Prop 75 question

[Mark]

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

Let's review:
Claim:

And now your evidence:


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.

You are actually trying to make the claim that Republicans were not saying we had no right to ask Roberts how he would rule on abortion!?!?!?!?!?!?

Whatever. Anyone who would even try to make such a blatantly false claim is either a liar and delusional.

 

[Grammatron]

You are actually trying to make the claim that Republicans were not saying we had no right to ask Roberts how he would rule on abortion!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's not at all what I am saying.

I am saying that you fail to demonstrate that same Republicans who have said that it "was unreasonable even to ask" about how he would rule on abortion are now asking Miers that.

We clear?

Whatever. Anyone who would even try to make such a blatantly false claim is either a liar and delusional.

My point exactly, now cut it with a strawmen and supports your claims.

 

[Art Vandelay]

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

You really like telling other people what their positions are, don't you? You've got it backwards. The claim is that free speech is an example of bribing government workers. And it is not I that makes it, but the supporters of campaign finance reform.

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.

The question is not whether the party in power has an advantage, but whether that advantage would be lessened by CFR. Which situation would you rather have: an opponent with ten radio stations while you have none, or an opponent with fifteen radio stations while you have four?

Restricting corporate influence peddling is hardly "restricting freedoms."

Even when that influence comes in the form of speech? If someone is prevented from expressing political views, how can you deny that that is restricting freedoms?

Levelling the playing field would give the minority MORE influence, not less.

Except that the playing field isn't being leveled. It's being eliminated.

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.

From what I've read, Republicans actually benefit from CRF.

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?

Under what theory should he be prohibited from doing so?

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

Considering that this is a thread concerning California politics, that's a rather odd thing to say.

It is wrong, it is clearly NOT what the Founding Fathers intended, and it is NOT a Free Speech issue.

Can you explain how prohibiting political speech is not a free speech issue? I'm just not getting that.

 

[Mark]

You really like telling other people what their positions are, don't you? You've got it backwards. The claim is that free speech is an example of bribing government workers. And it is not I that makes it, but the supporters of campaign finance reform.

The question is not whether the party in power has an advantage, but whether that advantage would be lessened by CFR. Which situation would you rather have: an opponent with ten radio stations while you have none, or an opponent with fifteen radio stations while you have four?

Even when that influence comes in the form of speech? If someone is prevented from expressing political views, how can you deny that that is restricting freedoms?

Except that the playing field isn't being leveled. It's being eliminated.

From what I've read, Republicans actually benefit from CRF.

Under what theory should he be prohibited from doing so?

Considering that this is a thread concerning California politics, that's a rather odd thing to say.

Can you explain how prohibiting political speech is not a free speech issue? I'm just not getting that.

Other than accepting your quite valid comment about California politics, anything I can say at this point will just be repeating myself. How you can equate limiting political donations with silencing someone's free speech is simply beyond my ability to understand.

Let's turn it around. If one person can donate unlimited finds to their candidate, then that effectively silences the free speech of the person who does not have extra money to spend. Our system was NOT set up originally for the sole benefit of whoever has the most money. It is becoming that with the support of voters like yourself, but that is NOT what it started out as.

 

[Art Vandelay]

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

Who is spending billions to promote a political view?

How you can equate limiting political donations with silencing someone's free speech is simply beyond my ability to understand.

What is so complicated about it? If I make statements in support of a political candidate, that's considered a political donation. Therefore, limiting political donations will limit my ability to make statements in favor of political candidates, which is a free speech issue.

I don't think it's an issue of not being able to understand, I think you just don't want to understand. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen.

It's really quite obvious. If there's a law that says that no one may spend more than $1000 promoting their political views, how can that possibly NOT be a free speech issue? Huh? Can you explain that?

Let's turn it around. If one person can donate unlimited finds to their candidate, then that effectively silences the free speech of the person who does not have extra money to spend.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Mark]

It's really quite obvious. If there's a law that says that no one may spend more than $1000 promoting their political views, how can that possibly NOT be a free speech issue? Huh? Can you explain that?

No, it doesn't.

Do I even have to say this? They are still perfectly free to express their views in whatever forum they want. It would just level the playing field and eliminate the corruption we now live under.

If the rich corporations can spend whatever they want, there is no way to compete! Which is largely why we are now living under the disastrous One Party Rule that is destroying this country.

 

[Metullus]

*snip*
If the rich corporations can spend whatever they want, there is no way to compete! Which is largely why we are now living under the disastrous One Party Rule

Evidence?

...that is destroying this country.

Evidence?

 

[Mark]

Evidence?



Evidence?

Apologies! Apparently you missed:

The pointless war in Iraq...2,000 of our soldiers, tens of thousands Iraqi civilians killed and NOTHING accomplished. Billions of dollars wasted. And our army spread thin to the point of ineffectiveness throughout the world.

The record deficits, which are largely being funded by China. You remember them, right?

The attempts to destroy Social Security.

The fact that the last time we had two party rule, we also had a balanced budget.

The rationalization of torture.

Corporate welfare to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

45 million Americans with no health insurance.

The U.S. falling behind in stem cell research.

The dismantalling of decades old international alliances.

The effective repeal (with no vote!) of the 1st and 4th Ammendments. The 1st, btw, is the one that Art claims to hold so dear. Apparently only for the rich, though.

The all out assault on environmental regulations.


Yeah, One Party Rule has been just dandy for America.

 

[Metullus]

Apologies! Apparently you missed:

The pointless war in Iraq...2,000 of our soldiers, tens of thousands Iraqi civilians killed and NOTHING accomplished. Billions of dollars wasted. And our army spread thin to the point of ineffectiveness throughout the world.

The record deficits, which are largely being funded by China. You remember them, right?

The attempts to destroy Social Security.

The fact that the last time we had two party rule, we also had a balanced budget.

The rationalization of torture.

Corporate welfare to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

45 million Americans with no health insurance.

The U.S. falling behind in stem cell research.

The dismantalling of decades old international alliances.

The effective repeal (with no vote!) of the 1st and 4th Ammendments. The 1st, btw, is the one that Art claims to hold so dear. Apparently only for the rich, though.

The all out assault on environmental regulations.


Yeah, One Party Rule has been just dandy for America.

Your claim:

If the rich corporations can spend whatever they want, there is no way to compete! Which is largely why we are now living under the disastrous One Party Rule..

Your response does not address this. So do you have evidence supporting your claim?

...that is destroying this country.

You have listed a good may allegations that obviously make you unhappy. You have not, however, provided evidence that this country is being destroyed.

 

[Mark]

Your claim:


Your response does not address this. So do you have evidence supporting your claim?



You have listed a good may allegations that obviously make you unhappy. You have not given me evidence that this country is being destroyed.

Right...the things I listed are just "things that make me unhappy."

You may be happy that corporate lobbyists are unduly influencing (and in many cases actually writing) federal and state legislation, but I am not.

I wonder what you would be saying if we had the exact same situation, only it was the Democrats who were in charge of everything? I can guess.

 

[Grammatron]

Right...the things I listed are just "things that make me unhappy."

You may be happy that corporate lobbyists are unduly influencing (and in many cases actually writing) federal and state legislation, but I am not.

I wonder what you would be saying if we had the exact same situation, only it was the Democrats who were in charge of everything? I can guess.

You mean up until 2000 things were different?

Evidence?

 

[Mark]

You mean up until 2000 things were different?

Evidence?

The budget was balanced, for one thing. And please don't waste my time with right wing spin about that. Anyway you look at it, one party rule is bankrupting this country. The Republicans have lost ALL credibilty as the fiscally responsible party (except to blind partisans, of course).

The difference between us, is that I am sure the same thing would have happened if the Democrats controlled everything.

Two party rule works because the parties tend to cancel the extremists in either party out.

 

[Metullus]

Right...the things I listed are just "things that make me unhappy."

You may be happy that corporate lobbyists are unduly influencing (and in many cases actually writing) federal and state legislation, but I am not.

I wonder what you would be saying if we had the exact same situation, only it was the Democrats who were in charge of everything? I can guess.

So no evidence.

Mark, you do not know my politics. You have no clue as to what I think about those "things that make [you] unhappy". They are not, however, relevant to your claim.

You claimed that corporations are why the US has "One Party rule". And I asked for evidence in support of this claim. If what you claim is true there should be evidence to support it. I am aware of none. You have provided none. This is not a question of politics - this is a question of supporting a claim with factual evidence.

You claimed that the US is being destroyed. I asked for evidence of that claim. You have provided none. I will grant that your laundry list might well be what you consider indications of impendng collapse, but you have provided no evidence in support of your contention that the country is being, in your words, destroyed.

 

[Mark]

So no evidence.

Mark, you do not know my politics. You have no clue as to what I think about those "things that make [you] unhappy". They are not, however, relevant to your claim.

You claimed that corporations are why the US has "One Party rule". And I asked for evidence in support of this claim. If what you claim is true there should be evidence to support it. I am aware of none. You have provided none. This is not a question of politics - this is a question of supporting a claim with factual evidence.

You claimed that the US is being destroyed. I asked for evidence of that claim. You have provided none. I will grant that your laundry list might well be what you consider indications of impendng collapse, but you have provided no evidence in support of your contention that the country is being, in your words, destroyed.

As I said...

 

[Metullus]

As I said...

No evidence, then.

 

[Grammatron]

The budget was balanced, for one thing. And please don't waste my time with right wing spin about that. Anyway you look at it, one party rule is bankrupting this country. The Republicans have lost ALL credibilty as the fiscally responsible party (except to blind partisans, of course).

Not evidence for your claim, ignored.

The difference between us, is that I am sure the same thing would have happened if the Democrats controlled everything.

So in California, where they do control "everything" by your standards the Republicans yield more power how?

Two party rule works because the parties tend to cancel the extremists in either party out.

I see.

What's your problem with Prop 75?

 

[President Bush]

Apologies! Apparently you missed:

The pointless war in Iraq...2,000 of our soldiers, tens of thousands Iraqi civilians killed and NOTHING accomplished. Billions of dollars wasted. And our army spread thin to the point of ineffectiveness throughout the world.

The record deficits, which are largely being funded by China. You remember them, right?

The attempts to destroy Social Security.

The fact that the last time we had two party rule, we also had a balanced budget.

The rationalization of torture.

Corporate welfare to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

45 million Americans with no health insurance.

The U.S. falling behind in stem cell research.

The dismantalling of decades old international alliances.

The effective repeal (with no vote!) of the 1st and 4th Ammendments. The 1st, btw, is the one that Art claims to hold so dear. Apparently only for the rich, though.

The all out assault on environmental regulations.

That's why we're in here and you're out there.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Do I even have to say this? They are still perfectly free to express their views in whatever forum they want.

That's just plain ridiculous. CFR restricts the ability of people to express their views. If you deny this, you are simply exposing your ignorance (or dishonesty).

If the rich corporations can spend whatever they want, there is no way to compete! Which is largely why we are now living under the disastrous One Party Rule that is destroying this country.

Of course it's possible to compete with the rich. If the voters automatically vote for whomever spends the most money, regardless of the issues, then CFR is hardly the most pressing issue. You are starting with The Masses Are Mindless Sheep as your basic assumption, then trying to protect them from their own stupidity, even if means throwing the Constitution out the window.

 

[Mark]

That's just plain ridiculous. CFR restricts the ability of people to express their views. If you deny this, you are simply exposing your ignorance (or dishonesty).

Of course it's possible to compete with the rich. If the voters automatically vote for whomever spends the most money, regardless of the issues, then CFR is hardly the most pressing issue. You are starting with The Masses Are Mindless Sheep as your basic assumption, then trying to protect them from their own stupidity, even if means throwing the Constitution out the window.

And I'd say you are hoplessly naive, but I suspect that what you really are is a hardcore Republican who wants to maintain party power no matter what.

But that's just a guess.

 

[Art Vandelay]

And I'd say you are hoplessly naive, but I suspect that what you really are is a hardcore Republican who wants to maintain party power no matter what.

But that's just a guess.

Ah, so you have no argument to support your view, just wild conspiracy theories?

Look, CFR restricts expression of views. By definition. A "campaign", in this context, means "an effort to express political views". Restricting the ability of people to fund efforts to express political views restricts the expression of political views. How can any rational person dispute such an obviously true statement?