Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | | Last >
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21651106 -

Because the law won't only apply to the rich.  It will apply to anyone who spends more than the amount set, and there will be all kinds of tricky math that can be used to apply expenditures to speech....You wore that shirt for this many days, and that has a fair market value of x.  You have a bumper sticker...you did this and that...oops...You crossed the line, buddy...

Or maybe you're just accused of crossing the line.  Sit in jail for 8 months while you wait for trial.

Meanwhile, I've got a $500/hr lawyer...How much time am I going to spend in jail?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
    #21651168 -

Enlil said:
Because the law won't only apply to the rich.  It will apply to anyone who spends more than the amount set


And the law should apply to everyone.  But what difference does it make if the poor couldn't spend thousands on political contributions?  They can't today anyway.  :shrug:

Enlil said:
there will be all kinds of tricky math that can be used to apply expenditures to speech....You wore that shirt for this many days, and that has a fair market value of x.  You have a bumper sticker...you did this and that...oops...You crossed the line, buddy...


That gets you close to the $20 range.  Leaving only $2,580 to spend.  :smirk:

Enlil said:
Or maybe you're just accused of crossing the line.  Sit in jail for 8 months while you wait for trial.


Only people who could afford to cross the line would even try to cross it.  No, this wouldn't hurt the not so rich.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21651249 -

You seem to think that only guilty people get arrested and charged.  I didn't say the poor would spend the money.  I said the poor would be prosecuted for spending too much money on speech.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
    #21651299 -

Enlil said:
Power will always seek to condense to the smallest circle possible.  This has been true since the beginning of civilization.  Even if you somehow achieved a "redistribution of power", it would be fleeting.  A small group would become adept at manipulating the system you put in place and power would concentrate naturally. 

The only difference is that you will have removed some of the safeguards already in place, so the process will be somewhat quicker and perhaps with an amplified total effect.


We're putting a safeguard in place. You act as though nothing could conceivably be better than what we have. I see the US heading down a road to Fascism that I don't approve of, while conservative cry 'socialism' all the way down.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21652145 -

No, I'm not saying that nothing could be better than what we have.  I'm saying that the cure for this is not to take a step backwards in freedom.

I've made two suggestions to reduce the influence of money and to increase the general public's participation.  I'm sure there are others.  I expect people like Stonehenge to keep beating the strawman that I'm claiming that everything is perfect now, but you should know better.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21652476 -

Bigbadwooof said:
Enlil said:
Power will always seek to condense to the smallest circle possible.  This has been true since the beginning of civilization.  Even if you somehow achieved a "redistribution of power", it would be fleeting.  A small group would become adept at manipulating the system you put in place and power would concentrate naturally. 

The only difference is that you will have removed some of the safeguards already in place, so the process will be somewhat quicker and perhaps with an amplified total effect.


We're putting a safeguard in place. You act as though nothing could conceivably be better than what we have. I see the US heading down a road to Fascism that I don't approve of, while conservative cry 'socialism' all the way down.


The issue isn't that we shouldn't be trying for anything better. The issue is that the law, as you have presented it, isn't better. It's too vague, and for that reason it can easily be manipulated. You are concerned about fascism, but a tenant of fascism is limiting freedom of speech and freedom of dissent. That is exactly what this law could be used to do.

Many people arguing against the proposed rules aren't arguing that we shouldn't have rules at all, but are arguing that the rules need to be more objective and clear.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21652735 -

BoldAsLove said:
Bigbadwooof said:
Enlil said:
Power will always seek to condense to the smallest circle possible.  This has been true since the beginning of civilization.  Even if you somehow achieved a "redistribution of power", it would be fleeting.  A small group would become adept at manipulating the system you put in place and power would concentrate naturally. 

The only difference is that you will have removed some of the safeguards already in place, so the process will be somewhat quicker and perhaps with an amplified total effect.


We're putting a safeguard in place. You act as though nothing could conceivably be better than what we have. I see the US heading down a road to Fascism that I don't approve of, while conservative cry 'socialism' all the way down.


The issue isn't that we shouldn't be trying for anything better. The issue is that the law, as you have presented it, isn't better. It's too vague, and for that reason it can easily be manipulated. You are concerned about fascism, but a tenant of fascism is limiting freedom of speech and freedom of dissent. That is exactly what this law could be used to do.

Many people arguing against the proposed rules aren't arguing that we shouldn't have rules at all, but are arguing that the rules need to be more objective and clear.


its simply easier to claim we hate the poor, love the rich, and think things are perfect than accept we think they have a bad solution.


--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
    #21652991 -

Anyone see the daily show last night at 11PM EST?  It was all about money in politics, the rampant corruption they DESTROYED jersey gov christie for his blatant quid pro quo corruptions.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
    #21653438 -

Enlil said:
First, I would create a requirement for all senators and representatives to inform their constituencies about every bill presented to them for vote and their reasoning for why they voted a particular way on that bill.  Most people won't read this, but the opposition surely will, and with a free-flowing media in place, anything untoward would become well known.

Second, I would make full disclosure of all business relationships and/or conflicts of interest, past and present, required by all candidates and incumbents.  This would be an ongoing requirement.  Again, the opposition will be reading and will be able to expose issues,

Both of the above would be required to be searchable on a user-friendly web-database, so that any voter in the country can do his/her research.

I've made two suggestions to reduce the influence of money and to increase the general public's participation.  I'm sure there are others.


Lets' discuss those solutions, because I don't believe they are as effective as the one being proposed here.

The first requires Congress to provide reasoning for voting a particular way for a bill.  How many do you think will say it's because they're returning a favor for a huge campaign contribution?  They'll use the donor's party line (create a few coal jobs for the local economy, blah blah blah) and that's what they already do today.

The second solution, disclosing all business relationships and/or conflicts of interest, would be far more difficult to enforce than the one being proposed here.  What is a conflict of interest for a Congress person when everyone in his district is a constituent, both rich and poor?  What is a business relationship?  If big money wants to lobby Congress about something, does mean they're in a business relationship?

The solution option to limit political spending seems better, and to my pleasant surprise there haven't been specific arguments against it; just generic "I'll bet someone may find a way around it".  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #21653549 -

Cognitive_Shift said:
Anyone see the daily show last night at 11PM EST?  It was all about money in politics, the rampant corruption they DESTROYED jersey gov christie for his blatant quid pro quo corruptions.


I'm trying to find this segment online. I don't have cable/dish.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21653601 -

Bigbadwooof said:
Cognitive_Shift said:
Anyone see the daily show last night at 11PM EST?  It was all about money in politics, the rampant corruption they DESTROYED jersey gov christie for his blatant quid pro quo corruptions.


I'm trying to find this segment online. I don't have cable/dish.


The clip is less then 5 minutes and it's funny but also compelling towards money in politics and corruption.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21653654 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The solution option to limit political spending seems better, and to my pleasant surprise there haven't been specific arguments against it; just generic "I'll bet someone may find a way around it".  :shrug:


At least one specific argument against it is has been brought up repeatedly: your statement is far too vague and non-objective. You use the term "actively seeking" but provide no context of what that means or how it would be measured. No one is ever forced to watch certain content, therefore, if I choose to watch it, can it be said that I was actively seeking it? Why or why not?

In my opinion, that statement is also not very clear about what type of content is covered. If a speaker or entertainer makes a political comment during their show, are the expenditures to present that show subject to limits?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21653741 -

:whathesaid:

Frankly, Fal, you have reached a point where you plug your ears (eyes) to all of the arguments against your test and hum to yourself to cover the sound.

I'm not here to be a contrarian...I'm really not.  I'd love to see a workable plan, but you started off with a very weak one and then diluted it down to the point where it is virtually meaningless.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
    #21653859 -

Quote:
I'm not here to be a contrarian


i'm begining to think you cant help that, either that or you are a troll which is/was my initial response to 90% of things you say.

i'm slowly changing that perspective to think that you are simply a misunderstood grumpyface who despite sounding very articulate doesnt express himself very well.

i think we are looking at the problem of campaign reform from the wrong perspective, that it has to fit within normal established guidelines, but, off the cuff i think maybe we should say that federal political positions on any specific candidate has to be limited to a specific set of rules... (if the candidates name or image is visable the rules could be VERY harsh).

for IDEAS pro-life pro choice pro lobyist... whatever.

thats free fucking speech.

and i think maybe restrictions on your opinion on the date and time we call a fetus human doesnt really need to be responded to by a favor from a politician ...

but saying... vote for jerry brown...

when he gets elected you helped him get a job and he owes you something.


--------------------
->$10 FLOW HOOD ALTERNATIVE <-

. i cleaned a mold contaminated live culture and saved it. (might have useful applications)

[quote]Enlil said:
I'd be the guy with thousands of minions doing my bidding and all of the hot women locked in a cage for my use.[/quote]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #21653978 -

Cognitive_Shift said:
Bigbadwooof said:
Cognitive_Shift said:
Anyone see the daily show last night at 11PM EST?  It was all about money in politics, the rampant corruption they DESTROYED jersey gov christie for his blatant quid pro quo corruptions.


I'm trying to find this segment online. I don't have cable/dish.


The clip is less then 5 minutes and it's funny but also compelling towards money in politics and corruption.




Good video. I have a question... how does the FEC chair say she's given up on doing her fucking job? She's given up on prosecuting violations of campaign finance... if I worked at fucking mcdonalds and said 'I give up on flipping burgers'... I would be fired. Just sayin.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21654003 -

BoldAsLove said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
to my pleasant surprise there haven't been specific arguments against it; just generic "I'll bet someone may find a way around it".  :shrug:


At least one specific argument against it is has been brought up repeatedly: your statement is far too vague and non-objective. You use the term "actively seeking" but provide no context of what that means or how it would be measured. No one is ever forced to watch certain content, therefore, if I choose to watch it, can it be said that I was actively seeking it? Why or why not?


If you choose to watch a certain program, then of course you were actively seeking it.  What other interpretation could there be???

BoldAsLove said:
In my opinion, that statement is also not very clear about what type of content is covered. If a speaker or entertainer makes a political comment during their show, are the expenditures to present that show subject to limits?


No because "If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom are actively seeking it, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content."

It's all there.  Very simple.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
    #21654034 -

Enlil said:
Frankly, Fal, you have reached a point where you plug your ears (eyes) to all of the arguments against your test and hum to yourself to cover the sound.


I'm looking for an example where the above test doesn't properly provide an answer, not an argument that someday someone will find a way to get around this, because that's true of any law.

Enlil said:
you started off with a very weak one and then diluted it down to the point where it is virtually meaningless.


Can you provide an example where the above won't work?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21654090 -

Quote:
No because "If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom are actively seeking it, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content."

It's all there.  Very simple.  :shrug:


except its not simple. If i go to see John Mayer in concert i'm actively seeking music, as are the majority of people there. So if he makes a political endorsement while on stage does that fall under personal contribution limits?

Quote:
If you choose to watch a certain program, then of course you were actively seeking it.  What other interpretation could there be???


so you agree if a political ad come on TV during commercials and you watch the ad then you are actively seeking it?


--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
    #21654116 -

psyconaught said:
If i go to see John Mayer in concert i'm actively seeking music, as are the majority of people there. So if he makes a political endorsement while on stage does that fall under personal contribution limits?


Not unless someone pays him to say it.  He'll be known as someone who likes to speak up on political issues at concerts, like Michael Franti of Spearhead, and people can decide if they want to actively seek that or not.

psyconaught said:
if a political ad come on TV during commercials and you watch the ad then you are actively seeking it?


How could you be?  You were actively seeking the program, not the ad.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21654122 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
BoldAsLove said:
At least one specific argument against it is has been brought up repeatedly: your statement is far too vague and non-objective. You use the term "actively seeking" but provide no context of what that means or how it would be measured. No one is ever forced to watch certain content, therefore, if I choose to watch it, can it be said that I was actively seeking it? Why or why not?


If you choose to watch a certain program, then of course you were actively seeking it.  What other interpretation could there be???



So if I choose to watch a commercial that comes on then I am actively seeking it?

Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
In my opinion, that statement is also not very clear about what type of content is covered. If a speaker or entertainer makes a political comment during their show, are the expenditures to present that show subject to limits?


No because "If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom are actively seeking it, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content."

It's all there.  Very simple.  :shrug:


It is my understanding from that test that if a political statement is made during a concert or other entertainment performance, that the costs associated with that performance are subject to individual limits if a majority of people weren't actively seeking it. So if Jay-Z throws in a statement about White House policy between his songs, he (or whoever paid for the show) can be charged with breaking campaign finance laws, as it's likely most people at the concert were there for music, not political statements. Am I wrong in that interpretation?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | | Last >

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A judge's ruling talk-radio hosts on-air activity could be considered campaign contribution. lonestar2004 960 2 07/08/05 10:02 AM
by lonestar2004
* Campaign finance reform Silversoul 1,170 14 09/16/05 02:46 PM
by LeftyBurnz
* just ranting
( 1 2 all )		 meatman 2,835 26 07/18/02 07:06 PM
by Senor_Doobie
* Campaign Overhaul unbeliever 496 2 10/26/04 02:32 PM
by JesusChrist
* Anti-poverty campaign gets it almost all wrong lonestar2004 1,396 18 07/07/05 02:11 AM
by Tao
* Secret FBI Docs Show Kerry Accepted Laundered Contributions Evolving 1,049 8 08/29/04 10:48 PM
by Evolving
* Don?t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again ekomstop 5,566 10 11/06/04 08:23 AM
by ekomstop
* The 10 most important contributions throughout time
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 TheOneYouKnow 4,264 68 02/24/04 02:16 AM
by Baby_Hitler

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
23,113 topic views. 1 members, 88 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.