Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Citizens United: money is speech

  1. #1
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4667

    From
    Vertiform City

    Citizens United: money is speech

    Our Supreme Idiots seem to think there's no social or political danger in letting special interests spend vast sums of money to influence campaigns.

    Well goddamit, I'm thoroughly immersed in one, and so it seems are you.

    The volume of lies is up dramatically in the last two or three campaigns. In fact, there's so many lies floating around, that We the People actually have to work to distinguish reality from someone's pipe dream. In fact, we have to work so hard that it's almost a full time job keeping up with all the fucking lies.

    In the past week here on PH there's been at least a dozen threads with talking points exposed as outright lies. They're coming from both sides of the aisles, there's no difference in the volume between red and blue.

    The VOLUME OF LIES is overwhelming, there's no way any reasonable human being can discern the truth when he or she is being flooded with lies. If only 5% of what you hear is the truth, then you have to be really good to pick the wheat from the chaff, and not only that you have to waste half your day listening to the chaff.

    I can not even believe our Supreme Idiots are this stupid.

    I believe this ruling was deliberate, to produce exactly this effect.

    And now we're going to see the results.

  2. #2
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,528
    Thanks
    34419

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Our Supreme Idiots seem to think there's no social or political danger in letting special interests spend vast sums of money to influence campaigns.

    Well goddamit, I'm thoroughly immersed in one, and so it seems are you.

    The volume of lies is up dramatically in the last two or three campaigns. In fact, there's so many lies floating around, that We the People actually have to work to distinguish reality from someone's pipe dream. In fact, we have to work so hard that it's almost a full time job keeping up with all the fucking lies.

    In the past week here on PH there's been at least a dozen threads with talking points exposed as outright lies. They're coming from both sides of the aisles, there's no difference in the volume between red and blue.

    The VOLUME OF LIES is overwhelming, there's no way any reasonable human being can discern the truth when he or she is being flooded with lies. If only 5% of what you hear is the truth, then you have to be really good to pick the wheat from the chaff, and not only that you have to waste half your day listening to the chaff.

    I can not even believe our Supreme Idiots are this stupid.

    I believe this ruling was deliberate, to produce exactly this effect.

    And now we're going to see the results.
    Agreed. Anyone in marketing and/or advertising will tell that perceptions are reality and exposure and/or name recognition is absolutely vital. I can get on the media and tell you the truth, lay it out with enough objective evidence that no reasonable person could doubt it's truth.
    BUT, if an adversary can get on the media and tell a complete lie and offer NO objective truth whatsoever he will get away with it 90% of the time IF he can repeat his lie many more times and get much more public exposure and media attention than my truth.
    Just repeat something loud enough, often enough, publicly enough and look convincing while you do it and the mass of people will swallow it.
    And THAT"S the critical difference money makes. If I can BUY all the media exposure I want then 90% of the time I'll win, no matter how full of shit I am. I can BURY THE truth under a mountain of noise and sheer volume of bullshit.

  3. #3
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,857
    Thanks
    24472

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Our Supreme Idiots seem to think there's no social or political danger in letting special interests spend vast sums of money to influence campaigns.
    Well goddamit, I'm thoroughly immersed in one, and so it seems are you.

    The volume of lies is up dramatically in the last two or three campaigns. In fact, there's so many lies floating around, that We the People actually have to work to distinguish reality from someone's pipe dream. In fact, we have to work so hard that it's almost a full time job keeping up with all the fucking lies.

    In the past week here on PH there's been at least a dozen threads with talking points exposed as outright lies. They're coming from both sides of the aisles, there's no difference in the volume between red and blue.

    The VOLUME OF LIES is overwhelming, there's no way any reasonable human being can discern the truth when he or she is being flooded with lies. If only 5% of what you hear is the truth, then you have to be really good to pick the wheat from the chaff, and not only that you have to waste half your day listening to the chaff.

    I can not even believe our Supreme Idiots are this stupid.

    I believe this ruling was deliberate, to produce exactly this effect.

    And now we're going to see the results.
    Maybe. But there is more danger in giving government the ability to restrict political speech by telling people what they can or can't spend. It would be like the Founding Fathers telling people they could print whatever they wanted but the government controls all the printing presses.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,528
    Thanks
    34419

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Maybe. But there is more danger in giving government the ability to restrict political speech by telling people what they can or can't spend. It would be like the Founding Fathers telling people they could print whatever they wanted but the government controls all the printing presses.
    I can see your point of view. Please read post #2 on this thread and give me your input.

  5. #5
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,857
    Thanks
    24472

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    I can see your point of view. Please read post #2 on this thread and give me your input.
    Using this to punish people who lie is also punishing people who tell the truth. It doesn't distinguish between the two. And by limiting political speech, the real winners are the incumbent office holders. They already get free media coverage and the pulpit of their office to speak from. So by limiting how much publicity a challenger can generate for themselves or what advocacy groups can do to publicly criticize those office holders, it locks in their inherent advantages.

  6. #6
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4667

    From
    Vertiform City
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Using this to punish people who lie is also punishing people who tell the truth. It doesn't distinguish between the two. And by limiting political speech, the real winners are the incumbent office holders. They already get free media coverage and the pulpit of their office to speak from. So by limiting how much publicity a challenger can generate for themselves or what advocacy groups can do to publicly criticize those office holders, it locks in their inherent advantages.
    Campaign laws apply to incumbents too. It forces them to run on their records instead of on fluff.

  7. #7
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,857
    Thanks
    24472

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Campaign laws apply to incumbents too. It forces them to run on their records instead of on fluff.
    It doesn't limit their franking privileges or media coverage. It doesn't stop, say, a pork barrelling member of Congress from making sure his name is on federal projects.

  8. #8
    Join, or Die nonsqtr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    32,903
    Thanks
    4667

    From
    Vertiform City
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    It doesn't limit their franking privileges or media coverage. It doesn't stop, say, a pork barrelling member of Congress from making sure his name is on federal projects.
    Yes. It is not a panacea. But it's a step in the right direction. And also a prerequisite for certain other improvements in and to our system.

    Regarding your post #3, the point of my OP is that there is a legitimate public interest in having some regulation over the application of those presses for a specific purpose. It is not at all equivalent to government ownership, it's more of a regulatory role. It protects the People from others, which is the precise function of government.

    Our Supreme Fools are complete idiots. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press". We're not abridging the freedom of the press here, not at all. We're abridging the siezure of the press by a single entity or two entities - effectively a de-facto monopoly based on billions and billions of dollars. In fact, we are protecting the freedom of the press by limiting the access of entities who would monopolize it.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,528
    Thanks
    34419

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Using this to punish people who lie is also punishing people who tell the truth. It doesn't distinguish between the two. And by limiting political speech, the real winners are the incumbent office holders. They already get free media coverage and the pulpit of their office to speak from. So by limiting how much publicity a challenger can generate for themselves or what advocacy groups can do to publicly criticize those office holders, it locks in their inherent advantages.
    Using what? Campaign finance laws? limiting the amount of moeny each candidate can spend? If each candidate is allowed the exact same amount of money who's being punished?

  10. #10
    Penny for your thots Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87,857
    Thanks
    24472

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Yes. It is not a panacea. But it's a step in the right direction. And also a prerequisite for certain other improvements in and to our system.

    Regarding your post #3, the point of my OP is that there is a legitimate public interest in having some regulation over the application of those presses for a specific purpose. It is not at all equivalent to government ownership, it's more of a regulatory role. It protects the People from others, which is the precise function of government.

    Our Supreme Fools are complete idiots. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press". We're not abridging the freedom of the press here, not at all. We're abridging the siezure of the press by a single entity or two entities - effectively a de-facto monopoly based on billions and billions of dollars. In fact, we are protecting the freedom of the press by limiting the access of entities who would monopolize it.
    The internet is the game changer here. There isn't a monopoly anymore. It's the equalizer. Anyone can have a blog. Anyone can produce a youtube video. That Obamagirl video was probably seen by more people than any ad funded by Archer-Daniels-Midland.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed