Originally Posted by J Diddy
I would consider controlling what's in the media is a free speech issue for sure, however that's not what I'm talking about. I am saying that one mans voice shouldn't be drowned out by a guy who's yelling louder.
Furthermore, this pining for the founding fathers and the way they run elections is entertaining. First the machine was really simple because white male protestant property owners got to participate and Second it's a little more evolved then that now.
If you wouldn't limit the voice of a person who owns a media outlet, why would you limit the voice of a person who just wants to buy a little piece of it?
Our constitution has a built-in capability to evolve with the times. When people wanted to outlaw alcohol, they passed an amendment (18th). A few years later when people wanted to revoke that amendment, they passed another one (21st). If you want to revoke the 1st amendment or the part of it that deals with free speech, you should convince enough people to pass a 28th amendment doing so.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will