• 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!

A question for conservatives...

Anagram said:
Not to give the OP's ridiculous analogy in credence, but I think most would agree that money has gigantic diminishing returns at some point. And in Trump's case he got a ton of free advertising just by saying provocative things that got him tons of coverage.

But the OP's analogy between religious freedom and speech is still exceptionally poor.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is what the "take the money out of politics" crowd refuses to address. The idea that a political campaign lasts X months and relies on only its own fundraising is pure BS. That is one reason that incumbents have such a huge advantage - what they utter is "news" simply because they, being in office, are more important. Couple that with the MSM preference (bias?) for the left and the "fairness" of spending limits on political speech favor two groups: demorats and incumbents.
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?
Click to expand...

The first amendment identifies the right of all people to practice the religion of their choice without government interference.

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.
Click to expand...

Both rights are protected by the first amendment for everyong.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

I don't know what douchebaggery is but the supreme court doesn't define attitudes. It determines the constitutionality of actions.
 
annotator said:
Eliminate all big money in all politics. The Candidates can plead their cases on PBS . Return America to all Americans.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, do you decide when an incumbent becomes a "candidate" and how would you prevent all other media (except PBS) from carrying any political speech, commentary or analysis involving any "candidate" or their stated issue positions?
 
D_NATURED said:
If supporting unlimited political spending, which gives the wealthy a political megaphone and the poor a taped mouth, is defended by conservatives as "freedom of speech", would you also support religious freedom being relative to one's religious spending? In other words, should the rich have a right to practice religion that the poor do not?

It's a little hypocritical that speech is considered a commodity to be purchased and enjoyed, especially, by the rich but religion isn't.

Could you explain why it's not a case of supreme douchebaggery to allow either to define our attitudes?
Click to expand...

The 1A only protects the right to speak. It doesnt say how much one should be allowed to speak. Just like it doesnt say what type of religion or how many times on can go to church or pray.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Honestly I think its absurd that in one circumstance we call what is obviously not a person a person and then on the other hand call what is obviously a person not a person.

Personally I am not a fan of Citizens United. I think individuals should have the right to speak. Corporations are made of people, so does it need to speak when the individual can? But arent individuals limited in their campaign contributions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What with the up and coming massive tax cuts for the top earners and a all Republican controlled government House Senate and Presidency. These must be happy days for some. With the Power and control comes responsibility. Lets hope we won't have a repeat of President Bushes last days and the financial collapse that was caused by their policies.
 
D_NATURED said:
There is a huge difference between a proper, civil authority and make believe divine authority. The kind of "power" that liberals support is the kind that has checks and balances.
Click to expand...

That is not what the evidence shows, such as their belief in redefining words, and living contracts. For liberals, checks and balances are only a means to and end. And when they dont support that end, they are ignored.

And again, im not playing favorites here. Both sides are equally hypocritical, partisan, and power hungry in their political actions. The solution is to first clean your own house, before criticizing others.
 
Last edited:
annotator said:
yup or take the money out. Pretty sure those millions could be better spent. Hospitals schools elder care.
Click to expand...

money is good. Imagine if you had a great new product and could not advertise it? How would anybody know you had it? If a saint lost to the devil because he had no money we'd want money in politics and lots of it.
 
annotator said:
the financial collapse that was caused by their policies.
Click to expand...

massive liberal interference caused crisis, just like it is now doing in Venezuela. Liberalism is illiterate so will have no way to know if Bush or socialism caused crisis.
 
Aberration said:
Corporations are made of people, so does it need to speak when the individual can?
Click to expand...

big successful corporations are like little Gods they provide millions of jobs for us and the products we need to survive. they must have a huge voice in our elections.
 
You in your own car speeding down a road. Question , are you in control or is the car by the very fact it is so much bigger ,in control.
If it is not , should it be.
If Corporations are are "Little Gods", then what be a country of 320 million ?A globe a world ?
Why shouldn't a person with the title citizen be greater than one with the title CEO ?
 
If God meant that Man should have dominion over the Earth, over the Oceans the forests the fields. Shouldn't he have same dominion over a corporation? For that matter a political party.
 
annotator said:
If God meant that Man should have dominion over the Earth, over the Oceans the forests the fields. Shouldn't he have same dominion over a corporation? For that matter a political party.
Click to expand...

we do have perfect and total dominion over corporations. if they don't raise our standard of living at fastest possible rate, now in entire world thank to globilization, with best jobs and products we drive them into bankruptcy and oblivion. If you doubt it for even a split second start a corporation with substandard jobs and products. Can you predict what would happen?

Anybody can start a corporation with substandard jobs and products but only a saintly genius can start one with super standard jobs and products. Do you understand now how you have been brainwashed as a Marxist tool?
 
annotator said:
Why shouldn't a person with the title citizen be greater than one with the title CEO ?
Click to expand...

because the CEO feeds millions of citizens thus is a God like figure
 
James972 said:
big successful corporations are like little Gods they provide millions of jobs for us and the products we need to survive. they must have a huge voice in our elections.
Click to expand...

No, the corporations do nothing. The people who run those corporations do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Alan Greenspan believes that Business doesn't need much in the way of regulation. That it's own self interest will keep it from doing anything wrong. Keep it from harming it self. Well the events of 2008 proved otherwise. He did I understand apologized.Then later returned to his previous delusion. My Liberalism doesn't include Marx. Over drawing (Marxist) our position won't save a weak argument.
 
Do Conservatives bow and scrape to these petty GODS?
 
Aberration said:
No, the corporations do nothing. The people who run those corporations do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

the corporation produces products we need to survive and so the corporation must have a very important voice
 
annotator said:
Do Conservatives bow and scrape to these petty GODS?
Click to expand...

they respect corporations as the only successful social welfare program in history on which 99% of the worlds people depend for survival
 
James972 said:
the corporation produces products we need to survive and so the corporation must have a very important voice
Click to expand...

Nope. That's still people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
Nope. That's still people.
Click to expand...

corporations produce jobs and goods that we depend upon daily for survival so they must have a huge voice especially when Marx has convinced so many liberals that corporations are evil.
 
JamesBY said:
Because the election was fraudulently rigged.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

DNC lawsuit: “you’re morons to believe us” — PART 1 of 3

As Jordan Chariton of The Young Turks reported, Spiva told the Court that, “We could have…voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.”

As the DNC argues, everyone who donated money to Sanders or to the DNC thinking there would be a fair and impartial process, were all just stupid children who don’t understand that we’re lucky the party doesn’t cheat us the way it used to, in smoke-filled back rooms. They just do it under our noses, and if we were not cynical enough to open our eyes and see that, then again, we’re a bunch of morons.

https://thefloridasqueeze.com/2017/05/01/dnc-lawsuit-youre-morons-to-believe-us-part-1-of-3/

Bernie and his supporters got the shaft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom