|
 Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
 
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US 
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
 What is Political Spending? 
#21615928 - 04/30/15 12:14 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In other threads, we discussed the need to limit the power and influence that big money has on our Government. Here is one possible solution, which Bigbadwooof and Stonehenge assisted with (with the help of Enlil, BoldAsLove, and psyconaught, by asking tough questions):
Quote:
Quote:
A publication, broadcast program, or performance is free to include whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit.
Advertising costs paid by the first party to put political content into public view (not including production costs or the cost to display publications for sale), assessed at fair market value (to prevent circumventing this rule) are subject to individual spending limits.
Political content is that which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.
A 3rd party is anyone not acting on behalf of the publication, production, or performance. A 3rd party can pay a political publication/program to insert or dictate non-political content.
Advertising is any form of communication used to attempt to persuade an audience to take or continue some position.
To enforce the above, penalties would be placed on both the entity spending the money, and the entity receiving the money.
If anyone can find any holes, I’ll edit the above to close them.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/25/17 11:44 AM)
|
 zZZz
jesus
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,479
|
|
there should not be any ads to begin with imho.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
You're quite the totalitarian.
Fortunately, you have no power to shit on people politically.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Fortunately, you have no power to shit on people politically.
Unfortunately, they have the power to shit on you.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Does the viewer simply have to intend to a view a general program. Or do they have to be exactly aware of what political views will be present in the program ahead of time?
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21618417 - 04/30/15 05:30 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The former is sufficient, but either exempts it from being an ad.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/30/15 07:38 PM)
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
I don't know anyone who doesnt expect ads to be part of ingesting media. In fact the absence of ads is the exception instead of the rule.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Falcon, how do you define who is intending to watch an advertisement or not? For example, Super Bowl ads are very popular and a lot of my friends watch the Super Bowl solely or partly because of the advertisements.
More broadly, if I choose to watch a TV program that is also available online, am I not choosing to watch the advertisements on the TV as well as the show?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor  and Ferdinand  , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21618923 - 04/30/15 07:15 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
I don't know anyone who doesnt expect ads to be part of ingesting media. In fact the absence of ads is the exception instead of the rule.
To clarify the original statement and to better match the first part with the second part, I changed it as follows:
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom aren’t actively seeking it, then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits. If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom intend to seeare seeking such content, then it is not an ad, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21618930 - 04/30/15 07:17 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Falcon, how do you define who is intending to watch an advertisement or not? For example, Super Bowl ads are very popular and a lot of my friends watch the Super Bowl solely or partly because of the advertisements.
More broadly, if I choose to watch a TV program that is also available online, am I not choosing to watch the advertisements on the TV as well as the show?
The key statement from the original post is "a majority of whom". That makes the answer easy.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Falcon, how do you define who is intending to watch an advertisement or not? For example, Super Bowl ads are very popular and a lot of my friends watch the Super Bowl solely or partly because of the advertisements.
More broadly, if I choose to watch a TV program that is also available online, am I not choosing to watch the advertisements on the TV as well as the show?
The key statement from the original post is "a majority of whom". That makes the answer easy.
Perhaps the answer is clear in current society, but societies change, often rapidly. That's why I think it is important that you are able to clearly define a person's intentions, because that is what your definition hinges on. I'm curious as to how you know a person's intentions or not.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21619538 - 04/30/15 09:47 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I'm curious as to how you know a person's intentions or not.
For your particular example, we know that 1/4 Watch Super Bowl For Ads 
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/30/15 10:16 PM)
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Right, but it still doesn't answer my question. I must not be very clear with what I'm asking. I'm saying how do you judge a person's intentions with out a survey? Just because it's obvious now does not mean that it will be so obvious forever, therefore it would be a good idea to define it in clear and concise terms.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21620229 - 05/01/15 12:50 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Right, but it still doesn't answer my question. I must not be very clear with what I'm asking. I'm saying how do you judge a person's intentions with out a survey? Just because it's obvious now does not mean that it will be so obvious forever, therefore it would be a good idea to define it in clear and concise terms.
I don't think I do understand the question. "A majority of whom" means 50%+. Is that not clearly defined?
If someday 50% or more of the people that watch the Super Bowl watch it strictly for the commercials, then by the above standard (which isn't the only possible solution) you can then begin running political ads during the Super Bowl, because that's what people are seeking.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
The majority of whom isn't that part that is confusing me. My point is what defines a person's intentions and what they are seeking to watch. If two things are being broadcast at an identical time (shows + commercials), how do you decide who is watching what? Or if two forms of media have to be intertwined, such as trailers before movies, how do you tell if they are there to watch the movie or the trailers? I agree that it is a preposterous question now, but I'm not convinced that it will always be that way.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 9 months, 17 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21620558 - 05/01/15 04:32 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It will never fly, simply for the reason that the government has a substantial interest in it.
That is, if for example, candidate A advocates removing government restriction on (Theoretical) Policy X, than to restrict commercial speech (advertisement) that states this position is a violation because the government has a substantial interest in governmental policy.
Just the fact that the government has a substantial interest in elections means they couldn't restrict advertisement for campaigns.
It is easy to see why. The government is restricting in this case free speech on something it has a large interest in.
That's the kind of thing Totalitarian Governments do.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Right, but it still doesn't answer my question. I must not be very clear with what I'm asking. I'm saying how do you judge a person's intentions with out a survey? Just because it's obvious now does not mean that it will be so obvious forever, therefore it would be a good idea to define it in clear and concise terms.
I don't think I do understand the question. "A majority of whom" means 50%+. Is that not clearly defined?
If someday 50% or more of the people that watch the Super Bowl watch it strictly for the commercials, then by the above standard (which isn't the only possible solution) you can then begin running political ads during the Super Bowl, because that's what people are seeking.
so every time someone wants to run an ad a survey must be done on the consumers of that specific media to determine what their intention is?
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
It will never fly, simply for the reason that the government has a substantial interest in it.
It is easy to see why. The government is restricting in this case free speech on something it has a large interest in.
That's the kind of thing Totalitarian Governments do.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both said they are ready to Amend the Constitution to limit big money in politics. Have any Republicans taken that position yet?
Perhaps we know who the totalitarians are.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21621187 - 05/01/15 09:15 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
The majority of whom isn't that part that is confusing me. My point is what defines a person's intentions and what they are seeking to watch. If two things are being broadcast at an identical time (shows + commercials), how do you decide who is watching what? Or if two forms of media have to be intertwined, such as trailers before movies, how do you tell if they are there to watch the movie or the trailers? I agree that it is a preposterous question now, but I'm not convinced that it will always be that way.
I understand your question, but the survey I linked to asked that very question.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21621200 - 05/01/15 09:18 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
so every time someone wants to run an ad a survey must be done on the consumers of that specific media to determine what their intention is?
Keep in mind that today the number is only 24.9%, a far cry from a majority - and that's people that want to see adds in general. If you ask the question of whether they want to see political adds during the Super Bowl, the number would go WAY down. I don't see it ever getting close to 50%, even if attitudes change. People go to political sites if they want to hear about politics.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
It will never fly, simply for the reason that the government has a substantial interest in it.
It is easy to see why. The government is restricting in this case free speech on something it has a large interest in.
That's the kind of thing Totalitarian Governments do.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both said they are ready to Amend the Constitution to limit big money in politics. Have any Republicans taken that position yet?
Perhaps we know who the totalitarians are.
So the Pubs are totalitarian because they DONT want to limit political speech?
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
It will never fly, simply for the reason that the government has a substantial interest in it.
It is easy to see why. The government is restricting in this case free speech on something it has a large interest in.
That's the kind of thing Totalitarian Governments do.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both said they are ready to Amend the Constitution to limit big money in politics. Have any Republicans taken that position yet?
Perhaps we know who the totalitarians are.
In that particular instance, it'd be Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and you.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21621410 - 05/01/15 10:09 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
starfire_xes susggested they were totalitarian because they refuse to do anything that would limit their power.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
djskipmode
Stranger
Registered: 05/01/13
Posts: 52
Loc: pa wv area
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21621437 - 05/01/15 10:14 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
People the government is trying to take are mushroom spore syringes away . So fight and start making friend so you can start to store them so that if they do get taken away there will be enough people out there with spores that we can fight and make it so that if anyone that would want these for medicinal reason to healthcare self they can get them from people like use. If u would like to.be friends PM me and we can talk. Also if you got any seeds that you would like me to try out and grow please get at me to
--------------------
Here to lrean.here to listen. Here to grow. Please teach me and help a newbie out. Muchlove and respect
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I understand your question, but the survey I linked to asked that very question.
So the only way it can be done is with a survey?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
so every time someone wants to run an ad a survey must be done on the consumers of that specific media to determine what their intention is?
Keep in mind that today the number is only 24.9%, a far cry from a majority - and that's people that want to see adds in general. If you ask the question of whether they want to see political adds during the Super Bowl, the number would go WAY down. I don't see it ever getting close to 50%, even if attitudes change. People go to political sites if they want to hear about politics.
I agree, it's a ridiculous question now, but I don't think it will always be. For example, content distributors are trying hard to target ads to individuals. It wouldn't surprise me at all if relatively soon you are given the choice of which advertisements you would like to watch. So if I choose to watch the show with political advertisements, do they count as advertisements because I have actively gone to watch them as opposed to the one with car commercials? What about choosing to watch a show on TV, when it is just as easily available ad-free on the internet?
If this is something you want to be law, it's important to have as a clear a definition as possible so that it can account for loopholes. I assure you, politicians will do whatever they can to find a way around it.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21621775 - 05/01/15 11:54 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I agree, it's a ridiculous question now, but I don't think it will always be. For example, content distributors are trying hard to target ads to individuals. It wouldn't surprise me at all if relatively soon you are given the choice of which advertisements you would like to watch. So if I choose to watch the show with political advertisements, do they count as advertisements because I have actively gone to watch them as opposed to the one with car commercials? What about choosing to watch a show on TV, when it is just as easily available ad-free on the internet?
If this is something you want to be law, it's important to have as a clear a definition as possible so that it can account for loopholes. I assure you, politicians will do whatever they can to find a way around it.
this is already the case with online advertisements. Google ads are tailored to your interests based on what pages you visit. I frequently see ads online for music or other products that i am genuinely interested in because google, amazon, iTunes, etc are so good at figuring out what the consumer wants.
I wouldnt be surprised that with the rise of smart TV's and the death of traditional cable networks if this sort of tailored advertising made its way to television. Oh you frequent MSNBC? Here's a trailer for a pro Hilary Clinton documentary!
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21622185 - 05/01/15 02:03 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if relatively soon you are given the choice of which advertisements you would like to watch.
Which advertisements you would like to watch? Or which advertisements you must watch? The distinction is important.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So if I choose to watch the show with political advertisements, do they count as advertisements because I have actively gone to watch them as opposed to the one with car commercials? What about choosing to watch a show on TV, when it is just as easily available ad-free on the internet?
If you want to watch a political add instead of skipping the ad altogether, then that's fine.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Which advertisements you would like to watch? Or which advertisements you must watch?
Once again, consumption of ALL media is optional, including the advertisements, unless corporations start putting armed gunmen in our homes to ensure we watch the ads, in which case we have an actual issue on our hands.
Quote:
If you want to watch a political add instead of skipping the ad altogether, then that's fine.
give me a single situation in which it is impossible to avoid watching a political advertisement.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21622583 - 05/01/15 03:49 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
consumption of ALL media is optional, including the advertisements, unless corporations start putting armed gunmen in our homes to ensure we watch the ads, in which case we have an actual issue on our hands.
"Optional" isn't in the proposed definition. We specifically chose the words "actively seeking".
