I don't believe you actually need a pilot's license to fly anything characterized as an "ultralight" aircraft, as these tape-and-balsawood gyrocopters appear to be. Doesn't mean the FAA can't fine your ass, of course, when you do dumb crap like flying a possibly deadly set of large rotors right past crowds of tourists at low altitudes in an urban area like DC.

OK, so you're ANOTHER person who hasn't read the summary or the article. OK, just another one.

Have you considered watching what Assange does, and listening to what he says? Coming to any OTHER conclusion would be the fantastic leap.

Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.

Yeah, you would not BELIEVE how much money I get from the Tri-Lateral Commission. You can too! Just follow my simple 5-step plan, which I lay out in my seminars, which I host annually at the Rothschilds. They always let me stay in their pool house.

But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.

Keepin' in classy, Wikileaks.

Nothing like proving your critics right while also accomplishing a lot of nothing.

That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.

The DC FRZ is indeed there to cut down on the need to deal with a bunch of yahoos buzzing very high-profile targets. But the who decided to fly his gyrocopter right past crowds after a low-level pass over an urban area is up for reckless operation charges from the FAA either way. That bit of idiocy is idiocy whether it's done around people in DC or around people in downtown Miami.

It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!

Do you even listen to yourself?

We don't even have to get IN to whether or to what degree one ad or another does or doesn't feel "fair" to you. Because it all comes down to what you want: censorship. Until you just plainly say what you want, there's no point getting into the rest of it. And you won't come out and say it because you know that the control you want is not compatible with the constitution.

So, indeed, you want government censorship of political speech. Yes or no?

There! Just like always, you run away because you can't reconcile your desire for control of other people with the constitution's limits on the government doing so.

You want the government to limit speech, but you don't have the personal integrity to say it out loud. What are you afraid of? Explain how you'd reconcile the censorship you desire with the first amendment. But you'll pretend, once again, that you didn't see anyone asking you to face the music. Pretty childish way of admitting you're wrong, but I guess it's one way for you to do it. Glad you've come to your senses.

No you didn't. But you're pretending you did so that you can avoid having to actually do what you're being challenged to do: come up with your version of a government law that limits speech while not violating the first amendment. You know you can't do it, so you're pretending you didn't see that part.

Everything else you're saying is you trying to distract from the fact that what you want is irreconcilable with the constitution. So that you can avoid confronting that reality, you're just blathering. This is exactly what you did when presented with contextual facts surrounding the second amendment. The moment you're asked to reconcile your agenda with the constitution, you have a fit and leave, so that you don't have to demonstrate that your position is untenable.

Too bad. Not letting you off the hook. Try again:

How would you write a law that empowers the government to prevent speech, without changing the first amendment? Be specific.

No, the law said absolutely nothing about the content of the political speech. You know this, so saying that it was about "lies" is you: lying. The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.

What the law did say was that if you, yourself, personally, ran an ad in the local newspaper to say that, maybe, you think gay marriage shouldn't be illegal, and that congressional candidate (or party) X is wrong for saying it should be illegal ... YOU ARE NOW A FEDERAL FELON for having had that opinion printed. This is your idea of how the first amendment works? I know you'll say yes, because you've shown over and over again that you're willing to pretend the constitution says things that it doesn't, in order to allow you to support the government violating that charter.

Blah blah blah ... what's really amazing is that YOU are so naive that you actually think people aren't capable of reading the words of a law and seeing that you are deliberately, purposefully lying about it. How about this: YOU point out the actual words in McCain-Feingold that talk about the size, accuracy, cost, merit, or any other qualities of political speech, and we'll have something to talk about. YOU show how the law's baked-in violation of the Equal Protection clause wasn't being violated, and we'll have something to talk about. But you won't, because you know you can't.

Since you can't manage to defend your position on constitutional grounds, why not try this: propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics ... and which doesn't break the first amendment. Remember, the first amendment says that congress shall pass no law that abridges speech. So the law you want, which will stop people from speaking, has to pass that test. Please write down, here, the language of that law, and how it would work. If you don't, then you're showing yourself to be the disingenuous person you appear to be. Otherwise, admit that what you really want is for the first amendment to be altered. It's one of the other, you can't have it both ways.

OK, I'll save you the trouble: you can't write a law that uses government power to shut people up unless you violate the first amendment. So we get to what you really want: you want to trash the first amendment. Just admit it, you'll feel much better not having to pretend you mean something else, and knowing that everybody can see right through your little charade.