checks and balances

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry, but you gave no evidence to prove your hypothesis. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was a measure that placed caps on the amount of money a candidate running for office could spend. It was supposed to force elections to be aout the message and not about the amount of money that they have in the bank. It actually has had no effect at all in the election process, due in large part to the emergence of 527 groups like Swift Boat Veterans and MoveOn.org. The opponent of this piece of legislation can stop stop crying and start talking about something that matters.

Now back to my original question. How am I a dumbass?

:finger:

You're a dumbass because you don't see how McCain Feingold is an infringement on free speech.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

In addition, the bill aimed to curtail so called "issue ads" by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. Any ads within those periods that identify a federal candidate must be paid for with regulated, hard money or with contributions exclusively made by individual donors.

The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You're a dumbass because you don't see how McCain Feingold is an infringement on free speech.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

No where in my post did I say that I completely agreed with McCain-Feingold. I simply agree philosophy that produced it. I think free elections that are based on message rather than money is better for society. I also agree that speech should never inhibited. No matter what legilation is passed special interset groups are going to get their message out. I just think McCain-Feingold tried to level the playing field and make speech "free" rather than "bought." I was simply refuting your hypothesis that I'm a dumbass. The burden of proof is yours. You made it yours when you threw out the blanket dumbass remark over a single issue. You still haven't proven your position.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. It can be modified by anyone in the world at anytime.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

How on earth can you possibly say that forbiding people to take out ads criticizing an incumbant politician 60 days before until the election is not a problem for free seepch?

And you are wrong, it did have an effect on the election. Its that stupid bill that caused the emergence of 527 groups. See by having groups donate directly to the party, the party could act as a check on the groups and spend the money the groups gave them to areas the party felt were more beneficial. But now that the the parties are completely subservient to the special interest groups.

Ironically McCain Fiengold does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to. But then I think it was designed for that specific reason. Give more power to the special interests that were supporting them to begin with and when it becomes obvious what has happened, rather than repeal the act, propose more "Campaign Finance Reform" and make it even less possible for someone to challenge your position successfully.

You want true Campaign finance reform? Repeal all these stupid laws and pass one: You can take as much money as you want from any American so long as you disclose that information to the Public. Thus if you are corrupt and favoring a group that consistantly funds you, the people will see it and be able to vote you out of office.

Again, nowhere did I defend McCain-Feingold. You are right. This legislation did cause the 527's to emerge. Are we to allow parties this right of free speech and not special interests. The entire country is a special interest. McCain-Feingold missed the mark on what to regulate. I think the legislation should be scrapped. I simply agree with philosophy that produced it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. It can be modified by anyone in the world at anytime.

It's been proven to be just as reliable as most encyclopedias.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Again, nowhere did I defend McCain-Feingold. You are right. This legislation did cause the 527's to emerge. Are we to allow parties this right of free speech and not special interests. The entire country is a special interest. McCain-Feingold missed the mark on what to regulate. I think the legislation should be scrapped. I simply agree with philosophy that produced it.

This is a defense.

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was a measure that placed caps on the amount of money a candidate running for office could spend. It was supposed to force elections to be aout the message and not about the amount of money that they have in the bank. It actually has had no effect at all in the election process, due in large part to the emergence of 527 groups like Swift Boat Veterans and MoveOn.org. The opponent of this piece of legislation can stop stop crying and start talking about something that matters.

Maybe in your mind you can turn a blind eye to reality because you like intention, that's further proof of dumbassery, however.

 

[Said1]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. It can be modified by anyone in the world at anytime.

I used to think that too, until further researched showed that sources cited in articles are checked and questionable content must be defended.

Also, it can by modified, but you're the only one who sees the modifications made to the entries.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Onthefence, do you question the wikipedia entry on Mccain Feingold, or are just whistling out of your starfish?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

This is a defense.


Maybe in your mind you can turn a blind eye to reality because you like intention, that's further proof of dumbassery, however.

Anyone with a high school education can distinguish between an explanation and a defense. Stop trying to turn the debate and answer the one simple question that you have dodged. Give evidence that I'm a dumbass or shut the fuck up!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Go ahead and ban me for my out burst. This board is full of dumbasses who resort to petty namecalling rather than proving their words. I joined here because I thought I would get to debate with intelligent individuals of all political backgrounds. Had I known that it is ok to call someone a dumbass, but it is not ok to attack a special interest group with satire, I would not have wasted my time with this sort of hypocrisy.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Onthefence, do you question the wikipedia entry on Mccain Feingold, or are just whistling out of your starfish?

