MSNBC rejects anti-Target ad from liberal group - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mexican;24195387]They're a private channel, they can air what they want.[/QUOTE] Never said they couldn't, just didn't understand why not.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24195604]I am completely oblivious as to how the ability of a corporation to donate money to a political campaign infringes upon the rights of citizens[/QUOTE] I'm on the fence on the issue but leaning toward this.

[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24195641]Because it puts them in a position of influence greater than that of any individual citizen.[/QUOTE] Target isn't stuffing ballot boxes, they're supporting the campaign of a politician whose views serve their interests. They're not forcing anyone to vote one way or another.

It literally is bribing. On a similar note, the NAACP basically said it would support the Democratic party during the next election, even though they are supposed to remain politically neutral.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24195604]I am completely oblivious as to how the ability of a corporation to donate money to a political campaign infringes upon the rights of citizens[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it infringes on rights, but our government is going to be bought out more than ever before, which sucks.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24195711]they are supposed to remain politically neutral.[/QUOTE] where did you get that ridiculous idea from they serve the advancement of coloured people, they obviously think the Democratic party will help them with that republicans don't have a good track record in helping a predominately poor minority

I guess you are right, but that is in the same light as a corporation buying out voters because by the NAACP helping the Democrats, the Democrats get a lot of voters.

Isn't MSNBC really liberal? Huh, interesting.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24195811]I guess you are right, but that is in the same light as a corporation buying out voters because by the NAACP helping the Democrats, the Democrats get a lot of voters.[/QUOTE] it's not exactly the same, if you go target you are basically funding these groups, not the same with the NAACP [editline]04:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Scoooby;24195859]Isn't MSNBC really liberal? Huh, interesting.[/QUOTE] not really, considering Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson started there.

[QUOTE=yuki;24194544]Neither is a car.[/QUOTE] A car doesn't have the ability to manipulate politicians.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;24195669]Never said they couldn't, just didn't understand why not.[/QUOTE] probably money reasons

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24195693]Target isn't stuffing ballot boxes, they're supporting the campaign of a politician whose views serve their interests. They're not forcing anyone to vote one way or another.[/QUOTE] When politicians are receiving money from huge corporations, do you really think they're going to give a shit about want the lowly public wants? No, they'll keep those corporations happy so they can keep lining their pockets.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24195693]Target isn't stuffing ballot boxes, they're supporting the campaign of a politician whose views serve their interests. They're not forcing anyone to vote one way or another.[/QUOTE] Who's side are you on, anyway? Corporations don't care about the people. Do bovine growth hormones cause cancer? Who cares, more milk is produced. More money. Is genetically engineering a seed to be infertile practical? Is it ethical? No, and no. How about patenting life? Is that right? No. Practically every agro-giant corporation makes decisions that aren't right. All they care about is the bottom line. Corporations are not in the interest of people, so it would be right to assume they'll try influencing politicians to let them have their way. Let's look at the effectiveness of campaign contributions. [quote=fec.gov]Candidates (millions of dollars) All Candidates 1686.4 Democrats 1079.5 Obama (D) 747.8 Republicans 606.9 McCain (R) 351.6 Clinton (D) 227.9 Romney (R) 105.3 Giuliani (R) 59.7 Edwards (D) 48.2 Paul (R) 34.5 Thompson, F (R) 23.4 Richardson (D) 22.5 Huckabee (R) 16.1 Dodd (D) 15.0 Biden (D) 11.9 Tancredo (R) 6.4 Kucinich (D) 5.5 Brownback (R) 4.3 Hunter (R) 2.9 Thompson, T (R) 1.2 Cox (R) 1.1 Gravel (D) 0.7 Gilmore (R) 0.4[/quote] Target is a large corporation. They have the ability to contribute large sums of money. Obama could easily take 5 million in contributions from Target - that's 14% of Ron Paul's total contributions - from one corporation. Imagine an entire country worth of corporate interests paying off Barack Obama because he'll let them have their way. Essentially Barack Obama has almost a billion dollars worth of money, largely corporation funded, to parade across the TV screens of America. If that doesn't affect how people vote, I don't know what does. The point is that you're basically wrong, JohnnyMo1. Yes, corporations can't force people to vote one way or another. But I'll be darned if corporations don't have a major influence in the outcome of elections.

Obama got a lot more money than McCain.

[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24195641]Because it puts them in a position of influence greater than that of any individual citizen.[/QUOTE] All money is used the same. It's used to create ads. Its not forcing people to vote for any one person. Maybe if people actually looked at policies to sway their votes, instead of who has more air time, this wouldn't be a fucking problem? This thread is nothing more than a thinly veiled bash on private corporations and capitalism.

[QUOTE=Ridge;24196900]All money is used the same. It's used to create ads. Its not forcing people to vote for any one person. Maybe if people actually looked at policies to sway their votes, instead of who has more air time, this wouldn't be a fucking problem? This thread is nothing more than a thinly veiled bash on private corporations and capitalism.[/QUOTE] But it's pretty well known that a lot of people don't look at policies. Simple things like looks can sway elections, as was the case with the election of JFK.

[QUOTE=Ridge;24196900]This thread is nothing more than a thinly veiled bash on private corporations and capitalism.[/QUOTE] And that's a bad thing?

[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24196540]When politicians are receiving money from huge corporations, do you really think they're going to give a shit about want the lowly public wants? No, they'll keep those corporations happy so they can keep lining their pockets.[/QUOTE] That happened before the Supreme Court said last year that corporations can make larger donations... [editline]07:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jimpy;24197426]But it's pretty well known that a lot of people don't look at policies. Simple things like looks can sway elections, as was the case with the election of JFK.[/QUOTE] And Obama

[QUOTE=snuwoods;24196819]The point is that you're basically wrong, JohnnyMo1. Yes, corporations can't force people to vote one way or another. But I'll be darned if corporations don't have a major influence in the outcome of elections.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter if it affects how people vote IMO. [editline]09:34PM[/editline] Well-reasoned argument affects how people vote (ideally) but there's nothing wrong with a company making well-reasoned arguments for a candidate who will vote in their interests. Hell, that wouldn't even cost them anything except time and brainpower. It's up to the people to vote how they want and if a few billboards change that that's their issue.

Target doesn't sell Ghostface Killah records, and i thing people that would rally for him would be a lot more persuasive.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;24191550]According to republicans, freedom means freedom for large corporations to do whatever the fuck they want. Fuck the people, fuck their rights, large corporations are where it's at.[/QUOTE] republicans are so bad bawwwwwwwww democrats are bad too, both parties are retarded.

"Get rid of the unions! Get rid of the queers!" :frog: