[QUOTE=Lankist;20828459]That supreme court ruling left direct interaction and collaboration between candidate and corporation highly illegal and an immediate grounds for disqualification.
It simply repealed a law that prevented all incorporated groups, even activists, from airing their opinions during election season on the grounds that it would seem a political advert.[/QUOTE]
The implication of the decision is that corporations can now use their company funding to air political ads to support or oppose candidates. This opens up billions and billions of dollars that can now be thrown into elections that are already determined largely by money. The average voter has never had a smaller voice in politics than they do now.
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/21/nation/la-na-campaign-finance-analysis22-2010jan22[/url]
Also, a corporation never has been and never will be a person. Right now they're entitled to more rights than the average person, I don't get a bailout if I write massive checks I can't cash. Corporations are made up of people who are free to express their own opinions through campaign contributions, no person has ever had their freedom of speech trampled under this law. Finally, you're incredibly naive if you think that no under the table cooperation between candidates and corporate heads will take place, despite the already cozy relationships between big business and Congress.
Going back to my first post in this thread, let me reiterate I said "Everyone should have health insurance", with that being my key point. Everyone should, I'm not saying that I like the ideas proposed by democrats, but universal health care is a must. Personally, I'd rather we found a way to rid of the evil pharmaceutical and insurance companies. But that's never going to happen. Almost nothing good ever happens in this country with politics because of the big influence of those super rich lobbyists.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828479]
Nor do they represent the gap between the vocal minority and silent majority.[/QUOTE]
Any claims about a "silent majority" are completely baseless outside of your own opinion. Every political group in the country has tried to claim at one time or another that "Oh, I know the data says people are against us, but there's really a massive support for my idea, it's just that nobody is saying it out loud."
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828513]A sample of 1,200 in a nation of 300,000,000 is invariably inaccurate.
Additionally it only represents Americans that watch NBC, which are few and far between.
A majority of 1,200 Americans in this specific demographic supports the health care bill.
A majority of Americans have an unregistered opinion. You need not make such broad claims, as they are unquantifiable.[/QUOTE]
For polling a 300,000,000 million people, most opinions will be represented through a simply 2000-3000 people survey. Though, for this it wouldn't be the most accurate to maybe, 10,000 people surveyed.
Oh shit, I actually had a stupid. You're right, it's 15,000, and 100,000 would be most accurate. Sorry about that.
Corporate money cannot be thrown into elections.
We have an extremely huge series of regulations preventing that.
Underhanded tactics are already illegal. You cannot make them more illegal.
Look, that law was stifling the free speech of the individual. It was won by an activist group that was denied right to air their own, independent political documentary. And you are saying that getting rid of this gives the individual "less free speech?"
Bro, people HAVE had their freedom of speech trampled. The people who won the fucking case did.
[editline]01:43AM[/editline]
This case was not won by a corporation, it was won by an independent activist group.
Public option supporters aren't the fringe group of Democrats or whatever you think it may be
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828571]Any claims about a "silent majority" are completely baseless outside of your own opinion. Every political group in the country has tried to claim at one time or another that "Oh, I know the data says people are against us, but there's really a massive support for my idea, it's just that nobody is saying it out loud."[/QUOTE]
You do realize that comment was meant to imply that the silent majority could DOES support the bill and simply hasn't spoken on its behalf.
Which is exactly what trotsky's poll implied.
[editline]01:45AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trotsky;20828592]Public option supporters aren't the fringe group of Democrats or whatever you think it may be[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying they are, I'm saying that simply citing an opinion poll does not deny a great deal of political sway private citizen groups hold.
I said "This is america, protest."
You said "People already like the healthcare bill and it hasn't passed."
I said "That poll does not account for discrepancies between protest demographics and silent ones."
[editline]01:46AM[/editline]
We are a republican democracy, but we do not sway to populism.
The people have a say, but we do not get that say quickly. This is the necessary balance our country has always needed to filter out fads and pet-projects, and to identify and refine serious concerns and desires.
[editline]01:48AM[/editline]
Look at it this way:
Most political demands are like those livestrong bracelets. Everyone's wearing them all of a sudden and then they're gone again.
The really important ones, however, are timeless.
And it takes time to separate legitimate issues from whatever the protest-of-the-month is.
Simply because the demands of the public have not been met with instant gratification does not mean the public does not hold a sway.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828586]Corporate money cannot be thrown into elections.
We have an extremely huge series of regulations preventing that.
Underhanded tactics are already illegal. You cannot make them more illegal.
Look, that law was stifling the free speech of the individual. It was won by an activist group that was denied right to air their own, independent political documentary. And you are saying that getting rid of this gives the individual "less free speech?"
Bro, people HAVE had their freedom of speech trampled. The people who won the fucking case did.
[editline]01:43AM[/editline]
This case was not won by a corporation, it was won by an independent activist group.[/QUOTE]
They were not an actual PAC, which has the right to air political ads. They were a non-profit organization and fell under the same rules as corporations. Airing it would have broken a law with half a century of legal precedent. Also, it's not like their ad didn't get out, they published DVDs and sold it to anyone interested. All that was denied was the ability to use corporate money to directly support a candidate instead of going through a PAC, which are heavily regulated.
Now all those PAC regulations have been bypassed, and corporations big and small can use their treasuries to air direct ads on a scale that PACs could never achieve on existing regulations.
You can't make illegal things more illegal, but you can limit the temptation to do those things. How about, I dunno, not dangling the prospect of a billion dollars in advertising in front of a candidate's face if he just campaigns on their agenda? So they won't be able to stick a "I'm such and such and I approve this message" at the end of their ad, they'll still be able to spend unlimited amounts of money smearing the other guy.
Hell, if anything the party-line vote on a ruling so clearly beneficial to Republicans who are notorious for ties to big business with unlimited resources should be a massive red flag.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828671]They were not an actual PAC, which has the right to air political ads. They were a non-profit organization and fell under the same rules as corporations. Airing it would have broken a law with half a century of legal precedent. Also, it's not like their ad didn't get out, they published DVDs and sold it to anyone interested. All that was denied was the ability to use corporate money to directly support a candidate instead of going through a PAC, which are heavily regulated.[/QUOTE]
Actually what was denied was the right to have it aired on television.
PETA falls under the same rules as corporations, should they be disallowed from running ads on television on the basis that they are not a collection of politically like-minded individuals?
[editline]02:01AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828671]You can't make illegal things more illegal, but you can limit the temptation to do those things. How about, I dunno, not dangling the prospect of a billion dollars in advertising in front of a candidate's face if he just campaigns on their agenda?[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps, I don't know, rooting out candidates who do instead of allowing these ones without integrity make it even further to the desk?
This is the logic that makes people say video games should be banned.
If video games were made illegal it would limit the possibility of being influenced toward violence. Should we do this?
Or should we, I don't know, wait until a crime has been committed before treating someone like a criminal?
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828700]Actually what was denied was the right to have it aired on television.
PETA falls under the same rules as corporations, should they be disallowed from running ads on television on the basis that they are not a collection of politically like-minded individuals?
[editline]02:01AM[/editline][/quote]
Yes, that's why I said "air". As in show on television. PETA is irrelevant, because they have never attempted to run POLITICAL ads. Running ads about saving animals is not inherently political the way a smear movie against a political figure is.
