The conservative brain...

[DeistPaladin]

...is a curious thing to me sometimes.

I was a conservative once but I was a lot more logically consistent in my positions. That's probably why that center didn't hold and I'm a liberal today.

Does anyone remember when I made my proposal as the way to save our democracy, to have our leaders care more about voters than lobbyists, to have substantive discussions replace 30-second soundbytes, to have everyone's voice count and not just those rich enough to buy the airwaves, to remove much of the money and corruption that has become expected practice in our current government?

I proposed a constitutional amendment banning paid political advertisement, replacing campaign ads with bi-weekly debates between candidates conducted under oath.

Needless to say, conservatives on this forum didn't like that proposal. It was "censorship" and a suspension of "free speech".

These same conservatives now say, "you know, free speech has limits" justifying the police actions against protesters in Ferguson.

So, when rich people buy elections, that's "free speech" which can't be restricted.

But when poor people demonstrate in public areas, that's when "free speech has limits".

[Jaysyn]

Silly DP, expecting neo-cons to check their hypocrisy.

[Diablo]

The thread title is an oxymoron....

[Cato]

I agree with your ideas.

I also think the debate format needs to be overhauled. I would prefer a Parliamentary style debate that allows interruption for points of interest addressed to the moderator. Without official scoring, the moderator could simply announce which points of interest weren't addressed. The deference given to the participants by most moderators is vomit inducing. Time limits are frequently ignored and there is no interjection when participants stray off topic to ensure they cover all their talking points.

The internet makes possible measures to make debates more meaningful and productive. Let the moderator post the debate questions a month in advance. The candidates have two weeks to respond to the moderator. The candidates' policy positions would then be simultaneously published two weeks prior to the debate. The subsequent internet chatter and media conversation would then have an impact on the debate content. I think this would reduce the tendency for these debates to become sound bite generators with everybody talking past one another. I remember one Obama/McCain debate with each vaguely promising to cut spending; one with a hatchet, the other with a scalpel. This type of cheap rhetoric needs to be done away with.

[Minimalist]

So, when rich people buy elections, that's "free speech" which can't be restricted.

But when poor people demonstrate in public areas, that's when "free speech has limits".

Republicunt motherfuckers.....Putting the "Con" in "conservative" since 1981.

[Polaris]

So, when rich people buy elections, that's "free speech" which can't be restricted.

But when poor people demonstrate in public areas, that's when "free speech has limits".

Judging by how long they let the Occupy Wallstreet go on, that's probably not the case. They don't like when demonstrations turn into anarchy.

[Minimalist]

Poor, polecat....in his world those Occupy protesters should have been gunned down.

Too bad the cops went as far as they did. It is costing NY a lot of money because the cops didn't want the Wall St. scumbags to feel bad about themselves.

As if they ever would.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/nyregi...sters.html

The City of New York has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to resolve a lawsuit accusing police officers of falsely arresting Occupy Wall Street participants who were walking on a sidewalk in the East Village on New Year’s Day 2012

Last year, the city agreed to pay $230,000 to resolve a suit stemming from the loss or destruction of books from the Occupy Wall Street library. A group called Global Revolution was also paid $75,000 for lost computer equipment. Other lawsuits are pending, including a class-action claim stemming from the arrests of about 700 people while they marched on the Brooklyn Bridge roadway on Oct. 1, 2011.

[stonedape]

Sign this petition. If you'd like to amend the constitution to separate money from politics http://www.wolf-pac.com/

It already passed here in California and in Vermont. So it's very real.

[KUSA]

Contrary to popular belief someone can have conservative values and hate the Republican party. They can also be an Atheist.

[Polaris]

Sign this petition. If you'd like to amend the constitution to separate money from politics http://www.wolf-pac.com/

It already passed here in California and in Vermont. So it's very real.

If I recall correctly, the unions won against that in California. They can still influence politics.

Contrary to popular belief someone can have conservative values and hate the Republican party. They can also be an Atheist.

Yes. I had a grandfather who did not like the Republicans (he would call the GOP an abomination, but also state that the Democrats were no better), but I would never have called him anything close to a liberal and he was an atheist.