Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[citizenzen]

How is it that GenSen doesn't know this?

It ain't rocket science.

 

[dogtowner]

Wow. Well now I'm looking for a smiley face for surely GenSeneca is joking?

Essentially GenSeneca is saying that money does not move people, that it has no power. I would say the burden of proof lies on that one proposing the absurd. So GenSeneca, the burden is upon you to disprove what every third grader knows to be irrefutable fact.

And no one is really willing to 'go there' as to Bin Laden and Al Qaida's ability to use proxies to influence our elections either.

As I said, corporations are bodies of stockholders and CEOs. If any of them have a say in which candidate to back, and that person or persons is a proxy for our enemy, then we are in big trouble allowing foreign influence into our elections.

The recent video tape of Bin Laden is unnerving. He did say he would try anything to topple us. It isn't a stretch of my imagination that he would seek to influence our elections in order to get that done..if he has people lining up willing to blow up their body to get it done, why would he hesitate at a much less painful and vastly more far-reaching devastation?

last I saw Scott Brown was outspent on the order of 4 to 1 and won.

has OBL not said the same thing in every communication ? he has gotten free advertising via the media for years and I dont think its had much effect on voting habits.

 

[GenSeneca]

How is it that GenSen doesn't know this?

It ain't rocket science.

First, I clearly stated that money can help. It has been the leftist echo chamber claiming that Money=Votes and therefore the candidate with the most money has an unfair advantage. See Dogtowners post, Scott Brown was outspent by the Democrat smear machine and won the election.

Second, your self described Progressive source is using a logical fallacy to push their agenda, non causa pro causa, a popular propoganda technique.

As I stated earlier, popular candidates are more likely to win elections. Popular candidates are also more likely, ceteris paribus, to raise more money than their competition. Is that rocket science?

So the fallacy that is being pushed here is a reversal of cause and effect, they are trying to say that money buys candidates popularity when its the other way around. An unpopular candidate can collect more money than his competition but he will still lose. A popular candidate may or may not collect more money than the competition but he will still win the election.

Again, look at Scott Brown's election. He was the more popular candidate and he collected a great deal of money because of his popularity. Marcia Coakley was less popular, collected even more money than Brown but her money didn't translate into a win.

P.S. That's a fine signature you've got there but you could have at least credited me for the quote.

 

[dogtowner]

First, I clearly stated that money can help. It has been the leftist echo chamber claiming that Money=Votes and therefore the candidate with the most money has an unfair advantage. See Dogtowners post, Scott Brown was outspent by the Democrat smear machine and won the election.

Second, your self described Progressive source is using a logical fallacy to push their agenda, non causa pro causa, a popular propoganda technique.

As I stated earlier, popular candidates are more likely to win elections. Popular candidates are also more likely, ceteris paribus, to raise more money than their competition. Is that rocket science?

So the fallacy that is being pushed here is a reversal of cause and effect, they are trying to say that money buys candidates popularity when its the other way around. An unpopular candidate can collect more money than his competition but he will still lose. A popular candidate may or may not collect more money than the competition but he will still win the election.

Again, look at Scott Brown's election. He was the more popular candidate and he collected a great deal of money because of his popularity. Marcia Coakley was less popular, collected even more money than Brown but her money didn't translate into a win.

P.S. That's a fine signature you've got there but you could have at least credited me for the quote.

I believe our liberal friends are upset that this levels the playing field and removes an advantage they have enjoyed for some few election cycles.

Look for the term "swiftboating" to enjoy a huge resurgence when the leaves start to change this year.

 

[citizenzen]

P.S. That's a fine signature you've got there but you could have at least credited me for the quote.

My mistake. I always try to credit my sources.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe our liberal friends are upset that this levels the playing field...

These people are not liberals, they are Progressives: The Anti-Liberals. If you have never read that post, you would probably enjoy reading it.

That aside, you are correct. If things are not tilted in their favor, it's somehow unfair and must be corrected. We can certainly expect the Progressive think tanks to generate massive new propaganda campaigns, complete with talking points, to try and advance their agenda. Their tactics are outlined in the thread I linked to and it is in everyones best interest to understand how they operate so that we can fight the smear machine.

 

[dogtowner]

These people are not liberals, they are Progressives: The Anti-Liberals. If you have never read that post, you would probably enjoy reading it.

That aside, you are correct. If things are not tilted in their favor, it's somehow unfair and must be corrected. We can certainly expect the Progressive think tanks to generate massive new propaganda campaigns, complete with talking points, to try and advance their agenda. Their tactics are outlined in the thread I linked to and it is in everyones best interest to understand how they operate so that we can fight the smear machine.

well, yes, they co-opted the term but it sounds kind of negative to call they fascists.

 

[GenSeneca]

well, yes, they co-opted the term but it sounds kind of negative to call they fascists.

Careful now... I do not make the case in that thread that they are fascists, just that they are Anti-Liberal. Also, I'm careful to point out that Progressives exist in both parties.

The point of the thread is to differentiate between Liberals and Progressives, since the latter refer to themselves as the former. I tried to do the same thing in differentiating between Anti-Theists and Atheists in my thread Anti-Theism in America. Atheists have been given a bad name by Anti-Theists because they don't refer to themselves as the latter but the former.

So I don't get too far off topic... The SCOTUS decision was a good one.

 

[Sihouette]

last I saw Scott Brown was outspent on the order of 4 to 1 and won.~dogtowner

That's fine but it's like saying I found a red apple so therefore all apples are red.

In other words you statement is ilogical at best, misleading at worst.

And just because you found a red apple doesn't mean Bin Laden won't find a backdoor to use money to combat us within our own political system via proxies.

The thought terrifies me actually.

 

[dogtowner]

That's fine but it's like saying I found a red apple so therefore all apples are red.

In other words you statement is ilogical at best, misleading at worst.

And just because you found a red apple doesn't mean Bin Laden won't find a backdoor to use money to combat us within our own political system via proxies.

The thought terrifies me actually.

he doesnt need to spend anything, the media are happy to deliver any message he cares to send. you up for censoring the media because thats what you are calling for...

 

[dogtowner]

Careful now... I do not make the case in that thread that they are fascists, just that they are Anti-Liberal. Also, I'm careful to point out that Progressives exist in both parties.

The point of the thread is to differentiate between Liberals and Progressives, since the latter refer to themselves as the former. I tried to do the same thing in differentiating between Anti-Theists and Atheists in my thread Anti-Theism in America. Atheists have been given a bad name by Anti-Theists because they don't refer to themselves as the latter but the former.

So I don't get too far off topic... The SCOTUS decision was a good one.

the SCOTUS decision was the only Constitutional one.

and yes, atheists are getting harmed by the others much as happy people are by homosexuals.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Wow. Well now I'm looking for a smiley face for surely GenSeneca is joking?

Essentially GenSeneca is saying that money does not move people, that it has no power. I would say the burden of proof lies on that one proposing the absurd. So GenSeneca, the burden is upon you to disprove what every third grader knows to be irrefutable fact.

GenSeca is arguing for the sake of it, he knows perfectly well that money runs the government and elections. A good example is the bailout for the banks, it was only the big money people who got more money--no one with limited means got a bailout. No one with limited means is getting a big bonus at the taxpayers expense.

Gen knows better than what he arguing so I don't know why he bothers.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This was aimed at Dogtown, why doesn't he answer?

Was there anything, I mean ANYTHING, in my posts that said I'd have a problem with foreign countries paying for ads for Democrats? Or Republicans for that matter? No, there wasn't.

I was trying to find out how Dogtown felt about the subject, so I asked.
Personally, I don't think government should be sold to the highest bidder, but hey, that's just because I'm not rich, right? I think that publicly funded campaigns limited to just 3 months would probably be a good idea. No private money for anybody, everyone who runs gets the same-size check from the public purse and that's all they can spend.

Equally, I think that paying minimum wage to all elected officials should be required, barracks should be provided for them to live in, they can use public transit, and take their meals in the Capital cafeteria. We have become a kakistocracy (government by the people least suited to govern) because it's degenerated into a greed festival.

I also agree with Abraham Lincoln that corporations should not be given the status of people--or in the case of current politics "super people".

 

[Sihouette]

he [Bin Laden/Al qaida] doesnt need to spend anything, the media are happy to deliver any message he cares to send. you up for censoring the media because thats what you are calling for~ dogtowner

Well, I understand your objections to censorship of free speech. Just as you then must surely understand my objections to Bushco. circumventing my 4th Amendment rights when they were wiretapping private citizens last administration under the rationale that it was necessary for national security...

Are you saying it's OK for one administration to circumvent constitutional rights under the rationale of keeping us safe in time of war but not for another to do so? That would be hypocritical of you. The 9th Amendment tells us that no one Amendment is more important than another either fundamentally or by the order of its ennumeration.

I'm sure Congress can put language into their decree empowering the Executive branch to act that still allows for reasonable free speech within media while banning any undue influence that might allow terrorists like Bin Laden to access our political system via proxies. After all, the FCC bans and sets limits on profanity and rebellious "free speech" as it is. Let the companies who want to sway the public go to town hall meetings and supermarkets and stand on stumps. They're still free to speak freely there as long as they don't incite riots like Palin tried to do during the 2008 campaign. Remember the rally where she presided smiling over the clearly audible "KILL HIM!" from the crowd to her mention of candidate Barack Obama? I do. A friend saved it on TIVO. Might come in handy some day..

 

[dogtowner]

This was aimed at Dogtown, why doesn't he answer?

I take it you mean me, what exactly did you want to know ?