My fear about McCain...

[Truck Fump / h1b]

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.

Some have strong convictions based on reason and what they feel is BEST for people based on rational grounds. Or what seems rational to them. Some people get worked up about anyone who gets worked up. And that's really what it's all about, supressing chi, or life energy flow by attempting to invalidate motivations of others.

 

[DigitalDave]

He's a lawyer and I am an Engineer. What do you expect? His life's work lives and dies on semantics, mine on accuracy.

Well, in that case, my life work lives and dies on making shit up in a totally different language.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Where does the first guarantee equal impact of speech? Money is not speech, quit arguing that it is.

Then tell me string... why do people bitch about campaign finance reform as though it limits freedom of speech? Isn't that the whole argument behind those opposed to CFR????

 

[Damocles]

Well, in that case, my life work lives and dies on making shit up in a totally different language.

Sweet! Let's hear it!

 

[Damocles]

Some have strong convictions based on reason and what they feel is BEST for people based on rational grounds. Or what seems rational to them. Some people get worked up about anyone who gets worked up. And that's really what it's all about, supressing chi, or life energy flow by attempting to invalidate motivations of others.

Again, if they recognize that they think it is BEST that you have FAITH, it is less irritating. To pretend that it takes none to believe as they do is what annoys.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Again, if they recognize that they think it is BEST that you have FAITH, it is less irritating. To pretend that it takes none to believe as they do is what annoys.

That is annoying. OR to pretend to be strict constitutionalists is annoying too. LOL.

 

[Jarod]

Pointing out that even if he is selected all that you "fear" will never happen is simply dispelling the mongering.

You know it won't happen yet take the time to inform everybody why they should be "afraid" of it. Then pretend that you never said you "feared" it, when it was in the title.

I'm sorry you are scared of ineffective ideas in somebody you feel might be selected as VP. But there are reasons you should not be. I listed them in this thread.

I never denied fearing it, I do. I just deny trying to provoke others to fear it. To me thats what mongering it.

 

[Jarod]

The only one I know of is, in a limited way, to protect the rights of others. For example, stealing someone's money should be illegal because I have a right to keep what is physically mine.

To keep this from getting out of control, you have to use a ballancing test in the courts. Is the law promoting a legitatmate state interest? If so, is that state interest more inportant that the right its infringing upon, and is the infringement upon personal freedom as limited as it can be to still effectivly promote that State interest.

Using Freedom of Speech. I have an absolute right to yell "fire" when and where I want. (First amendment). However the State has a right to protect the health and safety of the people. So is it okay to make a law prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater...

You do the analysis...

No comments?

 

[Damocles]

My fear about McCain is that he may have some insecurities about not appealing to the Religous Right and feel he has to choose Huckleberry as his VP.

This would really be an embarrassment to the United States and bring shame to the ideals of the founding fathers.

If he does choose Huckleberry Ill have to donate lots of $ to Senator Clinton or Obama and join the local campaign as a volunteer.

I never denied fearing it, I do. I just deny trying to provoke others to fear it. To me thats what mongering it.

That bolded sentence is attempting to convince others that they should "fear" it too. Do you think I might be able to find other posts that might also be trying to convince others to "fear" this?

Whether he picks Huckabee, what you "fear" is nothing to fear. It is not any more likely to happen now than it was when Bush used the same tactics to bring that type of person to the polls. I do not fear it and have given valid reasons why nobody should. Even the fact that I do not think McCain would be so foolish as to choose Huckabee to be a VP on his ticket.

 

[Timshel]

Then tell me string... why do people bitch about campaign finance reform as though it limits freedom of speech? Isn't that the whole argument behind those opposed to CFR????

Because it does. McCain Feingold specifically limits speech. The limits on "electioneering communication" have NOTHING to do with who donates the money or how much. It is not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption.

With regards to contributions to political campaigns (not to third party groups), one can argue that it meets the narrowly tailored rule to prevent the appearance of corruption. Here the violation is primarily of property rights and it is a danger based on partisan control of the FEC.

Any limit on spending, especially by political party or a third party advocacy group, is clearly a violation of speech and association.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

McCain Feingold was a mess. I am not arguing that. I am talking about real reforms.

There you go again stating that any limit on spending is a violation of speech when you just got done saying that money is not speech.

 

[Damocles]

McCain Feingold was a mess. I am not arguing that. I am talking about real reforms.

There you go again stating that any limit on spending is a violation of speech when you just got done saying that money is not speech.

If I buy airtime on the Television advertising my superfantastic ideas is it free speech? If I want to donate to a candidate so he can do the same, why is it suddenly not free speech?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If I buy airtime on the Television advertising my superfantastic ideas is it free speech? If I want to donate to a candidate so he can do the same, why is it suddenly not free speech?

It is not free speech either way. BOTH require MONEY to do so. The key word in free speech is FREE.

You are not entitled to go to NBC and demand the ability to promote your superfabulicious idea under the auspice of free speech. You have to PAY for it.

