You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #12: You really are flailing, aren't you? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You really are flailing, aren't you?
You must realize deep down how lame your arguments are, or you wouldn't be trying so desperately to dismiss mine with nothing more than a wave of the hand and no facts.


THe ruling states that corporations have a RIGHT - not a privilege - to participate in our campaigns.

A right, of course, which they do not have.


And where exactly in your Constitution did you find justification for that wild leap? You declaring it does not make it so, not even with the bluffing "of course" added. Everyone, including individuals, groups of individuals and organizations of all stripes, has the the right to freely express their political views and opinions without interference or restraint from Congress. That's the simple fact of the matter, regardless of how hard you try to make it go away.

You need to read the ruling's dissents, and then point out the dissenting opinions' flaws, my man. Until then, you're just shilling for Corporate America.

Uh, no...I'm shilling for the Constitution. And the dissenter's arguments are, for the most part lame. The whole "Tokyo Rose" bit was an embarrassment for a SC justice. And you frankly haven't demonstrated the Constitutional wherewithal for me to dissect the dissent in detail again. Been there already.

Congress' inherent regulatory oversight in regards to commerce CLEARLY means that money does NOT equal speech.

CLEARLY? :rofl: Good, grief, where did you come up with that? So many non sequiturs that I can't even count them. Most especially that political speech is an entirely different animal from commercial speech when it comes to the First Amendment. The ability to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages, and a restriction on the former amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the latter. Even though you won't admit that, you know very well that it's true, or you wouldn't be so worried about the effects of this decision, now would you?

Set, win, match.

Uh, that would be game, set, match, dude. (And Au Contraire, btw).

Weak try, and epic fail all around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC