If the Constitution were yours to change...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Constitution were yours to change... Thankfully it isn't, so it really doesn't matter.

it does matter becuase the liberals are in the process of changing it to mean what Joseph Stalin wanted thanks to the way Americans are voting.

 

[konradv]

If the Constitution were yours to change... Thankfully it isn't, so it really doesn't matter.

If you think about it, nothing you say matters, so see you later. Who needs a Debbie downer in the house?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the Constitution were yours to change... Thankfully it isn't, so it really doesn't matter.

If you think about it, nothing you say matters, so see you later. Who needs a Debbie downer in the house?

too stupid!! as if the idea here is to lift your liberal spirits!!!Sorry dear its not!!!
The idea is to teach you what freedom is and why it works so well.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Of course, the more you can flood the avenues of communication with money, the more you skew speech in favor of the wealthiest special interests. Which is inherently against the direction of freedom also. Maybe it's the more tolerable option, but don't take that variable for granted.

I didn’t. That is not counter freedom though. That is counter equality and I am not a believer in end equality. I believe in equal opportunity but equal outcome is a misnomer and is never going to happen. There are always going to be people that have a greater influence than others. That is cold hard fact.

It is defiantly more tolerable than giving that power to government but it certainly is not counter to freedom nor is money the grate speech equalizer. The last election is a good example of this where Romney outspent Obama but Obama spent far wiser and disseminated his message better. That is MORE important than money. ON that same aspect, I could claim that one person that has better friends or speaks more eloquently than another is ‘counter’ to freedom because he has some advantage over the other. That is false and I hope that it is easy to see. In the same aspect, money is not counter to freedom.

Your argument doesn't apply here. Money is, in fact, the opportunity to speak when it comes to mass media. I'm not implying that it always buys elections, as you pointed out, but it frequently does.

In general I'm in favor of letting corporations (and other businesses) sink or swim on their own merits. However, corporations will still be more than happy to try to manipulate the government into letting them endanger the public if they think it will be profitable. Supposedly that's what most of the regulations are for.

Well, no that’s not true at all. You have to remember that hurting your customers is inherently NOT profitable. There are instance where it can still be profitable like, for instance, fast food or cigarettes BUT then you also have to understand that influencing politics is an extremely costly affair. You are not going to get a better, more profitable outcome by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign to change a few simple regulations even if they are favorable. Companies do this now because we are not talking a few simple regulations. We are talking MASSIVE regulatory agencies AND massive tax breaks AND government contracts AND massive subsidies. They invest the hundreds of millions + because they have all these to draw on. Without them, it no longer becomes profitable for them to try and buy elections – even more on point when you realize that they have to buy both candidates to ensure a victory.

Hurting your own customers is not profitable, but few corporations would bother to worry about hurting any other demographic if it weren't for regulations.

As for government contracts, the only alternative for the government to acquire whatever it needs, from firearms to paper clips, would be to insource everything and hire (probably) millions more employees.

The "bottom line" is that neither one of us is privy to the biggest lobbyists' books, so we're both just guessing about what's profitable when it comes to buying votes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your argument doesn't apply here. Money is, in fact, the opportunity to speak when it comes to mass media. I'm not implying that it always buys elections, as you pointed out, but it frequently does.

It most certainly is not moot. You want to limit the amount of money spent on speech under the guise that one person makes more than another person. That was the basis of your argument and is what I directly referred to. The fact that one person has placed themselves in a position to exercise one right more readily than another person in no way shape or form gives the government the right to limit your ability to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible.

That plays directly into what you are claiming. If I can purchase 100 rifles should I be regulated to only one because that is what my neighbor is able to afford? If I found my own church should I be denied that ability because my neighbor has no such ability? If I attend 5 different ‘assemblies’ should that be limited to just one because that is the best my neighbor can do? Should I be barred from running a news organization because others do not have that capability?

Of course not BUT you are saying that my ability to speak SHOULD be limited because others do not have the same ability that I have. THAT is the heart of the issue.

In general I'm in favor of letting corporations (and other businesses) sink or swim on their own merits. However, corporations will still be more than happy to try to manipulate the government into letting them endanger the public if they think it will be profitable. Supposedly that's what most of the regulations are for.

Well, no that’s not true at all. You have to remember that hurting your customers is inherently NOT profitable. There are instance where it can still be profitable like, for instance, fast food or cigarettes BUT then you also have to understand that influencing politics is an extremely costly affair. You are not going to get a better, more profitable outcome by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign to change a few simple regulations even if they are favorable. Companies do this now because we are not talking a few simple regulations. We are talking MASSIVE regulatory agencies AND massive tax breaks AND government contracts AND massive subsidies. They invest the hundreds of millions + because they have all these to draw on. Without them, it no longer becomes profitable for them to try and buy elections – even more on point when you realize that they have to buy both candidates to ensure a victory.

