Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    So?

    That doesn't make the decision wrong as you both have tried to argue.
    It simply means that you don't like it.
    That is very different from being "wrong".

    Your feelings aren't relevant to the determination of whether it is right or wrong as I explained in previous posts.
    I will leave you 2 to your feelings though
    Yes, it does make it wrong.
    When they confuse the volume of money one spends with freedom of speech instead of volume of speech, they create a situation when the volume of few covers the volume of many which corrupts the election process. That is what makes it wrong.

    Also, if we accept your position, then by the same idea, it will not be wrong if the future SCOTUS reverses the opinion and rules what "I like" or what "you do not like" as you want to put it. In other words, the basis of the decision is a matter of preference and is not based on some solid legal foundation.
    Last edited by pamak; 01 Mar 20, 13:15.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

      Yes, it does make it wrong.
      When they confuse the volume of money one spends with freedom of speech instead of volume of speech, they create a situation when the volume of few covers the volume of many which corrupts the election process. That is what makes it wrong.

      Also, if we accept your position, then by the same idea, it will not be wrong if the future SCOTUS reverses the opinion and rules what "I like" or what "you do not like" as you want to put it. In other words, the basis of the decision is a matter of preference and is not based on some solid legal foundation.
      So, by extension, it's wrong for a best selling author with a major publisher to be able to put out a "best seller" simply on the basis of the number of books printed, sold or not, and unfair to some unknown author(s) who don't have those advantages. That's an equivalent of what you're proposing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        So, by extension, it's wrong for a best selling author with a major publisher to be able to put out a "best seller" simply on the basis of the number of books printed, sold or not, and unfair to some unknown author(s) who don't have those advantages. That's an equivalent of what you're proposing.
        No relation at all. The "best seller" is a result of spreading a message and not the driving force for spreading it. But more to the point, seeking limitations no how money can be spent does not imply that people cannot publish books or cannot spent any money to promote a cause in some ways. The whole idea is to have a situation where even a less wealthy group of 1 million individuals in rural areas can be as much effective in spreading its message as a much more wealthy group of 50,000 elites in the coast. Obviously, I do not expect legislation that can bring complete equality. But I do expect that we can have legislation which can decrease the influence of money in politics.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

          Yes, it does make it wrong.
          When they confuse the volume of money one spends with freedom of speech instead of volume of speech, they create a situation when the volume of few covers the volume of many which corrupts the election process. That is what makes it wrong.

          Also, if we accept your position, then by the same idea, it will not be wrong if the future SCOTUS reverses the opinion and rules what "I like" or what "you do not like" as you want to put it. In other words, the basis of the decision is a matter of preference and is not based on some solid legal foundation.
          I really don't know why I bother.

          I know you will continue to ignore everything except what you want to believe.
          You seem to be operating under the delusion that it is "my position". It is not. It is the position of the SCOTUS and consistent with the 1st Amendment.
          Your argument that a future SCOTUS could reverse CU because <reasons> is as empty as saying that the SCOTUS could reverse the 13th Amendment and reintroduce slavery just because. Trust me, neither one is ever going to happen.

          You claim the SCOTUS "confuses the volume of money" as if that means anything. You don't have a clue about the issue but you won't let that stop you from declaring it wrong and telling us what it really should be. You might want to read up on the difference between the courts and the legislature. It is useful when pretending to be an expert on the Constitution.

          Forgive me, but I will now just sit in awe as you expound on your expert opinions on a constitutional right you do not understand
          Last edited by Cambronnne; 01 Mar 20, 17:58.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

            I really don't know why I bother.

            I know you will continue to ignore everything except what you want to believe.
            You seem to be operating under the delusion that it is "my position". It is not. It is the position of the SCOTUS and consistent with the 1st Amendment.
            Your argument that a future SCOTUS could reverse CU because <reasons> is as empty as saying that the SCOTUS could reverse the 13th Amendment and reintroduce slavery just because. Trust me, neither one is ever going to happen.


            You claim the SCOTUS "confuses the volume of money" but you as if that means anything. You don't have a clue about the issue but you won't let that stop you from declaring it wrong and telling us what it really should be. You might want to read up on the difference between the courts and the legislature. It is useful when pretending to be an expert on the Constitution.

            Forgive me, but I will now just sit in awe as you expound on your expert opinions on a constitutional right you do not understand

            I noticed that after I explained (after you challenged me) why the SCOTUS decision is wrong, you could not come with a post to explain why my counterpoint is wrong or illogical. You just came with a post to claim that I simply do not have a clue about what I am talking and I just express what :"I like"

            And as I told you, I can play the same game and tell exactly the same thing about you and the SCOTUS decision and the lack of your understanding regarding constitutional rights. This is very easy to do when you cannot come with a reasonable response to show the weakness of the other side's view.

            By the way, do you also believe that the SCOTUS will never reverse its abortion decisions. Or do you change the tune when the SCOTUS rules against what you think is right? I am mentioning it because you have expressed very strong pro-life views.
            Last edited by pamak; 01 Mar 20, 13:41.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pamak View Post

              No relation at all. The "best seller" is a result of spreading a message and not the driving force for spreading it. But more to the point, seeking limitations no how money can be spent does not imply that people cannot publish books or cannot spent any money to promote a cause in some ways. The whole idea is to have a situation where even a less wealthy group of 1 million individuals in rural areas can be as much effective in spreading its message as a much more wealthy group of 50,000 elites in the coast. Obviously, I do not expect legislation that can bring complete equality. But I do expect that we can have legislation which can decrease the influence of money in politics.
              It's an absolutely great comparison. Big publishers control the money, distribution, and production of books and literature. They have the systems in place to put these on the market like nobody else.
              Just like big money in politics can buy a message, or a politician, a big publisher can buy authors and frame the message. "Grass roots" organizing rarely works as well as deep pockets with influence and insider connections.
              The way you decrease the influence of money in politics isn't to limit it, but rather make it public and totally transparent. If influence is being sought and bought, the public should know, not the person or group trying to buy it be limited in doing so. Public reaction and the possibility the politician(s) involved will be reacted to appropriately on the large scale.
              That allows for free speech and free reaction to that speech.

              The worst possible solution is public funding of political campaigns. That is nothing but tyranny as it forces all of us to pay for speech we may vehemently disagree with and that is completely wrong.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                It's an absolutely great comparison. Big publishers control the money, distribution, and production of books and literature. They have the systems in place to put these on the market like nobody else.
                Just like big money in politics can buy a message, or a politician, a big publisher can buy authors and frame the message. "Grass roots" organizing rarely works as well as deep pockets with influence and insider connections.
                The way you decrease the influence of money in politics isn't to limit it, but rather make it public and totally transparent. If influence is being sought and bought, the public should know, not the person or group trying to buy it be limited in doing so. Public reaction and the possibility the politician(s) involved will be reacted to appropriately on the large scale.
                That allows for free speech and free reaction to that speech.

                The worst possible solution is public funding of political campaigns. That is nothing but tyranny as it forces all of us to pay for speech we may vehemently disagree with and that is completely wrong.
                Public and total transparency does not address the issue that as wealth continues to accumulate a the hands of fewer people, their impact in politics continues to grow and have their voice cover that of the fewer but less wealthy Americans. Just knowing whose voice is the louder does not address the issue. Limitations in spending allow free speech and free reaction to speech in a way that more voices (and reactions) can be heard. If anything, this is more freedom, not less.
                Last edited by pamak; 01 Mar 20, 18:08.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  Public and total transparency does not address the issue that as wealth continues to accumulate a the hands of fewer people, their impact in politics continues to grow and have their voice cover that of the fewer but less wealthy Americans. Just knowing whose voice is the louder does not address the issue. Limitations in spending allow free speech and free reaction to speech in a way that more voices (and reactions) can be heard. If anything, this is more freedom, not less.

