Democrats hide pet projects from voters

[GaryC 7]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Edited June 4, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Sheriff Uling 3]

when ppl realize that most politicians are lying b@stards - regardless of what side of the political coin they are on, the world will be a better place.

Very true! Can you please say this louder because I don't thing the rest of the poeple heard you...

[Fandango 1,439]

when ppl realize that most politicians are lying b@stards - regardless of what side of the political coin they are on, the world will be a better place.

I think most people realize that already - the real problem is apathy, and the inability/unwillingness to actively do anything but perpetuate the status quo.

I dunno...I think the real problem is many people have blind partisanship...like all black and white...good and bad....batman and the joker....but what gets missed is that they are all manipulating the people at whim, and will continue to do so. Ooooh, my party is RIGHT which makes yours WRONG so neeeeeeeeener at you evil b@stards!

If you're a college student or around that age, sure....protest and do all that good stuff...I did. To this day I still get quite involved with things that really are close to my heart. But in the real world when bills need payin and jobs need working, there's not really much anyone can do to fight city hall. Sure you can petition and protest and write all the letters in the world and fight all the online political forum battles you want, but don't kid yourself...prolly won't change jack sh!t.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

You do realize how ridicules that sounds? Political speech has been this way since day one. None of this is new. Now you condone the restriction of one of our basic rights. Your selective outrage is very telling. I never want to hear you b!tch about Bush shredding the constitution again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

You do realize how ridicules that sounds? Political speech has been this way since day one. None of this is new. Now you condone the restriction of one of our basic rights. Your selective outrage is very telling. I never want to hear you b!tch about Bush shredding the constitution again.

I'm in two minds about that - is it really a free speech issue?

I mean, you need only look at regular (non-political) TV commercials - you can't just go and put on whatever you like.

I'm not for banning the ads - but I do think they should be reviewed by some sort of advertising standards body. I mean... there are laws governing defamation of character.

[GaryC 7]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

You do realize how ridicules that sounds? Political speech has been this way since day one. None of this is new. Now you condone the restriction of one of our basic rights. Your selective outrage is very telling. I never want to hear you b!tch about Bush shredding the constitution again.

I'm in two minds about that - is it really a free speech issue?

I mean, you need only look at regular (non-political) TV commercials - you can't just go and put on whatever you like.

I'm not for banning the ads - but I do think they should be reviewed by some sort of advertising standards body. I mean... there are laws governing defamation of character.

Political speech is a unique situation. If your talking about advertising then your in the realm of the "truth in advertising" laws. Political speech is fully protected. If you want someone to "review" political ads then you will be introducing a new way of one side or another to control it. There is no way to keep it fair. At some point one side or another will gain control over the review process and the other side will find itself restricted in a way the other side isn't. If that isn't a "slippery slope" then there isn't one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

You do realize how ridicules that sounds? Political speech has been this way since day one. None of this is new. Now you condone the restriction of one of our basic rights. Your selective outrage is very telling. I never want to hear you b!tch about Bush shredding the constitution again.

I'm in two minds about that - is it really a free speech issue?

I mean, you need only look at regular (non-political) TV commercials - you can't just go and put on whatever you like.

I'm not for banning the ads - but I do think they should be reviewed by some sort of advertising standards body. I mean... there are laws governing defamation of character.

Political speech is a unique situation. If your talking about advertising then your in the realm of the "truth in advertising" laws. Political speech is fully protected. If you want someone to "review" political ads then you will be introducing a new way of one side or another to control it. There is no way to keep it fair. At some point one side or another will gain control over the review process and the other side will find itself restricted in a way the other side isn't. If that isn't a "slippery slope" then there isn't one.

Well we can't really talk fairness - seeing as our political process is dominated by those with the most money who can run the biggest sleazebag campaigns to rubbish all and any opposition. While I would hope that people make judgements based on more than TV spot ads - the truth is advertising works and it carries pervasive messages.

I still wonder about all the people in the last election who wore rubber hands and followed the cries of "flip-flopper" to denounce Kerry. He may not have been the best candidate - but they didn't have anything more on him than that? Of course there's no cure for idiots, and you can't legislate for it.

