My fear about McCain...

Superfreak said:
There is the rub.... no one is limiting WHAT they can say... they are just leveling the playing field as to WHERE you can say it. Just the same as not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. It is in the public interest to do so. Under the current system, we end up with the corruption and never ending indebtedness to special interest groups/PACs and wealthy individuals.
Click to expand...

How is it the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre (which btw should be prohibited because it is a property violation, not because it is unacceptable speech)? Who says they may make laws to level the speech? Where is that included in "NO LAWS." Where is the power granted in the constitution?

Superfreak said:
You can send your message out via the internet, email, speaking in public. You can do it as often as you like. It is simply the type of forum that is being limited....
Click to expand...

Why can't congress say no money may be spent in the transmission of email, bb systems or blogs? Do you think that is free? Why don't we have them say you can speak in public but you can't use any resources (like say clothes) while doing so? You are not going to tell me that pants are speech are you?

Maybe, we should further say you can have a gun, but you may not use money to buy one. You can't use any resources to make one either.

Freedom of religion, but no contributions to the church. The church may not pay anyone, for anything. Hey religion is not a bible or a church building.

You are nothing but a collectivist. You have no idea what individual rights are or what limited government implies. To limit the use of property in a speech act is a limit on speech.
 
RStringfield said:
How is it the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre (which btw should be prohibited because it is a property violation, not because it is unacceptable speech)? Who says they may make laws to level the speech? Where is that included in "NO LAWS." Where is the power granted in the constitution?



Why can't congress say no money may be spent in the transmission of email, bb systems or blogs? Do you think that is free? Why don't we have them say you can speak in public but you can't use any resources (like say clothes) while doing so? You are not going to tell me that pants are speech are you?

Maybe, we should further say you can have a gun, but you may not use money to buy one. You can't use any resources to make one either.

Freedom of religion, but no contributions to the church. The church may not pay anyone, for anything. Hey religion is not a bible or a church building.

You are nothing but a collectivist. You have no idea what individual rights are or what limited government implies. To limit the use of property in a speech act is a limit on speech.
Click to expand...


It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theatre because it is in the best interest of the public as a whole. How do you equate that to a property violation?

Your other examples are equivalent to yelling "fire" in your yard. They do not effect the public welfare. They do not lead to corruption of our political system.

Are you suggesting that all the money that is spent doesn't lead to corruption?

That the special interest groups/PACs/individuals do not spend the millions to create influence over political candidates?
 
Superfreak said:
Do individuals have caps on what they can contribute directly per candidate?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is not limited spending caps, as you indicated. Buy a dictionary. Oh wait, no that would not be fair and money is not freedom of the press so no one should be allowed to buy/sell dictionaries or expend any resources on their production.

Superfreak said:
It is the undo influence that leads to the corruption. It is why the politicians are bought and paid for by special interest groups, PACs and individuals like Murdoch and Soros. It is their ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money that corrupts the politicians into doing what is in the interest of the highest donors rather than what is in the interest of the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck? The state is not my primary concern nor is it the preeminent concern in the founding principles of our government.

Congress has no power to regulate speech. It is not granted as a power by the constitution and it is prohibited by the first amendment.

Some people might be influenced by John Stewart making fun of a certain politician. Maybe they are influenced by a sermon given by their preacher. Maybe they are influenced by a song, movie, poem, editorial, article, etc.

The fact that outside factors might influence elections does not extend congressional power to every corner of society. They have power to regulate campaigns/elections only.
 
Superfreak said:
It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theatre because it is in the best interest of the public as a whole. How do you equate that to a property violation?
Click to expand...

It is a violation of the property rights of the theatre owner and the ticketholders.

Superfreak said:
Your other examples are equivalent to yelling "fire" in your yard. They do not effect the public welfare. They do not lead to corruption of our political system.
Click to expand...

So you are basically arguing that the people should be free to speak as long as they make no waves nor have any power to influence others.

They very well could effect the public welfare and influence the political system. MLK affected the public welfare and the political system using little more than public speeches. The use of email and bulletin boards has had an impact on this election.

Superfreak said:
Are you suggesting that all the money that is spent doesn't lead to corruption?

That the special interest groups/PACs/individuals do not spend the millions to create influence over political candidates?
Click to expand...

Influence does not equal corruption.
 
Do you think that our founders would look at the electoral system and approve of the influence that money has on laws that are passed? On government contracts awarded? My bet is that Washington would be truly offended by what has become of the system so many of his men built with their blood as the mortar.
 
Socrtease said:
Do you think that our founders would look at the electoral system and approve of the influence that money has on laws that are passed? On government contracts awarded? My bet is that Washington would be truly offended by what has become of the system so many of his men built with their blood as the mortar.
Click to expand...

But the place to start to fix it is not silencing people during elections.
 
Every person in this country right now can donate to an election campaign. THere is nothing to stop individuals from doing that. There is NO REASON to bundle, there is no reason for any of that other than to say, this all came from Haliburton and its employees so kiss our ass later and we will screw you on government contracts.
 
Socrtease said:
Every person in this country right now can donate to an election campaign. THere is nothing to stop individuals from doing that. There is NO REASON to bundle, there is no reason for any of that other than to say, this all came from Haliburton and its employees so kiss our ass later and we will screw you on government contracts.
Click to expand...

bundling, that sounds funny.
 
And it does not really matter whether the supposed "yelling fire in your yard" examples effect the public welfare or leads to political corruption. The first amendment does not read...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, so long as it does not affect the public welfare or lead to political corruption, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says no law. Nearly all speech affects the public welfare in some way.
 
Damocles said:
Once again, strong conviction, those words actually regard and include the faith idea within them. Unreasoned perfect assurance without understanding the faith thing is what is annoying.

Usually you only find that in the Atheists (Note the capitalized "A").

Almost all people who believe a standard religion with a Deity or deities understand and accept that it takes faith to believe that way. While those who take the leap in the other direction want to believe that they didn't use any faith to get there. It is unreasonable and stupid to believe such.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

"Faith" doesn't require facts, logic, or even common sense.

Science is not faith, and does require facts, logic, and common sense.
 
blackascoal said:
No it isn't.

"Faith" doesn't require facts, logic, or even common sense.

Science is not faith, and does require facts, logic, and common sense.
Click to expand...

But men of science act on their faith in logic and have equally strong ideas, and will kill for them, just like a crusader, or an environmentalist.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But men of science act on their faith in logic and have equally strong ideas, and will kill for them, just like a crusader, or an environmentalist.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous

Scientists actually do something.

Next time you have a life-threatening illness, call your pastor and have the ambulance drop you off at church.
 
Socrtease said:
Do you think that our founders would look at the electoral system and approve of the influence that money has on laws that are passed? On government contracts awarded? My bet is that Washington would be truly offended by what has become of the system so many of his men built with their blood as the mortar.
Click to expand...

They would be offended by the laws being passed and contracts handed out.
 
blackascoal said:
We live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.
Click to expand...

So? The founders system was probably more plutocratic than the current system. Personally, how you elect representatives of the state matters far less to me, though I prefer democratic elections, than limiting their power over the individual.
 
blackascoal said:
Fuck you crumpled old man.

If you can't defend your bullshit, get off the pot.

Scientists require facts and logic ... religion only requires a fool.
Click to expand...

My point is that even scientists have faith... in science. You seem to think any sort of zealotry is fine as long as it isn't supernaturally based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top