Roughly what I would expect from the moonbats. Don't even slightly believe any if it.
9/10/2012 10:05:29 AM
>The Disclose Act would chill political speech because many donors would fear retribution and would not donate if their donations are publicly disclosed.
When you abandon your principles when they cost you something, they were never principles to begin with.
9/10/2012 10:05:51 AM
How in hell's name is giving money equated with free speech?
General Motors has been nationalised?
9/10/2012 10:06:19 AM
-olympics-worth leap of logic
... so yeah, bullshit
9/10/2012 10:09:33 AM
It doesn't matter because he's going to declare martial law soon and declare himself dictator-for-life anyway. Don't you read the conspiracy websites?
9/10/2012 10:14:29 AM
"In his first term, Obama raised the national debt by $5 trillion..."
Most of which came about because he actually had the gall to put the costs of the Afghanistan ad Iraq wars 'on the books', instead of funding them separately the way shrub jr. was. It's called 'openness'.
"...seized control of the healthcare sector on behalf of the federal government..."
"...and seized control of General Motors on behalf of the tumor that has been killing it, the UAW."
More bullshit. He bailed out the auto industry, which is now thriving and providing hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I could go on, but the rest of this post is just one huge steaming pile of FAIL.
And come on, drop the political pretense. It's really all about him being a nigger, right? Go ahead, you know you want to say it.
Fucking worthless closet racists piss me off more than the honestly open ones.
9/10/2012 10:19:24 AM
Yeah, Obama's totally going to get two thirds of the House and Senate, and three quarters of the state legislatures, to agree to repeal the 1st Amendment. I think the martial law route is infinitely more likely, and its probability is sitting right below "I spontaneously get teleported to Venus."
9/10/2012 10:54:45 AM
Filin De Blanc
Money is not speech. Next you'll be telling me that saying you can't buy banned substances is a ban on "free speech".
9/10/2012 12:59:54 PM
Your comment is, word for word, almost exactly what hysterical fuckwits babbled during the Clinton years. The only thing you've done is to substitute Obama for Clinton.
It didn't happen, and it's not going to happen NOW. In fact, our rights came MUCH closer to going away during the reign of Bush the Lesser, the darling of the far right--and the same idiots who ranted and babbled about Clinton were behind Bush nearly 100 percent. So stop pretending you give a damn--as long as it's your guy who does it and it silences your opponents, you're fully in support of the removal or curtailment of civil rights in the United States.
9/10/2012 1:31:55 PM
Rabbit of Caerbannog
The Citizens United decision does not, in fact, result in more speech being freely disseminated. On the contrary, it allows large corporations and special interest groups to monopolize speech and dominate the public discourse while pushing agendas to fatten their bottom line. That's why America had, until very recently, varying restrictions on corporate speech. To stop the very corrupting influence that you and the establishment crooks you support depend on in order to keep power. Now the speech of the average American (or what I would deem "Real America") can be easily drowned out by a sea of SuperPAC ads and faux-documentaries, like 2016: Obama's America which makes a multitude of demonstrably false claims.
9/10/2012 1:38:27 PM
Lie, lies and more lies capped off with recommending another pack of lies.
9/10/2012 2:48:39 PM
if you are not willing to admit whom you are donating money to, you don't deserve to.
9/11/2012 9:29:26 AM
By your definition, I "seized control" of the bank where I bought a CD.
9/11/2012 10:57:27 AM
Letting corporations BUY politicians is not a first amendment right.
Yes, the disclose act will chill the "speech" of those with 10k to spend buying favors from politicians through large "donations". As it should! Few Americans can afford to buy such favors, and those who can usually do so not out of ideological reasoning, but as a way of ensuring politicians are dependent on their donors and not their voters; often, they fund both candidates in an election!
The first amendment was not written to preserve the British East India Company's right to fund political candidates. Money is not speech.
9/11/2012 3:30:48 PM
That racist and uninformed bullshit excuse for a film? I believe you are correct in saying that it's doing damage to your side, though.
9/11/2012 4:27:58 PM
Just Google "free speech zones".
9/12/2012 6:40:18 AM