"Anything you can do, I can do better..."

[Darth Wong]

Not appeal to authority, appeal to fact. Political contributions are recognized as speech within the U.S. government.

So if the US government says payment is "speech", then that's a "fact"? Sorry, but that is an appeal to authority. I was not talking about what the US government thinks; I'm talking about the social/moral/ethical principle of the claim that payment = speech. Or is every question of what's best for society resolved through legalism in the US?

And I'm sorry if you don't want to discuss "legalistic bullshit," but I am not aware of how discussing campaign finance reform law is possible without discussing legalism.

You've never heard of the idea of discussing whether a law is right or wrong? You seem to think that if you discuss the question of whether a law is legal (a rather circular sounding question), then you have resolved the issue of whether it is right or wrong.

[MKSheppard]

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy and you goddamn well know it, Marina.

It's the fucking truth. Ventura did more to damage the independent
movement than he did to help it - he seemed to be out doing TV spots
all the time instead of actually GOVERNING.

[Bob McDob]

Why is Karl Rove so hated, while Dick Morris is consistently held up as a excellent political strategist?

I don't hate Karl Rove. In fact, he was my favorate character on That's My Bush.

[Iceberg]

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy and you goddamn well know it, Marina.

It's the fucking truth. Ventura did more to damage the independent movement than he did to help it - he seemed to be out doing TV spots all the time instead of actually GOVERNING.

This has fuck-all to do with his election, because Minnesotans didn't know he was going to do that shit when they elected him in the first place (he was also only elected by 34% of the state's electorate, and that primarily because DFL candidate Skip Humphrey got all of his dad's brains but none of his dad's charisma). When he was ELECTED, none of that actually applied. You'll also notice he DIDN'T run for re-election, because he knew full goddamn well that he would have gotten his ass kicked because of all the shit he'd pulled over the preceding four years.

Your criticism would have some validity if we'd re-elected Ventura.

[RedImperator]

The economy and ESPECIALLY the Federal budget are going to be big campaign issues next year. See those half-trillion dollar budget deficits that the Bush Administration admits are on the plate for the next two years? Those are huge boxing gloves screaming at the face of Bush's re-election chances.

You're counting on the economy staying stuck in neutral. I'm not going to expose myself to embarassment by joining the legions who are claiming the economy is going to get better tomorrow, but I'm cautiously optimistic it will recover.

And the Federal deficit didn't prevent Reagan from beating Mondale or Bush I from beating Dukakis.

Besides, it's plenty early yet - the general election isn't for another 17 months. Plenty of time for Dean to pursue the center AFTER he's secured the support of the party faithful. First things first - if you don't get your legs under you with the people who SHOULD be supporting you, you don't have a prayer of getting the support of the people who may or may not support you.

Recall how badly Dubya hurt himself by showing up at Bob Jones University in the primaries. He won the nomination, but he never shook the fundamentalist tinge and he lost swing states like Pennsylvania and New Mexico and won Florida by less than 1000 votes. There were other factors involved in those results, including the fact he's a known twit, but he scared off enough moderates to nearly cost him the election (would have lost, if Nader hadn't siphoned off enough of Gore's base to cost him the election).

You can only go so far to the left or the right in the primaries without damaging yourself, which is why heavily contested primaries are bad for parties. The other side will air your most damning statements over and over. And if you go too far towards the center after winning a primary by appealing to the extremists, you cut your own legs out from under you by making your own base stay home (as Brett Schundler learned the hard way in New Jersey in 2001).

[MKSheppard]

Your criticism would have some validity if we'd re-elected Ventura.

Actually, because of his dumbshit antics, he's ensured that no independent
will be elected to any office higher than mayor for the next decade at least,
until his stain fades from the political stage.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy and you goddamn well know it, Marina.

It's a statement of fact, Mark. Need I remind you that your state also has the "Democratic-Farmer-Labour" Party instead of the Democrat Party? There is no comparison between Minnesota and the nation politically, and I don't want to waste my time writing out several pages to show it in more detail. You can scream fallacy all you want, but every American on the board will know what I'm talking about and that's what counts.

Maybe a more pertinent fact would be that you were as big a fan of Mondale as you are of Dean, and look how well he did on the national stage, indicating that you're a pretty inaccurate observer of leftist political candidates.