I question Wikipedia as source on the whole. I also discount any opinion on legislation unless the individual giving it has actually read the document.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I almost tend to think things would actually be better if the democrats held a razor-thin majority in the congress, with a republican president. Or visa-versa. I want the government split as perfectly down the middle as possible. Not that I'm some sort of moderate or anything. No, I want an even split because it will lead to gridlock. Sweet, blessed gridlock.

I remember those few precious weeks in 1994 (or 1995?), when the republicans took control for the first time, and actually made token gestures at cutting government. For a brief time, it looked as though only the "essential" (read: constitutional) functions of the government would get emergency funding, and the rest would perhaps remain in permanent limbo. It seemed like a strategy that couldn't fail--you pass a smaller budget, and if Clinton vetos, you get reduced spending anyhow in the ensuing gridlock!

Alas, the republicans tucked their tails between their legs like whipped bitches once the democrats played the completely predictable card of equating government services with generosity to the poor. Actually, I think the republican position was just an act, for public consumption. They could have had a PR campaign prepared if they were actually serious. We really just have two branches of the same socialist party, so let's try for gridlock and let the two factions fight it out.

 

[Nuc]

You're a dumbass because you don't see how McCain Feingold is an infringement on free speech.]

The definition of "dumbass" is someone who calls someone else a dumbass. :dev1: :huh: :firing: :bj2:

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The definition of "dumbass" is someone who calls someone else a dumbass. :dev1: :huh: :firing: :bj2:

Thank you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The definition of "dumbass" is someone who calls someone else a dumbass. :dev1: :huh: :firing: :bj2:

Hey. That's pretty zen. You really ARE a buddhist.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I question Wikipedia as source on the whole. I also discount any opinion on legislation unless the individual giving it has actually read the document.

So regardless of the accuracy of the data I've actually presented to you, you refuse to discuss the issue further because of your ignorant all or nothing assessment of news sources? Do you consider yourself an intellectual?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So regardless of the accuracy of the data I've actually presented to you, you refuse to discuss the issue further because of your ignorant all or nothing assessment of news sources? Do you consider yourself an intellectual?

You are debating McCain-Feingold. I simply gave my version of a explanation of the philosophy behind the bill. You are the one who is all abot trying to discredit it. In order to use this in this debate, you must connect it with the overall theme. What makes me a dumbass, per your statement. I am trying to figure out how voting for McCain makes me a dumbass. Other than petty namecalling and a single issue, you have not made your case. If you show me data that proves that "onthefence" is a dumbass, then I'll be more than happy to concede the debate. Until then, however, prove that I'm a dumbass or shut the fuck up!

 

[5stringJeff]

I question Wikipedia as source on the whole. I also discount any opinion on legislation unless the individual giving it has actually read the document.

Dude, Wikipedia is probably the most accurate open-source website out there. If you haven't noticed, information is footnoted and linked at the bottom of the page. Plus, there are always subject matter experts reading articles. If something is wrong, it can be fixed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You are debating McCain-Feingold. I simply gave my version of a explanation of the philosophy behind the bill. You are the one who is all abot trying to discredit it. In order to use this in this debate, you must connect it with the overall theme. What makes me a dumbass, per your statement. I am trying to figure out how voting for McCain makes me a dumbass. Other than petty namecalling and a single issue, you have not made your case. If you show me data that proves that "onthefence" is a dumbass, then I'll be more than happy to concede the debate. Until then, however, prove that I'm a dumbass or shut the fuck up!

Philosophically it's an attack on free speech. You think it warrants zero attention and critics should move on. I think only a dumbass would hold that opinion, and of course, that's just one man's opinion. Your free to feel you're not a dumbass. This is what free speech is about, debating about who's a dumbass and who isn't. :usa:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Onthefence is flat onhisass this time around. Gosh, I make it look so easy too. Who else wants some? :funnyface

 

[Nuc]

Hey. That's pretty zen. You really ARE a buddhist.

I guess my point was, why do you have to call people names all the time? I'd like to know if you conduct conversations in real life the same as you do here.

If the answer is "yes, I call people names all the time" then you probably get your ass kicked on a regular basis. Also you probably get detention in the principal's office.

If your answer is, "no, I don't call people names in reality, I save that special part of my personality for the board" then you're hiding behind a computer and not showing a lot of respect for the people on the board. The rest of us have to read "dumbass" and the rest of it, not just the intended target.

Is there a reason you must resort to name-calling all the time? Are you taking out your frustrations on people you can't see because you are afraid to confront people in reality? Maybe you should deal with your root problems and you won't be such a harsh and repetitive person.