This is topic McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/643.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic sponsor of a campaign finance bill said Saturday the Senate battle is going well, but there are hints that some proposed amendments could fracture the fragile coalition supporting the overhaul.

Delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said the critical debate would take place next week.

His bill, cosponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seeks to ban "soft money" -- unlimited contributions that unions, corporations and individuals may donate to political parties for use other than the "express advocacy" of a candidate's election or defeat.

"With strong support from Democrats, and a small but hardy group of Republicans who have broken with their leadership and spoken out in favor of the bill, we have a strong coalition in the Senate to pass meaningful reform," Feingold said.

But Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Friday that his support for the measure could falter if an amendment seeking to raise "hard money" contributions to candidates succeeds. The amendment would increase the current $1,000-a-year limit to $3,000.

Daschle said such a boost would unfairly help Republicans because they have more rich donors able to pay that amount.

"It goes to the fear that we have that Republicans legally will lock in an advantage that we will never be able to overcome," he told reporters. He didn't say if he would support a smaller increase in the limit.

Feingold said the possible amendments shouldn't cause the bill to fail.

"Wealthy interests have too much power in our political system, but we don't have to just shrug our shoulders and say that's the way politics has to be," he said.

Both McCain and Feingold have said it is inevitable that the $1,000 limit, in place since 1974, will be raised, but McCain said the two have yet to reach a common position.

Feingold said Friday that tripling the limit "is way too high."

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
The whole frikin' thing is illegal. I wonder if you can arrest Congressmen for voting for something that's blatantly unconstitutional? "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech..."

It's my money, and I can do whatever the heck I want with it. The Democrats are just jealous because more people donate more to us. At least, they usually do. Last year, THEY got more from THEIR rich constituants, and, surprise, surprise, DNP support is faltering.

The first ammendment to the Constitution was specifically designed to prevent things like this. Protection of political speech from government control or interference was the entire purpose of it. What is this, but the government trying to control who can say what, where?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Well Get this.

Over here, a law is being pondered to ban Unions from donating to political parties. The Conservative party believes this would prevent elections from being hijacked by the so-called "Hardball" unions.

Now while I don't like the "Hardball" unions and their tactics, this is grossly unfair in the sense that Corporations donate a heck of a lot more money than the unions do. And by starving the left-of-center parties of possible campaign money sources (Liberal Party, NDP), the scale is tilted WAY HEAVILY to the favours of the Conservatives so much that the Liberal and Socialist parties may as well get blasted off the universe.

Reforms are needed, but not at the expense of other people from other political stripes. This might tilt the playing field towards the Republicans. Then again, it may not.

------------------
"Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years."
- Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited March 24, 2001).]
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Omega,

Considering your knowledge of Constitutional Law is, oh, about the lowest of anyone I've met (and that includes the local coke-heads who don't even know -- or care -- what the thing is), you'll forgive me for not taking what you say as an "expert" opinion. Frankly, your whole post sounds like another take on the "dammed left-wing hollywood elite liberal communist socialist vast conspiracy!" you paranoids like to complain about so damn much.

quote:
What is this, but the government trying to control who can say what, where?

Do you even know what the bill is about? No, I didn't think so. Why don't you go find out before you start blabbering your big mouth? Thank you VERY much!

It's time to take our nation's leadership out of the hands of the big businesses and special interests who donate so much money, and into the hands of the common citizen, whose voice this bill will give more power to. In this case, the government is giving the power to the people. Of course, most Republicans don't give a damn about the people -- they're after Big Businesses support, and the working man be dammed. Do Big Businesses have the right of the First Ammendment? Yes. But more importantly, the common citizen does too, and this bill gives his or her voice more weight (in a financial sense, since you'd have to be a total moron to think that campaign finance doesn't play a role in "policy").

I would like to say "thank you" to brave Republicans like John McCain and others who have bucked the greed of their party to push for reform. Too bad the vast majority of the rest of the Republicans have only dollar signs in their eyes and not the good of the American people.

For shame.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
It's time to take our nation's leadership out of the hands of the big businesses and special interests who donate so much money, and into the hands of the common citizen, whose voice this bill will give more power to.

How, pray tell, does this give more power to the general populace of this country? All it does is limit freedom in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.

I would point out that you have not made any attempt to refute this, instead attacking me personally.

My point stands.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
You'll LOVE this, then. the ACLU agrees with Omega.
(And we ALL know how right-wing reactionary the ACLU is... right?)

From the ACLU Campaign Finance Reform Fact Sheet #1:

"[A Campaign Finance Reform Amendment] would carve out a huge exception to First Amendment rights by placing limits on free speech."

"...would give to Congress and the states unprecedented, sweeping and undefined authority to restrict speech currently protected by the First Amendment."

"...would give Congress and every state legislature powers, heretofore denied by the First Amendment, to regulate the press."

Fact Sheet #2:

"The leading "reform" proposals unconstitutionally restrict speech of issue advocacy groups."

"Campaign reform proposals incorrectly assert that Congress can control the quantity and quality of all speech that influences the outcome of elections in an attempt to make elections "fair."

Funny, huh? THE organization for "Civil Liberties" being against it?

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 24, 2001).]
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
How, pray tell, does this give more power to the general populace of this country? All it does is limit freedom in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.

Riiiight. Paranoid.

quote:
I would point out that you have not made any attempt to refute this, instead attacking me personally.

I did refute that. As usual, you ignored it. Also, while you seem quite perturbed that I may have committed an "ad-hominem", you showed no such compuncture against doing so against me in the other thread.

quote:
My point stands.

It sure does. It's supported by the pillars of paranoia, ignorance of constitutional law and thick-headed-ness.

If anything, McCain-Feingold gives more power to the people by focing the political parties to pay more attention to the voices of the individual people (who cannot afford to come anywhere near the spending levels of big-businesses and special interests, which this bill would restrict).

Big-Brother can be many things, my friends. Although I'm sure Omega will deny it, the Republican Party has been bought out by the big corporations and the special interests which give it so much money. Omega apparently feels that these corporations are more deserving of the Republican Party's loyalty than the common citizen.

How thankful that John McCain doesn't feel that way.


------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
*ahem*

It would seem I owe Omega an apology. Despite his ignorance on most matters of Constitutional Law, it only figures that he would at some point get it correct on some issue. Hopefully, he will take a Constitutional Law course so that the next time he is correct on a matter of Constitutional Law, it will not be a fluke.

(speaking of which, the pillar of ignorance of Constitutional-Law has been removed... )

However, my other points still stand and no one has yet refuted them. Of course, I'm sure they now will try

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Pray tell, how is it paranoia? Congress IS doing this thing. It is NOT some conspiracy theory. McCain-Feingold will restrict my freedom, by design. McCain-Feingold is in direct contravention of the Constitution. Do you deny these things?

No?

Good.

The whole point is this, Jeff: Whether it would be a good idea or not is not relevant. CONGRESS CAN NOT DO THIS. Not only are they not authorized to, they are expressly forbidden from it. Your "points" are moot. Congress is not above the law.

How funny a thing, that you hold a position ONLY until you discover that a liberal institution disagrees with it. Do you still maintain that your opinions are your own?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
The GOP is owned by the big corporations?

Only as much as the DNC is owned by the Unions, the NAACP, the Media and the Trial Lawyers (all of whom make equally huge donations).

You wanna try again?

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by dih1138 on :
 
Both of these parties are controlled by large Companies, Foriegn interests, and wealthy individuals...

Vote Green, then you might see a difference.

P.S.
Can someone please define the media in very specific terms?

------------------
Ian Hughes

[This message has been edited by dih1138 (edited March 24, 2001).]
 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I doubt anything important is going to come from this thread, but it is somewhat interesting to note how the far left (as embodied by the Greens) and the far right (as embodied by Buchanan) are starting to bleed into each other when it comes to economics.

------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.


 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
Like my Autobot Fish, it would seem.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.


 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
The whole point is this, Jeff: Whether it would be a good idea or not is not relevant. CONGRESS CAN NOT DO THIS. Not only are they not authorized to, they are expressly forbidden from it. Your "points" are moot. Congress is not above the law.

Of course it's not. The Republican Congress didn't pass something called the "Contact with America", either. But, then, I bet you think that was a good idea, yes?

quote:
How funny a thing, that you hold a position ONLY until you discover that a liberal institution disagrees with it. Do you still maintain that your opinions are your own?

I still maintain my position that McCain/Feingold is a good step in campaign finance reform. The only thing that I back away on now is my opinion that your knowledge of Constitutional Law is in error, as obviously, you are correct in this issue (however, whether that be too luck or actual knowledge remains to be seen).

Further, Omega, I don't stand to a position when I am corrected. And although the ACLU backs you, I would point out that it is not a liberal organization (and you say you're not paranoid). In fact, the ACLU is an organization for all Americans, in its zealous defense of the Constitution, even defending those who are the polar opposite of liberals (which, again, the ACLU is not): the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, etcetra.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
even defending those who are the polar opposite of liberals (which, again, the ACLU is not): the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, etcetra

Just how DO you define "liberal", anyway? Just anything that you consider good and pure, or what? The Ku Klux Klan has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives in any way. It has nothing to do with the size of the government.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
Just how DO you define "liberal", anyway? Just anything that you consider good and pure, or what? The Ku Klux Klan has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives in any way. It has nothing to do with the size of the government.

I'm simply pointing out that the ACLU can hardly be considered liberal. A mistaken impression you appear to have.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Well, looking at, for example, Bill Frist's "scorecard", they:

have totally screwed up positions on abortion
consider it the fault of the states that more black kids get sent to juvie
oppose allowing employers to access the juvenile records of serious offenders
oppose trying serious offenders in their mid teens as adults
seem to think that partial-birth abortion is not dangerous (it's more dangerous than simply giving birth)
don't think there should be a minimum sentence for drug dealers

I stand corrected. Their ideas don't have anything to do with the size of government ALL that often, and thus they are not liberal as such. They're just morons.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
have totally screwed up positions on abortion

Aye-yi-yi: the Right of Privacy. Ya' heard of it? Of course not.

quote:
consider it the fault of the states that more black kids get sent to juvie

What's your proof that it isn't?

quote:
oppose allowing employers to access the juvenile records of serious offenders

Again, the right to privacy. Juvenile records are sealed -- accessing them is unconstitutional.

quote:
oppose trying serious offenders in their mid teens as adults

Well, since you think the 18-year old shooter is a "child" in the other thread, you apparently agree with them here. Or do you so quickly forget what you post in other threads?

quote:
seem to think that partial-birth abortion is not dangerous (it's more dangerous than simply giving birth)

Right to privacy. Honestly, do you ever read anything about the ACLU? You know -- defend the Constitution?

quote:
don't think there should be a minimum sentence for drug dealers

Yes. Because it's unconstitutional. How many times do we have to go over this?

quote:
I stand corrected. Their ideas don't have anything to do with the size of government ALL that often, and thus they are not liberal as such. They're just morons.

If they're just morons, that would explain quite a bit about why you agree with them in the argument about McCain/Feingold reform. Thank you for the ad-hominem (albeit unintentional) against yourself.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Point out to me the article or ammendment which contains a "right to privacy".

Also, please explain how this theoretical right to privacy leads to a right to kill another human being with impunity?

Further, please explain how a right to privacy includes a right to have knowledge of crimes you have commited sealed. Generally, criminals have no rights, even ones that don't exist.

If they're just morons, that would explain quite a bit about why you agree with them in the argument about McCain/Feingold reform.

Considering that you apparently now agree with them, too...

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
Further, please explain how a right to privacy includes a right to have knowledge of crimes you have commited sealed.

Even after they've paid their debt to society? So, in essence, you don't even believe in giving someone a clean slate when they get out of jail, or finish their community service. Once a criminal, always a criminal. Typical.

quote:
Generally, criminals have no rights, even ones that don't exist.

Well, you're right there. Criminals who don't exist have no rights. But we're concerned with ex-criminals who do exist, not criminals who don't.

quote:
Considering that you apparently now agree with them, too...

But I never called them "morons." You claimed that the ACLU were morons, yet you agree with some on several positions, thus, you are calling yourself a moron. You are also calling me a moron indirectly, but I am not calling myself a moron. There's a difference.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
You claimed that the ACLU were morons, yet you agree with some on several positions, thus, you are calling yourself a moron.

A) Several?

