Freedom of speech??

[briansd1]

Arraya, you rail against Capitalism, but what’s the alternative?

Arraya, capitalism is still much more meritocratic than previous absolute rule based on heredity. Capitalism is what brought about the French and American revolutions (because capital weakened the ruling class and provided means to revolutionaries)

Capital eases friction in commerce and creates wealth.

I see the paradox you’re talking about but I can’t think of an alternative.

Capital and our large markets made America rich and powerful. We should be thankful.

The Chinese are now accumulating capital and their voices are much stronger. Eventually their markets will get so large that they will create enormous amounts of capital and wealth. #1 auto market, #1 telecom market, #1 internet market, etc…

In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]
In my view, America needs to keep-up by allowing nearly free immigration so we can grow our population and our economy. Sure, our existing citizens will have more competition, but we will bring wealth and liberty to millions while strengthening our financial (and military) wherewithal to spread our ideals.[/quote]

The majority of immigrants over the last 20 years are working service sector jobs, not in capital producing industries. They will weaken not strengthen the nation through increased demands for government services; services that their contributions to the economy fall short of paying for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

[paramount]

I shouldn’t be I suppose, but I am surprised the supreme court is so conservative.

[paramount]

I shouldn’t be I suppose, but I am surprised the supreme court is so conservative.

[paramount]

I shouldn’t be I suppose, but I am surprised the supreme court is so conservative.

[paramount]

I shouldn’t be I suppose, but I am surprised the supreme court is so conservative.

[paramount]

I shouldn’t be I suppose, but I am surprised the supreme court is so conservative.

[KSMountain]

Well, if you read Roberts’ comments, I don’t think he would characterize it as a conservative decision. (Not sure what you meant by that word).

I’m pretty sure he would say that in forming his opinion the last thing he considered was the possible impact on Democrats or Republicans.

And I hope that’s true.

One example he cited was that under current law, you couldn’t even distribute a politically-oriented pamphlet if it had funding by a corporation (even a non-profit corporation).

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.

[KSMountain]

Well, if you read Roberts’ comments, I don’t think he would characterize it as a conservative decision. (Not sure what you meant by that word).

I’m pretty sure he would say that in forming his opinion the last thing he considered was the possible impact on Democrats or Republicans.

And I hope that’s true.

One example he cited was that under current law, you couldn’t even distribute a politically-oriented pamphlet if it had funding by a corporation (even a non-profit corporation).

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.

[KSMountain]

Well, if you read Roberts’ comments, I don’t think he would characterize it as a conservative decision. (Not sure what you meant by that word).

I’m pretty sure he would say that in forming his opinion the last thing he considered was the possible impact on Democrats or Republicans.

And I hope that’s true.

One example he cited was that under current law, you couldn’t even distribute a politically-oriented pamphlet if it had funding by a corporation (even a non-profit corporation).

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.

[KSMountain]

Well, if you read Roberts’ comments, I don’t think he would characterize it as a conservative decision. (Not sure what you meant by that word).

I’m pretty sure he would say that in forming his opinion the last thing he considered was the possible impact on Democrats or Republicans.

And I hope that’s true.

One example he cited was that under current law, you couldn’t even distribute a politically-oriented pamphlet if it had funding by a corporation (even a non-profit corporation).

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.

[Author]

Posts