[quote]
If video games were made illegal it would limit the possibility of being influenced toward violence. Should we do this?[/QUOTE]
Yes, provided the games in question spit out a little nugget of crack cocaine every time you shoot someone, which is really the only way to make that comparison valid. There's no materiel reward for violence in video games. Campaigning on a policy of repealing all environmental laws, however, is pretty damn rewarding when it carries the promise of a billion dollar's worth of advertising for your side.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828796]Yes, that's why I said "air". As in show on television. PETA is irrelevant, because they have never attempted to run POLITICAL ads. Running ads about saving animals is not inherently political the way a smear movie against a political figure is. [/quote]
Define "POLITICAL ads"
[quote]Yes, provided the games in question spit out a little nugget of crack cocaine every time you shoot someone, which is really the only way to make that comparison valid. There's no materiel reward for violence in video games. Campaigning on a policy of repealing all environmental laws, however, is pretty damn rewarding when it carries the promise of a billion dollar's worth of advertising for your side.[/QUOTE]
Crime prevention has nothing to do with material rewards.
It's yes or no. Would banning games not lower potential violent crime rates even a little bit? Even considering mentally unstable individuals?
Because by your logic we should do that to prevent future crimes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828586]Corporate money cannot be thrown into elections.
We have an extremely huge series of regulations preventing that.
Underhanded tactics are already illegal. You cannot make them more illegal.
Look, that law was stifling the free speech of the individual. It was won by an activist group that was denied right to air their own, independent political documentary. And you are saying that getting rid of this gives the individual "less free speech?"
Bro, people HAVE had their freedom of speech trampled. The people who won the fucking case did.
[editline]01:43AM[/editline]
This case was not won by a corporation, it was won by an independent activist group.[/QUOTE]
One thing I've learned about congress is it is full of vice and corruption. The rare ones that get caught, are exposed and everyone claims its terrible how someone could go so low, while hoping they themselves do not get caught. You cannot honestly believe that through campaign contributions corporations have little influence over politicians.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828843]Define "POLITICAL ads"
[/QUOTE]
Advertisement on television expressing support for one candidate running for public office over another. I'm pretty sure PETA wasn't allowed to do that, though they may have hired PACs to run ads on their behalf.
Your comparison is still invalid. The evidence that video games cause violence is far more shaky than the day-to-day proof that politicians vote in favor of the people, organizations, and corporations that fronted the money to get them elected.
Lets take a different approach. How is the ruling not a trampling of MY freedom of speech and right to be heard in the political process? Run down the basic math: Barack Obama spent something on the order of half a billion dollars to run his campaign, all obtained through private donors in the conventional process, and mostly used to run various ads. Exxon-Mobile made around $40 billion in profits last year, and that's $40 billion of largely discretionary income. That one company, that one "voice" as you believe it, could singlehandedly outspend the entire effort of Obama supporters by roughly 80 times.
So, that one voice is capable of matching the raw media output of 80 times the number of people that actively supported the Obama campaign. Why should Exxon be able to so completely crush MY voice in politics?
You do realize that campaign ads are not the only things that the repealed law affected right?
The film that was denied airtime was a documentary about Hillary Clinton, who was not a candidate or a member of the campaign at that time.
[editline]02:32AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20828960]Lets take a different approach. How is the ruling not a trampling of MY freedom of speech and right to be heard in the political process?[/QUOTE]
I can hear you pretty well.
It entitles a corporation to complete freedom of speech, but the implications for campaign ads pose the greatest threat to the rights of the public at large.
If you think political activism is about being heard by politicians you are very mistaken.
[editline]02:34AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20829017]It entitles a corporation to complete freedom of speech, but the implications for campaign ads pose the greatest threat to the rights of the public at large.[/QUOTE]
That's the same logic that put USAPATRIOT in place. Only USAPATRIOT was more justified.
How about we deal with crime, corruption and threats when they actually happen, rather than legislating against some vague "threat" that hasn't ever manifested itself.
Preemptive legislation never ends well. I've told you this before.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20828479]Topical polls are not an accurate representation of populist desires.
Nor do they represent the gap between the vocal minority and silent majority.[/QUOTE]
You need to be a gov teacher or something at your local high school.
For seriously.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;20829041]You need to be a gov teacher or something at your local high school.
For seriously.[/QUOTE]
He'll probably kill any poor students.
can't have them poor people learning
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
