woolfe9999
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2005
- 7,153
- 0
- 0
We are going round and round on this one Werepossum. You are being partisan and accusing me of being partisan just because you assume I am as partisan as you are. Your constant mention of Allred - whom I despise - is not helping you make your point.
And this business about lawyers is a bad analogy. I never said that these allegations amount to making out a legal burden of proof in a court of law. What I am saying is that logically, it is rational to assume the absolute worst of any organization that refuses to dislose its funding and motives to the public. And yes, that includes Allred or whatever example on the left you want to come up with, since I know for you this is only about right versus left and which side "wins." Anyway, no, in a logical sense, asking for proof is ludicrous when no one other than the accused has access to proof. It may surprise you to learn that there are cases in the law where a defendant having sole access to evidence can shift the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant. Sometimes, though not always, the law tracks common sense. In any event, this isn't about what is necessary to prevail in a court of law. It is about what it is logical for people to assume.
As to the Chamber of Commerce in particular, which was the example brought up in the OP, you seem to be arguing that they are transparent because everyone knows they have a "pro-business" agenda. False. It isn't the organization's agenda that is the issue. It's who is funding it. That part is not transparent. And yes, that principle applies to any organization, regardless of its agenda.
In my opinion there needs to be disclosure of funding for political advertisements. This may not solve every problem of someone like Allred, or some equivalent on the other side of the spectrum. But it IS very much necessary.
- wolf
And this business about lawyers is a bad analogy. I never said that these allegations amount to making out a legal burden of proof in a court of law. What I am saying is that logically, it is rational to assume the absolute worst of any organization that refuses to dislose its funding and motives to the public. And yes, that includes Allred or whatever example on the left you want to come up with, since I know for you this is only about right versus left and which side "wins." Anyway, no, in a logical sense, asking for proof is ludicrous when no one other than the accused has access to proof. It may surprise you to learn that there are cases in the law where a defendant having sole access to evidence can shift the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant. Sometimes, though not always, the law tracks common sense. In any event, this isn't about what is necessary to prevail in a court of law. It is about what it is logical for people to assume.
As to the Chamber of Commerce in particular, which was the example brought up in the OP, you seem to be arguing that they are transparent because everyone knows they have a "pro-business" agenda. False. It isn't the organization's agenda that is the issue. It's who is funding it. That part is not transparent. And yes, that principle applies to any organization, regardless of its agenda.
In my opinion there needs to be disclosure of funding for political advertisements. This may not solve every problem of someone like Allred, or some equivalent on the other side of the spectrum. But it IS very much necessary.
- wolf
Last edited:
