Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, after several days.

The very next day, in fact ... but whose counting?

I have three sets of questions for you.

1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too? You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that.

2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue.

3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right? It seems to me that the greatest freedom of speech is that which allows us a real discourse, together, as Americans -- something sorely lacking in our body politic today. Absent disclosure, it is difficult to know whether the voices we hear are genuine, and genuinely FOR what they purport to be for, or whether there is manipulation at play. For instance, if a corporation or corporate group that publicly supports tax credits for businesses that send jobs overseas funds a political ad (without disclosure) that accuses a politician of such support, that would be worth knowing, don't you think. Similarly, if a union stands to benefit from a certain outcome in the legislature in, say, one state and (without disclosure) funds an ad attacking a candidate in another state who has not voted as the union wishes, wouldn't it be good to know -- in the interest of encouraging a genuine public discourse in the context of freedom of speech?

These are not partisan questions. I hope you can step back from the vitriol expressed in your last post and consider these thoughtfully, in the interest of genuine dialogue. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing. You can have the thread and vent, and I'll stick to pictures of gorgeous girl cocks.