The Almighty US Government

[DeistPaladin]

Hello boys and girls, it's time for "spot the logical fallacies"

You started out from a position that "all" political ads should be banned. Realizing such a position is ludicrous you back peddle to you want to curb the speech of rich people.

This one is called "poisoning the well". Just because I accept some of your points and modify my position isn't a sign that I'm not logical. Quite the opposite actually. When you learn things or consider other points you hadn't before, the responsible thing to do is modify your opinion.

You really have no problem with average Joe using his wealth to spread his political message. But if they are the Koch brothers...then you got a problem.

Red herring fallacy or the introduction of irrelevant points to the discussion. The problem we've identified is that our government and its leaders are bought with money from special interests and the wealthy. "Average Joe's" activities don't enter into it because they don't have near the effect. My congressman isn't going to change his vote simply because I start a blog.

I find it hypocritical that you mention the Koch brothers several times but never mention a liberal rich person like Soros....but whatever.

Ad hominem tu quoque, also known as "c'mon mom, everybody does it".
Also known as...

BOTH SIDES!
BOTH SIDES!
BOTH SIDES!

Soros is an anomaly which side wealthy contributors back and his efforts are dwarfed by those of the Kochs, et al.

But really, we're not even talking about political affiliation. I mention the Kochs as the most prominent example in the news but there are certainly others. What we're discussing is that money is too important to politicians and how politicians are bought by lobbyists and special interests.

What about the people who are poorer than you. Should your ability to use your wealth to multiply the audience who hears your message be curbed as well? I mean it is simply unfair to poorer people that you have more resources to spread your message then they do.

See above. This is a red herring. Blogs don't buy senators. The millions of dollars in TV ads do.

Basically, if it cost your candidacy thousands of dollars to run a campaign (bumper stickers, t-shirts, blogs, pamphlets, etc) instead of millions (a deluge of TV ads), we're in a different world. Politicians would still be concerned about raising enough money to run but those resources could easily be met by grassroots efforts and would not rely upon billionaires and special interests.

In sum, the substantially lower costs of running a campaign would mean more attention would be paid to voters and their will rather than who's giving them the needed millions.

What about people who are simply better speakers. Should their abilities to speak and convey their message be curbed so as not to disenfranchise the less articulate?

Red herring.

The rest is just ad hominems.

I really think you just want to censor political messages you don't want other people to hear. You think you can discern bullshit from that which isn't, but you don't give the masses the same credit. You are a typical elitist that needs to control what the masses are exposed too.