It's not just one piece, he has a history of opposing the bill of rights and the constitution. He's a far left liberal.
It's not that he helped give us a bad law, it's that he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on. The man should have been hung for that.
Exaggeration #1. Consider his positions on defense/national security, abortion, gun rights, government waste, not to mention bills he has voted against. If you really think McCain is a "far left liberal," Jörg Haider is a governor somewhere in Austria. Maybe he's got a cabinet slot open for you?
he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on.
Exaggeration #2. He co-authored a flawed but well-intentioned bill that BOTH HOUSES of Congress signed off on. He didn't take away a damned thing.
The man should have been hung for that.
Exaggeration #3. Unless of course, you truly believe that. In that case, I think Serbia or Liberia might be more your cup of tea in terms of political culture.
1 - McCain is anti-Gun. Check out the very restrictive and invasive gun law he helped push in Oregon back in 2000.
2 - Yes, he co-authored it. That makes him 50 percent responsible for a law that has taken away one of our most fundamental rights: Freedom of Speech. If you are denying that, then you are the one with a problem here.
3 - I feel that anyone who takes away our constitutional rights should be punished. The 'should be hung' is a figure of speech, true, but to call this man a conservative, when he is a far left liberal (in the American political system) is a falsehood.
1. Background checks are not invasive and only restrictive to people who have earned such restrictions. Actually, it was such a background check in Oregon that got an old friend of mine justifiably thrown in prison on Federal charges for buying handguns at gun shows with money given to him by gangbangers to buy the guns for them. I'm glad that law was in place to bust his ass
( ... )
Gun rights? He voted to ban guns because they looked scary. (AKA "Assault Weapons Ban")
Good intentions that trample all over the first amendment. To whit: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A law that says that US citizens can't say X about politics, in any form, made by congress, is a law abridging the freedom of speech, made by congress; saying that you can't make an add on a political subject, made by congress, is also illegal.
As for abortion, he's for using babies as fodder for scientific test subjects. Pardon while I *don't* rejoice in his view on slaughtering small humans, be it for eternal life or as birth control.
Defense: Amnesty, anyone?
BTW, you do know that capital punishment is allowed for treason, right?
Good intentions that trample all over the first amendment.
So if the First Amendment enables electoral behavior that allows the "speech" of the rich (or, say, in the case of Al Gore, Communist China) to count more than the "speech" of the poor or just not-as-rich in terms of untraceable political contributions, THAT is worth preserving? There's nothing there that needs fixing?
he's for using babies as fodder for scientific test subjects
Either you're making shit up, or you're pretending that embryonic stem cells = babies. Which they don't. I'm not in favor of federal funding for stem cell research myself, but at least be honest about the issue.
BTW, you do know that capital punishment is allowed for treason, right?
"Treason?" Really? Like, in all seriousness - are you just being a hyperbolic blowhard, or are you really trying to insinuate that McCain is a traitor?
Joy, so he only sold out one of our base rights for a little while! I am so relieved.....
You're either making shit up, or denying that all homo sapiens are humans/people-- I do not deny that any human is a person, having learned that lesson from history.
Golly, let me go read him justifying his view on making a bunch of criminals into not-criminals by removing the law...not. Sorry, no, voting to make a bunch of folks who didn't bother to follow immigration laws into citizens isn't kosher.
treason: the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
You'll note I didn't say anyone should be killed, but I did note that treason can be punished by death. He took an oath (twice, if you count his Service in the military) to uphold the Constitution. He then, in two forms, violated that oath with votes to cut chunks out of said Constitution. (without even bothering to follow the forms to adapt said Constitution)
Joy, so he only sold out one of our base rights for a little while! I am so relieved.....
Dude, that was 14 years ago. You DO understand his position has changed, right?
Sorry, no, voting to make a bunch of folks who didn't bother to follow immigration laws into citizens isn't kosher.
You're right, it isn't. But voting to give a bunch of folks who didn't bother to follow immigration laws into citizens IS NOT the same thing as voting to create limited opportunities for some folks who, up to now, didn't bother to follow immigration laws, to earn their citizenship in this country. This isn't something we can just hit the reset button on. A Tancredo-like "solution," though ultimately my preferred course of action, is just not a realistic approach to this problem.
You'll note I didn't say anyone should be killed, but I did note that treason can be punished by death.
What's the difference? You obviously think McCain committed atrocious crimes against the Constitution, shouldn't he pay for those crimes?
So if the First Amendment enables electoral behavior that allows the "speech" of the rich (or, say, in the case of Al Gore, Communist China) to count more than the "speech" of the poor or just not-as-rich in terms of untraceable political contributions, ...
Yes, it does. It has since the Founding, and it always will. The rich are always able to purchase a platform from which to be heard. Any attempt to restrict this inevitably winds up restricting the poor more than the rich, because the rich can also afford more lawyers. What's more, allowing the State to decide just which "speech" is "directly political" and hence under Campaign Finance restrictions creates an obvious and unavoidable moral hazard, because the party in power at the time can always interpret any campaign finance law against its opponents.
THAT is worth preserving?
Yes, because by destroying the right of the rich to speak, you also destroy the right of everybody else to speak.
There's nothing there that needs fixing?The only thing that needs "fixing" is your
( ... )
McCain-Feingold places limits on HOW groups and individuals may contribute to political campaigns. It DOES NOT prohibit ANYBODY from exercising their right to free speech through political contributions.
McCain-Feingold places limits on HOW groups and individuals may contribute to political campaigns. It DOES NOT prohibit ANYBODY from exercising their right to free speech through political contributions.
Sure it does.
Suppose that you have a TV or radio show. Now suppose that you express a political opinion which has the effect of favoring or opposing one or another candidate.
A Federal judge can rule, after the fact, that your speech (which, remember, cost someone money to put on the air) constituted a "contribution" to a "political campaign" and hence must be reported (and limited) under McCain-Feingold. This can lead to a felony prosecution.
Now, remember that this judge was, himself, appointed by a political party, is a member of a political party, and has his own political beliefs. Do you want to bet your fortune and your freedom on his neutrality in this judgement, especially if he happens to be of an opposing political party to your own? That is precisely what you will be doing
( ... )
No, because things like this have always happened when the bureaucracy or judiciary is given the right to regulate political speech. The moral hazard is simply too great.
Look at it from the viewpoint of the judge. If he chooses to prosecute the media outlet which is supporting his party's opponents, he risks very little personally. Even if he is honorable, he will logically see the arguments for his own political position as "reasonable, common sense" and the ones for his party's opponents as "special pleading, obviously bought and paid by Special Interests." This is even more the case if we're talking about criticism of his party's position, or (worse still) of politicians whom he probably knows personally.
Now, look at it from the viewpoint of the media owner or purchaser. If he gambles that the judge is honorable and reasonable, and he is wrong about this, then he will have to mount a costly defense, and if he fails he will be fined or imprisoned. Far easier, unless he is a really red-hot activist, to simply keep silent
( ... )
what do you imagine has happened between then and now to render this threat toothless?
A level of transparency unmatched anywhere else in the world.
This transparency exists in Canada and Europe: it did not protect David Irving in Austria, and it is not protecting MacLeans in Canada. And, it is unlikely to protect anyone who runs afoul of a local political machine, because:
1) Even if the prosecution were unsuccessful, the threat of having such an action launched against a publisher or media outlet would exert a chilling effect upon political involvement by persons in the media.
2) There would be no real way for the media entities sued to countersue, since the proscutors and judges involved could easily defend themselves with the immunities of their offices. So it could be repeated as many times as needed to bring the media entities down, and finally
3) Most people honestly don't pay that kind of detailed attention to politics. "Transparency" is nice, but it is meaningless if no one is bothering to look. Hence there would
( ... )
Reply
It's not that he helped give us a bad law, it's that he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on. The man should have been hung for that.
Reply
Exaggeration #1. Consider his positions on defense/national security, abortion, gun rights, government waste, not to mention bills he has voted against. If you really think McCain is a "far left liberal," Jörg Haider is a governor somewhere in Austria. Maybe he's got a cabinet slot open for you?
he took away a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that this country was founded on.
Exaggeration #2. He co-authored a flawed but well-intentioned bill that BOTH HOUSES of Congress signed off on. He didn't take away a damned thing.
The man should have been hung for that.
Exaggeration #3. Unless of course, you truly believe that. In that case, I think Serbia or Liberia might be more your cup of tea in terms of political culture.
Reply
2 - Yes, he co-authored it. That makes him 50 percent responsible for a law that has taken away one of our most fundamental rights: Freedom of Speech. If you are denying that, then you are the one with a problem here.
3 - I feel that anyone who takes away our constitutional rights should be punished. The 'should be hung' is a figure of speech, true, but to call this man a conservative, when he is a far left liberal (in the American political system) is a falsehood.
Reply
Reply
Good intentions that trample all over the first amendment. To whit:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A law that says that US citizens can't say X about politics, in any form, made by congress, is a law abridging the freedom of speech, made by congress; saying that you can't make an add on a political subject, made by congress, is also illegal.
As for abortion, he's for using babies as fodder for scientific test subjects. Pardon while I *don't* rejoice in his view on slaughtering small humans, be it for eternal life or as birth control.
Defense: Amnesty, anyone?
BTW, you do know that capital punishment is allowed for treason, right?
Reply
Good intentions that trample all over the first amendment.
So if the First Amendment enables electoral behavior that allows the "speech" of the rich (or, say, in the case of Al Gore, Communist China) to count more than the "speech" of the poor or just not-as-rich in terms of untraceable political contributions, THAT is worth preserving? There's nothing there that needs fixing?
he's for using babies as fodder for scientific test subjects
Either you're making shit up, or you're pretending that embryonic stem cells = babies. Which they don't. I'm not in favor of federal funding for stem cell research myself, but at least be honest about the issue.
