Hostile to democracy...Nader in 2004.

[_dmp_]

480 (whew) only 20 more.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Mtnbiker, Your post is well thought out and articulate, but I disagree with you on most of your points

Regardless of how well thought out and articulate you may believe a relpy is or whether or not you may agree with something, your scheme of public political financing remains laughable. I earn money and I can spend it how I desire. Very simply money=free speech. The first amendment gives me the right to free speech.

BUCKLEY v. VALEO
On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. .............................

Supreme Court Decision

Contribution Limitations

The appellants had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of First Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court concurred in part with the appellants' claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." The Court then determined that such restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest. ...........................





link

Now your quest is to change the Constitution.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Mntbiker, please. If you disagree with me for logical reasons, then that's fine. But simply dismissing a point of mine as "laughable" without supporting it is also somewhat laughable. Quoting supreme court cases at me establishes whether a practice is legal and constitutional, not nessisarily right and effective. The supreme court clearly demonstrated that in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896. You certainly did a good job avoiding my points and making unsubstantiated claims in response to my post though.

 

[MtnBiker]

Merly pointing out that your scheme of public political funding remains at the outer fringe of American ideology. You may wish to have a role in changing the current structure of politics in America to fit that agenda, great. But to believe that the American voter will mandate such a scheme is still laughable.

Quoting supreme court cases at me establishes whether a practice is legal and constitutional, not nessisarily right and effective.

We are governed by the constitution, not by what you may deem right or effective.
So your quest is still to change to constitution.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

That doesn't make any sense. The supreme court is a mechanism for determining the constitutionality of a law, not the end all be all that you suggest. The court reversed it position on Plessy vs. Ferguson if you didn't know, as they did on many of their previous decisions.

 

[MtnBiker]

And where does it stand now?

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

In your favor of course. I wasn't disputing that.

 

[MtnBiker]

Syntax, your idea of public funding for politics is fine for you. I do not agree with it, I do believe you should have the ability to agree with that idea and even promote it. However to convience a large enough populace to make an effective change is a very daunty task. You seem strong in your convictions and I actually hope you do convience some people with your support of Nader. The more people you can suck away from the main stream democrats the better.

Cheers

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I doubt many mainstream democrats would be very supportive of Nader, being in generall, fairy politically spineless, much like mainstream republicans. You are right though, I've already convinced a number of friends to register to vote, as well as several co-workers. I've gone to the post office with 8 so far. I don't know whether they'll vote for Nader, but I want them to be educated on the issues and politically active. Young people don't participate enough. Anyway, thanks.

 

[sitarro]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Sitarro, thanks for the welcome, and your perspective. I don’t really agree with you, but like you say, I’m young. If you were suggesting that I was being obnoxious and condescending, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be if I was. I’m not really and arrogant person, at least I don’t think so. Also, thanks to everyone that has welcomed me to this board.

Well Syntax, I tried .
No I didn't accuse you of being obnoxious or condesending , reread the post.
Being 2.63 times your age with nieces and nephews , I guess I feel a need to try to guide you with what I have learned over my life . I think back and I probably wouldn't have listened to an old fart like me either. Too bad , we old guys have lived through a lot and if you could avoid some of the crap we have experienced , you would definitely be better off.
As far as your College Professors , remember , those who can't do . . . teach, and those that can't teach . . . teach gym and of course those that can't even do that run the Democrat party.
By the way , as far as Ralph's idea on public funding for his lame attempts at becoming President , I would gladly shoot myself before I would give my tax dollars to rip offs like Ralph Nader , Al Sharpton or Carol Mosley-Braun .

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Ok, I interpreted it incorrectly. Sorry. Yeah, I don't have any money to give to Nader's campaign anyway. It all goes to either rent, gas, and food. Plus, I disagree with the principle of private money in political campaigns anyway. I would feel like a hypocrite in a way. I believe my volunteering will suffice in lieu of a monetary contribution. Anyway, thanks.

 

[cloobi_dubis]

I know it seems defeatist, and I suppose it is, but there's no way any type of radical change will take place in our lifetime, SD(I'm 19 too) Everyone is so set in their ways, the hole keeps getting deeper, and the chances that we'll be able, or willing, as a society to pull ourselves out of it become less and less.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why support radical change anyway? Radicalism is dangerous.

Im more in favor of small changes. the rudder of a ship may be small but its slight movement can change the direction of the ship. Through small and simple things are great things brought to pass. If you want to make changes in society. Start with yourself. Then with your family and friends. Youd be surprised how fast society, whether the political or any other aspect will change if we are willing to do small things.

 

[cloobi_dubis]

Oh, man. Yeah radicalism is dangerous..... to the opposition.

But the current direction that rudder is taking us is toward a society like the one SD described. I'm not sure how successfully his resolution would fix this particular problem, but I do think that it's a problem. However, I'm more realistic than he is, and think that it won't ever see a solution of any meaningful sort. Perhaps a small change will occur with regard this matter, but I think it needs a big change. There's a big difference between 10 degrees off course and 8 degrees off course, but, in my eyes, that difference isn't big enough. And, like I implied earlier, the fruits of this type of small change won't be discernable during my lifetime. And, too, my point stands about the unlikelyhood of any change at all taking place. I think we've missed our exist, so to speak, and the farther we travel down the road toward SD's description, the harder it is for us to turn around and right our course.

(by the way, this seems slightly incoherent to me, so if it does to anyone else, I'm sorry, I'm very sleepy)

 

[Avatar4321]

radicals are dangerous for everyone. Just ask the people in southeast asia who have suffered for the actions of the radicals from the sixties...oh wait, you cant cause they are dead.

 

[sitarro]

Hey kids,
Just went to the Nader site. . . . cute. There is a reason this fossil is successful at scamming money from so many . He preys on the naive , even more so than the Dems , he goes for the children that have never gotten out of the protection of their mommies skirt . These kids have no idea how the real world is , most are driving new Honda Civics and Beamers given to them on their 16th birthday and have spent most of their teen years playing with an X box. Mommy and Daddy have taken care of everything so utopian bullshit sounds great to these little minds of mush . Ralph pretends to pay attention to these kids and acts like he cares what they think . Those same corporations that Ralph rags on employs the moms and dads that are paying for the kids college and will eventually provide jobs for the kids once they get out of utopia land. Since most of these "students'' are trying to pretend that they are adults , they feel a need to counter what their parents say, this has been going on forever. Ralph uses this antiparent attitude perfectly . He paints this picture of a dream world that could be , knowing that it could never be . The real world is a dangerous and tough place , when mommy and daddy aren't around it is amazing how that reality sinks in for most . The rest of his base are the perpetualy dumbass who think a bug's life is equal to a human life , a tree is more important than a fetus , and humans are in the way of nature and should disappear .
If any of the adults on this board want a good laugh , go to this comical little site , I defy you to get through the first few sentences without spitting up your drink in laughter .

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nader is just another flavor of socialist idiot.

Get help from F.A.P.O.S.O.N.

Friends And Parents Of Supporters Of Nader. They 'll give you the support you need to confront the person in your life who supports Nader.

 

[Avatar4321]

i didnt spit anything out so i guess im defying you lol

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Hey sitarro, I may be only 19, but I don't live in the sugar coated bubble that you describe. Get real man. I moved out of my house as soon as I graduated high school. I work full time and maintain full time student status. I did have good parents, and a middle class upbringing, but your post doesn't apply to me, or a lot of other Nader supporters I know. I am paying for college myself, or rather, a number of scholarships and Pell grants are. I support Ralph Nader because he advocates the most salient political issues of my generation, not out of some bullshit pseudo angst that you accuse the lot of us of possessing. I actually analyzed these issues before I threw my support behind a candidate that most closely represented them, instead of blindly following partisan dogma instilled into me by family, friends, or other social institutions. You have no idea what you're talking about. Making blanket statements and attributing a number of characteristics to an entire group of people that clearly do not universally possess them is infantile and ridiculous.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I mean seriously, when are the lobbying groups going to start actually writing the legislation?

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I mean seriously, when are the lobbying groups going to start actually writing the legislation?

I hate to rain on your parade, but who do you think writes legislation now? Lobbyist of course. Why do you think there is a lawsuit over Dick Cheney's energy task force? Do you think the energy executives simple met and kicked around ideas. They wrote the legislation.

You don't think the lobbyist, paid millions of dollars by the drug and insurance companies wrote significant portions of the Medicare legislation recently passed in Congress? Of course they did.

I have worked for six members of congress (three repubs and thee dems) and on the staff of the international relations committee. It works the same way on the left and the right. A bill to provide flood relief for Mozambique for example, might come from Human Rights organizations, the lobbyist(s) that works for the nation of Mozambique - most nations have paid lobbyist in Washington - or Africa advocacy organizations. It may be a collaborative effort, but generally the lobbyists will put it together. The staff person may have input, even significant input, but usually the language and more importantly the research to support the bill is prepared and provided by lobbyists. The staffer may then run the bill down to leg. cncl .. er, sorry, that's the office of the legislative council in the House, and have the bill put in the correct form for legislation.

The Committee staff in Congress have a much larger role than the staff of the members of congress, but the basic rules still apply. A massive bill like the Medicare legislation gets worked on by an army of lawyers (lobbyists), briefing papers are prepared, white papers drafted all by the K street crowd (K street in wash is where many of the most influential lobbyists have their offices).

Who did you think wrote bills?