Hurting your own customers is not profitable, but few corporations would bother to worry about hurting any other demographic if it weren't for regulations.

As for government contracts, the only alternative for the government to acquire whatever it needs, from firearms to paper clips, would be to insource everything and hire (probably) millions more employees.

The "bottom line" is that neither one of us is privy to the biggest lobbyists' books, so we're both just guessing about what's profitable when it comes to buying votes.

Yes, but we are making logical and reasoned guesses on anything we debate on this board. That is the nature of debating. I am making statements that I believe are not only correct but completely logical and you are supposed to show me where my logic fails

I don’t want to eliminate contracts by the way but they do need MASSIVE reforms. Reforms that keep politicians from benefitting in filling them. Also, companies might not worry about hurting those that are not their customers (something that is hard to do BTW – hurt someone that is not using your product) but that is why I do not support a complete removal of all regulations. There NEEDS to be regulations in the system. Ones that are geared to protecting the people from crazy products or overbearing companies. That is not what we have now though. We have a regulatory industry that strives to justify its existence. I gave you some examples. It is truly insane what is regulated today.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Your argument doesn't apply here. Money is, in fact, the opportunity to speak when it comes to mass media. I'm not implying that it always buys elections, as you pointed out, but it frequently does.

It most certainly is not moot. You want to limit the amount of money spent on speech under the guise that one person makes more than another person. That was the basis of your argument and is what I directly referred to. The fact that one person has placed themselves in a position to exercise one right more readily than another person in no way shape or form gives the government the right to limit your ability to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible.

That plays directly into what you are claiming. If I can purchase 100 rifles should I be regulated to only one because that is what my neighbor is able to afford? If I found my own church should I be denied that ability because my neighbor has no such ability? If I attend 5 different ‘assemblies’ should that be limited to just one because that is the best my neighbor can do? Should I be barred from running a news organization because others do not have that capability?

Of course not BUT you are saying that my ability to speak SHOULD be limited because others do not have the same ability that I have. THAT is the heart of the issue.

Not buying it.
What you're doing is conflating "ability" with "opportunity." If you have more money than I do, does that automatically mean that you have more ABILITY to do any given thing? It most definitely does not. Of course, you could have earned more money because of your superior skill or talent at something, but you could just as easily have come by your money from an inheritance, or from winning the lottery. Having a certain amount of money (or not having it) is a circumstance. OPPORTUNITY is what becomes possible when the right set of circumstances exists. I support equal opportunity for every American to exercise all of his or her rights, not just the right to free speech.

Well, no that’s not true at all. You have to remember that hurting your customers is inherently NOT profitable. There are instance where it can still be profitable like, for instance, fast food or cigarettes BUT then you also have to understand that influencing politics is an extremely costly affair. You are not going to get a better, more profitable outcome by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign to change a few simple regulations even if they are favorable. Companies do this now because we are not talking a few simple regulations. We are talking MASSIVE regulatory agencies AND massive tax breaks AND government contracts AND massive subsidies. They invest the hundreds of millions + because they have all these to draw on. Without them, it no longer becomes profitable for them to try and buy elections – even more on point when you realize that they have to buy both candidates to ensure a victory.

Hurting your own customers is not profitable, but few corporations would bother to worry about hurting any other demographic if it weren't for regulations.

As for government contracts, the only alternative for the government to acquire whatever it needs, from firearms to paper clips, would be to insource everything and hire (probably) millions more employees.

The "bottom line" is that neither one of us is privy to the biggest lobbyists' books, so we're both just guessing about what's profitable when it comes to buying votes.

Yes, but we are making logical and reasoned guesses on anything we debate on this board. That is the nature of debating. I am making statements that I believe are not only correct but completely logical and you are supposed to show me where my logic fails

Your claim appears to be that companies spend hundreds of millions on lobbying because the structure of regulation, taxation, contracts, and subsidies makes it profitable. This claim may be completely accurate, but it's certainly not self-evident. After all, history is full of examples of companies spending equivalent amounts on things that turn out to be very unprofitable. All I asked for was any evidence you might have to support your assertion. There's nothing wrong with asking for that during a debate.

I don’t want to eliminate contracts by the way but they do need MASSIVE reforms. Reforms that keep politicians from benefitting in filling them.

No argument here.

