How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?

[giblets]

Do you think millionaires should be able to talk at all? And, again, any reading that the decision only affected millionaire's rights is laughably stupid.

Yes. They just shouldn't be able to corrupt political candidates by contributing massive moneys to their campaigns.

[OzzyKP]

Our democracy wouldn't have suffered large scale damage from shadowy millionaires not being able to run attack ads against candidates they oppose during election campaigns.

Umm, I'm pretty sure nothing about Citizens United (or BCRA) had anything to do with shadowy millionaires running attack ads. That was legal before Citizens United and still is today.

[Wiglaf]

Yes. They just shouldn't be able to corrupt political candidates by contributing massive moneys to their campaigns.

We're not talking about contributions to campaigns, we're talking about ads. The decision did not affect the ban on corporate payments to campaigns.

Honestly, you are so confused on this point it is hard to know where to start. You want to prevent corporations and unions from running ads (that clearly identify who is paying for them), for seemingly no other reason other than that you hate rich people. I guess I do not blame you, because Obama has deliberately mislead people on this ruling's effects, too.

[giblets]

Umm, I'm pretty sure nothing about Citizens United (or BCRA) had anything to do with shadowy millionaires running attack ads. That was legal before Citizens United and still is today.

So even millionaires had free speech under BCRA? OMG.

[OzzyKP]

So even millionaires had free speech under BCRA? OMG.

Do you even know what you are arguing?

[giblets]

We're not talking about contributions to campaigns, we're talking about ads.

Honestly, you are so confused on this point it is hard to know where to start. You want to prevent corporations and unions from running ads (that clearly identify who is paying for them), for seemingly no other reason other than that you hate rich people.

Running an ad against a candidate is a contribution to the candidate's opponent. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

[Wiglaf]

Running an ad against a candidate is a contribution to the candidate's opponent. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Think about it, chubby. Think real long and hard about it.

[giblets]

Do you even know what you are arguing?

Great, why don't you resort to personal attacks

[Wiglaf]

Still thinking?

[OzzyKP]

Great, why don't you resort to personal attacks

So I'm guessing the answer is 'no'.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes. They just shouldn't be able to corrupt political candidates by contributing massive moneys to their campaigns.

Therefore, the government should be able to ban books.

Got it.

[Kuciwalker]

Running an ad against a candidate is a contribution to the candidate's opponent. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

So is simply telling your friends that you don't like a candidate.

[giblets]

So is simply telling your friends that you don't like a candidate.

That costs nothing and doesn't make it easy for people with a lot of money to manipulate the political process.

[Wiglaf]

There're not at all equivalent. Talking to your friend is not a contribution of any kind.

[Kuciwalker]

So, basically, the more effective the speech is the more we can prohibit it. Got it.

xpost