http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... cotus.html
It was inevitable, really. Since the supreme court ruled that money can talk and is thus protected under the first amendment, it was reallya small step to make the argument that putting someone in jail for buying a politician was akin to silencing their God-given right to speak their minds. Because, yeah, when the framers of the constitution wrote that congress shall make no law to abridge a person's right to peaceably assemble or forbid a person from speaking, see, clearly what they *meant* was that it was okay for big business to throw money at congress until they did their bidding. Because those two are completely the same thing. I mean, how can you not see the similarity between those two things? It's like, totally obvious. And if you don't see it then you're just an idiot. Or, like, blind or something. LOL!
News & Cars
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
- Location: East Bay, California.