Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)

[wetwillie]

Who is the athletic director?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Who is the athletic director?

The racist tuck fan base.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

[SkinnyBenny]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected?

lulz, gpc world forum

[Rage Against the McKee]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

[Rage Against the McKee]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

[Rage Against the McKee]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

My opinion is that your rights must coexist with the rights of others. That is why you don't have the right to engage in speech that places other people in physical danger (the shouting fire in a theater example), or breaking into someone's provate property to yell at them, or shutting down a street in protest (which gets to your permit question, but even then the government cannot arbitrarily restrict the location).

[Rage Against the McKee]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

My opinion is that your rights must coexist with the rights of others. That is why you don't have the right to engage in speech that places other people in physical danger (the shouting fire in a theater example), or breaking into someone's provate property to yell at them, or shutting down a street in protest (which gets to your permit question, but even then the government cannot arbitrarily restrict the location).

Well, when you give $1 million to a candidate you completely devalue the $100 I give to the other candidate, thus violating my first amendment rights.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

What is your opinion on requiring permits to stage demonstrations? Is that abridging free speech?

My opinion is that your rights must coexist with the rights of others. That is why you don't have the right to engage in speech that places other people in physical danger (the shouting fire in a theater example), or breaking into someone's provate property to yell at them, or shutting down a street in protest (which gets to your permit question, but even then the government cannot arbitrarily restrict the location).

Well, when you give $1 million to a candidate you completely devalue the $100 I give to the other candidate, thus violating my first amendment rights.

There is no first amendment right to equality of speech. This is not socialism. If you can afford a bigger megaphone, you're allowed to buy it (or should be).

[CNS]

At some point, and on some issues, you have to agree, at least hypothetically, that such an approach could be detrimental to the country and it's ppl.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

At some point, and on some issues, you have to agree, at least hypothetically, that such an approach could be detrimental to the country and it's ppl.

Ah, but who decides? Our elected representatives? The very people with a vested interest in protecting their own incumbency and power? That's exactly why we have the first amendment, and why the founders put it first.

[Rage Against the McKee]

At some point, and on some issues, you have to agree, at least hypothetically, that such an approach could be detrimental to the country and it's ppl.

Ah, but who decides? Our elected representatives? The very people with a vested interest in protecting their own incumbency and power? That's exactly why we have the first amendment, and why the founders put it first.

Just install term limits and the conflict of interest goes away.

[star seed 7]

Term limits are against free speech

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What will it cost to get the despicable, corrupt, venal Hillary elected? Only about $2.5 billion according to the campaign's own estimates.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004

It seems like we should be able to get some bipartisan support to put a cap on political donations, then. I think $500 is more than enough.

Or rather than try to regulate it, which both violates the First Amendment (for domestic donors) and doesn't really work, voters could just punish these arrogant assclowns.

A limit to how much money you can give to a campaign is not a violation of your free speech. GMAFB.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." So how's that square with making a law that limits how much money can be spent conveying that speech? Especially political speech, which is really important speech in a democracy?

The First Amendment is a really, really big deal. That's why it was FIRST. You really think it was only intended to apply to people standing on a soap box in the town square? They had printing presses back then, and I assume they operated for profit.

Would need a constitutional amendment, or a bunch of judges making up new law.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Hillary sits down to coffee in Iowa with "ordinary people" - who were recruited from DNC central casting. I don't think there has even been a more inauthentic candidate. Congrats Dems.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Hillary sits down to coffee in Iowa with "ordinary people" - who were recruited from DNC central casting. I don't think there has even been a more inauthentic candidate. Congrats Dems.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040482/Campaign-staff-DROVE-ordinary-Iowans-Hillary-s-campaign-stop-including-health-care-lobbyist-training-Obama-campaign-intern-Biden-chauffeur.html

Didn't want to take a chance with any random unwashed Iowan.

[star seed 7]

Will ksuw survive this election? I'm not so sure 

[michigancat]

Will ksuw survive this election? I'm not so sure 

the stuff he is bringing really is great.

[Tobias]

sorry cf3, i wish it was election season 24/7

[Institutional Control]

I almost want HRC to win just to see all the heads explode. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I I felt the same way about Herman Cain. All the racist leftists that make a living propagating race problems would have flipped lid if there was a black president telling everyone enough is enough.