• 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!

Obama: We're still working on our democracy

Yes, all of those and corporate interests. :2wave:
So, why do you believe that black people, thru the NAACP, should not be allowed to voice their concerns to the government?
 
So, why do you believe that black people, thru the NAACP, should not be allowed to voice their concerns to the government?
Because Black People, like all other citizens can voice their concerns directly to the government, no intermediary needed.
 
Because Black People, like all other citizens can voice their concerns directly to the government, no intermediary needed.
So you disagree with the right of black people to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by said government?
 
So you disagree with the right of black people to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by said government?
You mean protesting? Other than that I think I was pretty clear on the lobbying front.
 
You mean protesting? Other than that I think I was pretty clear on the lobbying front.
So you DO oppose the right of black people to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by said government.
Good enough - thanks.
 
So you DO oppose the right of black people to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by said government.
Good enough - thanks.
So you're going to ignore my post and just create a strawman? Good enough - thanks.
 
So you're going to ignore my post and just create a strawman? Good enough - thanks.
There's no strawman - you openly admit that you oppose the lobbying efforts of the NAACP (and any other similar group), which is nothing more than black people exercising their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government.
 
There's no strawman - you openly admit that you oppose the lobbying efforts of the NAACP (and any other similar group), which is nothing more than black people exercising their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government.
Nope, there is a difference between lobbying and the right to assemble. You're attempt at combining the two in order to argue is a strawman. :2wave:
 
Nope, there is a difference between lobbying and the right to assemble.
Physically, yes, but conceptually they are the same thing - people getting together so that their voices might be better heard as a group.

So, why do you believe that black people should not be able to exercisie their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government?
 
Physically, yes, but conceptually they are the same thing - people getting together so that their voices might be better heard as a group.
That sounds like a protest. Going to your Representative to redress grievances are different things.
The right to assemble is not the same is not the same as the right to redress grievances.

So, why do you believe that black people should not be able to exercisie their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government?
Why are you using Black people as your example, because I'm Black so I must automatically support the NAACP?
 
That sounds like a protest. Going to your Representative to redress grievances are different things. The right to assemble is not the same is not the same as the right to redress grievances.
Who said anyting about protest or greivances? I'm talking abut the right to express political speech, in whatever manner, as a group. This is freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

Blacks CLEARLY have the right to lobby their congressman as an individual - why do you oppose the rights of blacks to do this as a group?

Why are you using Black people as your example, because I'm Black so I must automatically support the NAACP?
I had no idea you were black

I am -still- curious as to why you believe that black people should not be able to exercisie their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government?
 
Who said anyting about protest or greivances? I'm talking abut the right to express political speech, in whatever manner, as a group. This is freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

Blacks CLEARLY have the right to lobby their congressman as an individual - why do you oppose the rights of blacks to do this as a group?


I had no idea you were black

I am -still- curious as to why you believe that black people should not be able to exercisie their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government?

You were comparing the right to assemble with lobbying. They are not comparable.

The Constitution says you have the right to petition government for redress of grievances. It does not mention special interest lobbying which, as we hear a lot from cons, if it's not in the Constitution...

You are free to assemble to play tiddly winks or protest but the right to freely assemble has nothing to do with petitioning government for redress of grievances.
 
"Private interests" are people or persons influencing the political system for personal gain such as businesses.
If the government wasn't in the business of business, there'd be no need for lobbying.
 
If the government wasn't in the business of business, there'd be no need for lobbying.

You might consider the history of what got government involved. ;)
 
You might consider the history of what got government involved. ;)
Antitrust, but that's not a thumbsup to get wholely involved in everything.
 
You were comparing the right to assemble with lobbying. They are not comparable.
They are. Grouping together is 'assembly'; using the term as I did is not incorrect, it is just not in the usual sense.

The Constitution says you have the right to petition government for redress of grievances. It does not mention special interest lobbying which, as we hear a lot from cons, if it's not in the Constitution.
You have the right to free speech, political speech in particular, and that right includes donting to campaign funds.
Lobbying is the right to free speech exercised collectively, as in a group of people assembling together to do so.

You are free to assemble to play tiddly winks or protest but the right to freely assemble has nothing to do with petitioning government for redress of grievances.
It does, as noted above.
Aside from that, you're arguing a false premise in that nothing here necessitates that the act of lobbying revolves around redressing grievances.

So, I am -still- curious as to why you believe that black people should not be able to exercisie their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government?
 
Antitrust, but that's not a thumbsup to get wholely involved in everything.

Not a thumbs down either. Nor is the government actually and factually involved in everything. But there are areas of concern which have shown to need some regulation, from food safety to predatory lending.
 
They are. Grouping together is 'assembly'; using the term as I did is not incorrect, it is just not in the usual sense.


You have the right to free speech, political speech in particular, and that right includes donting to campaign funds.
Lobbying is the right to free speech exercised collectively, as in a group of people assembling together to do so.
I did a word search of the Constitution and "collectively" found no matches.

It does, as noted above.
Aside from that, you're arguing a false premise in that nothing here necessitates that the act of lobbying revolves around redressing grievances.
Great then show me where the constitution addresses lobbying.

So, I am -still- curious as to why you believe that black people should not be able to exercisie their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government?
I never said Black people should not be able to exercise their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government.
 
I did a word search of the Constitution and "collectively" found no matches.


Great then show me where the constitution addresses lobbying.


I never said Black people should not be able to exercise their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government.
It doesn't, therefore lobbying isn't an issue.
 
I did a word search of the Constitution and "collectively" found no matches.
What's your point? You're arguing there are no collective rights, that all rights are individual rights, and that a group of individuals do not have the same rights as each of the individuals in that group? I find this particulary interesting - I assume then you beleive that the 2nd amendment covers an individual right not associated with a collective right as well.

And, just as an aside, you alsoi didnt find 'education;, health care' or 'retirement' in the Constitution -- I presume then you believe the government should have nothing to do with those things?

Great then show me where the constitution addresses lobbying.
Its well-=established law that the right to 'free speech' covers political speech expressed as campiagn donations.

I never said Black people should not be able to exercise their right to assemble with like-minded black people in order to be better heard by the government.
You did, in that you disagree that the NAACP (and any other group that represents the interests of black people) should not be allowed to lobby.
 
What's your point? You're arguing there are no collective rights, that all rights are individual rights, and that a group of individuals do not have the same rights as each of the individuals in that group? I find this particulary interesting - I assume then you beleive that the 2nd amendment covers an individual right not associated with a collective right as well.
You mean:
Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Which part of that do you believe speaks of a collective, not explicitly implied, like "militia"?

And, just as an aside, you alsoi didnt find 'education;, health care' or 'retirement' in the Constitution -- I presume then you believe the government should have nothing to do with those things?
Well which side of your mouth are you going to argue, either it's in there and that's all there is to it or if it's not then that's all there is to it. Which way do you prefer to argue because I'm not going to play the game where you move the goal posts depending on what argument you decide to proffer.

Its well-=established law that the right to 'free speech' covers political speech expressed as campiagn donations.
Lobbying doesn't necessarily mean contributing money to a political campaign.

You did, in that you disagree that the NAACP (and any other group that represents the interests of black people) should not be allowed to lobby.
Which is very different than the strawman you keep trying, unsuccessfully, to build.
 
You mean:
Amendment II (1791)

yes, I mean that.
Does a collection of individuals have the same rights as each individual in it, or not? If not, why not?

Well which side of your mouth are you going to argue, either it's in there and that's all there is to it or if it's not then that's all there is to it.
The difference, of course, in that when arguing rights, if the limitation isnt listed, its not there; when arguing powers given to the government, if the poweris not there, it doesnt exist.

So, the fact that you cannot find anything regrding a collective right in the Constitution is meaningLESS as there is nothin in the constititoon that prohibits such a thing; that you cannot fins reference to education, et al, is meaningFUL becaise if th epower isnt granted, it doesnt exist.

Lobbying doesn't necessarily mean contributing money to a political campaign.
Even if that is true, it -does- mean that in this particular context.

Its well-=established law that the right to 'free speech' covers political speech expressed as campiagn donations; as such, the Constitution addresses lobbying.

Which is very different than the strawman you keep trying, unsuccessfully, to build.
No, it is the -exact- effect of what you said.
 
Back
Top Bottom