Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?
Reply #94 –
So-called free speech is - in the first place, i.e. from day one - limited for everyone, such as by libel laws.
Your view is perverse: Libel laws don't limit speech, per se, they merely reflect one of the ways society notes that speech is consequential!
As expected, you actually do not care zilch about the first amendment. You only care about Republicans winning.
Your ability to maintain a mistaken view is phenomenal!
(Take that as a compliment...![Smiley :)](https://dndsanctuary.eu/smileys/myopera/smile.gif)
Therefore abolish funding limits because Obama did it?
I've always been against campaign funding limits, for many reasons. First, any proposed mechanism is soon "captured" by the powers-that-be"... Second, when monies are limited those that control already the means of "being heard" become gate-keepers of a sort: Such a position is not baked into our democracy, and any installation of such is bound to become detrimental (i.e. devolve...); hence leaving funding free to find its way to campaigns is one way to preclude their installation.
To show responsibility the politician should often resign in the face of a scandal
Rule by piety and propriety works no better in individuals than it does in states. Innuendo and rumor are the news, for large swarths of any public. But they are sensibly rejected in a Re-public. (Methinks you're just being contentious...![Smiley :)](https://dndsanctuary.eu/smileys/myopera/smile.gif)
Your every proposed adjustment to rationalize or reform our system, one which you clearly do not understand, run up against the "who will watch the watchers" dilemma. Our politicians are citizens first, never quite rulers, and finally mere citizens again! I'm sorry the concept is beyond your understanding... ![Smiley :)](https://dndsanctuary.eu/smileys/myopera/smile.gif)