RE: Stacking the Court (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Sanity -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 10:34:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This won't affect the Times at all. As you well know, we're talking primarily TV advertising. Will it help networks? Well, won't it just change who buys the ad time?

Really? You think a business will refuse ad money? Why?


MSNBC is far left, FOX leans right, CBS is far left, CNN is center left. Thats why.

And it affects all advertising.

Wall Street Journal vs. New York Times, and so on. See, these advertising vehicles  are already heavily politicized, and most of it favors the far left viewpont, so go ahead and open it up to free speech. Allow the Capitalists to speak out as well.. [:)]

quote:

Companies aren't going to directly advertise and risk "blowback" of course--they'll continue to funnel it through 529s and such. They are just free now to do so without limits.


Here's an opportunity for an amiable solution, because I could agree with sunshine laws that would help eliminate that problem. And I agree, it is a problem.

quote:

Negative ads are going nowhere. People say they don't like them, but all the research shows that they work, very well.

The Brown campaign certainly had its share of negative ads. Really. Cherry picking. [That election also has more to do with state politics, I suspect, than Republican fantasies would have it. It's not like the state went suddenly red.]



I believe you are mistaken. From what I've read Brown took the high road in this campaign and that was a part of his appeal while the DNC's negative advertising was a major part of Coakley's downfall.



rulemylife -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 10:40:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The Times sure has gone downhill since Murdoch bought it if they publish this drivel.



Unless something has happened in the last few days that I'm not aware of, Murdoch doesn't own the Times, though there have been rumors for years he was making attempts.

He does own the New York Post, if that's what you were thinking of.



Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 10:41:13 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This won't affect the Times at all. As you well know, we're talking primarily TV advertising. Will it help networks? Well, won't it just change who buys the ad time?

Really? You think a business will refuse ad money? Why?


MSNBC is far left, FOX leans right, CBS is far left, CNN is center left. Thats why.

And it affects all advertising.

Wall Street Journal vs. New York Times, and so on. See, these advertising vehicles  are already heavily politicized, and most of it favors the far left viewpont, so go ahead and open it up to free speech. Allow the Capitalists to speak out as well..


Show me the many political ads in the Times. Oops. Besides, you don't even read the Times. You've no idea what you're saying. The Wall St. Journal, incidentally, has an editorial page that's rabidly right, but the rest of the paper is balanced.

TV ads are the name of the game. You know this. Your claim that they censor ads is extremely obviously false--just look at your TV set. He who pays gets ads run.

Far left? I suspect you have an extremely low threshold for that designation. Fox "leans" right? Be serious.

You may be right on CNN. It's been years since I've watched (no TV here).

Also....

You're under the impression that corporate voices haven't been heard before? Really?

This ruling will allow them to be more than heard--disproportionately so.

Honestly, followers of the right---your rigid adherence to a dogmatic social agenda is blinding you to the financial and political realities of the past three (plus) decades. The more power your leaders amass, the higher the nations' debt, the more financial mishaps (that nonetheless bailout the perpetrators), the greater expensive military interventions and nation building---all supposedly what you oppose. If you ever succeed in handing them power completely, you're going to be aghast at the world you've created--and with no way to undo the damage.

The world, despite your preachers, isn't left vs. right. It isn't. Wake up and see reality. There's a whole middle that includes the majority of the world. You are being played.

The "right" that once was is dead. Look closely at what you're following. Change it to something worth following. Something that can live up to its rhetoric.



Sanity -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 11:25:00 AM)


Try to calm down, though I can understand your outrage.You're lashing out like this because you're finally coming to understand that Fox News is center right, just like I am, and just like the United States is. Hence their ratings... and hence the stark decline of the New York Times and CBS, etc.

You must feel like you've landed on Mars or something. Ever consider moving overseas, to be with your own kind?



Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 11:27:28 AM)

I'm not outraged at all. Come out of the tinfoil. I'm pointing out the errors you stated.

All you can do is change the subject and ignore the points raised.

That's what I'm talking about. At some point, people have to awaken to the continuous contradictions.



Marc2b -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 12:29:06 PM)

quote:

And yet...

Those restrictions stand, upheld by the court.


Previous court rulings can be overturned. Some have and should have been. The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue places no obligation on us to agree with that ruling.

quote:

Corporate cash for elections, though, may flow, despite the obvious point that they've ample resources to drown out other voices (e.g., purchasing all advertising slots in a district 30 days before an election).


Corporate cash for elections has been flowing anyway but as far as I’m concerned, that’s not the important issue. You are concerned with the outcomes and seek to rig the process in a way to produce a desired outcome. I’m more concerned with the process itself. If we accept the premise that it is okay to restrict freedom of speech to some people simply because we don’t like them and/or what they are saying – then we have no basis upon which to assert our own rights. That is the true danger of the precedent you want to set.

The only election reform we really need is a sunshine law that states that any individual or entity (organization, corporation, etc) that donates any more than… oh… I dunno… say a hundred bucks (I’m flexible on this) has to file a publicly available record of it – which would be posted on a website. That way whoever is supporting a candidate will be open knowledge and those who want to squawk about where a candidate is getting their donations can then use their freedom of speech to do so without having to deny others their rights.

quote:

Life isn't that simple, Marc.


And the Pope is Catholic.



Sanity -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 12:32:49 PM)


Change the subject? [:D]

You're the one who started wigging out on my "dogmatic social agenda" and how I'm "blinded" and about my "preachers" blah blah blah, none of which had a thing to do with what I had posted.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm not outraged at all. Come out of the tinfoil. I'm pointing out the errors you stated.

All you can do is change the subject and ignore the points raised.

That's what I'm talking about. At some point, people have to awaken to the continuous contradictions.



Sanity -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 12:39:07 PM)


I totally agree with your entire post Marc, and I applaud it - except with sunshine laws. I'd like the law to be more severe, and have the parent organization behind every ad run identified in the ad as well as force therm to publicize every significant political donation they make. 



Marc2b -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 1:08:06 PM)

quote:

I totally agree with your entire post Marc, and I applaud it - except with sunshine laws. I'd like the law to be more severe, and have the parent organization behind every ad run identified in the ad as well as force therm to publicize every significant political donation they make.


I could go along with that. If you see an ad paid for by the "Concerned Citizens for Widget Access," then you should be able to look them up and see that their biggest contributer is the XYZ Widget Company.

Personally (and I realize that this is a fantasy) I wish all pretense was dropped:

"The Obama Administration... brought to you by General Electric."

"The Bush administration... brought to you by Haliburton."

"The Clinton Administration... brought to you by Victoria's Secret."




DarkSteven -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 1:46:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The Times sure has gone downhill since Murdoch bought it if they publish this drivel.



Unless something has happened in the last few days that I'm not aware of, Murdoch doesn't own the Times, though there have been rumors for years he was making attempts.

He does own the New York Post, if that's what you were thinking of.



Nope.  I had gotten it confused with the Wall Street Journal, which he recently bought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I wonder. Is there any chance that the new ad revenues will save the New York Times from total ruin?



The Times (and Murdoch for that matter) are trying another tack - they're making noises about charging for online content.  IMO, it's going to be an epic failure if that's tried.



Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 2:21:36 PM)

quote:

You are concerned with the outcomes and seek to rig the process in a way to produce a desired outcome. I’m more concerned with the process itself. If we accept the premise that it is okay to restrict freedom of speech to some people simply because we don’t like them and/or what they are saying – then we have no basis upon which to assert our own rights. That is the true danger of the precedent you want to set.


No, Marc, exactly the opposite.

Why do you suppose that we have Republicans as well upset about this ruling? We're all concerned about an equal access to free speech---not megaphones for those who can afford to monopolize the speech.

Know what? Ban political ads on television and I'm even OK with this.



Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 2:33:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Change the subject? [:D]

You're the one who started wigging out on my "dogmatic social agenda" and how I'm "blinded" and about my "preachers" blah blah blah, none of which had a thing to do with what I had posted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm not outraged at all. Come out of the tinfoil. I'm pointing out the errors you stated.

All you can do is change the subject and ignore the points raised.

That's what I'm talking about. At some point, people have to awaken to the continuous contradictions.



Here's the part you ignored--the part that answers the points you raised.

Yup, then I added other points.

quote:

Show me the many political ads in the Times. Oops. Besides, you don't even read the Times. You've no idea what you're saying. The Wall St. Journal, incidentally, has an editorial page that's rabidly right, but the rest of the paper is balanced.

TV ads are the name of the game. You know this. Your claim that they censor ads is extremely obviously false--just look at your TV set. He who pays gets ads run.

Far left? I suspect you have an extremely low threshold for that designation. Fox "leans" right? Be serious.