                  Comment


                  • To all posting in this thread
                    This is a discussion thread. There is a separate thread for political memes which was created for the specific purpose of preventing discussion threads being cluttered up with memes that do not promote debate or discussion.

                    Going forwards memes will be moved to the thread where they belong .
                    Thank you
                    ACG Staff




                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                      So, if the decision was based solely on politics it should be pretty easy to take it apart.
                      And yet you can't.
                      Hmmmmm

                      Trolling again?
                      What you don't understand is the agenda behind why republicans are in favor of unlimited anonymous (dark) donations. What part of corruption don't you get?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        fascinating.
                        So can all forms of free speech.
                        the hole you are digging keeps getting deeper.

                        But please, share more of your deep understanding of the law.
                        I'm loving every minute of this.
                        In America, money is a problem in politics. Citizens United doesn't fix that, it encourages that. You support corporate policy, I support middle class policy. That's our difference.

                        Comment


                        • The Democrats want to destroy the middle classes:Sanders, Bloomberg, Hillary have only contempt for the Deplorables .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Public and total transparency does not address the issue that as wealth continues to accumulate a the hands of fewer people, their impact in politics continues to grow and have their voice cover that of the fewer but less wealthy Americans. Just knowing whose voice is the louder does not address the issue. Limitations in spending allow free speech and free reaction to speech in a way that more voices (and reactions) can be heard. If anything, this is more freedom, not less.
                            The Democrats should set a good example :they are the party with the dark money .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                              In America, money is a problem in politics. Citizens United doesn't fix that, it encourages that. You support corporate policy, I support middle class policy. That's our difference.
                              Um, please point out the section of the first amendment or the constitution itself that gives the court authority to determine spending limts or to create legislation that addresses money in politics.
                              When you come to the realization that the court has no such authority either under the 1st Amendment or the Constitution, (and never will)perhaps you will begin to understand how much ignorance is involved in your argument against the CU case.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pamak View Post


                                I noticed that after I explained (after you challenged me) why the SCOTUS decision is wrong, you could not come with a post to explain why my counterpoint is wrong or illogical. You just came with a post to claim that I simply do not have a clue about what I am talking and I just express what :"I like"

                                And as I told you, I can play the same game and tell exactly the same thing about you and the SCOTUS decision and the lack of your understanding regarding constitutional rights. This is very easy to do when you cannot come with a reasonable response to show the weakness of the other side's view.

                                By the way, do you also believe that the SCOTUS will never reverse its abortion decisions. Or do you change the tune when the SCOTUS rules against what you think is right? I am mentioning it because you have expressed very strong pro-life views.

                                You have never explained why the decision is wrong.
                                Doing so would require that you address the 1st Amendment. You haven't. You don't address the first Amendment either because you don't understand it, or because you do and recognize you are wrong.
                                Instead, you try to change the subject.
                                You are entitled to your feelings about money in politics, but neither the 1st Amendment, nor the Constitution gives the court any authority to do anything about that. If you understood that concept you would have chosen a better argument.
                                You argument is addressed to legislation, not the Constitution. Your demand for what amounts to legislation is pretty much an implicit admission that the decision is right. (Meaning you are wrong)

                                If you ever said anything about the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, that would have been a better argument, but you didn't. Probably because you don't understand the subject matter you are attempting to lecture about.
                                If you ever said anything about the Constitution and I was unable to respond, you might have a point, but you didn't, so you don't.

                                Your attempt to change the subject to abortion is laughable. It avoids addressing my point and is an effort to change the subject.
                                Also, if you had the barest clue what I was talking about when I've posted on abortion, you wouldn't claim that I had "very strong pro-life views". Attempting to formulate a bad argument based on your ignorance on an unrelated issue isn't a good way to show you are right on this issue.
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X