Also, companies might not worry about hurting those that are not their customers (something that is hard to do BTW – hurt someone that is not using your product) but that is why I do not support a complete removal of all regulations. There NEEDS to be regulations in the system. Ones that are geared to protecting the people from crazy products or overbearing companies. That is not what we have now though. We have a regulatory industry that strives to justify its existence. I gave you some examples. It is truly insane what is regulated today.

There are likely areas of commerce that are now over-regulated, including possibly the examples you cited. However, regulations can be repealed (and have been), and I have no problem with repealing them if they're truly unnecessary. Unfortunately, experience shows that when an industry wants less regulation, it's because the industry hopes to increase profits by behaving a bit less ethically.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unfortunately, experience shows that when an industry wants less regulation, it's because the industry hopes to increase profits by behaving a bit less ethically.

too stupid and 100% illiterate!! if banking and finance had not been regulated by Fed FDIC FAN SEC FHA CRA there would not be 22 million unemployed. IF the USSR and Red China had not been regulated so heavily 120 million would not have slowly starved to death!!

See why we are 100% a liberal will be slow!!!

 

[PaulS1950]

You don't gain rights through testing - you gain privilages through testing.
It is sometimes sad that we let uninformed and misinformed people excercise their rites without taking responsibility for their choices but we all have the RIGHT to vote.
It is a personal responsibility to become informed - but it doesn't remove the right to be otherwise.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

but we all have the RIGHT to vote.

too stupid!! Children don't have the right because they are considered too stupid, and so adults as stupid as children obviously should not have the right to vote either,.......unless you are a stupid liberal who feels stupid people voter better!! Does that describe you?

 

[PaulS1950]

but we all have the RIGHT to vote.

too stupid!! Children don't have the right because they are considered too stupid, and so adults as stupid as children obviously should not have the right to vote either,.......unless you are a stupid liberal who feels stupid people voter better!! Does that describe you?

The right to vote only requires that the age of eighteen years has been achieved. I would have thought that you were familiar with the constitution in it's entirety.
No one who knows me has ever called me "stupid" or "liberal" but if it makes you feel better about yourself then say what you will. It is your right - Free speech is more or less still intact in the USA.

Here is the complete quote that you should have used to understand where I am coming from:

You don't gain rights through testing - you gain privilages through testing.
It is sometimes sad that we let uninformed and misinformed people excercise their rites without taking responsibility for their choices but we all have the RIGHT to vote.
It is a personal responsibility to become informed - but it doesn't remove the right to be otherwise.

I am an advocate of all our rights. I don't think you can limit one without the possibility of losing them all. It would be absurd to hold one right sacred while not caring about the others as they are each "natural (God given) and inalienable" as well as protected by the bill of rights.

If that makes me a liberal in your eyes then you are as far to the right as anyone I have ever met (including in this media of course, since we haven't met face to face).

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd defined these Marxist for who they're and outlaw them. This mindset must die.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The right to vote only requires that the age of eighteen years has been achieved. I would have thought that you were familiar with the constitution in it's entirety.
No one who knows me has ever called me "stupid" or "liberal" but if it makes you feel better about yourself then say what you will. It is your right - Free speech is more or less still intact in the USA.

No need for citizenship? No need for residency in the state you vote in? So, the French have full right to vote in Texas elections and help decide who represents Dallas?

I am an advocate of all our rights. I don't think you can limit one without the possibility of losing them all. It would be absurd to hold one right sacred while not caring about the others as they are each "natural (God given) and inalienable" as well as protected by the bill of rights.

If that makes me a liberal in your eyes then you are as far to the right as anyone I have ever met (including in this media of course, since we haven't met face to face).

All rights? Even the right of the Catholic church to refuse to provide abortion and birth control in their insurance plans? Even the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The right to vote only requires that the age of eighteen years has been achieved. I would have thought that you were familiar with the constitution in it's entirety.
No one who knows me has ever called me "stupid" or "liberal"

trust me, they are only being polite!! Our Founders said 18, as a means of saying intelligent enough to vote. Do you think adults as stupid as children should be allowed to vote Yes or No??? Got it Yes or No.

Now you know why libturds want more and more people to vote while Republicans don't!! Democracy means rule by intelligent people, not by by a brainless mob. Over your head?????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is a personal responsibility to become informed - but it doesn't remove the right to be otherwise.

So sorry but you're an typical idiot liberal. Rights are qualified. The right to bear arms does not mean the right to bear nuclear weapons and the right to vote does not mean to vote stupidly!! Libturds like stupid people voting only because they vote liberal. Is that really over your head???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'd defined these Marxist for who they're and outlaw them. This mindset must die.

dear, can you say why a treasonous mind set must die??? It would not occur to a liberal to say why. Could that be because liberals are slow??

