MAYDAY.US: Reclaim Democracy

PrintSmith wrote: You want to give me a vote on how you spend your money Z? Or the ability to pass a law determining how you spend your money? Of course not, yet that is precisely what the Congress tried to do - put their hands on money that belonged to someone else and say that the money couldn't be spent disseminating their political speech. That's whey the law was overturned, because the money not commandeered by the government in taxes belongs to the person to spend in any manner they choose to spend it. Why is personal property, pardon me, personal property that belongs to someone else, such a hard concept to grasp for some?

Once again, PrintSmith, you convolute what's being put out there. I don't give a hoot what you spend your money on for private purposes. Elections are a whole different ball game as far as I'm concerned. Your "contributions" to an election campaign should fall under certain restrictions and regulations. That's my perspective. That's my opinion. That won't change.

And once again you prove yourself incapable of differentiating between money donated to a campaign, which is still subject to federal regulations even after the Citizens United decision, and money spent disseminating one's own political speech. That was why I asked the question earlier if you saw a difference between a postcard sent out by a candidate advocating their own election and a postcard sent out by myself, using my own money, advocating for that same candidate. If you see no difference between the two there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you on the matter because you would have demonstrated yourself incapable of drawing a distinction between my exercise of my 1st Amendment rights and money donated by me to be used as a candidate wished to use it.

When I decide to spend my money as I see fit in the exercise of my rights protected by the 1st Amendment, neither the Congress nor you has any authority to limit how much of it I may spend, that is the substance of the Citizens United decision. It is my money being used to disseminate my views and neither you, nor Congress, gets to stick their noses into my business.

In closing, it is you who is trying to convolute what is a clear and bright distinction by lumping together individuals advocating their views and candidates advocating for themselves.

PrintSmith wrote: And once again you prove yourself incapable of differentiating between money donated to a campaign, which is still subject to federal regulations even after the Citizens United decision, and money spent disseminating one's own political speech. That was why I asked the question earlier if you saw a difference between a postcard sent out by a candidate advocating their own election and a postcard sent out by myself, using my own money, advocating for that same candidate. If you see no difference between the two there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you on the matter because you would have demonstrated yourself incapable of drawing a distinction between my exercise of my 1st Amendment rights and money donated by me to be used as a candidate wished to use it.

When I decide to spend my money as I see fit in the exercise of my rights protected by the 1st Amendment, neither the Congress nor you has any authority to limit how much of it I may spend, that is the substance of the Citizens United decision. It is my money being used to disseminate my views and neither you, nor Congress, gets to stick their noses into my business.

In closing, it is you who is trying to convolute what is a clear and bright distinction by lumping together individuals advocating their views and candidates advocating for themselves.

I don't think so, PrintSmith. As has been amply demonstrated in this thread, other threads, and other sites, you and I simply have differing views on this subject and others, as well. You won't convince me otherwise. I won't convince you otherwise.

I've read the majority opinion on Citizens United, as I'm sure you also have. Nothing in it has changed my views. Why would you be able to change them, then?

You mistake my intent Z. it isn't to alter your view, necessarily. Rather it is to point out your attempts to deceive others, including yourself, when you accuse them of trying to convolute an issue when in fact you are the one trying to conflate two clearly distinct actions. My intent is also to demonstrate the lack of reasoning necessary to hold such a view. You are free to be as irrational as you wish to be, but you shouldn't expect others who are rational to be silent about it.

PrintSmith wrote: You mistake my intent Z. it isn't to alter your view, necessarily. Rather it is to point out your attempts to deceive others, including yourself, when you accuse them of trying to convolute an issue when in fact you are the one trying to conflate two clearly distinct actions. My intent is also to demonstrate the lack of reasoning necessary to hold such a view. You are free to be as irrational as you wish to be, but you shouldn't expect others who are rational to be silent about it.

I'm simply not going to play this game any longer with you P. You accuse me of using deceit. I accuse you of doing the same. Tit for tat. It accomplishes nothing.

The difference being that I have reason and logic upon which to rest my premise while you lack both and rely solely on what you believe, which settles the "tit for tat". That you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between myself advocating for a candidate using my own resources and a candidate advocating for themselves using resources given to them by others demonstrates on its own merits which of the two of us is attempting to convolute the issue.

So say you. That doesn't make you right and me wrong. Nor does it make me right and you wrong. You just seem steadfast in your "need" to prove your superiority, which, BTW, I do not accept.

As I said Z, the need to conflate what is clearly distinctly separate in order to maintain an appearance is all the proof one needs to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from deception. You don't have to accept that the world is round, but that won't make it flat instead.