. Either that or they think it's awesome that young people are leaving college buried in six digits worth of debt. Which is it?

 

Bullshit. It will come from our tax dollars. Instead of wasting trillions playing planet police, we could be investing it in our nation's future....i.e. the future of our citizens. Of course, there would have to be a grade requirement to continue - but a four year degree at state universities should be tuition free.

I would feel better about that plan if we did better with grades K-12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would feel better about that plan if we did better with grades K-12.

Valid point, neue regel.

 

Again, it seems to be a priority issue. When teachers (and students) are forced to buy their own books and office supplies, there's some serious underfunding going on. Many school departments are lowering the bar on teacher qualifications (and it shows). You get what you pay for.

 

However, according to many articles, a presidential candidate now spends close to a billion dollars running for office. Wtf? A billion dollars? The RNC and DNC conventions alone are costing a fortune. Are they really necessary?

 

Imo, that money could be going to so much better use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it seems to be a priority issue. When teachers (and students) are forced to buy their own books and office supplies, there's some serious underfunding going on.

 

However, according to many articles, a presidential candidate now spends close to a billion dollars running for office. Wtf? A billion dollars?

 

That money could be going to so much better use.

I don't disagree. We've done a very poor job of educating kids using a 1950s model. Let's make education reform a #1 priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree. We've done a very poor job of educating kids using a 1950s model. Let's make education reform a #1 priority.

Yes, I agree. My mother was a school teacher back in the 70's. Kids dreaded her classes because she was very demanding. However the same kids that bitched about her all through high school wrote to her from college, thanking her for being a hardass.

 

Those teachers are hard to come by nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. My mother was a school teacher back in the 70's. Kids dreaded her classes because she was very demanding. However the same kids that bitched about her all through high school wrote to her from college, thanking her for being a hardass.

 

Those teachers are hard to come by nowadays.

Absolutely. In this day and age, we give teachers the impossible task of trying to educate while also expecting them to be babysitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect, but thanks for playing. Many people believe that. You obviously need to get out more.

 

 

Once the government is funding education, the cost will undoubtedly be addressed. You can count on it. The same will happen with healthcare.

 

 

It's too much. Kids are leaving school now buried in $75,000 or more in debt making it impossible for them to buy a home, manage their healthcare needs, or take on any kind of substantial expense.

 

We need to change our nation's priorities. Instead of dumping trillions into planet policing and regime changes, we need to invest it in our population. It will eventually lower the unemployment rolls as well as eliminate welfare and other government subsidies. Most people WANT to work. Let's help them get educated so they can become productive members of society.

 

"Once the government is funding education, the cost will undoubtedly be addressed. You can count on it. The same will happen with healthcare." - rr

 

Sad thing is, you probably sincerely believe that. The unfortunate (for you) reality is that if the federal govt. mandates 'free' college the costs will invariably INCREASE as with nearly all other areas of govt. intervention. Not to mention the little fact that the federal govt. has absolutely NO constitutional authority to be involved in education.

 

 

"Incorrect, but thanks for playing. Many people believe that. You obviously need to get out more." - rr

 

Oh, because YOU say so? Well then.....

 

 

What we need in education is students who are at a minimum WILLING to learn. Even a lack of preparation can be made up for with a good attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"So you prefer that people remain uneducated making low wages? Or that only the children of the wealthy get a higher education?" - rr

 

NOBODY believes that! Don't stay stuck on stupid.

 

 

You think college costs a lot now? Wait until it is "free".

That was Bernie's idea. Not what HRC is advocating. If you aren't aware of this why are you on a political forum?

Another reason not to vote for HRC. She not only is one of the most opaque politicians in history (while claiming the opposite), she wants to limit the free speech of others. Two traits I personally do not want in a POTUS.

Idiot thinks it's fine to buy elections. The American people don't. Just another reason why HRC will be our next president.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was Bernie's idea. Not what HRC is advocating. If you aren't aware of this why are you on a political forum?

Idiot thinks it's fine to buy elections. The American people don't. Just another reason why HRC will be our next president.

 

All right my first ad hominem attack! A badge of honor. Regarding 'buying elections', if there aint anyone selling no one will be buying.

 

That was Bernie's idea. Not what HRC is advocating. If you aren't aware of this why are you on a political forum?

Idiot thinks it's fine to buy elections. The American people don't. Just another reason why HRC will be our next president.

 

 

Are you sure about that? http://time.com/4394699/hillary-clinton-free-college-bernie-sanders-tuition/

 

from the link...."Bernie Sanders has won a major concession from Hillary Clinton, who committed on Wednesday to a plan that would make college free for more than 80% of American families by 2021."

 

Thoughts eclectic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...