On Jan 22, 7:20*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:
On Jan 22, wrote:

You imbecilic moron,

Yeah, because kindergarten insults do so much
to persuade others to your point of view, right?

Well, if who I'm dealing with is the equivalent of 5-year-old idiot,
then yeah, I'll speak in a language he can understand, because he
certainly won't have the capacity to understand anything much beyond
that.


why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. *In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. *

They did: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech, ..."

Free political speech is not free if the government can
dictate when and where you exercise it.

That's not history, it's just mumbo-jumbo that fails to take into
account the easy corruption of free speech in the form of campaign
finance by wealthy entities, as happened in the latter half of the
1800s and early 1900s which necessitated the Tillman Act passed under
Roosevelt's administration after Roosevelt himself was accused of
receiving large sums of cash from fat cat bigwigs in exchange for
favors.


in 2010. *This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

You're short on history with that too, huh? Ultimately if he had
exercised his veto over it, it still would've been overriden by the
Republican-dominated Congress, so he knew there was no point in not
signing it. Recognizing it was a no-win situation for him, he
nevertheless still did what he could to ensure certain aspects of the
Act were made a bit more palatable for him to be able to sign it.