You may be right on CNN. It's been years since I've watched (no TV here).

Also....

You're under the impression that corporate voices haven't been heard before? Really?

This ruling will allow them to be more than heard--disproportionately so.




Marc2b -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 9:35:39 PM)

quote:

No, Marc, exactly the opposite.

Why do you suppose that we have Republicans as well upset about this ruling? We're all concerned about an equal access to free speech---not megaphones for those who can afford to monopolize the speech.


Percisely. You don't like who is speaking so you seek to rig the process to exclude them. Who the hell has been monopolizing speech? There are more avenues than television and there are plenty of other political blocks that use it. The labor unions use a lot of television advertising - should we limit their access as well? Or are they okay because they support the "right" political agenda. If Congress can pass a law restricting the corporations then why not pass a law restricting labor unions? I'm also curious to know why people think television is the be all and end all of political advertising. As the last election showed us, television is slowly but surely loosing ground to the internet. Shall we ban certain groups from using that?

quote:

Know what? Ban political ads on television and I'm even OK with this.


But then you run into that old bugaboo again, "Congress shall make no law..."




Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/24/2010 10:50:02 PM)

Marc, Congress has restricted unions similarly to corporations since 1947.



Marc2b -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 6:23:20 AM)

quote:

Marc, Congress has restricted unions similarly to corporations since 1947.


And yet every election season I still see tons of comercials from unions - in fact, not counting ads directly from a particular campaign itself, I see more from them that I do from any other group.  They are usually of the "call Congressman so and so and tell him to raise you taxes because we want a pay hike," kind. 




Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 7:22:12 AM)

And from corporations, hiding behind 529 groups---which they'll still do, to avoid alienating customers.

Marc, this seems a bunch of "Well, yeah, but what about....." stuff rather than a coherent position (beyond your purist view of the first amendment, a view the court upholds only when it wants to---hence the political ruling from an activist court).



Marc2b -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 8:30:01 AM)

quote:

And from corporations, hiding behind 529 groups---which they'll still do, to avoid alienating customers.


Exactly.  So why then trample on the first admendment in the name of feel good politics? 

quote:

Marc, this seems a bunch of "Well, yeah, but what about....." stuff rather than a coherent position (beyond your purist view of the first amendment, a view the court upholds only when it wants to---hence the political ruling from an activist court).


Oh good Lord!  I'm the one who is usually ranting about the "what if's."  My posistion is this:  making exceptions to people's rights is a dangerous thing because you are setting a precedent that could come back and bite you on the ass.  If there is no direct threat to life and limb, I see no reason for it.

My posistion is not purist.  In fact, you will rarely - if ever! - find me on the extreme in anything.  Extremism is absolutism and absolutism is moral cowardness and the truth is never found at the extremes anyway.  It is also a sure sign of ideological "thinking" and I despise ideologies.  I do not see how treading carefully with regard to our rights is extremist (or purist, or absolutist, or what have you).

The only absolutist posistion I have:  Should beautiful women fuck me whenever I want?  Yes.  Absolutely.   




Mercnbeth -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 8:56:57 AM)

McCain - Feingold was written as a funnel for getting cash into the pockets of the members of Congress. It received bipartisan support because there are enough special interests on both sides. Once the Bill was passed the number of registered PAC organizations ballooned. The consequence for the Bill is the current reality of political polarization, stimulating more PAC campaign contributions needed to insure the representatives vote according to the PAC's mission statement. The payoff for the bipartisan support is anyone elected to Congress would come out of Congress an extremely wealthy individual.

It is the bag-money version of MAD except that in this case - the war isn't 'cold'; it's being fought. Like all 'wars' it requires weapons, weapons, advertising time' in any venue; cost money. The only collateral damage is that campaigns are marketing campaigns filled with PAC special interest focus. The voter only has candidates presented to them who have signed on to a PAC party party platform. The results? Either you get a candidate beholden to too many PACs, making too many promises, ofter conflicting; and after election the campaign rhetoric doesn't, and can't, match up to expectation. Or you get a candidate bought and paid for by philosophy driven special interest PACs so disconnected with the electorate that voters stay home in lieu of voting for the candidate they dislike the least.

Considering there focus on the money side of the issue; I'm sure that most of those instructed to vote in favor of the bipartisan Bill by their party leaders, didn't read the Bill. The majority of Congress admits to not reading the Health Care Bill; would they take the time to read a Bill sold to them on the premise; "This will make you rich!"? Sell those with self identity 'liberal' on the fact that a PAC special interest group gives the downtrodden a 'voice'. Sell the 'conservative' side on the idea that a $1.00 from every 'Ditto-head' will generate Millions of campaign contributions. QED - the Bill passes.

The side bar distraction of this court ruling making corporations an 'entity' takes the focus from where it should be - the bought and paid for candidates the country has been offered since McCain Feingold was passed in the first place. Meanwhile, one side of the electorate is happy that MoveOn.Org and ACORN can funnel money into campaigns; the other side happy that Halliburton, Pro-Life have the same opportunity. They both complain when either group signs on an expensive 'free agent'; but fail to appreciate that they are not only spectators to the process, but victims.



Musicmystery -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 8:57:52 AM)

Decry all you want, Marc. You aren't seeing that you're on both sides of the fence on this.

We have a court that selectively upholds the amendment. You, apparently, are fine with that. I find it political.

What's with the "feel good" "what if" bullshit? There's a century of law here. No one suddenly cooked this up. There's an issue of disproportionate representation. If that's free speech to you, OK. If you can't see how others would object, you're just being an asshole.

Nor am I anywhere advocating suppression of just one side's speech. I do think that buying an election is different from the right to speak freely without fear of the government arresting you--which is the intent of the damn amendment, after all, along with the free right to assemble, petition for redress, practice religion of your choice and print what you want in your paper.

Let them start a gadzillion websites---people bitching about this are usually actually concerned about moveon.org's success. So counter it. Rush dominates talk radio---and he's every right to do so. No problem.

But if you can't see the problem with unlimited corporate cash going into an election, then you're an incredible fool. Obviously, there's room to disagree. But not even see why there would be an issue? Come on.

If you were actually true to your stated position, you'd be up in arms about all the times the court found to uphold laws limiting all the other speech restrictions. You'd also have to oppose national security restrictions--damn, it says no law!

And if you have to make up my positions instead of addressing the actual ones, that should tell you something. It does me.



Marc2b -> RE: Stacking the Court (1/25/2010 3:07:01 PM)

quote:

Decry all you want, Marc. You aren't seeing that you're on both sides of the fence on this.


It is not a question of being on both sides of the (or any) issue. It is a question of being able to look at an issue from multiple perspectives.

quote:

We have a court that selectively upholds the amendment. You, apparently, are fine with that. I find it political.


What?

quote:

What's with the "feel good" "what if" bullshit? There's a century of law here. No one suddenly cooked this up.


No shit.

quote:

There's an issue of disproportionate representation.


Welcome to the human race.

quote:

If that's free speech to you, OK. If you can't see how others would object, you're just being an asshole.


I never said that I didn’t see how others would object. I can see all too easily how others would object. What I am questioning is the proposed “solution.” What I am question is the age old, knee-jerk, response of “let’s pass a law,” especially in light of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I just prefer that things be thought through. If that makes me an asshole in your eyes, then so be it.

quote:

Nor am I anywhere advocating suppression of just one side's speech.


It wasn’t my intent to suggest that you did. If I came across that way, you have my apologies. I frequently use the people I am talking to as examples in the philosophizing that I am doing.

quote:

I do think that buying an election is different from the right to speak freely without fear of the government arresting you--which is the intent of the damn amendment, after all, along with the free right to assemble, petition for redress, practice religion of your choice and print what you want in your paper.


Obviously.

quote:

Let them start a gadzillion websites---people bitching about this are usually actually concerned about moveon.org's success. So counter it. Rush dominates talk radio---and he's every right to do so. No problem.


Huh? Them who?

quote:

But if you can't see the problem with unlimited corporate cash going into an election, then you're an incredible fool. Obviously, there's room to disagree. But not even see why there would be an issue? Come on.

It’s not that I don’t see a problem with unlimited (unlimited?) corporate cash going into an election. I have a problem with the government (power) telling us how much we can or cannot contribute.

quote:

If you were actually true to your stated position, you'd be up in arms about all the times the court found to uphold laws limiting all the other speech restrictions. You'd also have to oppose national security restrictions--damn, it says no law!


Well, since I’ve already stated that I am not a purist, this isn’t really an issue.

quote:

And if you have to make up my positions instead of addressing the actual ones, that should tell you something. It does me.


Well, since I already stated that that was not my intent…



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875