Everyone who disagrees with him is gay. And he doesn't recognize his own Pavlovian responses. Fun to watch, though.
You're not gay at all, at least, unless you say you are. So, like all your other hypothesis, that one is wrong too
Follow if you can. Let me know if I need to slow it down. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showpost.php?p=4003478&postcount=25
Let's talk about this case, which supposedly allowed "unlimited funds" to flow into "political campaigns." The holding of the case: "Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast." http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ So "unlimited funds" were not allowed to flow into "campaigns." What was allowed was for coporations, and unions, to spend their own money to address issues or advocate for or against a candidate. The Court recognized that this was political speech, a core First Amendment value. The decision got a lot of unfavorable media commentary. Wonder why? Just concerns by editorial writers about good governemnt? Or maybe it reflected the fact that before the decision, only media companies could pour unlimited resources into supporting or opposing candidates. Do you think that gave a lot of power to the owner sof newspapers and TV networks? Do you think they resented having to share the megaphone? What was so terrible about allowing corprations to spend money to publicize their positions? It's not like they don't have to identify who they are in their ads if they support or oppose a candidate. Isn't the whole basis of First Amendment jurisprudence that there is a "marketplace of ideas" and that the more speech the better? What is so evil about a company opposing ill-informed attacks on its business and the jobs it provides? Liberals have a tendency to vigorously protect speech they agree with and want to censor everything else. In the case of campaign finance restrictions, it is not just liberals seeking to muzzle free speech. It is incumbents. After all, they are the ones who pass these laws, cloaked in self-righteous rhetoric about protecting the purity of elections. In reality, they are passing laws to censor criticism of themselves and make their reelection easier. Considering the 90%+ incumbent reelection rate, they have done a great job.
Pardon me. I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or just repeating what I said. Yes, 1 or 2% of the budget is the amount going waste in the social safety net. I presume that even the crazy righties want to help those truly in need. 12% of the budget goes toward that. Which is half the the amount spent on "defense".
Yes, but the problem is that the constitution empowers the gov't to defend the country and the only way the gov't can transfer funds from one citizen to another is play make believe that the constitution says what homo commies say it does.