clock_of_omens said:
Quote:
"Mommy that's not fair?" Why not? Regular people have no voice? Are you joking. Who do you think owns corporations? Mostly regular people. Pension funds. You just hate rich people. Why is that?
Everybody in this country has the right to
1. Petition the government
2. Express their desires
3. Work to elect candidates who they believe will act in their interests
Everybody, even the rich. The Constitution does not say that rich people have to shut up.
Does it make you feel cool when you call people whiners and children? Yeah, it's regular people who own the giant corporations that fund campaigns, good one. I don't hate rich people. I hate the fact that people who have more money than they could ever need, or even use, are able to buy politicians and say “fuck democracy.” You obviously hate anyone who doesn't make an absurd amount of money, which I assume includes yourself, you should probably seek therapy.
They aren't buying politicians. They are supporting politicians who support the same things they do. You might just as well say that all the welfare bums are buying politicians.Quote:
You keep bringing up the constitution like it can't be changed. I'm not saying the rich should shut up, I'm saying they should have the same voice as everyone else.
They do. Quote:
Quote:
Where did I say corporations should get a vote? Where?
I didn't say they should. I said they didn't
If you don't think corporations should get a vote, why did you even bring it up? Saying things just to say them isn't a good way to argue.
In the end that is the only power. The ballot. Quote:
Quote:
The media most certainly is overwhelmingly liberal
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Wake up.
That article is about campaign donations, you know the thing I have been arguing against this whole thread. The actual media content does not have as much of an impact on the election as you are pretending it does. It's not like every news outlet except FOX is out there saying “vote for Obama.”
Almost.Quote:
Quote:
Yes. An objective media does not exist. Never has. Never can. The first step in your recovery is accepting that which you cannot change. Every single person on the planet including and maybe especially the media, has a bias.
Obviously every person has a bias. Every person who works in media has a bias, but they don't all have the same bias. Also, if anything the media pretends to be objective. Everything they report is “republicans say this, democrats say that, you can decide who is right.” This idea that the media has a giant impact on elections is just the usual conservative “oh no the liberal media is hiding in my closet to get me when I sleep.”
How can you whine about the power of corporations to buy media space (which is what they do with campaign contributions and PACs) and then out of the other side of your mouth say that all the liberal pamphleteering the press does is irrelevant? Maybe we should read the NY Times together someday and I will highlight all of the hidden editorializing that goes on. Quote:
Quote:
No thanks. You want a government entity to decide who can donate to whom? Thanks, but no thanks.
No I don't, as that would go against what I've been arguing this whole time. I want the government to say that no one can donate to anyone. Then I want them to decide how much each candidate gets, and what constitutes a legitimate party, i.e. not dingbats.
Well then let's just change our name to West Korea.Quote:
Quote:
The press has huge money and a vast supply of ink. When you tell those oligarchs to shut up you can tell any other person or group to shut up. Until then you should stop whining. Do you know why the media companies and the NY Times in particular hate these decisions? because they threaten their monopoly. You don't like monopolies, do you?
No, I don't like monopolies. Neither should anyone who calls themselves a capitalist.
You want media companies to have a monopoly on the message.Quote:
Quote:
No it isn't. The company worked to help a candidate who they thought was going to enact policies that is to their advantage. I work to elect candidates whose policies I think are to my advantage. Bums work to elect candidates whose policies they think will be to their advantage. Is a campaign volunteer bribing the politician he/she works for?
Except so called “bums,” and I assume you as well, can't afford to give the same huge sums of money that the richest in the country can. No, because the volunteers aren't giving the politician money. Although the volunteer should probably make sure they aren't wasting their time helping a corporate stooge.
The volunteer is giving value. Same thing as giving money. Same thing the NY Times does every day. What's wrong with working for a corporate stooge if that is what you think is in your interest?Quote:
Quote:
Because the unions have been the biggest contributors and because their membership cannot leave if they disagree without losing their jobs. Union campaign contributions are coerced from membership.
And as I said before, I'm against them donating as well.
There is actually a more compelling argument to stop union contributions because they are coerced. Nobody is forced to buy a stock. Many people are forced to join unions if they want to ply their trade. Quote:
Quote:
I am a freedom of speech shill. You are a Stalinist.
I would rather be a socialist than someone who in the name of “free speech,” bows down to corporate America while they ruin our democracy.
They aren't ruining our democracy, we aren't a democracy and the socialist scumsucking loser panderers are the ones ruining the economy. The corporations are what made our economy great. What did any socialist loser ever contribute through socialism?
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Enlil
clock_of_omens 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
Silversoul
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
luvdemshrooms
PookztA
Phred