When it comes to politics, there is a reason we have spending caps when it comes to direct donations to candidates. It is so that wealthy individuals do not have undo influence over the politicians. So why do we allow them to get around those caps by creating 527's, PACs etc...????

Everyone should be able to donate, but it should be capped. The politicians should be restricted in receiving gifts as well. $100 per year per lobbying group. (which coincidentally is also the cap they place on my industry)

 

[Timshel]

If I buy airtime on the Television advertising my superfantastic ideas is it free speech? If I want to donate to a candidate so he can do the same, why is it suddenly not free speech?

One can make a good argument that congress' power to regulate campaigns means they may limit donations accepted and even money spent. The money spent though comes nearer the line of a violation of speech. If they can say how much the candidate can spend, why not how and on what issues? The line here is not bright and clear.

I don't see as good a speech argument against limits on donations, though. You have to argue the contribution is a speech act. It might be intended as such but I think the argument is a bit of a stretch.

It is clear to me though that most advocates of CFR clear intent is to equate money with speech and limit speech. This is made clear by the focus of their argument being to equalize the impact of speech rather to prevent corruption.

 

[Damocles]

It is not free speech either way. BOTH require MONEY to do so. The key word in free speech is FREE.

You are not entitled to go to NBC and demand the ability to promote your superfabulicious idea under the auspice of free speech. You have to PAY for it.

When it comes to politics, there is a reason we have spending caps when it comes to direct donations to candidates. It is so that wealthy individuals do not have undo influence over the politicians. So why do we allow them to get around those caps by creating 527's, PACs etc...????

Everyone should be able to donate, but it should be capped. The politicians should be restricted in receiving gifts as well. $100 per year per lobbying group. (which coincidentally is also the cap they place on my industry)

Just because I have to pay for it doesn't mean it isn't a portion of free speech to buy advertising. 527s were created because limiting what a person could say on behalf of somebody else is a limitation to free speech. Even if I am willing to spend money to get my message out, I am still exercising free speech. The attempt to limit how much I may spend to get my message out to people is a limitation of my free speech.

 

[Timshel]

McCain Feingold was a mess. I am not arguing that. I am talking about real reforms.

I am. I made that clear.

There you go again stating that any limit on spending is a violation of speech when you just got done saying that money is not speech.

You do not understand the basis for CFR. The limit on spending clearly intends to limit the effectiveness of speech. WTF does spending have to do with corruption? Why should citizens be limited on how they use their resources to promote their speech? And the limits on spending are clearly in regards to speech acts. There is nothing in CFR law that says the ACLU can't spend their money buying a magnificent office building. No the limit is on what sort of speech they may spend on. This clearly is a broad attack on speech.

Contributions and donations to candidates, okay an argument can be made there about the VALID state interest of limiting corruption and the power of congress to regulate campaigns.

Equalizing speech and ensuring fairness of the state's elections is not a valid reason to limit the speech of citizens. Fuck the state's elections. They are not more important than the right of the individual to speak his mind freely.

 

[Timshel]

It is not free speech either way. BOTH require MONEY to do so. The key word in free speech is FREE.

Free of costs, no it is not. Nothing is free of costs (opportunity costs at least) and that is clearly not what our founders meant by free speech. They meant free of state interference.

You are not entitled to go to NBC and demand the ability to promote your superfabulicious idea under the auspice of free speech. You have to PAY for it.

You are not entitled to use of NBC's property. You may use your own to purchase their services. A limit on how much one may spend to advertise is clearly intended to limit speech.

When it comes to politics, there is a reason we have spending caps when it comes to direct donations to candidates.

What??? Spending caps to limit direct donations??? You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

It is so that wealthy individuals do not have undo influence over the politicians. So why do we allow them to get around those caps by creating 527's, PACs etc...????

Everyone should be able to donate, but it should be capped. The politicians should be restricted in receiving gifts as well. $100 per year per lobbying group. (which coincidentally is also the cap they place on my industry)

The only valid purpose is to prevent corruption, not to restrict or level influence.

 

[TRGLDTE]

So is it okay to make a law prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater...

You do the analysis...

No, not OK.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just because I have to pay for it doesn't mean it isn't a portion of free speech to buy advertising. 527s were created because limiting what a person could say on behalf of somebody else is a limitation to free speech. Even if I am willing to spend money to get my message out, I am still exercising free speech. The attempt to limit how much I may spend to get my message out to people is a limitation of my free speech.

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.

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....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Free of costs, no it is not. Nothing is free of costs (opportunity costs at least) and that is clearly not what our founders meant by free speech. They meant free of state interference.

You are not entitled to use of NBC's property. You may use your own to purchase their services. A limit on how much one may spend to advertise is clearly intended to limit speech.

What??? Spending caps to limit direct donations??? You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

The only valid purpose is to prevent corruption, not to restrict or level influence.

Do individuals have caps on what they can contribute directly per candidate?

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.