B) Even people who are usually wrong can get something right occasionally. I refer you to your opinion of my knowledge of the Constitution.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
Several?

Yes. Do you not know what the word means?

Strange, tho, that you blast the ACLU's view on how it is unconstitutional to charge a child as an adult, especially because in the current gun thread, you apparently think an 18-year old (an adult) shouldn't even be charged as an adult.

quote:
Even people who are usually wrong can get something right occasionally.

Which explains why you're correct on this issue. You said it so well.

quote:
I refer you to your opinion of my knowledge of the Constitution.

Ignorant of Constitutional Law, but still manages to get something correct every now and then.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
"So, in essence, you don't even believe in giving someone a clean slate when they get out of jail, or finish their community service."

A second chance, yes. Pretending it never happened, NO. Those ARE two different things.

Since you brought up the other thread, do you know the shooter in this latest school had been CONVICTED of assault? Which makes me wonder what he was doing back in a public school at all, since generally that's grounds for EXPULSION? Probably someone like you gave him a 'clean slate.' Good job.

But back on topic.. how exactly can McCain-Feingold BE such a good idea if it does all those things that the ACLU says it does? HOW are they going to ameliorate those effects? You need to know that before you can tell if it's at all worthy of support.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
Since you brought up the other thread, do you know the shooter in this latest school had been CONVICTED of assault? Which makes me wonder what he was doing back in a public school at all, since generally that's grounds for EXPULSION? Probably someone like you gave him a 'clean slate.' Good job.

Although I'm sure you're un-aware of this, you can be expelled from one school and accepted into another. Happens all the time. Besides, somebody like you probably thought the conviction was just the result of "boys being boys" and didn't care about it.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
When in doubt, don't acknowledge when your opponent has a point. Did you read the last part of First's post, Jeff?

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Ah, JeffRaven, sadly, as you like to call me on it, it happens quite frequently. I believe Jay brought the point up a while ago that he stopped becoming involved in a debate because his strong points were ignored by his opponents, who decided to attack his weakest points to death, then declare "victory."

Campaign finance reform is something which this country needs. If not McCain/Feingold, then something else.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
I'd rather see existing laws being enforced, before we tack on more laws, especially ones that limit free speech.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Yep, just like the wonderful example set by the Texas police.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
What is this? Ad Hominium or something?

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Not at all.

But the Texas police failed to arrest 600+ convicted felons who showed up (with guns) to attend Texas' mandatory training course for the carry concealed permit.

Failure to enforce existing laws.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
Yes, but it is a totally useless post and does not contribute to the discussion whatsoever. So why post it?

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
To bash those who say only liberals pass laws without enforcing 'em

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
Did I mention liberals in my post? Let's see...

quote:

I'd rather see existing laws being enforced, before we tack on more laws, especially ones that limit free speech.

Nope, don't see it there... No mention of any political affilation at all.

As I said, it was a useless post.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Since the McCain/Feingold is backed largely by Democrats, it was a resonable assumption that was who you were directing the comment at.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
So in other words, you have no point to make, and are thus overreacting to perceived threats in order to divert attention?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
*shrug*

Simply pointing out that it is the Republican notion that only liberals fail to enforce laws is in error.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Hmm. I'd have to say I'm going to side with JeffK here. It wasn't an unreasonable point. And Omega and JeffR are possibly over-reacting *slightly*, and could instead spend their time discussing the example of Texas.

*runs away*

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
You are Britttish. You know nothing about American Tax Reform. Therefore, your point is invalid. You are unworthy.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.


 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
God, it really annoys me when you spell that wrong.

It's "Amerrrican".

Please, make an effort.

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
Aw, geez, uh. I'm sorry, bye, eh?

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.


 


Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :
 
Why even bother with corect spelling? Half the damn students in the USA couldn't even find the US on a fucking MAP that had the damn names of the countries on THEM.

------------------
In this crazy world of lemons, baby...you're lemonade!
 


Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
It is my opinion that Liam was just razzing dear UM.

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Are you the kind of person who usually falls for those 'always' and 'never' trick questions on exams?

If you are, 'Hooked on Logic' could work for you.

Yes, 'Hooked on Logic' can TEACH you the difference between 'usually' and 'always and between 'rarely' and 'never.'

Avoid embarassing situations when making assumptions! (Remember, 'assumption makes an ass out of u and mption.')

Not available in stores, or any state-run institution.
'Hooked on Logic' can be yours free! Just call 1-800-I'M-AN-ASS.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
You deny making the claim that Democratic legislatures like to create new laws and not enforce them?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
*ClintonSpeak*

I don't think there's any evidence that we made that claim.

*/ClintonSpeak*

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
October 21, 2000 10:45 am posted by FIRST OF TWO


Another fairly simple thing to see is thatr if we enforced existing regulations, rather than ignoring them, plea-bargaining them down, or deliberately creating loopholes and exceptions for our friends (like Slick Willie and Ozone Al have in several cases) it is unlikely that we would need further rules and regulations to pick up the slack.

Not to mention, I've heard Rush Limbaugh, your dear beloved Saint of Conservative AM Radio, say repeatedly that only liberals pass laws and then decide not to enforce them

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
The quote in question does not mention Democratic legislatures in any way. It simply mentions Gore and Clinton as major offenders, which they were. You seem to assume that people are out to get you when they're not, forcing yourself onto the defensive.

Paranoid...

Oh, and BTW, what does Rush Limbaugh have to do with... anything at all? Let's see. You bring up the beliefs of someone who has nothing to do with the discussion. Why would you do this? To distract attention away from something? What, then? Perhaps the inadequacy of your own argument?

You just make yourself look bad when you do things like this, JK. Don't you get that?

Under any circumstances, let's get back to what the topic was BEFORE you changed it because you couldn't win. We don't know whether we need to change existing law or not until we see if existing law works. We won't know whether existing law works or not until it's enforced, which it has not been for eight years. Do you disagree with any of the above?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Right on :
 
Are you saying Rush Limbaugh isn't an extremely conservative Republican? Most of the AM-listening radio-heads follow Rush, no matter what comments he make, so if Rush were to say that liberals created laws but didn't enforce them, would he not be speaking for a vast majority of Republicans?

I don't know if he actually said that or not, I find Rush about as educational as a pile of dog crap and just as appealing.

And besides, the whole notion of a political group enforcing laws is ridiculous. Police enforce laws, not politicians. JeffK is quite incorrect to suggest that the Texas' police failure to arrest those who are obviously breaking the law is Dubya's fault. At the same time, both Omega and First of Two seem to think that Al Gore and Bill Clinton don't enforce laws -- well, duh. They pass laws, cops enforce laws. As I recall, didn't Clinton get federal funding to put 70,000 cops on the street?

Now, as for McCain/Feingold. Is it Un-Constitutional? Maybe. I don't agree with the ACLU about everything, but it seems to me that our whole political system is majorly fucked up and it's time to do some reform of one sort or the other.

------------------
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends?" - Abraham Lincoln

"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

"Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity." - Anonymous

"Our bombs are smarter than [George W. Bush]. At least they can find Kuwait." - A. Whitney Brown

 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant to this discussion. All mentions of him will be ignored by me from this point forward.

As I recall, didn't Clinton get federal funding to put 70,000 cops on the street?

Funding which was almost immediately withdrawn, by design.

our whole political system is majorly fucked up and it's time to do some reform of one sort or the other.

Well, we've gotten a good start by electing a president that doesn't actively BREAK the laws, wouldn't you say?

both Omega and First of Two seem to think that Al Gore and Bill Clinton don't enforce laws

Reno ran the justice department. Reno took orders from Clinton. Reno didn't enforce campaign finance laws. Reno could have been ordered to enforce said laws by Clinton. No such order was given.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 28, 2001).]
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
He does have an annoying tendency to create generalizations out of specific cases, doesn't he?

I say 'Clinton and Gore' which he expands to mean 'all liberals.'

You know, if I said I thought that Michael Jackson, who happens to be a black man, was a pervert, and he expanded that to say that I said that all blacks were perverts, And publicly announced on a forum that that is what I said, I could probably sue him for libel.

*Mackeyspeak*
M'kay? Making generalities out of specifics is BAD. If you make generalities out of specifics, you're bad, M'kay? Racists and sexists and Fundies make generalities out of specifics. They're bad.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Michael Jackson, who happens to be a black man

He IS? You're kidding, right?

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :
 
There's two shockers in that sentence. 'Black', and 'Man'. I suppose I shouldn't have found his 'Black or White' video erotic. I feel dirty.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.


 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
I say 'Clinton and Gore' which he expands to mean 'all liberals.'

My apologies. In my searchings, I couldn't find anywhere where you did in fact mention all liberals. Keeping in mind that the post I quoted you from almost half a year old, I'm sure you can understand that the misunderstanding was simply that over a space of time.

quote:
Well, we've gotten a good start by electing a president that doesn't actively BREAK the laws, wouldn't you say?

Which is a good change not only from Clinton, but Bush Sr., Reagan, Nixon ...

quote:
Reno ran the justice department. Reno took orders from Clinton. Reno didn't enforce campaign finance laws. Reno could have been ordered to enforce said laws by Clinton. No such order was given.

You know, I'm such an idiot. I didn't realize law enforcement had to actually wait to be ordered to enforce laws instead of just enforcing them ... ::shrug::

Still doesn't explain why Texas' Governor didn't order his cops to enforce the laws, tho.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Apology accepted.

As for Reno, look at it from the other direction.
Reno had the authority to enforce said laws.
Reno did not.
Reno's job was to enforce the laws.
Reno did not.
Why?

Clinton could have gotten on her case about it.
Clinton had both the right and the authority to do so.
Clinton did not.
Why?

Perhaps because they did not WANT those laws enforced, as doing so would have been... inconvenient?


------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Clinton had both the right and the authority to do so.

Don't forget "obligation".

And if you, Jeff, have any evidence of campaign improprieties in the Reagan and Bush administrations, please present it. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Well, at that I must point out that the discussion had verged away from campaign improprities towards law- ignoring conduct of any kind Well, we've gotten a good start by electing a president that doesn't actively BREAK the laws, wouldn't you say?. Your own words. Unless, of course, you've forgotten about Watergate, or Iran-Contra...?

When did I mention anything about Reagan or Bush campaign illegalities? Anyone?

Maybe you need to take your own advice, Omega. Shut up. Or try reading.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 29, 2001).]
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Two wrongs do not a right make.

You cannot justify Clintonian behavior by pointing to previous administrations. Even Nixon.

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Not trying to justify, am I? Simply pointing out that it is erroneous (yes, I know I mispelled that) to point fingers at Bill Clinton as the only President to break the law.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Recommended reading?

Princeton Law professor and Federal Electoin Commission member Bradley A. Smith

"Unfree Speech: the Folly of Campaign Finance Reform"
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2M48LJXM13&mscssid=NCKVGP5B7C7A9JB1P3AWNDRDKDTE9PLE&isbn=0691070458

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
What, nobody READS anymore?

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I've been too busy studying for various tests and quizzes, writing papers, and draining the water out of my Jeep. Damn thunderstorms.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001



 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Why read, when we have sweet TV to nourish our brains with the hilarious exploits of six Friends living in New York. And a talk show psychiatrist making hilarious farcical mistakes! Look at the dog! It's funny!

------------------
You know, when Comedy Central asked us to do a Thanksgiving episode, the first thought that went through my mind was, "Boy, I'd like to have sex with Jennifer Aniston."
-Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
How about just reading the book's REVIEW, as linked to above?

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Sounds like Mr. Smith doesn't believe money influences a person's voting habits.

Sounds like the whole debate between popular v. elite democrats. The popular viewpoint would be that large contributions from big corporations limits the power of the individual citizen to have their voices heard.

The elite, viewpoint, of course, is that the individual citizens don't know what is best for them, and they should just leave it in the hands of people who know best.

Both parties have members of both groups. No one can argue that any recent leaders of either party haven't been elite. Al Gore served a lifetime in politics, while George W. Bush was raised within a powerful political family. Another examples would be the Kennedys, although certainly their political influence has increased since JFK and RFK.

(*ahem* Note I said "democrats" not "Democrats." I'm not speaking of members of an individual political party, but those who participate in the Democratic way of government)

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 10, 2001).]
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
What, nobody READS anymore?

Guess I won this one (by Omega's definition, at least).

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001


[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited April 12, 2001).]
 




© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3