Okay, here is what you said:
Let me try to summarize what you've said so far....
You're opposed to campaign finance reform on a Constitutional issue; though the Supreme Court has ruled that soft money limits would be Constitutional.
You are mistaken about what the Supreme Court has ruled. All rulings thus far have called soft money restriction unconstitutional. It is true that I said IF they confirm this legislation, it is highly unlikely I would agree, but that is a matter of common sense. Did you think Plessy vs. Ferguson was a correct ruling? Have you examined it in detail, or is it that the main premise, that separate can be equal in a regime of racial domination, seems overwhelmingly faulty? In the same way, the ability to advocate one's viewpoint is the essence of free speech and a free press, and money is the means through which one hires the "megaphone", so the contemplated limits amount to an assault on free speech.
You do know that Hastert has made some claims about advantages that the Democrats would have, but you take them on faith that they are true and/or in some fashion unfair.
I clearly said that I am not taking his assertions on faith, and there is nothing remarkable about lacking rigorous proof of matters that one has an opinion on. So, neither your original assertion, nor your fallback attempt to make it a matter of "faith", is correct.
You've also said that Hastert's primary interest in this manner is "winning" and you seem to agree that he hasn't really said much [if anything] about any Constitutional issue on this legislation as of late.
I have no idea beyond what was posted about what he has said on the matter. I made that clear, that I was relying on the limited account. I have no idea if winning is his primary interest, but it is certainly a strong interest. But the main thing is that the implication that it was not about the Constitution, but about winning, is belied in that virtually all of those opposed, conservative or liberal (like the ACLU) primarily focus on the Constitution.
You support Hastert, in the effort to defeat the bill, though you don't know the specific language of the bill.
That one is correct. How many bills that you have an opinion on have you read in their entirety? In other words, so what? |
