I think it should be made illegal to use any lies in campaign's

[madokie]

a few strikes, decided by the majority, and you are out. no questions taken.
whata' you think?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. I want a pony! n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Far smarter people than us

ponder the question of "what is a lie?" without coming up with clear answers.

[madokie]

3. I know the difference between a truth and a lie

and most times its from the gut. so what you say?

[MonkeyFunk]

4. I say

your gut is not a good basis for legislation.


btw, what are you majoring in?

[madokie]

5. Something more than day to day living

no mention of gut to legislation only as an example

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Well

you DID mention legislating - how else do you make something illegal?

Do you suppose the law will state that madokie gets to decide what's a lie and what isn't?


Sorry, but the whole notion is absurd.

[madokie]

17. no matter the dressing, a lie is still a lie

but if I must make that distinction I will

[rock]

7. The real problem is

that most of the "lies" in a campaign are opinions or implications. Perhaps one could call them on incorrect objective facts, but those are few and far between.

[bowens43]

8. Who determines what is and isn't a lie?

[Hubert Flottz]

9. "Who determines what is and isn't a lie?"

The employer.

We need a law where the person seeking the job answers the questions in writing and signs the application.

[madokie]

15. decided by the majority

[mondo joe]

The majority can decide that at the next election.

Or are you suggesting an ongoing election in which the elected has to constantly argue that they're not lying?

[mondo joe]

26. So you want the employer to make a decision about who is guilty of a criminal

charge?

[Hubert Flottz]

29. In the politician's case, we the people are the "Employer"

So yes, a jury is twelve, of an acting politician's peers and would also his employers.

I say drug test them all and polygraph test them on live TV at the debates.

They should have to be accountable just like any other employee. Maybe even more so, because they make life and death decisions. Bush has proven several times, that you can't even trust your president any longer.

[mondo joe]

31. And you want to make it a criminal offense for an employee to

be inaccurate in a promise?

So like if I tell my boss I can have areport done for him by Friday, but fail to, I could be charged with a crime?

[Hubert Flottz]

35. No, they should simply be fired for non criminal acts such as lying

while applying for a job, like people in private life are fired.

If you lied to your boss under oath, you should go to jail.

[mondo joe]

36. And we have the option to terminate these employees at every election.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. No, the very next election...

After finding out they lied.

It would be nice to change the law and fire them on the spot though.

[mondo joe]

39. But we, the employers, do have the option to terminate these employees.

So I don't see the need for a criminal charge.

[Hubert Flottz]

41. Not unless, the lie was involved in the commission, or cover-up, of

a crime.

If you will look back, you were the first one who injected the word criminal, into our conversation.

[mondo joe]

42. The OP was about making a lie illegal. Illegal = criminal.

[donheld]

10. I think they should not be allowed to talk about the opposing candidate

At all! I also want to limit the campaign to 2 weeks. I guess we all dream.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Really?!

So Kerry couldn't talk about Bush?

This whole thread amazes me - how could ANY American who's not a fascist support the idea that speech must be government-approved.

[donheld]

14. Kerry should spend his time talking about what he's gonna do

Bush should have spent his time telling what he was going to do. Too much time is spent mudslinging, and defending against the slung mud. And no 527's slinging mud either.

[AlGore-08.com]

27. Well what if Bush had spent 2 weeks saying "I'm going to give everyone $1 million and a baby panda"

Are you saying you wouldn't have wanted to give Kerry the opportunity to say "Giving everybody $1 million would bankrupt the nation and ruin the economy - - and there aren't that many pandas left on earth, they're an endangered species."

[JVS]

34. They lie more when they talk about their plans

[seriousstan]

21. Fascist don't believe in free speech and therefore shouldn't get any.

Simple(ton) as that. C'mon, Randi Rhodes has stated repeatedly that politicians should be forced to always speak under oath. How hard is that?

[JVS]

33. Yeah this is totally fucked up!

I find that the politicians lie most when they aren't talking about each other. The most lies happen when they talk about themselves.

[Selatius]

11. The best lies aren't even lies at all. They're facts taken out of context.

"Senator A voted against the appropriations bill; he does not believe in supporting the troops," says Senator B.

Senator B conveniently left out the fact that Senator A said before the floor vote occurred, "I can't support this legislation in its current form because there's a no-bid contract in the bill for Halliburton. I would suppport one without it, though."

[MonkeyFunk]

13. exactly!

The proper response is not to outlaw such claims - it's to expose them.

As has been said before, the answer to abuses of free speech is more free speech.

[madokie]

18. reply #17

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I want the damn phone calls banned

They did random robo calls here - BOTH parties. One of my kids got 35 calls in 3 days on his cell phone! I have already pledged to do NO phone calls in 08.

The calls were especially bad in Missouri, for the McCaskill race. A co-worker got 11 calls in a week from various groups, asking her to vote for Claire. I live in KS but have a MO area code on my cell phone. So I got calls for Claire too. I am still waiting for my cell phone bill and when it comes, you will probably be able to hear me scream in Oklahoma. LOL

And I did try to report the calls but political calls are not included in the no call law.

[NoPasaran]

19. Phone calls are annoying, but...

They are also an effective way of turning out the vote. As long as they work, they aren't going to go away.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. And I think their effectiveness is waning

The week before the election I had at least one person a day tell me they were upset about all the campaign calls they were receiving. So I am not so sure they work anymore.

[Chemical Bill]

20. I think paid speech is different from free speech.

I would ban any lies from any form of media that involves an exchange of money.

I, of course, would be the final arbiter of everything. ;-)

Bill

[elehhhhna]

22. Product ads, by law, are vetted for accuracy and false claims, but

political ads have NO such requirements.

Extend the rule to cover paid political speech, already. It's a no-brainer.

[AlGore-08.com]

30. Right, and that's why so many ads are about emotion, not facts about the products

Most car commercials don't bother to tell you thing one about the car - - how much gas mileage it gets, it's safety rating, even it's price. They're fabulous little music videos about driving your SUV to a pristine beach and romping in the surf with a hot person of the opposite sex, or being a pampered rich person scooting through the autumn leaves in New England sipping champagne with a hot person of the opposite sex, or just being young and hip and jamming to cool tunes blaring from your pimped out ride's CD player.

The political equivalent of those ads are the biographical ads: "Congressman GreatHair began his life right here, in our home town. He attended our local college, where he majored in rescuing puppies and kittens from terrorists. Along with his wife Nancy and children, he proudly served in our nation's armed forces, and then became the youngest ordained minister to win an NFL championship. Congressman GreatHair. Practically perfect in every way."

That kind of ad doesn't tell you squat about a candidate - - Congressman GreatHair could be the biggest right wing wackadoo who ever lived, or he could be so far to the left he gets emails from Hugo Chavez telling him to moderate his views. You'd never know from that ad. And even if you could find a way to ban lies, statements out of context and negative opinions (which you might be able to ban the first but even if you could ban the second and third, good luck proving that they were intentional), you're going to be left with the stickier problem of you how can you regulate "positive" ads into being meaningful. The first amendment doesn't demand that free speech be informative or accurate.

[Lusted4]

23. I think that all elected official should be under oath when

in front of the official seal of the US or on government property.

[porphyrian]

24. They'll just say it was an "honest mistake."

But, once it's out there, you can't really take it back.

[magellan]

25. We need an agency like they have in the UK

...a watchdog/fact-checker with laws to back it up, that disallows lying in campaign ads. That would cut the legs out from under much of the lying on the campaign trail.

[PVnRT]

28. The depends on the definition of a "lie"

It's very easy to slime your way around that, as the GOP has taught us well.

[JVS]

32. Bad idea

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Politicians + Truth = Oxymoron

[ContraBass Black]

40. I think we will be barred from any office we do not already have a majority in

If such a law takes effect.

[ComerPerro]

43. There's no way you could do that. Besides, most lies could be said to be based in truth

for example, Talent in MO said that he voted for an increase in the minimum wage, while many Democrats voted against it.

Of course, its bullshit, because Talent obviously doesn't support raising the minimum wage and would never actually vote to raise it.

However, there was a vote where Republicans tacked on a measure to raise minimum wage to a very bad bill (can't remember which) simply because they knew Democrats would vote against it, so they could use it against them in campaign commercials.