Done.

g,ng

start

ding

done

Go

Done

Done

My comment on racism was based on drwho's posts last year where he used coded language to say that he would prefer that many be denied the right to vote. Anti-democracy and racist. My purpose was to point out his conflation of issues on net neutrality, a policy that protects average Americans by denying big companies the right to block content that they don't like. The racism comment was a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I intended to delete it instead of posting because I think it is separate from the current issue. No way to go back and delete or edit so there it is. I'm too busy these days to enter a long debate. That's all.

done

done

Coded language is not evidence of racism. It is the overworked imagination of Penguin. But I appreciate that the comment got out because you get to see how the typical liberal view anyone who disagrees with him.

Perhaps I should ask what coded language Penguin had in mind. But in any case, it sounds like he is trying to twist my words to make me out to be what he imagines me to be.

Yes, I don't believe everyone should be allowed to vote. Illegal aliens are at the top of that list. Is that racist? And yes, I am just as anti-democratic as the founders of this country were. The Constitution establishes a republic, not a democracy.

Ionibelle: limiting expenditures on political campaigns was correctly ruled as limiting speech. While money is not speech, it takes money to get your message out. Giving money to political candidates is a way of expressing yourself. We have a representative government. Without the ability to support candidates that represent our point of view we would have to get directly involved in the political process. Money is a way to get involved for people who have better things to do with their time.

but that would necessarily mean that the wealthy (individuals, corporations, unions) would effectively have more speech. I respectfully disagree that a "right" is something some people can have more of. Especially given all the latitude for expenditure without transparency. I don't see this as a partisan issue, as it affects (afflicts!) all parties.

Are you confusing the right to speak with the right to be heard?

Seems like anybody interested in a fair election would want to ensure that both parties get equal opportunity to be heard. It's very much in the best interest of the voting public to be able to make the most informed decision possible, yes?

In the context of elections, freedom of information and accuracy of reported information (ie - no impartial national news source at all?!), I think your country does things in an incredibly bizarre and sinister way, and I honestly feel so blessed to not be from the USA. You all seem to be so obsessed with freedom of speech that you don't actually care about being lied to.

Okay, fairness is an interesting notion. It is used to justify lots of immoral ideas that liberals have. For instance, it isn't fair that some people have more money than others. So is it moral to take from the rich and give to the poor just because of some notion of fairness. That is really what is going on with this limiting of political expenditures.

VT, yes there is a lot of lying by our media about what is going on. But I certainly don't want the government regulating what the media reports!

Are you confusing the right to spend with the right to speak? lol. or were you talking to Tod and it just came through first? no seriously, I don't understand your comment.

If you think the BBC is an impartial reporter of news, think again!

I don't believe so, because electioneering expenditure isn't about taking money away at all. Capping it at a certain amount doesn't remove that money or give it to anybody else. It simply makes sure that it's not a case of the richest mouth shouting loudest.

Because that's when you get a president like Trump

Who is somebody we'd all be laughing at if we weren't so absolutely terrified of him.

I mean, we're not going to agree, so it was silly to engage with you really. This type of debate influence or informs neither party, because the aim is to be heard rather than to listen. But, to cast my vote, I feel you're very wrong. That's pretty much it, for me.

VT I am sorry you feel that way. I always enjoy all the different views. IRL I belong to a political discussion group with only two liberals (I'm one) and I really learn a lot about where they are coming from and I even occasionally change my mind.

Ionibelle, fairness is a misunderstood notion. Rich people have a greater ability to be heard. That may not be fair in your opinion, but is it moral to take away some of his ability to speak in the name of "fairness"? Life isn't fair! Trying to make it so, is sure to trample on someone's rights, because all men are not created equal (in the sense of abilities).

But in a democratic Republic extending equal access to guaranteed rights is more important than allowsomeone to spend money which to me isn't a right. So the wealthy and the poor can stand on a soapbox and sermonize to their hearts content. I know that life isn't fair, but shall we go down the path of making it even less so? just because someone has abilities that allow them to make a bunch of money?

Is not allowing someone to spend money the way they want moral?

absolutely not. you can't buy bodily organs or sex or child pornography or heroin. the ability to spend money is just a function of our particular society and is morally neutral at best.

But we aren't talking about any of those things. We are talking about spending money on speech. We both agree it is legitimate to spend money on speech. But you want to place limits on a legitimate activity in the name of fairness. I don't because limiting expenditure on a legitimate item is virturlly the same as taking that money away.

yes, exactly! and speech and money are not the same thing. so in my mind the government can limit it. just like they can limit your purchase of silver so you can't corner the market. And we live in a society that grants the government the power to take some of your money away for the common good. As long as the adhere to the process set forth in our founding document to do it, I am okay with that.

Um, why would the government need to limit anyone's ability to corner the silver market? Remember what happened to Nelson and Bunker Hunt? No need for government intervention there.

The federal government's power to tax (take away money for the common good) is granted in the first clause of Art. I Sect 8 of the Constitution. The following 17 clauses define what powers the federal government has in providing for the common good. I don't see anything in there about limiting peoples ability to spend money.

but now we are back to spending money which is not a right. and Nelson Bunker Hunt was an idiot, but he was also convicted of attempted price manipulation. because there are limits to what one can spend money on. and money is itself a function of the government. not fond of reductio ad absurdum arguments except just think if only one person or a very small group of people owned all media. and they and their friends could spend all the money they wanted on campaign ads because it was speech.

off to cook dinner. be back late tonight.

Ionibelle, you need to do some reading on monopolies. In truly free markets monopolies only exist if the consuming public allows them to. If Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the PC operating system market it is because the public likes Windows enough to pay the price Microsoft charges for it. If Microsoft gets greedy or the quality of Windows declines that creates opportunities for competitors.

I must also disagree that spending money is not a right. What good is it if you cannot spend it? In fact it is a right to chose how you spend your money (illegal activity excluded). If the government has the right to dictate how I spend my money, then is it really mine?

Moral arguments aside, the legal argument is that I challenge anyone to show me where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to limit how much money I spend for legitimate purposes.

Found the Thurs. medium to be quite difficult for me.