Right on, Martin:thumb: I'm beginning to believe that there are two types of people in the world: Rational and Irrational.
furthermore, needless restrictions almost always have unintended consequences. your big bad fat cats now will just contribute to these "527" organizations like swift boats for truth or moveon.org and contribute even less to intelligent discourse. so restricting money from the candidates just puts more money that ever before into these goofy organizations, who flood the airwaves and attempt to buy or influence policy in the same way that was supposedly so terrible it required regulation before. attempts to influence are fine, restrictions are bad. there are few issues more important, in my opinion, than freedom of speech, so this is something i rant about. and red, i am attacking your statements because i dislike mccain so much, and if i recall correctly, i think you are a big fan of his. i could be wrong there. but i think mccain is just so terrible that i go off like a madman on him and his fans.
i agree, and also i think red is mostly a rational dude, he just likes to hug the center too much. i think he likes to take the angle that he percieves as reasonable and centrist/moderate, merely because that particular opinion is not thought of as "extreme", and he dosent like to think of himself as an extremist. he operates under the misguided assumption that the midpoint between the extremes is right, when in truth it ia an arbitrary point defined by how far the lunatics on either side go.
First of all, freedom of speech is an individual right, not a collective right. Restricting the power of special interests does not restrict any individual's freedom of speech, period. Secondly, Freedom of speech was not even my gripe here. Today's rant was special interest political groups that have the money to simply buy direct access and influence with politicians that individual citizens do not have. Your imagination runs wild sometimes and you can't know what I am assuming, so I'll tell you. I don't operate under the assumption that a moderate postion must always be right, but that it is almost always more prudent. Furthermore, a moderate postition is not an arbitrary point nor necessarily a centrist point on the scale. Centrists must drive in the center of the road. Moderates can take the left or right lanes if it seems reasonable. Extremists are always at the mercy of the ditch and sometimes are way out there in the pasture. You, martin, are all politically over the road and in both pastures, careening wildly back and forth across my moderate and prudent path on the highway. I'm sure you are having great fun and enjoy unusual perspectives, but I feel I will reach the destination more efficiently and more assuredly. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
what? it is the same thing. of course it does. by restricting political contributions and political advertising from special interests (or anyone), you are clearly telling them what they are allowed to support via their words and money. you should never restrict people on the basis of the ideas whe are supporting, political or otherwise. not as an individual or as a group. you should never have a situation where a group of people can pay for an advertisement for the newest product, but not the candidate of their choice. what they support is not relevant. claiming it is is restriction of ideas and freedom of speech. speech should never be restrained due to content (with the obvious exceptions like yellin 'fire' in the theater). lets say i am a big supporter of gun rights. of course i would join the NRA, and i want to give money to the republican party so they can run ads trashing some democrat's record on guns. but i cant merely because we are pooling our recources? thats crazy. should i be allowed to give money as an individual, but not as a group? its the same thing, both times i am supporting a politcal policy, an idea, basically using money to make my voice louder. (incidentally i do not care about guns at all, it is a non-issue to me, this is only an example). then do not vote for those politicians, or join groups that favor your agenda and support your choices. you should never want to squelch a view you do not agree with. and this is where you and i disagree. i think a lot of people, including many of my friends, make this mistake. if we lived in a nazi state, and the two dominant parties were super-hardcore nazis and less severe nazis, would the midpoint detween them somehow be the most prudent? of course not, because the extremes are arbitrarily defining the center. my opinion is that maybe the correct moderate viewpoint lies somewhere between your views and the view of an anarcho capitalist, not between the arbitrary dominant extremes of today's political climate. some of that is true. my opinions do amuse me, but i think they are very consistent in that i favor less government intervention in peopl's lives in virtually all cases. neither democrats nor republicans can make that claim, because they are philosophically inconsistent. republicans because of stupid religion, and democrats because they are emotional do-gooder assclowns with a poor undertanding of human nature. there is a silly tendency to hate corporations or lobbyists or rich people or whoever is effective at getting their message across. i have no problem with anyone fighting to get their voice heard. even if they group themselves together into a PAC.
Mccain-feingold brings to light the core difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservative's foundational belief of an average american is one of intelligence, independence, and who can competently manage his or her's own existence. Liberals, while not quite polar opposite of the above view, is near to it. The underlying theme of mccain-feingold is "the average american is not capable, easily manipulated, unable to grasp and understand many differing opinions, thought. More precisely, "The average american must be protected from confusion." (of course, Mr. McCain and Mrs. Feingold know in thier hearts that they are part of a few who are blessed with the capability to sort through the mess) The foundational pillars of liberal beliefs is doomed to the scrap heap of history, especially with the natural progression of society--people will become only more savy, intelligent, independent-thinking. You can see the liberal ideology in its death throws everyday.
I see it too. As I can also see the death throes of ultraconservatism. The impending failure of Social Security downsizing is only the beginning. The snowballing budget deficits and unprecedented national debt is costing neoconservative credibility as much as its unnecessary wars. What will ultimately prevail will be reason and the demise of extremists. And reason inevitably results in a moderate ideology--pragmatic, balanced, tolerant, and enjoying widespread popular support from moderates on the right and the left. I think radicals on both sides, like Kennedy and Cheney, will diminish in influence and moderates like John McCain and Wesly Clark will be on the rise.
The problem with this statement is that you are implicitly accusing Bush of being conservative, when no true conservative would call him anything other than a panderer. A true conservative would slash social programs, reduce the size of government (rather than create a Homeland Security Agency), and stop the spending. We haven't really seen a true conservative in office because that would alienate 50-60% of the population. EDIT: We need Jack Ryan for President. I would have voted Clark for President. Not that liar Kerry or the ass Dean. That's where the Democrats went wrong. This really is a FSA thread...
i watched some of the baseball hearings yesterday. oh what a sad state of the government intervening we have reached. how many dollars were wasted getting that stupid meeting together? baseball already has the message from the people. nobody likes steroids, clean up the game. they dont need the government grandstanding around, trying to get tv face time. the government is telling baseball what baseball knows better than anyone. i want to remind the government that i didnt vote them into office so they could attempt to manipulate the RULES OF A GAME! cant the government allow anything to exist without feeling like it is theirs?
