Bush says Democrats shouldn't be trusted - Page 4

kinggovernor · 10-03-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Tell me how this makes any sense what so ever....

He has spent $6,751,500 of his own money to unseat the 18-year incumbent.

Ned Lemont so far, today, has spent 6.7 million of his own money for a job that pays 150,000 a year. How stupid is that.

Pete Ricketts, running for senate in Nebraska is rumored to hit 10 million of his own money by the time this thing is done...

The shit doesn't add up.

power and prestige means more to some people than money

Kytro · 10-03-2006, 10:20 PM

Politicans should not be trusted, not unless they have proven themselves.

Also honestly, what is Bush going to say? "The Democracts are trustworthy and could do the job well" ?

KatKanPlay · 10-03-2006, 10:32 PM

And the pot calls the kettle black.....

motivez · 10-04-2006, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

power and prestige means more to some people than money

The power to do what they think is right and being able to effect more change than they would otherwise is probably a huge lure I would think.

And I mean, if you're already THAT rich.. like Lamont, are you really going to miss it if you win? Or lose?

I mean, might suck to say "Shit, I've blown a few million dollars", but if you have another few million dollars lying around earning a crapload of interest.. you're probably not going to be too heartbroken over it if you lose.

Diesel66 · 10-04-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How does it restrict your freedom of speach?

I cannot run/donate to political ads within 60 days of an election. But news agencies can tell you how to vote on election day. Seems like a perfect example of restricting free speech

Scrum · 10-04-2006, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

I cannot run/donate to political ads within 60 days of an election. But news agencies can tell you how to vote on election day. Seems like a perfect example of restricting free speech

Sure you can. They do it all the time.

You also have no right to run an ad on tv, but I didn't need to point that out.

It's not a free speach issue that I can't be on tv to promote whatever I want.

Diesel66 · 10-05-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Sure you can. They do it all the time.

Actually no you cant. Read the law, within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary private citizens arent allowed to run ads advocating a candidate.

You also have no right to run an ad on tv, but I didn't need to point that out.

It's not a free speach issue that I can't be on tv to promote whatever I want.

But it is free speech when the govt bans you from running ads.

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Actually no you cant. Read the law, within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary private citizens arent allowed to run ads advocating a candidate.

You can still run an ad through a 527 group as far as I know.

Originally Posted by Diesel66

But it is free speech when the govt bans you from running ads.

No it's not.

If they told you that you couldn't hold up signs on your property it would be a speech issue. You have no constitutional right to run an ad on television.

lew · 10-05-2006, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You can still run an ad through a 527 group as far as I know.

No it's not.

If they told you that you couldn't hold up signs on your property it would be a speech issue. You have no constitutional right to run an ad on television.

The only time you don't have a right to run an ad on TV is when the broadcasting company chooses not to run your ad. The government has no business telling the company which ads they can run and not run.

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by lew

The only time you don't have a right to run an ad on TV is when the broadcasting company chooses not to run your ad.

No, there is no right to do it. If you want to argue that the tv station has a right to decide what and when it runs ads i'll agree. But to say that you have a right to run an ad is silly. You have no such right.

And the whole thing is moot since a 527 can still run ads.

lew · 10-05-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No, there is no right to do it. If you want to argue that the tv station has a right to decide what and when it runs ads i'll agree. But to say that you have a right to run an ad is silly. You have no such right.

We don't have a right to run ads. But the tv company does have that right. And this is what this is about - the government telling the tv companies they cannot run these ads. That's wrong.

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by lew

We don't have a right to run ads. But the tv company does have that right. And this is what this is about - the government telling the tv companies they cannot run these ads. That's wrong.

That I will agree with.

Diesel66 · 10-05-2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You can still run an ad through a 527 group as far as I know.

No it's not.

If they told you that you couldn't hold up signs on your property it would be a speech issue. You have no constitutional right to run an ad on television.

It is the federal govt telling citizens they cannot talk about politics. It is a perfect example of freespeech.

This law makes it ok for News agencies to tell you who to vote for, it allows big pocketed groups to buy ads but the average person cannot. How can any citizen be for the law ?

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It is the federal govt telling citizens they cannot talk about politics. It is a perfect example of freespeech.

This law makes it ok for News agencies to tell you who to vote for, it allows big pocketed groups to buy ads but the average person cannot. How can any citizen be for the law ?

Since you obviously don't read my posts, this is my last response.

The feds aren't telling citizens they can't talk about politics. Talk away. Get on a soapbox in front of your house and yell until you can yell no more. Free speech intact. You have no right to run an ad on television.

tbone · 10-06-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy

Bush says Democrats shouldn't be trusted

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

liberalsuck · 10-06-2006, 05:26 PM

The feds aren't telling citizens they can't talk about politics. Talk away. Get on a soapbox in front of your house and yell until you can yell no more. Free speech intact. You have no right to run an ad on television.[/quote]

A horrible law written by a democrat and impostor 'republican.' This is not rocket science.. Everybody knows the mainstream media are liberal - except for Fox and TBN. And their combined viewership completely obscures both conservative talk-radio and Fox. So all the news anchors and shows can do what they do best, and that is smear republicans. Without the nuisance of opposing viewpoints and facts. When liberals have that kind of power, free-speech is a one-way street. Instead of trying to compete the American way, they behave like dictators and tyrants. Just more obvious commonsense.

Scrum · 10-06-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by liberalsuck

A horrible law written by a democrat and a impostor 'republican.' This is not rocket science.. Everybody knows the mainstream media are liberal - except for Fox and TBN. And their combined viewership completely obscures both conservative talk radio and Fox. So all the news anchors and shows can do what they do best, and that is smear republicans. Without the nuisance of opposing viewpoints and facts. When liberals have that kind of power, free-speech is a one-way street. Instead of trying to compete the American way, they behave like dictators and tyrants. Just more obvious commonsense.

KatKanPlay · 10-06-2006, 05:30 PM

When liberals have that kind of power, free-speech is a one-way street. Instead of trying to compete the American way, they behave like dictators and tyrants. Just more obvious commonsense.

And you support that statement with?????

DosEquis · 10-06-2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Must be an ae ... way to good to be true.

Scrum · 10-06-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

And you support that statement with?????

I'm not seeing any support for any statements.