 

[ilia25]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Do away with presidential system. The government should be appointed by a single chamber parliament. Should allow for a minority government too (like in UK or Canada). That system just works.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

I would change the Commerce clause so it can't be misused as it is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What changes, if any, would you make to it?

I would change the Commerce clause so it can't be misused as it is.

yes if it had been 100% clear that it was only to correct the Articles, i.e., to promote interstate and international trade and not for socialist purposes we'd be far far better off today. But the Fed rules would have to be a lot more specific too. Let's face it , its hard for it not to be a living document!

 

[FA_Q2]

Not buying it.
What you're doing is conflating "ability" with "opportunity." If you have more money than I do, does that automatically mean that you have more ABILITY to do any given thing? It most definitely does not. Of course, you could have earned more money because of your superior skill or talent at something, but you could just as easily have come by your money from an inheritance, or from winning the lottery. Having a certain amount of money (or not having it) is a circumstance. OPPORTUNITY is what becomes possible when the right set of circumstances exists. I support equal opportunity for every American to exercise all of his or her rights, not just the right to free speech.

Then don’t buy it, that does not change the simple fact that you want to limit one person’s right to free speech based on another not having the same magnitude of ability. Trying to make the argument murky by replacing one word with another (ability with opportunity) is utterly meaningless. Substitute every single mention of ability with opportunity and the argument I make remains unchanged. You, the government, or anyone else has no right whatsoever to limit my free speech rights because they feel that another does not have the same opportunity to exercise said right. That same argument can be applied everywhere in the same examples I used. You can’t buy a weapon to defend your home because another does not have that opportunity, you can’t hire a lawyer because another does not have that same opportunity, you cannot practice that religion because another does not have that opportunity etc etc. That line of thought is absolutely ridiculous on its face. By what right do you determine (or anyone) how MY rights are limited simply because you feel that you do not have the same opportunity? None. Defend that, try because the simple truth is that you cannot. This statement STILL stands:

‘…you are saying that my [opportunity] to speak SHOULD be limited because others do not have the same [opportunity] that I have. THAT is the heart of the issue.’

Your claim appears to be that companies spend hundreds of millions on lobbying because the structure of regulation, taxation, contracts, and subsidies makes it profitable. This claim may be completely accurate, but it's certainly not self-evident. After all, history is full of examples of companies spending equivalent amounts on things that turn out to be very unprofitable. All I asked for was any evidence you might have to support your assertion. There's nothing wrong with asking for that during a debate.

That assertion IS self-evident. Not that companies won’t try but that it will not be profitable (as that is the entire point) because such companies that try either go out of business or stop. That’s what happens to unprofitable entities. Perhaps, if we bother to try and it fails, we can go back to what we have now but to be honest, I can’t see any way that it can fail worse than the corporatocracy that we currently live under. Clearly, the system as stands is failing. The answer that most want to give is that of we only had MORE of the same system….

How is the failure of that idea not obvious? We have been injecting more of the same for decades now and it fails every damn time.

There are likely areas of commerce that are now over-regulated, including possibly the examples you cited. However, regulations can be repealed (and have been), and I have no problem with repealing them if they're truly unnecessary. Unfortunately, experience shows that when an industry wants less regulation, it's because the industry hopes to increase profits by behaving a bit less ethically.

This is true BUT that is because repeal only occurs in little spurts under the direction of the entities in question. The bank bust is a good example of this. We repeal the rules BUT instead of giving the banks a free hand like we should have, we allow them to do as they please, purchase all the risk through government entities, encourage bad lending practices and ultimately pay them off after they screw up. Essentially, we deregulated nothing. Instead, we kept our nose in it assuming all the risk AND took away the regulation.

The ONLY (and I want to stress only here) way that something like this works is if the government leaves the industry ENTIRELY and goes back to simply protecting the customer. Big players in industry DO NOT WANT THIS and that is one of the reasons that it never happens. No government buy backs, no government funding and no GSA’s purchasing the end product leaving the originator all the profit and none of the risk. A company MUST be left to succeed or fail on its own and the customer needs basic protections.

I don’t see this as occurring anytime soon though mostly because it would mean that congress would need to give up much of the power (and payoffs) that it currently enjoys and has taken a few centuries acquiring. It is the ugly reality behind bureaucracy, never shrinking and always garnering more power.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is the ugly reality behind bureaucracy, never shrinking and always garnering more power.

too stupid!! You mean the reality behind liberal socialist bureaucracy. Republicans and libertarians since Jefferson want to starve the beast with tax cuts to slowly kill it off.