ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 1st amendment issues , aclu

Reply
Old 8th March 2019, 10:11 AM   #1
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Democrat Party Out to Gut the 1st Amendment

HR 1 of the new Congress is as outrageous an attack on the First Amendment as one will every see.

It bears the Orwellian name of "For the People Act." With an insipid name like that you are sure to know it is a total scam.

Even the ACLU felt compelled to weigh in:

"If enacted, they would violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. Unless those provisions are fixed, we will oppose H.R. 1 and recommend that members of Congress vote against it."

-the ACLU

The leftist grifters in the House are the greatest threat to fundamental human rights of speech and association in the United States today.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 8th March 2019 at 10:29 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:14 AM   #2
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Democratic party.

Do you think you could substantiate some of your threads and posts with, you know, information?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:17 AM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Democratic party.
Delicious tears.

Quote:
Do you think you could substantiate some of your threads and posts with, you know, information?
House Bill 1 of the current Congress (the 116th, by the way), named the For the People Act, turns out to be ridiculously easy to google.

ETA: Here's the text.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...se-bill/1/text

It's a long-ass bill, though, so I think TBD still owes us some specifics.

Last edited by theprestige; 8th March 2019 at 10:19 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:18 AM   #4
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,588
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
HB 1 of the new Congress is as outrageous an attack on the First Amendment as one will every see.
Did you mean H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...s/house-bill/1

It's a big bill. Which parts don't you like?

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:20 AM   #5
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
House Bill 1 of the current Congress (the 116th, by the way), named the For the People Act, turns out to be ridiculously easy to google.
Sure, but if someone is going to make claim they ought to at least try and provide some information about that claim. At least enough that might interest me in googling it.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:20 AM   #6
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
House Bill 1 of the current Congress (the 116th, by the way), named the For the People Act, turns out to be ridiculously easy to google.
Maybe but when making a thread it's customary and polite to ensure that everyone knows what you're talking about.

I'm also not reading all that legalese. What's it about?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:22 AM   #7
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,588
https://www.aclu-tn.org/congress-let...eeded-reforms/
Quote:
As currently drafted, the For the People Act of 2019 violates the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public-interest organizations.

Members of Congress are expected to vote this week on H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019. There is a lot to like about the bill.
The ACLU's letter;
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-let...committee-hr-1

Last edited by Ranb; 8th March 2019 at 10:23 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:22 AM   #8
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Did you mean H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...s/house-bill/1
Congress.gov refers to it as House Bill 1 in the URL you provided.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:23 AM   #9
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,593
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Maybe but when making a thread it's customary and polite to ensure that everyone knows what you're talking about.

I'm also not reading all that legalese. What's it about?
The first few sections in the table of contents seem to be about voter registration and access to the polls. But I gave up before I even got through the TOC.

So yeah, I'm in the "TBD owes us more detail" camp on this one.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:24 AM   #10
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Here is a fine article outlining the numerous problems with the idiotic bill, beyond its gloriously stupid name:

you tax dollars will subsidize politicians you do not like

"Violating your First Amendment rights isn’t “for the people.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization typically in support of the policies advanced by the Democratic Party, opposes this bill because of the many provisions in H.R. 1 that would “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.”
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:25 AM   #11
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Ah, so the bill tries to help people vote but is not worded properly and thus could be seen to violate the First Amendment rights of some groups.

Thanks TBD. I didn't actually expect you to misrepresent the issue so badly.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:26 AM   #12
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,588
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Congress.gov refers to it as House Bill 1 in the URL you provided.
The text I wrote is copy/paste from the link I provided.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:32 AM   #13
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,614
I'm sort of glad that the opening post is the opening post -- free of topic drift and what have you -- so I can get on a fog-free soapbox for a moment...

The OP is finely distilled example of a particular style of posting that I hold in low regard. I don't object to the insults directed at a group of people per se. Nor do I object to citing a third party opinion about the measure. What's objectionable is the lack of a citation to the text in question. And even then, a mere link doesn't cut it. I want to see a quote of the precise text that is considered objectionable, without having to click through a series of Bacon-esque links. It's a recipe for non-communicative posturing.

"The measure doesn't say that."
"Yes it does, you didn't read it".
"Yes I did and...". Etc.

By default, I trust the ACLU more than I trust the Democrats. I won't be surprised if, once I read up, that I agree with the OP/ACLU. Still, I don't think it's a lot to ask that when someone claims that text T is objectionable, that T be quoted.

ADD: Funny enough, I composed this before there were any replies to the OP. See what I mean?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 8th March 2019 at 10:35 AM.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:36 AM   #14
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Free speech analysis of the monstrous power grab

The democrats will gut the right to free speech and slap you in the face with an insipid name while doing it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:39 AM   #15
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,682
So ironic that this thread is just days after a Republican, in a much higher position of power, literally attacked the First Amendment directly (as well as the 6th).

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...227203134.html

Quote:
Twice in the past two weeks, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has written alarming opinions that call into question fundamental constitutional protections. In one, he disputed the right to counsel for those accused of crimes; in the other he called for revisiting fundamental press freedoms established more than 50 years ago.

That's right. A Supreme Court justice is arguing that:

Quote:
In his opinion, thankfully not joined by any other justice, he called into question what is generally regarded as the most important freedom of speech decision in American history: New York Times vs. Sullivan.

The ruling made it difficult for those holding or running for public office to recover for defamation, on the principle that the fear of such judgments could inhibit a vigorous free press.

Basically he says it should be legal for someone like Trump to ****** SUE the press at will.

The OP would have you believe that Democrats are out to gut the 1st amendment in some weird twisted backhanded way while freedom of the press is being attacked directly by a Supreme Court justice and the ******* President ?!



Oh wait!! This thread isn't ironic. It is exactly what the Repugnicans have been running damage control with for years now. After getting caught doing X, they immediately find an example of the other side doing something even remotely similar and them hammer it to death.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:41 AM   #16
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
The good news? This grandstanding ploy will not pass the Senate and will never become law.

But the threat of it alone reveals the sneering contempt that the house democrats have for free speech and also reveals that the democrat party thinks that its supporters are idiots.

For the People act: deliver us from totalitarian leftists.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 10:45 AM   #17
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
So ironic that this thread is just days after a Republican, in a much higher position of power, literally attacked the First Amendment directly (as well as the 6th)..
Gaze upon the first of what will surely be many attempts to seduce you with spectacular whataboutism.

Ask yourself why leftists are always so desperate to derail any discussion of the Bill.

The good news? Actual skeptics should be as profoundly disgusted by fallacious arguments designed to seduce the feeble minded as they should be by this bill
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 11:41 AM   #18
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Free speech analysis of the monstrous power grab

The democrats will gut the right to free speech and slap you in the face with an insipid name while doing it.
Power grab? What are you babbling about?

Your comment is ripe for whataboutisms.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 11:43 AM   #19
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Gaze upon the first of what will surely be many attempts to seduce you with spectacular whataboutism.
See my previous post. What did you expect? You spent years defending people who attack the foundations of freedoms in your country, and then complain when people point out your hypocrisy?

Cry me a river.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 11:50 AM   #20
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,346
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Democratic party.

Do you think you could substantiate some of your threads and posts with, you know, information?
TBD does not do evidence.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 11:56 AM   #21
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,234
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
TBD does not do evidence.
I disagree.

He does evidence the same way a dog does your leg.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:14 PM   #22
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,567
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Here is a fine article outlining the numerous problems with the idiotic bill, beyond its gloriously stupid name:

[/url]
Do you have any idea what you are actually objecting to or is this yet another case of some right-wing nut-bar telling you to be outraged and so you are?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:14 PM   #23
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Here is a fine article outlining the numerous problems with the idiotic bill, beyond its gloriously stupid name:

you tax dollars will subsidize politicians you do not like

"Violating your First Amendment rights isn’t “for the people.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization typically in support of the policies advanced by the Democratic Party, opposes this bill because of the many provisions in H.R. 1 that would “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.”
To anyone who hasn't read the article... it was written by a Republican congress-critter. So, expect it to be biased.

