• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

NoJingoLingo said:
No, we have a farse. We are presented candidates to vote on. Most constituents are low-info voters and easily hoodwinked by ads.
Click to expand...
We have a "farse", huh? How ironic ...
 
NoJingoLingo said:
No, we have a farse. We are presented candidates to vote on. Most constituents are low-info voters and easily hoodwinked by ads.
Click to expand...

Look at what you are saying - the voters are stupid and need the government's protection so they won't see certain ads that could trick them.

I can't think of a better example of why we have freedom of speech.
 
misterman said:
That's crap. The voters choose the congressmen. No amount of money can change that.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, you're beginning to sound like a republican. If what you just said were true then why do corporations spend money on politics? Why do Ad agencies exist? Why do commercials exist?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Oh come on, you're beginning to sound like a republican. If what you just said were true then why do corporations spend money on politics? Why do Ad agencies exist? Why do commercials exist?
Click to expand...

No amount of money can change the fact that voters choose. It may influence their decision, but they are still 100% in control and 100% responsible.
 
phattonez said:
I know. I was just stating a fact. I didn't say whether it was good or bad.
Click to expand...

Did you forget the question mark you put at the end of your sentence? That makes it a question and not a statement. Unless you'd like to change the above to say "It was a rhetorical question". :roll:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Yes. I agree they do.

Yet Jack Abramoff and his like are what Vader was getting at. We can vote out constituents, but not lobbyists. These people are usually more talented, better paid, and have a silky tongue even Obama would envy.
Click to expand...
Wait, didn't you question that very idea in post 949? Can't keep track of your own corporatist hypocrisy?
 
phattonez said:
But in the end it shouldn't matter. If our politicians get swayed by lobbyists to vote against their constituents wishes, then they should be voted out.

Maybe the solution would be shorter terms for senators.
Click to expand...
Maybe the solution is public campaign finance instead of having our politicians spending so much time raising money and doing favors for that money.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Maybe the solution is public campaign finance instead of having our politicians spending so much time raising money and doing favors for that money.
Click to expand...

Maybe the solution is the First Amendment and allowing people the opportunity to use their own money to promote their own ideas.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to finance campaigns for elective office.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
special interest money is what made them congressmen in the first place.:)
Click to expand...

No, the voters did.

I don't know if you noticed, but we have elections. The people choose. If you don't like who they choose, or why, that's too bad. If they choose the people who spend the most special interest money on ads, that's their choice. Your contempt for the intelligence and responsibility of the American voter is disgusting.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
unless they have a congressman in their pocket.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They still have no vote. Do you not understand how that works?

The congressman is 100% responsible for his vote. If he's "in a lobbyist's pocket" it's still his vote. If the voters don't like what he does, they can just get rid of him.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

I keep saying it because it is true.

How loud would you be screaming if the court had ruled instead that GOONIONS, your beloved goonions, couldn't pay member's money for political purposes?

Would we have to measure the outrage on the Left on the Richter Scale?
Click to expand...
Just as loud. I don't believe anyone should be giving more or less than anyone else. I think everyone should pitch in 5-10 dollars (or whatever the agreed upon number) into an election pool as part of public campaign finance. That way we as voters can vote on what we want instead of what the corporatists want.

I'm a social libertarian, not the lefty democrat you'd like to group me with. :2wave: You lose.
 
misterman said:
As soon as a majority of voters elect him.

You have a problem with majority rule by voters?
Click to expand...

Yes, when they are uneducated and easily swayed by massive ad campaigns that seek to distort the truth or ignore the truth altogether.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Yes, when they are uneducated and easily swayed by massive ad campaigns that seek to distort the truth or ignore the truth altogether.
Click to expand...

So people who are smarter have to use the power of the government to keep dumb people from hearing things that might influence their vote.

Wow.

See, you are exactly the kind of person the founding fathers were terrified of when they wrote the First Amendment. How's that feel?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Just as loud.
Click to expand...

Oh.

So, you're okay with the thought that people who own companies should be denied their freedom of speech, but you're going to whine the moon out of the sky if goonions were denied that freedom.

Hypocrite.


NoJingoLingo said:
I don't believe anyone should be giving more or less than anyone else. I think everyone should pitch in 5-10 dollars (or whatever the agreed upon number) into an election pool as part of public campaign finance. That way we as voters can vote on what we want instead of what the corporatists want.
Click to expand...

I think people should "pitch in" (and when I use the word, what I mean is a "contribution", which, if you ever look the word up, you'll see that it embodies the word "voluntary". You use it as a euphemism to hide your desire for a TAX.) whatever they want to, as much as they want to, to only those candidates they want to support.

That's called "freedom". It's an American thing, I don't think you'll understand.

NoJingoLingo said:
I'm a social libertarian, not the lefty democrat you'd like to group me with. :2wave: You lose.
Click to expand...

So, you're a socialist. Since you've just finished insisting people pay a tax that will go to fund candidates they do not approve of, you're clearly not a libertarian, something further proven by your desire to deny people who own companies their freedom to engage in political discourse.
 
phattonez said:
So republicanism is a sham. What better system to you propose?
Click to expand...
It's not that republicanism is a sham but rather, we've allowed our country to become a corporatocracy with the sheen of a republic. Our Republic is a sham, not the idea of a republic.
 
misterman said:
Look at what you are saying - the voters are stupid and need the government's protection so they won't see certain ads that could trick them.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying voters are stupid which is how we got ourselves into this system of corporate control. Voters are stupid because the corporaticracy raids education funding on a continual basis.

I can't think of a better example of why we have freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech is great if you understand what you are talking about but if you're like this, then it's not so great when you are stupid because of it: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U"]YouTube- McCain Tells Crowd Obama is Not Arab[/ame]

That's not to say I'm against free speech.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Maybe the solution is the First Amendment and allowing people the opportunity to use their own money to promote their own ideas.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to finance campaigns for elective office.
Click to expand...
No where in the constitution are corporations allowed to finance campaigns for elective office.

We can however make an amendment. Unlike what judges have done and simply made corporations more and more equal to "people".
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Nice try but that is a specious argument in regards to the subject.
Click to expand...

Not at all. If I have individual rights, and then I try to do something else with a friend, suddenly we can't do what we separately would have done? Why?
 
misterman said:
No, the voters did.

I don't know if you noticed, but we have elections. The people choose. If you don't like who they choose, or why, that's too bad. If they choose the people who spend the most special interest money on ads, that's their choice. Your contempt for the intelligence and responsibility of the American voter is disgusting.
Click to expand...
Add me to that list of people who are contemptuous of the intelligence and responsibility of the American voter. We did, after all, elect Bush twice (at least his second term anyway).
 
NoJingoLingo said:
It's not that republicanism is a sham but rather, we've allowed our country to become a corporatocracy with the sheen of a republic. Our Republic is a sham, not the idea of a republic.
Click to expand...

No. The principle still holds. We vote out those who don't vote the way we want. No amount of corporate spending can change that.
 
misterman said:
So people who are smarter have to use the power of the government to keep dumb people from hearing things that might influence their vote.

Wow.

See, you are exactly the kind of person the founding fathers were terrified of when they wrote the First Amendment. How's that feel?
Click to expand...
Again you go to the Strawman-Well, hoping no one will notice. Please quote me saying any of the above.

How does your strawman argument feel? I feel sorry that you refuse to use your intelligence on this matter. :2wave:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
No, I'm saying voters are stupid which is how we got ourselves into this system of corporate control.
Click to expand...

No, the voters are stupid because they chose Obama.

That corporations, which represent people, are allowed to represent those people by buying advertising, is a guaranteed First Amendment freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom