• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Huntsman objects to ad featuring adopted kids

misterman said:
Lame copout.

Why do you post anonymously? And why wouldn't someone else have the same reason?
Click to expand...

It's not because I am trying to manipulate the masses into supporting my secret agenda.
 
misterman said:
Read the First Amendment. They can say whatever they want.
Click to expand...

No, union members can say whatever they want. Union employees can say whatever they want. Unions are not people, unions do not have Constitutional rights of their own, and most importantly unions do not have their own money to donate to political campaigns. They are taking the union dues that their members pay them-- often under duress-- and spending that money, which is not theirs and which is not intended for political contributions, on candidates that the union members themselves may not support. That is embezzlement and it is fraud, in addition to the undue influence that it gives the union leaders-- not the union members-- over the electoral process.

AdamT said:
Right. In the bizarro world of today's Supreme Court, it's possible to say that individuals can be limited to donations of $2,500 to a campaign, because larger amounts would create, at the very least, the appearance of corruption. But if they want to, individuals and corporations can donate ANY amount -- say $25,000,000 -- to a PAC dedicated to electing a candidate, and that creates no impermissible appearance of corruption.
Click to expand...

PACs should be allowed to donate as much money as they want to campaigns, because that's what PACs are supposed to do. People donate money to PACs to support candidates that support the PAC's pet cause-- that's private individuals willingly donating their money to an organization that will use that money for its intended purpose. Perfectly legitimate.

Thorgasm said:
What stops foreign countries from participating in our elections using SuperPACs?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Prohibiting foreign governments from controlling our elections would violate their First Amendment rights.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
No, union members can say whatever they want. Union employees can say whatever they want. Unions are not people, unions do not have Constitutional rights of their own, and most importantly unions do not have their own money to donate to political campaigns. They are taking the union dues that their members pay them-- often under duress-- and spending that money, which is not theirs and which is not intended for political contributions, on candidates that the union members themselves may not support. That is embezzlement and it is fraud, in addition to the undue influence that it gives the union leaders-- not the union members-- over the electoral process.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about corporations?

Prohibiting foreign governments from controlling our elections would violate their First Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Can we assume that you're being sarcastic here?
 
AdamT said:
Do you feel the same way about corporations?
Click to expand...

Corporations, unions, and churches. I'm a shareholder. Every dollar that goes into the pocket of a candidate I don't support is a dollar that should have gone in my pocket that's been stolen from me.

AdamT said:
Can we assume that you're being sarcastic here?
Click to expand...

You haven't had the time to get to know me yet. You probably weren't here the last time I argued that foreigners, like corporations and newborns, weren't really people.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
I don't think Senator Paul is a racist, but the man needs to start doing a Hell of a lot better job keeping his bitches in check. He needs to get out in front of this.
Click to expand...
Those "bitches" are taking it out on Huntsman's daughters' Youtube page.

You know, because nothing proves you would never have posted an immature, insulting, racist video online like posting immature, insulting, misogynistic comments online.

. . . unless they, too, are Huntsman supporters in disguise.
 
AdamT said:
You are mistaken. There are limits on campaign donations that do not apply to the press.
Click to expand...

Yes - on DONATIONS. Not on spending, which is the issue here.

As I noted above, the Constitution itself distinguishes between them, as does current law.
Click to expand...

And you are completely wrong.

Actually I really am a strong believer in free speech. But it has long been recognized that the right is not unlimited. It should be limited when it interferes with our representative democracy, and that is what's going on.
Click to expand...

No, it very clearly should not be. To say that we need to suppress speech to strengthen democracy is fundamentally absurd. No exceptions are even remotely based on that idea.

This is your naivete speaking. If history tells us anything it is that money buys influence. Political advertising costs big money. People who spend big money on advertising for candidates buy influence. When elected officials are influenced by big money donors, they are not representing their constituents.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I know alot about this stuff.

Sure, money - and lots of other things - can get you influence. But not power. The voters have all the power.

But you do deny it and you offer no solution.
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts.
 
Thorgasm said:
It's not because I am trying to manipulate the masses into supporting my secret agenda.
Click to expand...

How do we know that?

As for "manipulating the masses" don't insult the people. We are not stupid, and we don't need the government to protect us from "manipulation."
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
No, union members can say whatever they want. Union employees can say whatever they want. Unions are not people, unions do not have Constitutional rights of their own,
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong.

The First Amendment protects speech. Period. Speech by groups of people is just as protected as speech by individuals.

and most importantly unions do not have their own money to donate to political campaigns. They are taking the union dues that their members pay them-- often under duress-- and spending that money, which is not theirs and which is not intended for political contributions, on candidates that the union members themselves may not support. That is embezzlement and it is fraud, in addition to the undue influence that it gives the union leaders-- not the union members-- over the electoral process.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. You have no idea what you're talking about. Unions cannot use dues money for political contributions.

They can spend money on speech - but their leaders are elected, so if the union members don't like it, they can do something about it.

Nothing. Prohibiting foreign governments from controlling our elections would violate their First Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Dude, didn't you just claim that only people have First Amendment rights?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Corporations, unions, and churches. I'm a shareholder. Every dollar that goes into the pocket of a candidate I don't support is a dollar that should have gone in my pocket that's been stolen from me.
Click to expand...

If you don't like how a corporation uses your money, don't buy it's stock.

You haven't had the time to get to know me yet. You probably weren't here the last time I argued that foreigners, like corporations and newborns, weren't really people.
Click to expand...

Now you know him, AdamT. :lol: Foreigners and newborns.
 
misterman said:
How does knowing who paid for a message change the message?
Click to expand...
It doesn't, which renders moot the need for anonymity.

Anyway, misterman, with all due respect, I think you are mis-interpreting many people's points-of-view in this thread. From what I can gather reading the thread, nobody is arguing the current status of the legal points regarding what is currently 'free speech' and what is not. No, what people are saying is that the rules/laws should maybe be changed (even if that means a Constitutional amendment).
 
radcen said:
It doesn't, which renders moot the need for anonymity.
Click to expand...

Or the need for non-anonymity too. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

Anyway, misterman, with all due respect, I think you are mis-interpreting many people's points-of-view in this thread. From what I can gather reading the thread, nobody is arguing the current status of the legal points regarding what is currently 'free speech' and what is not. No, what people are saying is that the rules/laws should maybe be changed (even if that means a Constitutional amendment).
Click to expand...

I'd say most are arguing both, but are resigned to the fact that they've lost in court and would need a Constitutional amendment. Which is pretty scary - they want to roll back part of the First Amendment.
 
misterman said:
I'd say most are arguing both, but are resigned to the fact that they've lost in court and would need a Constitutional amendment. Which is pretty scary - they want to roll back part of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
I don't really consider it "rolling back". I consider the whole "corporations are people" thing, as just one example, was an overly broad interpretation to begin with. An amendment, if necessary, would would fix that. I also believe that it is important enough to warrant an amendment.
 
radcen said:
I don't really consider it "rolling back".
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

I consider the whole "corporations are people" thing, as just one example, was an overly broad interpretation to begin with. An amendment, if necessary, would would fix that.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. The Citizen's United decision said nothing at all about corporate personhood.

And the amendments proposed would go way beyond that issue anyway.
 
misterman said:
Of course it is.
Click to expand...
Why? Because you said so? I consider you to be a pretty intelligent guy, but on this issue I think you have your blinders on. There's no "of course" about it, just opinion, and stating it emphatically does not raise opinion to fact.


misterman said:
No it wouldn't. The Citizen's United decision said nothing at all about corporate personhood.

And the amendments proposed would go way beyond that issue anyway.
Click to expand...
I was speaking generically. If there are specific proposals out there I am not aware of them. I have also never publicized what *I* think should be done anyway (specifics, I mean), so yes, a properly worded and rationally thought-out amendment just might do the trick. Any proposals floating around may or may not.
 
Good quote from McCain:
"What is happening now is what I predicted. .. The United States Supreme Court -- in what I think is one of the worst decisions in history -- struck down the restrictions in the so-called McCain-Feingold Law," McCain said. "And a lot of people don't agree with that, but I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck down that law, that there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening. And those are the rules and everybody is playing by those rules, and I predict to you that, in the future, there will be scandals, because there is too much money washing around political campaigns now that nobody knows where it came from and nobody knows where it's going."
Click to expand...
 
radcen said:
Why? Because you said so? I consider you to be a pretty intelligent guy, but on this issue I think you have your blinders on. There's no "of course" about it, just opinion, and stating it emphatically does not raise opinion to fact.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Post the language of the amendment you propose and I'll show you that it is.

I was speaking generically. If there are specific proposals out there I am not aware of them.
Click to expand...

Then you should be. You're busy telling me I'm naive, but you haven't actually looked the constituitonal amendments you are backing?

I have also never publicized what *I* think should be done anyway (specifics, I mean), so yes, a properly worded and rationally thought-out amendment just might do the trick. Any proposals floating around may or may not.
Click to expand...

Okay, so propose something specific - your own ideas, or one that's already been proposed. We can talk about it.
 
AdamT said:
Good quote from McCain:
Click to expand...

If you were to buy a small space in your local newspaper posting this quote within 60 days of an election in Arizona when McCain was up for re-election and saying "vote for McCain!" you could be fined or jailed for it under McCain's law. Irony.
 
misterman said:
Of course it is. Post the language of the amendment you propose and I'll show you that it is.

Then you should be. You're busy telling me I'm naive, but you haven't actually looked the constituitonal amendments you are backing?

Okay, so propose something specific - your own ideas, or one that's already been proposed. We can talk about it.
Click to expand...
I never said, nor did I imply, naive. Obtuse is a viable option, though. How many times, or how many different ways, do I need to say that I don't back any specific proposal that may be out there for you to get it?
 
Going after any candidate's kids...classless.
 
misterman said:
I'd say most are arguing both, but are resigned to the fact that they've lost in court and would need a Constitutional amendment. Which is pretty scary - they want to roll back part of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to understand the Citizens United ruling. So do you support some restrictions on free speech such as yelling fire in a crowd, threats, libel, making fraudulent claims, and protection of intellectual property vs free speech? How would you reconcile the fact if you were to support some restrictions on speech but not others?
Do you believe its constitutional to require candidates to disclose their identities in their speech?
Do you believe its constitutional to allow contribution limits to candidates but not Super-PACs if money is equated to speech?

I believe that if you're going to rule in favor of political speech, it should be complete and wipe away all restrictions on the regulation of political speech. Either that or you allow regulation of political speech, whichever way though it should be consistent.
 
radcen said:
I never said, nor did I imply, naive. Obtuse is a viable option, though. How many times, or how many different ways, do I need to say that I don't back any specific proposal that may be out there for you to get it?
Click to expand...

So post exactly what you propose and end the confusion.
 
Opteron said:
I'm trying to understand the Citizens United ruling. So do you support some restrictions on free speech such as yelling fire in a crowd, threats, libel, making fraudulent claims, and protection of intellectual property vs free speech? How would you reconcile the fact if you were to support some restrictions on speech but not others?
Click to expand...

The fact that you have exceptions to a rule doesn't justify ALL exceptions - then it wouldn't be a rule in the first place.

I can explain the exceptions and their justification if you want.

Do you believe its constitutional to require candidates to disclose their identities in their speech?
Click to expand...

No.

Do you believe its constitutional to allow contribution limits to candidates but not Super-PACs if money is equated to speech?
Click to expand...

I believe limits on contributions to any group that is spending it on speech, and only speech, is unconstitutional.

I believe that if you're going to rule in favor of political speech, it should be complete and wipe away all restrictions on the regulation of political speech. Either that or you allow regulation of political speech, whichever way though it should be consistent.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I am consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom