Conervatives in the Supreme Court just Loosened Rules on Corporate Campagn Contibutions... (salaries, speech)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, to their credit they did post directly next to the picture that it was a FAKE picture.
The blurring of the lines between facts and supposition... smear campaigns use of lies, when ANY poli party resorts to them, subverts the process. The fact that any American present tense believes Obama is Muslim, or that McCain was a coward in his military service... shame!!!! SHAME!!!!
Talk about moral hazards... when is libel going to get enforced? The media is profiting wildly from lying, and those who speak truth go broke trying to speak. What's wrong with this?
LOL Cmon I'm a Republican and even I know that's b.s. This was simply a green light for corporations to essentially indirectly lobby causes they support. It has nothing to do with free speech. Now companies can negotiate with politicians and claim they will run an "independent" ad that features their free speech if they agree to vote for causes they support.
I truly find this funny. The gaul of Republicans can be overwhelming at times. Free Speech...my a$#
BUT..you have a good point about the Unions. They are a racket just like the big corporations and function in the same way.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
McCain-Feingold was the main reason conservatives cooled on McCain. That and immigration reform.
Well, to their credit they did post directly next to the picture that it was a FAKE picture.
The blurring of the lines between facts and supposition... smear campaigns use of lies, when ANY poli party resorts to them, subverts the process. The fact that any American present tense believes Obama is Muslim, or that McCain was a coward in his military service... shame!!!! SHAME!!!!
Talk about moral hazards... when is libel going to get enforced? The media is profiting wildly from lying, and those who speak truth go broke trying to speak. What's wrong with this?
Well, fer sure, fer sure, good buddy - But can a church be armed and contribute money to political campaigns?
The Branch Davidian Church was armed, but I think all contributions went to God.
Of course I can. Everyone is susceptible to media influence. Your opinions are based on information you have. If the information is twisted (or not granted) then that twists your opinion as well. Otherwise people wouldn't be talking about media narrative when candidates are running or "liberal bias" in media.
Yes, my opinions are based upon the information I have (so is yours) and I, for one, would not want that information limited to only that which someone else thinks I need to hear. How about you?
By the way, go to more liberal venues such as Free Speech TV and the Democratic Underground and you'll find a number of people claiming a conservative bias in the media. Which one is right?
Quote:
It's nice to believe we're all independent thinkers, but you're ignoring the effect propaganda has on a population.
What's the difference between propaganda and stating a position on the issues? I suspect the difference is only in the eye of the beholder.
Quote:
It seems you want restrictions on free speech based on this part of your post.
Absolutely not! I'm just asking that within the realm of public financing, who gets the money and who decides, based upon what criteria?
By the way, go to more liberal venues such as Free Speech TV and the Democratic Underground and you'll find a number of people claiming a conservative bias in the media. Which one is right?
They both are when the dissemination of information is in service to steering the masses as opposed to providing facts enabling a greater awareness of the comprehensive picture. The difference between a snapshot of reality, which some know can be manipulated, versus the dispassionate stance of reporting facts. The fact that many are unaware of manipulation, that propaganda is profitable enough to squash the truth, is destructive to our republic.
Yes, my opinions are based upon the information I have (so is yours) and I, for one, would not want that information limited to only that which someone else thinks I need to hear. How about you?
Uh... this is pretty much exactly what you're going to get. The people with money will flood ads for certain candidates and this is going to be the information that the population as a whole receives. I don't see how you're unable to make this logical connection and somehow think this will give more choice.
Those with less money will be drowned out.
If anything third party candidates will be crushed in particular since there is no reason for corporations to not protect the status quo.
Quote:
By the way, go to more liberal venues such as Free Speech TV and the Democratic Underground and you'll find a number of people claiming a conservative bias in the media. Which one is right?
What does this have to do with anything? I have my own opinion regarding media bias but it is irrelevant, I was referring to groups on this board that have complained about liberal money effecting political discourse.
Quote:
What's the difference between propaganda and stating a position on the issues? I suspect the difference is only in the eye of the beholder.
I guess you have no real issues with Communist or Nazi propaganda and feel it was in fact a legitimate use of free speech.
There are entire fields that study propaganda, go ask them for what the difference is.
Quote:
Absolutely not! I'm just asking that within the realm of public financing, who gets the money and who decides, based upon what criteria?
I already answered this, you didn't seem to like the answer.
I can almost picture good, patriotic conservatives cheering and applauding without any idea of what effect this ruling will have.
I can say unwavering that no staunch conservative I've been raised by would consider these people either. Do not allow their masquerade to fool you into misattributed blame.
What do you want, then? For the candidates to come to your house and speak to you personally? How else can they get their program out?
It should not require tons of money to get your views out there. The only reason for it is because people are lazy and don't want to do the work required to educate themselves. I don't need the candidate to shake my hand, I want their website, I want televised debates, I want written literature, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Sure you can. There are lots of organizations and websites out there which do precisely that. Of course, it requires you to look up the information, but it is out there. If you don't avail yourself of it, whose fault is that??
Sorry, while I might want to spend my entire evening scouring the internet looking for this information, why not make it easier? Why not eliminate anybody from creating a counter argument anonymously? If a candidate says "X", do we really want 20 websites funded by unknown people saying it's a lie? Why not ensure the candidate is telling the truth by changing the whole process of electing people? Secrecy with no accountability is no way to get someone elected. By the way, it is NOT easy finding out who's behind certain sources of information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
I won't disagree with that, but it would be expensive and probably add to the national debt.
Elections need not be expensive, that's why I am all for taxpayer-funded elections. Do you think the tax paying public would allow a lot of money to be spent? Again, the only reason they are expensive now is because people would prefer someone else brainwash them. There is no reason to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create misinformation campaigns and distortions when limiting the sources to the truth will suffice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
So, if you are pro-life and you know your donation might end up in the hands of a pro-choice candidate, would you still donate?
Who knows? If you are pro-life and the issue is that important to you, why not donate as much as you're able to the argument? The right person or issue shouldn't be the one with the most money! Right now, that's how it plays out 90% of the time, leaving third party candidates and grass roots organizations out in the snow.
Don't even get me started on how elections are rigged electronically...!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