Amnesty, anyone?
Hardly.
BTW, you do know that capital punishment is allowed for treason, right?
"Treason?" Really? Like, in all seriousness - are you just being a hyperbolic blowhard, or are you really trying to insinuate that McCain is a traitor?
If he's elected are you moving to France?
Reply
You're either making shit up, or denying that all homo sapiens are humans/people-- I do not deny that any human is a person, having learned that lesson from history.
Golly, let me go read him justifying his view on making a bunch of criminals into not-criminals by removing the law...not. Sorry, no, voting to make a bunch of folks who didn't bother to follow immigration laws into citizens isn't kosher.
treason: the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
You'll note I didn't say anyone should be killed, but I did note that treason can be punished by death.
He took an oath (twice, if you count his Service in the military) to uphold the Constitution. He then, in two forms, violated that oath with votes to cut chunks out of said Constitution. (without even bothering to follow the forms to adapt said Constitution)
Reply
Dude, that was 14 years ago. You DO understand his position has changed, right?
Sorry, no, voting to make a bunch of folks who didn't bother to follow immigration laws into citizens isn't kosher.
You're right, it isn't. But voting to give a bunch of folks who didn't bother to follow immigration laws into citizens IS NOT the same thing as voting to create limited opportunities for some folks who, up to now, didn't bother to follow immigration laws, to earn their citizenship in this country. This isn't something we can just hit the reset button on. A Tancredo-like "solution," though ultimately my preferred course of action, is just not a realistic approach to this problem.
You'll note I didn't say anyone should be killed, but I did note that treason can be punished by death.
What's the difference? You obviously think McCain committed atrocious crimes against the Constitution, shouldn't he pay for those crimes?
Reply
Yes, it does. It has since the Founding, and it always will. The rich are always able to purchase a platform from which to be heard. Any attempt to restrict this inevitably winds up restricting the poor more than the rich, because the rich can also afford more lawyers. What's more, allowing the State to decide just which "speech" is "directly political" and hence under Campaign Finance restrictions creates an obvious and unavoidable moral hazard, because the party in power at the time can always interpret any campaign finance law against its opponents.
THAT is worth preserving?
Yes, because by destroying the right of the rich to speak, you also destroy the right of everybody else to speak.
There's nothing there that needs fixing?The only thing that needs "fixing" is your ( ... )
Reply
McCain-Feingold places limits on HOW groups and individuals may contribute to political campaigns. It DOES NOT prohibit ANYBODY from exercising their right to free speech through political contributions.
Reply
Sure it does.
Suppose that you have a TV or radio show. Now suppose that you express a political opinion which has the effect of favoring or opposing one or another candidate.
A Federal judge can rule, after the fact, that your speech (which, remember, cost someone money to put on the air) constituted a "contribution" to a "political campaign" and hence must be reported (and limited) under McCain-Feingold. This can lead to a felony prosecution.
Now, remember that this judge was, himself, appointed by a political party, is a member of a political party, and has his own political beliefs. Do you want to bet your fortune and your freedom on his neutrality in this judgement, especially if he happens to be of an opposing political party to your own? That is precisely what you will be doing ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Look at it from the viewpoint of the judge. If he chooses to prosecute the media outlet which is supporting his party's opponents, he risks very little personally. Even if he is honorable, he will logically see the arguments for his own political position as "reasonable, common sense" and the ones for his party's opponents as "special pleading, obviously bought and paid by Special Interests." This is even more the case if we're talking about criticism of his party's position, or (worse still) of politicians whom he probably knows personally.
Now, look at it from the viewpoint of the media owner or purchaser. If he gambles that the judge is honorable and reasonable, and he is wrong about this, then he will have to mount a costly defense, and if he fails he will be fined or imprisoned. Far easier, unless he is a really red-hot activist, to simply keep silent ( ... )
Reply
A level of transparency unmatched anywhere else in the world.
And it's paranoid because you're ascribing extremist tendencies to an inherently moderate system.
Reply
A level of transparency unmatched anywhere else in the world.
This transparency exists in Canada and Europe: it did not protect David Irving in Austria, and it is not protecting MacLeans in Canada. And, it is unlikely to protect anyone who runs afoul of a local political machine, because:
1) Even if the prosecution were unsuccessful, the threat of having such an action launched against a publisher or media outlet would exert a chilling effect upon political involvement by persons in the media.
2) There would be no real way for the media entities sued to countersue, since the proscutors and judges involved could easily defend themselves with the immunities of their offices. So it could be repeated as many times as needed to bring the media entities down, and finally
3) Most people honestly don't pay that kind of detailed attention to politics. "Transparency" is nice, but it is meaningless if no one is bothering to look. Hence there would ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment