January 16, 2006
Charlotte Observer Hates Free Speech
You might think that a newspaper would be on the front lines of supporting the clear right to freedom of speech in North Carolina. If you did, you would be wrong. The Charlotte Observer last week clearly outlined their position: free speech is bad.
That's right, the Charlotte Observer says that YOU should not be able to give any money to lawmakers for any reason. You should not be able to give money to help someone with an election. And if somehow a legislator manages to get some money for an election, they should not be able to spend it without asking the Observer for permission first.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
lawmakers ... should toughen it [the law] by prohibiting all gifts and solicitations. They should prohibit registered lobbyists from making political contributions and raising cash to help fund election campaigns, and make it illegal to for politicians to pocket campaign contributions for personal use.
That's right, the Charlotte Observer says that YOU should not be able to give any money to lawmakers for any reason. You should not be able to give money to help someone with an election. And if somehow a legislator manages to get some money for an election, they should not be able to spend it without asking the Observer for permission first.
So, why the hatred for freedom? Well, that's the Observer's position. One of the workings of communism is that there is a class of people that are "above" the rest of the people -- there to tell everyone else what to do because they won't do it themselves. That's the position that the Observer takes. Remember that, when you read a Knight-Ridder paper -- they honestly believe they know better than you, and you should not have freedom of any kind.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That makes you smarter than the average bear!
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 PM (+Gl1m)
2
Although I won't (and can't) debate that the paper is pobably leftist I think the suggestion is that 'registered lobbyists' shouldn't be able to give gifts and solicitations (whatever that means) to politicians. Which I have to say, I whole heartedly agree with. Lobbyists (special interests) are one of the most dangerous groups around. When the average citizen gives a donation to a politician it is generally because you believe in them and their platform. When lobbyists donate it is to influence them to do their bidding which usually conflicts the politicians constituents. For if the people really wanted what the lobbyists wanted then there would be no need for the gifts (bribes?)
Posted by: Johnny Uno at January 19, 2006 05:22 PM (ovA1+)
3
I don't see any problem with lobbyists at all. It's the politicians that are corrupt -- and the absolutely BEST way to fix this is to reduce government!
If they don't have anything to "sell" to the lobbyists, there would be no lobbyists to "buy!"
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:43 PM (/k+l4)
16kb generated in CPU 0.0432, elapsed 0.1087 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.102 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
88 queries taking 0.102 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