[GaryC 7]

Well we can't really talk fairness - seeing as our political process is dominated by those with the most money who can run the biggest sleazebag campaigns to rubbish all and any opposition. While I would hope that people make judgements based on more than TV spot ads - the truth is advertising works and it carries pervasive messages.

I still wonder about all the people in the last election who wore rubber hands and followed the cries of "flip-flopper" to denounce Kerry. He may not have been the best candidate - but they didn't have anything more on him than that? Of course there's no cure for idiots, and you can't legislate for it.

That is the way our constitution is. You must take the bad with the good. When you start trying to fine tune it to make it "fair" you inevitably destroy it. I would hope that you would agree that the only way to avoid destroying our right to free political speech is to allow all speech whether you like or agree with it or not. It's up to the electorate to filter out the BS and make a informed decision.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well we can't really talk fairness - seeing as our political process is dominated by those with the most money who can run the biggest sleazebag campaigns to rubbish all and any opposition. While I would hope that people make judgements based on more than TV spot ads - the truth is advertising works and it carries pervasive messages.

I still wonder about all the people in the last election who wore rubber hands and followed the cries of "flip-flopper" to denounce Kerry. He may not have been the best candidate - but they didn't have anything more on him than that? Of course there's no cure for idiots, and you can't legislate for it.

That is the way our constitution is. You must take the bad with the good. When you start trying to fine tune it to make it "fair" you inevitably destroy it. I would hope that you would agree that the only way to avoid destroying our right to free political speech is to allow all speech whether you like or agree with it or not. It's up to the electorate to filter out the BS and make a informed decision.

Well as I said above - you can't legislate for stupidity. Anyone would who make a voting decision purely on the basis of a political campaign ad, is frankly an idiot IMO.

[GaryC 7]

Well we can't really talk fairness - seeing as our political process is dominated by those with the most money who can run the biggest sleazebag campaigns to rubbish all and any opposition. While I would hope that people make judgements based on more than TV spot ads - the truth is advertising works and it carries pervasive messages.

I still wonder about all the people in the last election who wore rubber hands and followed the cries of "flip-flopper" to denounce Kerry. He may not have been the best candidate - but they didn't have anything more on him than that? Of course there's no cure for idiots, and you can't legislate for it.

That is the way our constitution is. You must take the bad with the good. When you start trying to fine tune it to make it "fair" you inevitably destroy it. I would hope that you would agree that the only way to avoid destroying our right to free political speech is to allow all speech whether you like or agree with it or not. It's up to the electorate to filter out the BS and make a informed decision.

Well as I said above - you can't legislate for stupidity. Anyone would who make a voting decision purely on the basis of a political campaign ad, is frankly an idiot IMO.

But do you agree that restricting political speech is a dangerous thing to do? I.E. the McCain Feingold law?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well we can't really talk fairness - seeing as our political process is dominated by those with the most money who can run the biggest sleazebag campaigns to rubbish all and any opposition. While I would hope that people make judgements based on more than TV spot ads - the truth is advertising works and it carries pervasive messages.

I still wonder about all the people in the last election who wore rubber hands and followed the cries of "flip-flopper" to denounce Kerry. He may not have been the best candidate - but they didn't have anything more on him than that? Of course there's no cure for idiots, and you can't legislate for it.

That is the way our constitution is. You must take the bad with the good. When you start trying to fine tune it to make it "fair" you inevitably destroy it. I would hope that you would agree that the only way to avoid destroying our right to free political speech is to allow all speech whether you like or agree with it or not. It's up to the electorate to filter out the BS and make a informed decision.

Well as I said above - you can't legislate for stupidity. Anyone would who make a voting decision purely on the basis of a political campaign ad, is frankly an idiot IMO.

But do you agree that restricting political speech is a dangerous thing to do? I.E. the McCain Feingold law?

I'd need to read up on the proposal.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

You do realize how ridicules that sounds? Political speech has been this way since day one. None of this is new. Now you condone the restriction of one of our basic rights. Your selective outrage is very telling. I never want to hear you b!tch about Bush shredding the constitution again.

Gary, are you saying the making defamatory claims about a political opponent is protected free speech? And if you agree that it is NOT protected free speech - how do you enforce that duirng a political campaign? Do you want the candidates to be immersed in libel suits instead of trying to get their message out?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well we can't really talk fairness - seeing as our political process is dominated by those with the most money who can run the biggest sleazebag campaigns to rubbish all and any opposition. While I would hope that people make judgements based on more than TV spot ads - the truth is advertising works and it carries pervasive messages.

I still wonder about all the people in the last election who wore rubber hands and followed the cries of "flip-flopper" to denounce Kerry. He may not have been the best candidate - but they didn't have anything more on him than that? Of course there's no cure for idiots, and you can't legislate for it.

That is the way our constitution is. You must take the bad with the good. When you start trying to fine tune it to make it "fair" you inevitably destroy it. I would hope that you would agree that the only way to avoid destroying our right to free political speech is to allow all speech whether you like or agree with it or not. It's up to the electorate to filter out the BS and make a informed decision.

Well as I said above - you can't legislate for stupidity. Anyone would who make a voting decision purely on the basis of a political campaign ad, is frankly an idiot IMO.

But do you agree that restricting political speech is a dangerous thing to do? I.E. the McCain Feingold law?

I'd need to read up on the proposal.

Here's some info on it...

A provision in the McCain-Feingold law that requires candidates to personally declare their approval of any commercial calling for their election likewise covers radio, television and satellite broadcasts but not the Internet. And organizations whose campaign war chests are stuffed with large lump sums of unregulated soft money raised from special-interest groups will be able to spend with abandon on ads distributed by e-mail or posted on Web sites even though they will have to hold their fire in the broadcast media after Sept. 2.

One of the few political advertising regulations that reach Web sites is an FEC rule covering public communications by authorized campaign committees. Campaign messages posted on political committee Web sites or unsolicited campaign e-mails sent to more than 500 addresses must contain a note that the message was paid for by the committee. Other than that, all's fair in political ads on the Internet.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1094004108.php

[GaryC 7]

McCain and Feingold also seriously damaged our First Ammendment rights by preventing ads which specifically mention members of Congress by name within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Voters should be able to hear what their representatives are doing.

I don't agree. Political ads should be about a politician spreading their message - letting voters know what it is that they stand for. The negative campaign ads stretch the truth at best about their opponent and the name of the game is if you can instill enough doubt in the voters about your opponent, they'll vote for you or not vote at all. I had a professor in college call it passive nihilism - people making choices not based on believing in someone or something, but as a reaction against something. Psychologically - it is very effective and that's why campaign strategists do it - but it comes at a cost to us all.

I see, restricting our first amendment rights to political speech is fine with you but wiretaps to combat terrorism is tearing apart our constitution? Is that fence that your straddling chafing yet?

Free speech doesn't protect someone from making defamatory claims about their political opponent, particularly without letting them have a rebuttal - that's where I see the problem with negative political ads - there is no way for those claims to be challenged except by making different ads and then the voter is left thinking they can't believe any of the candidates. Let them sling it out in the debates, but not through ads. It would be very costly for politicians to file libel suits against one another over false claims made in political ads, and it's rather slimy and slick to make exaggerated or false claims because regardless of whether those claims can be verified or not - the seeds of doubt have been planted into the minds of voters. That's not free speech in my book, just dirty campaigning.

You do realize how ridicules that sounds? Political speech has been this way since day one. None of this is new. Now you condone the restriction of one of our basic rights. Your selective outrage is very telling. I never want to hear you b!tch about Bush shredding the constitution again.

Gary, are you saying the making defamatory claims about a political opponent is protected free speech? And if you agree that it is NOT protected free speech - how do you enforce that duirng a political campaign? Do you want the candidates to be immersed in libel suits instead of trying to get their message out?

All political speech is protected. What one side considers defamatory the other side contends that it informing us of the other candidates past. I assume you are talking about Kerry and the swiftboats. While I didn't agree with those ads I do support their right to air it. We cannot start making judgment calls on what is legit speech and what isn't. There is to much at stake to start cutting back on our constitutional freedoms. I am serious here Steven, please take a close look at what you are stating here. This is our most valuable freedom and we cannot restrict it in any way or we risk loosing it all together. It isn't a partisan issue, it is protecting our very freedoms.