Money never has, is not now and never will be defined as equaling speech except in the minds of liberals/progressives. Being heard has always required money to be spent. Back at the time of the US Revolution, money was required to buy or hire printing presses to produce pamphlets. Today it is required to buy ads or electricity to run a blog or pay the hired hands to appear on TV and radio. It has always been the case that those with more money could afford more publicity. That is one reason why the 1st amendment also guarantees to the right to join forces with others (associate).
"Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities." Those are the only entities that should have any influence. Imagine the outcome when only the government gets to have an opinion.
but it takes money to run a blog so spending money to run a blog that makes political speech should be just as illegal as spending money for any other get-out-the-message activity.
Correct, money is not speech but it provides the means to allow speech to be heard and read. Do you think those horrible terrorist of the 1770s were using magical printing presses that magically produced lead, paper and ink or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they had to spend their money to buy those supplies? Is that not pretty much the same as buying ads in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV?
Yes, those complaining about the Citizens United decision are also liberals. the most hilarious ones are the professional media (employees of corporations) when they start complaining that SCOTUS had the audacity to continue allowing corporations to discuss politics. I don't care who you are, that is funny.
Yup, allowing peole to have a thought not given to them by the government is certainly going to far. I certainly can't wait until we have fully adopted the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary so that this is no longer even possible.
As if they were on opposite sides. Most of the 0.1%ers in the US are voting and donating in lock-step with the unions so being in a union isn't really helping the day-laborer in that regard.
So unions are exactly as evil as corporations or more evil, certainly no less evil. After all, corporations do seek to hire people while unions often seek to keep people from working.
Not only that but the CCSS actually states that they are presenting only 85% of the standards and that states or local districts should be filling in the other 15%. It is very much a baseline and a foundation upon which other entities are expected to build. It says nothing about teaching methods or content.
or you live in zip-code 54494 and are travelling to Dallas, TX or Salt Lake City, UT. You must be one of those people who have never realized that not every one lives in a metro area.
And where exactly do you live that you are buying your VCR directly from Sony or Toshiba and your luggage directly from Samsonite? Oh wait, you aren't. You are buying them from the 3rd party who takes a cut, What a sucker for giving that supermarket a cut on those purchases.
My wife and I can drive half-way across the country in the same amount of time we can fly and have our car at the destination for about half the price we can fly and rent. Flying and renting works out the same as driving when going alone but not so much when not alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way you cut, it is only a "simple" constitutional fix away, right?
Money never has, is not now and never will be defined as equaling speech except in the minds of liberals/progressives. Being heard has always required money to be spent. Back at the time of the US Revolution, money was required to buy or hire printing presses to produce pamphlets. Today it is required to buy ads or electricity to run a blog or pay the hired hands to appear on TV and radio. It has always been the case that those with more money could afford more publicity. That is one reason why the 1st amendment also guarantees to the right to join forces with others (associate).
"Rather, I suspect he also sees loss of freedom from undue influence in the public sphere by private entities." Those are the only entities that should have any influence. Imagine the outcome when only the government gets to have an opinion.
but it takes money to run a blog so spending money to run a blog that makes political speech should be just as illegal as spending money for any other get-out-the-message activity.
Correct, money is not speech but it provides the means to allow speech to be heard and read. Do you think those horrible terrorist of the 1770s were using magical printing presses that magically produced lead, paper and ink or do you think that maybe, just maybe, they had to spend their money to buy those supplies? Is that not pretty much the same as buying ads in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV?
Yes, those complaining about the Citizens United decision are also liberals. the most hilarious ones are the professional media (employees of corporations) when they start complaining that SCOTUS had the audacity to continue allowing corporations to discuss politics. I don't care who you are, that is funny.
Yup, allowing peole to have a thought not given to them by the government is certainly going to far. I certainly can't wait until we have fully adopted the Eleventh Edition of the Dictionary so that this is no longer even possible.
As if they were on opposite sides. Most of the 0.1%ers in the US are voting and donating in lock-step with the unions so being in a union isn't really helping the day-laborer in that regard.
Yeah, the 1st amendment to our Constitution reaffirmed that right more than 200 years ago but it didn't really stick then either.
So unions are exactly as evil as corporations or more evil, certainly no less evil. After all, corporations do seek to hire people while unions often seek to keep people from working.
So... Money will always buy the election unless the candidate just isn't electable, then the other money buys the election.
That is pretty much an identical proposition to "Heads I win, tails you lose."
"almost certain" ... "end of story"
Which is it?
I'm not sure how "old" the IB program is as my nephew graduated High School 3 or 4 years ago after having gone through such a program.
According to all the complaining, /. doesn't really "cater to" an international audience as much as it just has one.
Yup, it is a problem that they are responding to market pressures and altering just like it is a problem when any other business does so.
That is kind of the point of interviewing and looking at transcripts and such.
Oh right, every corporation is large enough to provide its own training department.
Not only that but the CCSS actually states that they are presenting only 85% of the standards and that states or local districts should be filling in the other 15%. It is very much a baseline and a foundation upon which other entities are expected to build. It says nothing about teaching methods or content.
If they were about how to tax or not tax an entity then they most certainly were tax records.
For the same reason that Nixon's missing 18 minutes of audio tape are.
or you live in zip-code 54494 and are travelling to Dallas, TX or Salt Lake City, UT. You must be one of those people who have never realized that not every one lives in a metro area.
1. So pretty normal then.
Depending on what brand of bread you buy, you are already visiting a dealer, so what is your complaint again?
And where exactly do you live that you are buying your VCR directly from Sony or Toshiba and your luggage directly from Samsonite? Oh wait, you aren't. You are buying them from the 3rd party who takes a cut, What a sucker for giving that supermarket a cut on those purchases.
My wife and I can drive half-way across the country in the same amount of time we can fly and have our car at the destination for about half the price we can fly and rent. Flying and renting works out the same as driving when going alone but not so much when not alone.