[Joe]

So if the US government says payment is "speech", then that's a "fact"? Sorry, but that is an appeal to authority. I was not talking about what the US government thinks; I'm talking about the social/moral/ethical principle of the claim that payment = speech.

Concerning the dealings of the U.S. government, which is what this is all about? Yes, it most certainly is a fact. As for my personal opinion of whether political contributions are in fact speech? I believe I made my opinion clear in an earlier post.

Or is every question of what's best for society resolved through legalism in the US?

America is a country that is ruled by law, not men. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," remember? I'm not sure what you're advocating here.

You've never heard of the idea of discussing whether a law is right or wrong? You seem to think that if you discuss the question of whether a law is legal (a rather circular sounding question), then you have resolved the issue of whether it is right or wrong.

As I said, America is a country ruled by law. It doesn't matter whether a law is right or wrong, it must be legal to become law.

[Darth Wong]

America is a country that is ruled by law, not men. The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," remember? I'm not sure what you're advocating here.

Are you genetically incapable of discussing any kind of social issue without simply appealing to law? Are you even vaguely aware that there are other angles from which to approach a situation? How do you think laws are revised or changed in the first place? Why do you think someone decided to AMEND the Constitution once upon a time?

As I said, America is a country ruled by law. It doesn't matter whether a law is right or wrong, it must be legal to become law.

It matters when we are discussing whether something is good or bad, as we are in the case of campaign finance reform.

[Iceberg]

The economy and ESPECIALLY the Federal budget are going to be big campaign issues next year. See those half-trillion dollar budget deficits that the Bush Administration admits are on the plate for the next two years? Those are huge boxing gloves screaming at the face of Bush's re-election chances.

You're counting on the economy staying stuck in neutral. I'm not going to expose myself to embarassment by joining the legions who are claiming the economy is going to get better tomorrow, but I'm cautiously optimistic it will recover.

If it does in time to make Bush look a LITTLE better, that would be fine - but Bush has already basically admitted that he has no control over the economy whatsoever (since he's variously blamed September 11, the Afghanistan invasion and GW2 for the worsening deficit and continuing economic hardships).

And the Federal deficit didn't prevent Reagan from beating Mondale or Bush I from beating Dukakis.

Neither of them were running deficits of half a trillion dollars a year.

Besides, it's plenty early yet - the general election isn't for another 17 months. Plenty of time for Dean to pursue the center AFTER he's secured the support of the party faithful. First things first - if you don't get your legs under you with the people who SHOULD be supporting you, you don't have a prayer of getting the support of the people who may or may not support you.

Recall how badly Dubya hurt himself by showing up at Bob Jones University in the primaries.

We're not even in the fecking primaries yet! We're still five months from IOWA, let alone Super Tuesday. Hopefully Lieberman and Edwards will drop out soon (they're lagging WELL behind Kerry and Dean in most polls). Moseley-Braun and Sharpton are nonissues to anybody who has any other issues in mind than black power, and Graham and Kucinich have already basically ruled themselves out of the running for various reasons (Graham because he spent too much time sucking up to the right wing and Kucinich because, frankly, he's a kook).

[Iceberg]

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy and you goddamn well know it, Marina.

It's a statement of fact, Mark. Need I remind you that your state also has the "Democratic-Farmer-Labour" Party instead of the Democrat Party? There is no comparison between Minnesota and the nation politically, and I don't want to waste my time writing out several pages to show it in more detail. You can scream fallacy all you want, but every American on the board will know what I'm talking about and that's what counts.

Gee, being that it's a farm state, you wouldn't think that farming interests would have enough clout to merit their own party, would you Marina? Or that the state's politics might differ somewhat from general national politics?

And at any rate, your statement was that "NO experience" (note universal quantifier, indicates a statement which is most certainly false) that applies to Minnesota could apply to the rest of the nation.

Marina, this isn't your best or even above-average work for you. Please try again later.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Gee, being that it's a farm state, you wouldn't think that farming interests would have enough clout to merit their own party, would you Marina? Or that the state's politics might differ somewhat from general national politics?

Of course, but the history of the DFL is just a bit less generalist than that; and even the RIs changed to just Republicans recently...

And at any rate, your statement was that "NO experience" (note universal quantifier, indicates a statement which is most certainly false) that applies to Minnesota could apply to the rest of the nation.

This is rather nit-picking, methinks, as context can be understood in a debate like this, which is most certainly about politics.

[Joe]

Are you genetically incapable of discussing any kind of social issue without simply appealing to law? Are you even vaguely aware that there are other angles from which to approach a situation? How do you think laws are revised or changed in the first place? Why do you think someone decided to AMEND the Constitution once upon a time?

There are indeed other angles to approach the issue; however, the fact remains, that the first thing that must be considered when passing new legislation to correct the social ill of the week is whether the legislation is in fact legal and consistent with the Constitution. I guess the way to answer your question would be to agree with the manner in which the Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the First Amendment and recognized political speech as protected. The rights of American citizens should not be restricted because politicians cannot control themselves. In addition, the legislation is undesirable as it would give incumbents a considerable advantage in elections.

[Iceberg]

Of possible note is that with the exception of 2000 (which is an understandable exception as many OTHER commentators made the same mistake), I have correctly chosen the winning candidate of each and every political race that I've observed since 1984 (when I surprised and rather scandalized my classmates in 1st grade by suggesting that Reagan would beat Minnesota native Mondale).

1984 - Reagan/Mondale (picked Reagan; Reagan won)
1988 - Bush /Dukakis (picked Bush; Bush won)
1992 - Bush /Clinton/Perot (picked Clinton; Clinton won)
1996 - Clinton/Dole/Perot (picked Clinton; Clinton won)
2000 - Gore/Bush [II] (picked Gore; vote inconclusive, Bush won electoral vote but lost popular vote)

[Joe]

2000 - Gore/Bush [II] (picked Gore; vote inconclusive, Bush won electoral vote but lost popular vote)

The Electoral Vote is the only one that matters. I see nothing inconclusive.

[MKSheppard]

2000 - Gore/Bush [II] (picked Gore; vote inconclusive, Bush won electoral vote but lost popular vote)

Oh god, not another goddamn Electoral college whining shitfest by
someone who's upset that Gore didn't win!

*whips out Railgun and aims*

<(BZAPP!!!)>

{SPLAT!!}

*Shep laughs with glee as the Depleted-Uranium Rail Slug hits flesh at Mach 8. The massive hydroshock, the flash-vaporization, the violent stripping of flesh from bone, bone immediately shattering into tiny razor-sharp shards and getting propelled throughout his body at half the slug's speed instantly severs Iceberg's body at the waist and flays it into a rapidly-expanding cloud of chunky gibs, jagged ribbons of cooked meat, and crimson salsa...*



IMPRESSIVE!!

[Darth Wong]

There are indeed other angles to approach the issue; however, the fact remains, that the first thing that must be considered when passing new legislation to correct the social ill of the week is whether the legislation is in fact legal and consistent with the Constitution.

Please read my previous post. Somebody once amended the Constitution (several times, actually) because it needed improvement. You can't nail shut any social question by simply appealing to the Constitution (although I notice that this behaviour seems to be very common in the US, which treats the Constitution as a sort of secular Bible).

I guess the way to answer your question would be to agree with the manner in which the Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the First Amendment and recognized political speech as protected. The rights of American citizens should not be restricted because politicians cannot control themselves.

Yes, yes, I know you think that political influence purchasing is a "right", but you are being asked to justify that claim, not just restate it.

In addition, the legislation is undesirable as it would give incumbents a considerable advantage in elections.

How? I wasn't aware that campaign finance reform aimed to eliminate peoples' abilities to raise funds; only to limit outsized contributions from single donors who would essentially be purchasing influence disproportionate to their rightful place in a democratic "one person, one vote" society.

[Bob McDob]

2000 - Gore/Bush [II] (picked Gore; vote inconclusive, Bush won electoral vote but lost popular vote)

Oh god, not another goddamn Electoral college whining shitfest by
someone who's upset that Gore didn't win!