One of the major problems with the article is that it makes it sound like the ACLU is completely against it, which is incorrect. The ACLU actually approves of much of what the bill contains (restoring voter rights, redistricting reform, etc.) They even like some of the requirements for additional disclosure of "dark money" campaign contributions. Where the ACLU claims the bill may have gone too far is that it might require disclosure of donations in non-political settings.

The republican-written article seems to focus on 2 complaints:

- That the government would be matching donations made by small political contributors. (e.g. donate $1 to the Trump re-election campaign, and the government would kick in $7.) The idea is to try to curb some of the influence that big money donors have in the campaign.

- It has the federal government take over much of the electoral process. The article makes the claim that "the states know what's best for its own citizens", but the fact is, the real complaint is that it will limit the ability of the Republicans to influence elections through Gerrymandering and voter suppression.

It should be noted that even though the author of the article as mentioned that the ACLU opposes this bill, none of the complaints made by the author are issues that the ACLU has a problem with (at least in a letter they sent to congress.) So, this particular column is more than a little misleading.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...act-bills-much
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-let...committee-hr-1
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 8th March 2019 at 12:16 PM.
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:15 PM   #24
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,567
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
TBD does not do evidence.
Or even knowledge of what his own argument is.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:32 PM   #25
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,435
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
HR 1 of the new Congress is as outrageous an attack on the First Amendment as one will every see.

It bears the Orwellian name of "For the People Act." With an insipid name like that you are sure to know it is a total scam.

Even the ACLU felt compelled to weigh in:

"If enacted, they would violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. Unless those provisions are fixed, we will oppose H.R. 1 and recommend that members of Congress vote against it."

-the ACLU

The leftist grifters in the House are the greatest threat to fundamental human rights of speech and association in the United States today.
Well then, I guess we are so very lucky to have someone around like 'The Big Dog' to watch out for us.

I just don't know what we would do without his incredible intelligence and vigilance.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 BobTheCoward said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:33 PM   #26
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Or even knowledge of what his own argument is.
Missed the reference to the ACLU's objections, did ya? or the article I linked to from the Free speech society.

The Big Dog does evidence, the leftists don't bother to read it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:36 PM   #27
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Missed the reference to the ACLU's objections, did ya? or the article I linked to from the Free speech society.

The Big Dog does evidence, the leftists don't bother to read it.
Your problem is that they did read it and found that you weren't being truthful.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:36 PM   #28
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Missed the reference to the ACLU's objections, did ya? or the article I linked to from the Free speech society.

The Big Dog does evidence, the leftists don't bother to read it.
I noted the reference to the ACLU objections.

I also noted the fact that the ACLU actually liked a lot of what was actually in the bill, and the things that the ACLU was objecting about had very little to do with what the republican-written article in The Hill was complaining about.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:40 PM   #29
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I noted the reference to the ACLU objections.

I also noted the fact that the ACLU actually liked a lot of what was actually in the bill, and the things that the ACLU was objecting about had very little to do with what the republican-written article in The Hill was complaining about.
HI! Sometimes people cite different articles to highlight different problems. That makes two articles, or three, or sometimes more.

You see there are lots of problems with the Bill.

and now we have learned something.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:43 PM   #30
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
HI! Sometimes people cite different articles to highlight different problems.
Others don't cite anything at all in order to control the narrative.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:49 PM   #31
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,161
Unsurprisingly, the bill doesn't say anything like what TBD is claiming.

The portions that seem to most offend him don't really stop anyone from speaking. They just impose requirements on identifying the speaker. One may have a right to free speech, but that's a very different thing than a right to anonymity. The voter's right to know who is funding a candidate (or a cause) is, in my estimation, greater than the right of wealthy, coordinated organizations to influence the vote from the shadows. They can still try to influence the vote, they just have to do it in the light.

Some other portion might offend TBD as well, but he's been so vague about just exactly what he dislikes in the bill that it's impossible to know.


ETA: In any case, the bill is going exactly nowhere in the Senate until at least January 2021. I imagine it'll go through some revisions during that time.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 8th March 2019 at 12:55 PM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:50 PM   #32
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,575
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
HI! Sometimes people cite different articles to highlight different problems. That makes two articles, or three, or sometimes more.

You see there are lots of problems with the Bill.

and now we have learned something.
Yes, we learned that the republican author of the article appearing in The Hill was a deceptive scumbag. But then we probably already suspected as much.

The 'problems' mentioned in the Hill article are not exactly problems, since federal control of the electoral process would not affect anyone's first amendment rights (in fact it would likely protect them).

It should also be noted that the second article, while it does support some of the concerns that the ACLU has over disclosure, also fails to complain about the issue of either federal control over elections, or for the matching contribution provisions.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:51 PM   #33
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Unsurprisingly, the bill doesn't say anything like what TBD is claiming.
Oh really, regale the readership with what I am saying and how the bill doesn't say that.

Difficulty level: I am repeating and relying on what the ACLU and others are saying.

Should be a treat, and I look forward to you supporting the claim you just lobbed in my direction. REGALE ME!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:53 PM   #34
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes, we learned that the republican author of the article appearing in The Hill was a deceptive scumbag. But then we probably already suspected as much.

The 'problems' mentioned in the Hill article are not exactly problems, since federal control of the electoral process would not affect anyone's first amendment rights (in fact it would likely protect them).

It should also be noted that the second article, while it does support some of the concerns that the ACLU has over disclosure, also fails to complain about the issue of either federal control over elections, or for the matching contribution provisions.
we did, did we?

I did chuckle at how you basically repeated what i just said, tho.

Should I post another article about other problems the stupid bill has, that are not even mentioned by the ACLU, or will that confuse you too.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:55 PM   #35
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,030
Tbdds is activated
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:01 PM   #36
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh really, regale the readership with what I am saying and how the bill doesn't say that.
Perhaps if you read the thread for comprehension, that would help.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:10 PM   #37
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Unsurprisingly, the bill doesn't say anything like what TBD is claiming.

The portions that seem to most offend him don't really stop anyone from speaking. They just impose requirements on identifying the speaker. One may have a right to free speech, but that's a very different thing than a right to anonymity. The voter's right to know who is funding a candidate (or a cause) is, in my estimation, greater than the right of wealthy, coordinated organizations to influence the vote from the shadows. They can still try to influence the vote, they just have to do it in the light.

Some other portion might offend TBD as well, but he's been so vague about just exactly what he dislikes in the bill that it's impossible to know.


ETA: In any case, the bill is going exactly nowhere in the Senate until at least January 2021. I imagine it'll go through some revisions during that time.
Oh, I reckon that there was a bit more that was eta'd, huh folks?

Does not stop them from speaking? Now folks, does that sound like a Constitutional Inquiry? No, it does not. And of course, the big dog never made such a claim, did i. No i did not.

The idiotically named act imposes onerous requirements that will have the effect of chilling (now there is a Constitutional concern!) on people and their participation in the process.

Dox the People Act!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:13 PM   #38
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,613
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh, I reckon that there was a bit more that was eta'd, huh folks?

Does not stop them from speaking? Now folks, does that sound like a Constitutional Inquiry? No, it does not. And of course, the big dog never made such a claim, did i. No i did not.

The idiotically named act imposes onerous requirements that will have the effect of chilling (now there is a Constitutional concern!) on people and their participation in the process.

Dox the People Act!
It's really interesting to see the difference between the (general) tribal reactions here.

When Republicans do something considered wrong, the leftists on this website get outraged and angry. When Liberals do something considered wrong, the rightists dance and laugh. It's almost as if they're happy to see the other side be as dirty as their own, rather than genuinely being angry by the actions.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:27 PM   #39
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
... And of course, the big dog never made such a claim, did i. No i did not.



...!
That is the core of the problem: you're a ******* no-claimer.

You fail to make a claim and support it with citations and reasoned argument. Much like any of the left-over 9/11 Truthers I run into on Facebook
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 01:40 PM   #40
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,222
It looks like the ACLU is concerned that their donors and other groups with people who contribute to certain causes but the organization has other causes they work on, revealing the donors could make it look like uninvolved people donated to said causes when they really donated to other causes.

The ACLU no doubt is afraid they will lose donors. It's always about the money, even when it's the ACLU.

Could be solved by some tweaking of the bill and perhaps some different record keeping on donors to political groups. I fail to see how the 1st Amendment protects your right to donate secretly.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th March 2019 at 01:42 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.