The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

[4-2-7]

Full Definition of ASSAULT

1
a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b


I would go with "C"

[ebacon]

Yow. An assault bill.

What's the difference between a regular bill and an assault bill?

[Rajoo]

Definition C looks like what you are doing to this forum or for that matter, what your intent seems with this thread you started.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Yow. An assault bill.

What's the difference between a regular bill and an assault bill?

Regular bills grant tax breaks, assault bills take away our freedoms. Pretty simple, eh?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Sorry you have no argument to your statment because it's not valid.

see ya

Your OP mentioned Citizen United, so please tell us what was the conclusion of the Roberts court in that filing?

BTW my spelling errors are the result of failing eyesight and arthritis, what's your excuse?

BTW are your eyes brown?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Corporations,

Please do show me that reference in the amendment.
Even after I show you that "Contrabution" is not "Money" your mind is a wash. The lefty brainwashing of the big bad corporations and they're evil money.

This is so typical of your 'argument--' you make a stupid claim, and then offer insult to any who don't buy your bushwah.

First of all, the word 'contribution' is not used in a vacuum. It is used in a proposed amendment. The amendment contains other words, arranged in sentences, that add essential meaning to the bare word. They explain and limit what is meant by 'contribution.' So every expansive sense of the word in the dictionary is not what was meant. What is meant, as the amendment says, is regulation of 'the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on ... the amount of contributions to candidates...'

So we are not talking about every kind of contribution under the sun. We are talking about contribution, to candidates, of 'money and in-kind equivalents.' While it suits your polemic purpose to widen the sense of 'contribution' as much as you can, words in general are not used to mean every sense in the dictionary at once. Their meaning is narrowed by the context of use. Only stupid people, who don't understand this, will be impressed by your argument.

And your insulting claim that people who disagree with you are 'brainwashed' is ridiculous. Again, anyone who is not stupid can see that those who argue with you are aware, capable, discerning, and in every way your intellectual superiors. One is left to wonder what makes you think you have a mission to make stupid arguments in service of greedy power-seeking corporate interests. Do you imagine you are thus displaying intellect and power in debate? If so you are an utter idiot.

Or are you being paid to do this? You must hope your paymaster does not discover what a poor job your are doing, in that event.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and


(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

No need to state the law twice if contrabution was only limited to money.

Dave that commet you just made lacks any valid contribution to this thread.

The distinction, of course, is that point 2) would limit the ability of wealthy candidates to buy elections by spending millions or billions of their own money.

Again, an ignorant argument is concluded by a personal slap at another poster. This sort of thing is why you are considered an obnoxious idiot, 4-2-7.

[BlueStreak]

Citizens United is legalized corruption. The very sort of corruption I thought the right was so adamant to vanquish.

Funny what happens when they finally have the power to do what they say, isn't it?

They do the opposite. Like Reagan and his mantra of "small government"....

Why you can't see that they are really no better than the Democrats, (Or even worse in some ways.), in this regard is beyond me. Two wings of the same bird, my friend.

Dave

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

This is so typical of your 'argument--' you make a stupid claim, and then offer insult to any who don't buy your bushwah.

.................................................. .................................................. ..

Or are you being paid to do this? You must hope your paymaster does not discover what a poor job your are doing, in that event.

I do wonder at times, considering the extent of disrespect that is heaped upon him time and time again; well deserved I might add.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Your OP mentioned Citizen United, so please tell us what was the conclusion of the Roberts court in that filing?

BTW my spelling errors are the result of failing eyesight and arthritis, what's your excuse?

BTW are your eyes brown?

See ya because you are deliberately avoiding the question. Where in the amendment does it say anything about corporations ?