*whips out Railgun and aims*

<(BZAPP!!!)>

{SPLAT!!}

*Shep laughs with glee as the Depleted-Uranium Rail Slug hits flesh at Mach 8. The massive hydroshock, the flash-vaporization, the violent stripping of flesh from bone, bone immediately shattering into tiny razor-sharp shards and getting propelled throughout his body at half the slug's speed instantly severs Iceberg's body at the waist and flays it into a rapidly-expanding cloud of chunky gibs, jagged ribbons of cooked meat, and crimson salsa...*



IMPRESSIVE!!

That Einhammer Schnormin guy was your puppet, right?

[RedImperator]

If it does in time to make Bush look a LITTLE better, that would be fine - but Bush has already basically admitted that he has no control over the economy whatsoever (since he's variously blamed September 11, the Afghanistan invasion and GW2 for the worsening deficit and continuing economic hardships).

You're really straining here. Do you really think people will remember that if unemployment goes down and the market goes up? For that matter, will they remember that if the market goes down and unemployment goes up?

Neither of them were running deficits of half a trillion dollars a year.

The projected deficit, according to the IMF, will be 3.8% of GDP in 2004, as opposed to 4.8% in 1984 and equal to the 3.8% G.H.W. Bush inherited in 1988. Try again.

Source for projected deficit

Source for historical deficits

[We're not even in the fecking primaries yet! We're still five months from IOWA, let alone Super Tuesday. Hopefully Lieberman and Edwards will drop out soon (they're lagging WELL behind Kerry and Dean in most polls). Moseley-Braun and Sharpton are nonissues to anybody who has any other issues in mind than black power, and Graham and Kucinich have already basically ruled themselves out of the running for various reasons (Graham because he spent too much time sucking up to the right wing and Kucinich because, frankly, he's a kook).

So? You think Dean is going to make a radical shift to the center? As you say, we're not in the primaries yet, so why would he be so far to the left now if that's not what the general tone of his campaign would be like (Bush sounded moderate until he got into it with McCain, and tried to sound moderate afterwards).

[MKSheppard]

That Einhammer Schnormin guy was your puppet, right?

No, I borrowed his railgun "temporarily" during an invasion and
liked it

[Joe]

Yes, yes, I know you think that political influence purchasing is a "right", but you are being asked to justify that claim, not just restate it.

I already did justify it. Making political contributions is a way that individuals can articulate their voice in a way that it will be actually be heard. It would be nice if they didn't have to, I will admit (and perhaps if the government didn't control our lives to the extent that it does, it wouldn't be necessary).

How? I wasn't aware that campaign finance reform aimed to eliminate peoples' abilities to raise funds; only to limit outsized contributions from single donors who would essentially be purchasing influence disproportionate to their rightful place in a democratic "one person, one vote" society.

It is pretty obvious that a challenger is going to have trouble raising enough money to beat a popular incumbent even without heavy campaign finance reform in place. Limiting the amount of ways a candidate can acquire money is only going to make it worse. Putting heavy restrictions on campaign donations is going to make it extremely difficult for anyone who isn't independently wealthy to challenge an incumbent. Less money means less campaign information; the public isn't going to be as informed about the views of the challenger as it is about the views of the incumbent, who already enjoys a great deal of free publicity that offsets the limits on campaign finance.

[Gil Hamilton]

I already did justify it. Making political contributions is a way that individuals can articulate their voice in a way that it will be actually be heard. It would be nice if they didn't have to, I will admit (and perhaps if the government didn't control our lives to the extent that it does, it wouldn't be necessary).

I thought there already was a way for people to speak their mind about who they think should win an election in a way that is heard and recorded already built into the system that is very simple indeed. When the polls open, go down to where the booths are held and push down the little lever next to the name of the candidate that you support.

[Darth Wong]

I already did justify it. Making political contributions is a way that individuals can articulate their voice in a way that it will be actually be heard. It would be nice if they didn't have to, I will admit (and perhaps if the government didn't control our lives to the extent that it does, it wouldn't be necessary).

I thought there already was a way for people to speak their mind about who they think should win an election in a way that is heard and recorded already built into the system that is very simple indeed. When the polls open, go down to where the booths are held and push down the little lever next to the name of the candidate that you support.

Ah, but that way you don't get to use your money to have a bigger voice than the next guy. Remember, that disproportionality is a fundamental "right"

[Iceberg]

Continuing assertions - without evidence - that Dean has nothing to offer but tax-and-spend liberalism from folks who continuously harp on the need for evidence when their opponents are talking. Continual obfuscation does not win debates.

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/22806/view - Republicans for Dean

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/28/busin ... &position=
After 12 years of allegedly conservative governance (Republican Arne Carlson, followed by Independent Jesse Ventura, returning to Republican Tim Pawlenty), Minnesota has been forced to cut services to such a degree that a "free" public defender is no longer free, even though they're legally required to be, in order to "balance" the budget ("balance" in quotes because the budget is probably only "balanced" in the sense that Enron's was balanced).

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html
“[Dean] set the tone,” Klein said. “You had fairly conservative revenue forecasts and fairly conservative spending policies that made it easier to respond when revenues collapsed.' "

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6392002.htm - Bush, Republicans losing support of retired veterans

Registered Republican James Cook, who retired to Fort Walton Beach, Fla., after 24 years in the Air Force, said he is abandoning a party that he said abandoned him. "Bush is a liar," he said. "The Republicans in Congress, with very few exceptions, are gutless party lapdogs who listen to what puts money in their own pockets or what will get them re-elected." (and keep in mind that this is from the Pioneer Press - the Twin Cities' conservative newspaper)

So we're left with a Democratic candidate who's not really all THAT liberal (social policies yes, but his fiscal policies are quite conservative, a welcome change from George Dubya "We won't pass our costs on to later Congresses/On second thought we will" Bush), versus a Republican President who, quite simply, is a liar and a cheat who ran on a platform of "honor and integrity".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/22806/view - Republicans for Dean

Of course there are Republicans for Dean. That site exists solely to generate interest in him to bring about his nomination as the Democratic candidate so that he will defeated running against Bush by a margin greater than that which Mondale was defeated by running against Ronaldus Magnus.

After 12 years of allegedly conservative governance (Republican Arne Carlson, followed by Independent Jesse Ventura, returning to Republican Tim Pawlenty), Minnesota has been forced to cut services to such a degree that a "free" public defender is no longer free, even though they're legally required to be, in order to "balance" the budget ("balance" in quotes because the budget is probably only "balanced" in the sense that Enron's was balanced).

Good. Though you should have made more cuts on something else instead of making public defenders cost money, which was stupid, and is indicative of the typical indiotic budget cuts which Democrats take when forced to cut their socialist programmes. Maybe eliminating state welfare entirely would have eliminated the need for an illegal fee on public defenders.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html
“[Dean] set the tone,” Klein said. “You had fairly conservative revenue forecasts and fairly conservative spending policies that made it easier to respond when revenues collapsed.' "

The simple fact is that Dean wants to raise taxes on the rich, and cut them for the poor, which will cause the economy to stagnate.

Registered Republican James Cook, who retired to Fort Walton Beach, Fla., after 24 years in the Air Force, said he is abandoning a party that he said abandoned him. "Bush is a liar," he said. "The Republicans in Congress, with very few exceptions, are gutless party lapdogs who listen to what puts money in their own pockets or what will get them re-elected." (and keep in mind that this is from the Pioneer Press - the Twin Cities' conservative newspaper)

The Twin Cities are so liberal that a conservative newspaper there--like there's such a thing as a conservative newspaper, all newspapers are liberally owned--would be a liberal rag in a conservative area. Moscow on the Mississippi!

The opinions of veterans are respected, but vastly more veterans support Bush than oppose him, by numbers which can be easily viewed when frequenting any veterans' area. Get out off your college campus and talk to real people for a change--hell, go to a newsgroup or message board frequented by veterans. Hardly less reliable than singular interviews in newspapers.

So we're left with a Democratic candidate who's not really all THAT liberal (social policies yes, but his fiscal policies are quite conservative, a welcome change from George Dubya "We won't pass our costs on to later Congresses/On second thought we will" Bush), versus a Republican President who, quite simply, is a liar and a cheat who ran on a platform of "honor and integrity".

The simple fact is that we are fighting a war, and we must do the things necessary to win that war, and we must pay for that war. The tax cuts, moreover, are those that shall pay for that war with the reaped dividends of economic prosperity, just like Reagan's funded a great boom, and a great increase in federal revenue. Altogether, the only thing we can do is stay the course, and elect President George W. Bush for a second term.