Prop 75 question

[Mark]

Oh, well, I'm convinced now.



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redressd of grievances."

Note that I did not say that campaign finance reform would violate the constitution, I said that "widespread prohibition of political contributions" would.

Given that the current system of lobbyists running the country is so utterly removed from what the Founding fathers intended, I'd say your interpretation of that quote is flat out wrong.

By limiting corporate corruption in our government, no one's free speech is being limited at all. That is Right Wing spin and you know it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Given that the current system of lobbyists running the country is so utterly removed from what the Founding fathers intended, I'd say your interpretation of that quote is flat out wrong.

That's a complete non sequitur.

By limiting corporate corruption in our government, no one's free speech is being limited at all.

Yes, they are.

That is Right Wing spin and you know it.

No, that's the truth. Your post is simply argument by assertion with some well poisoning thrown in.

 

[Mark]

That's a complete non sequitur.

Yes, they are.

No, that's the truth. Your post is simply argument by assertion with some well poisoning thrown in.

Non sequitur? The intentions of the people who wrote the constitution are a non sequitur?!?!?!

Please explain how individuals' free speech is being curtailed if corporations are given limits on donations.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Non sequitur? The intentions of the people who wrote the constitution are a non sequitur?!?!?!

No, "your interpretation of that quote is flat out wrong" is. Sheesh, don't you know what a non sequitur is?

Please explain how individuals' free speech is being curtailed if corporations are given limits on donations.

I said widespread prohibition. As in union, corporations, and individuals.

 

[Mark]

No, "your interpretation of that quote is flat out wrong" is. Sheesh, don't you know what a non sequitur is?

I said widespread prohibition. As in union, corporations, and individuals.

Got it: bribing government officials is an example of Free Speech.

You'll pardon me if I disagree, though.

 

[Luke T.]

Mark, when it comes to "campaign finance reform", I think you have the idea of political associations completely backward, and fail to see how important it is they be as unrestricted as possible:

At the present time the liberty of association has become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority. In the United States, as soon as a party has become dominant, all public authority passes into its hands; its private supporters occupy all the offices and have all the force of the administration at their disposal. As the most distinguished members of the opposite party cannot surmount the barrier that excludes them from power, they must establish themselves outside of it and oppose the whole moral authority of the minority to the physical power that domineers over it. Thus a dangerous expedient is used to obviate a still more formidable danger.

The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to be so full of peril to the American republics that the dangerous means used to bridle it seem to be more advantageous than prejudicial.

My pal Al.

 

[Mark]

Mark, when it comes to "campaign finance reform", I think you have the idea of political associations completely backward, and fail to see how important it is they be as unrestricted as possible:



My pal Al.

If I understand the writer's "bloviated" (I love that word) language correctly, then I have to say that I disagree. The party in power has far more access to political donations than the opposition.

Or maybe you were being sarcastic?

 

[Luke T.]

If I understand the writer's "bloviated" (I love that word) language correctly, then I have to say that I disagree. The party in power has far more access to political donations than the opposition.

Or maybe you were being sarcastic?

De Tocqueville gets much better reviews than "bloviated" from better scholars than me.

ETA: Does the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution strike you as bloviated?

And, no, I was being far from sarcastic. Any suppression of freedoms will be felt harder by the minority than the majority.

ETA:

In America the citizens who form the minority associate in order, first, to show their numerical strength and so to diminish the moral power of the majority; and, secondly, to stimulate competition and thus to discover those arguments that are most fitted to act upon the majority; for they always entertain hopes of drawing over the majority to their own side, and then controlling the supreme power in its name.

 

[Mark]

De Tocqueville gets much better reviews than "bloviated" from better scholars than me.

And, no, I was being far from sarcastic. Any suppression of freedoms will be felt harder by the minority than the majority.

C'mon, Luke, the "bloviated" comment was funny...and true.

Restricting corporate influence peddling is hardly "restricting freedoms." Unless you feel that our all anti-farud/corruption/bribery laws do that.

Levelling the playing field would give the minority MORE influence, not less. Which is, of course, why the Republicans are so dead set aginst it. As would be the Democrats if they were the party in control of everything.

Btw, De Tocqueville also said:

To instruct democracy, if possible to reanimate its beliefs, to purify its mores, to regulate its movements, to substitute little by little the science of affairs for its inexperience, and knowledge of its true interests for its blind instincts; . . . such is the first duty imposed on those who direct society in our day.

 

[Luke T.]

C'mon, Luke, the "bloviated" comment was funny...and true.

Only if you think Shakespeare is bloviated. That type of writing is an acquired taste, but oh so delicious.

Restricting corporate influence peddling is hardly "restricting freedoms." Unless you feel that our all anti-farud/corruption/bribery laws do that.

Levelling the playing field would give the minority MORE influence, not less. Which is, of course, why the Republicans are so dead set aginst it. As would be the Democrats if they were the party in control of everything.

Suppose I belonged to a minority that believed, oh I don't know, that minors should be allowed to buy crack cocaine over the counter without their parents' consent. Unfortunately, this is such an unpopular idea, that only some guy in a federal penitentiary is on my side, and he sends me some prison scrip to help buy some air time.

Should the playing field be levelled so that a political party can only accept a maximum of ten dollars in prison scrip from each individual contributor? Is that really levelling the playing field? Or is it giving me an unfair boost?

Some minority groups are a minority for a reason. They shouldn't be coddled or catered to out of some misguided, false sense of "fair play" or "level the playing field".

That's why McCain-Feingold, and any other campaign finance reform, is a freaking joke. I've actually read the final approved version of McCain-Feingold, and if McCain still gives it a thumbs up, I would be very surprised.

 

[Mark]

Only if you think Shakespeare is bloviated. That type of writing is an acquired taste, but oh so delicious.



Suppose I belonged to a minority that believed, oh I don't know, that minors should be allowed to buy crack cocaine over the counter without their parents' consent. Unfortunately, this is such an unpopular idea, that only some guy in a federal penitentiary is on my side, and he sends me some prison scrip to help buy some air time.

Should the playing field be levelled so that a political party can only accept a maximum of ten dollars in prison scrip from each individual contributor? Is that really levelling the playing field? Or is it giving me an unfair boost?

Some minority groups are a minority for a reason. They shouldn't be coddled or catered to out of some misguided, false sense of "fair play" or "level the playing field".

That's why McCain-Feingold, and any other campaign finance reform, is a freaking joke. I've actually read the final approved version of McCain-Feingold, and if McCain still gives it a thumbs up, I would be very surprised.

You are going to one extreme. how about another...the guy in the penitentiary is a multi-billionaire...should he be allowed to spend billions to influence politicians to legalize cocaine to minors when no one can hope to compete with him for influence?

The difference between our two extremes is that yours will never happen, while mine is happening right now (OK, not with cocaine for minors).

 

[Grammatron]

You are going to one extreme. how about another...the guy in the penitentiary is a multi-billionaire...should he be allowed to spend billions to influence politicians to legalize cocaine to minors when no one can hope to compete with him for influence?

The difference between our two extremes is that yours will never happen, while mine is happening right now (OK, not with cocaine for minors).

Which multi-billionaire guy in what prison is buying what?

 

[Luke T.]

The difference between our two extremes is that yours will never happen

Tell that to shanek.

 

[Luke T.]

You are going to one extreme. how about another...the guy in the penitentiary is a multi-billionaire...should he be allowed to spend billions to influence politicians to legalize cocaine to minors when no one can hope to compete with him for influence?

Show me one lobby group that does not have a viable, active counterpart(s) in American politics.

 

[Mark]

Show me one lobby group that does not have a viable, active counterpart(s) in American politics.

A) I have previolsy stated that this is a problem on both sides of the aisle.

B) It is absurd to think that, just because two groups exist, they each have the same power. This country is being run by corporate lobbyists...the more money, the more power. It is wrong, it is clearly NOT what the Founding Fathers intended, and it is NOT a Free Speech issue.

I wonder how many of you will change your views on this issue if the Democrats ever take over the way the Republicans have?

Example: When Bush nominated Roberts we were told over and over and over again that it was unreasonable even to ask him out he would rule on ANYTHING. Now those same people are demanding to know how Miers will rule on abortion.

It's almost funny. Almost.

 

[Luke T.]

So many claims, so little time. Let's start with this one:

This country is being run by corporate lobbyists...

Geez, I thought is was being run by the ACLU, the NRA, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, Alec Baldwin, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, Jesse Jackson, Dan Rather and Halliburton.

 

[Grammatron]

A) I have previolsy stated that this is a problem on both sides of the aisle.

B) It is absurd to think that, just because two groups exist, they each have the same power. This country is being run by corporate lobbyists...the more money, the more power. It is wrong, it is clearly NOT what the Founding Fathers intended, and it is NOT a Free Speech issue.

There is no way the could have the same power unless there is the same ammount of people who feel a certain way nore should they have the same power. And you really need to look up history on the Founding Father and their intentions.

I wonder how many of you will change your views on this issue if the Democrats ever take over the way the Republicans have?

The issue of Public Unions having to ask its members if their dues should be spent on political contributions? Yeah I'll feel the same way.

Example: When Bush nominated Roberts we were told over and over and over again that it was unreasonable even to ask him out he would rule on ANYTHING. Now those same people are demanding to know how Miers will rule on abortion.

It's almost funny. Almost.

Who?

 

[Luke T.]

Example: When Bush nominated Roberts we were told over and over and over again that it was unreasonable even to ask him out he would rule on ANYTHING. Now those same people are demanding to know how Miers will rule on abortion.

Somebody did not demand to know how Roberts would rule on Roe v. Wade and yet demands to know how Meirs would? Can you show me this?

 

[Mark]

Somebody did not demand to know how Roberts would rule on Roe v. Wade and yet demands to know how Meirs would? Can you show me this?

Read any newspaper ragrding the current Republican uproar about this nomination.

Only a week ago, Republicans were saying they looked forward to a new Supreme Court nominee because it would give them something to rally around, providing a welcome distraction from the Bush administration's problems. But the nomination of Ms. Miers only served to roil a party that is already divided over domestic matters like Social Security and how to pay to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Now, having alienated his conservative backers, Mr. Bush must go forward on the Miers nomination alone, without the help of many of the advocates who led the charge for the last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/politics/politicsspecial1/09confirm.html

Of course, as we just learned on another thread, when you ask for evidence you don't really mean it.

 

[Grammatron]

Read any newspaper ragrding the current Republican uproar about this nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/politics/politicsspecial1/09confirm.html

Of course, as we just learned on another thread, when you ask for evidence you don't really mean it.

Either I forgot how to read or there's absolutely nothing in that article that supports your claim.

Let's review:
Claim:

Example: When Bush nominated Roberts we were told over and over and over again that it was unreasonable even to ask him out he would rule on ANYTHING. Now those same people are demanding to know how Miers will rule on abortion.

And now your evidence:

Only a week ago, Republicans were saying they looked forward to a new Supreme Court nominee because it would give them something to rally around, providing a welcome distraction from the Bush administration's problems. But the nomination of Ms. Miers only served to roil a party that is already divided over domestic matters like Social Security and how to pay to rebuild the Gulf Coast.
Now, having alienated his conservative backers, Mr. Bush must go forward on the Miers nomination alone, without the help of many of the advocates who led the charge for the last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Your quote has little to nothing to do with your claim and while the article talks about conservatives wondering about her record on abortion it does not say if those are "the same" people who thought "was unreasonable even to ask" about such things.