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Which advertisements you would like to watch? Or which advertisements you must watch?
this was your quote. There are no advertisements you MUST watch. The only ads you consume are the ones you want to.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21622721 - 05/01/15 04:36 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Fair point. I should have said:
"Which advertisements you would like to watch? Or which advertisements you are not seeking to watch?"
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if relatively soon you are given the choice of which advertisements you would like to watch.
Which advertisements you would like to watch? Or which advertisements you must watch? The distinction is important.
To watch the content you must watch their advertisement, however you are given the option of topic. For example, consumer ads, political ads, or media ads. If you choose political ads are you actively seeking that content?
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So if I choose to watch the show with political advertisements, do they count as advertisements because I have actively gone to watch them as opposed to the one with car commercials? What about choosing to watch a show on TV, when it is just as easily available ad-free on the internet?
If you want to watch a political add instead of skipping the ad altogether, then that's fine.
But if a majority of people choose to do this, are they actively seeking the content?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21622819 - 05/01/15 05:08 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Per the definition above, you have to be actively seeking the content in order for it not to be an ad.
If "none of the above" isn't a choice, then there's no way to know if you are actively seeking the content, but we do know that today, a majority of people don't like to have ads put in front of them before they get to watch something they are actively seeking.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
if a majority of people choose to do this, are they actively seeking the content?
If a majority WANT to watch political ads before a YouTube video (or whatever else), then yes (although I doubt that will ever happen).
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Per the definition above, you have to be actively seeking the content in order for it not to be an ad.
If "none of the above" isn't a choice, then there's no way to know if you are actively seeking the content, but we do know that today, a majority of people don't like to have ads put in front of them before they get to watch something they are actively seeking.
This is exactly my point. There is no way to know. That's my issue with the definition. It relies on something that cannot be measured easily and objectively.
Just because it's obvious today, does not mean it will always be. And I would bet that a law with this definition would rapidly lead to political parties and PACs creating grey areas, quickly making this definition hard to implement.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
zZZz
jesus
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,479
|
|
that would mean they would have to reveal to the majority of the population that their ads contain political messages. which is the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. the whole point of politics is to police the population without them really knowing because of what it takes to keep a stable civilization; corruption.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: zZZz]
#21622877 - 05/01/15 05:27 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Per the definition above, you have to be actively seeking the content in order for it not to be an ad.
If a character in a popular sitcom drinks a Coke during one of the scenes because Coke gave the show money is that considered an ad? The viewer is intending to view the sitcom.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21622915 - 05/01/15 05:38 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
There is no way to know. That's my issue with the definition. It relies on something that cannot be measured easily and objectively.
A poll can be measured quite easily. And currently the program that the most people watch for the ads (25%) is the Super Bowl. How many of those 25% do you think would watch the Super Bowl for political ads? A LOT less than 25%.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I would bet that a law with this definition would rapidly lead to political parties and PACs creating grey areas, quickly making this definition hard to implement.
Can you provide an example?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21622926 - 05/01/15 05:40 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Per the definition above, you have to be actively seeking the content in order for it not to be an ad.
If a character in a popular sitcom drinks a Coke during one of the scenes because Coke gave the show money is that considered an ad? The viewer is intending to view the sitcom.
Yes, because a 3rd party dictated the content, but it's not a political ad.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Per the definition above, you have to be actively seeking the content in order for it not to be an ad.
If a character in a popular sitcom drinks a Coke during one of the scenes because Coke gave the show money is that considered an ad? The viewer is intending to view the sitcom.
Yes, because a 3rd party dictated the content, but it's not a political ad.
But the viewer is actively seeking that content, therefore if it was political would it not be exempt from the limit? Unless you are suggesting the viewer has to be actively aware of every set piece, line of dialogue, filming location, article of clothing, poster, etc, etc, etc, on the show.
And is the 3rd party dictating the content if the 1st party (network) agree's to it? If i put a poster for a smoothie shop in the window of my print store the smoothie shop is not dictating my window content, it is a mutual agreement.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
There is no way to know. That's my issue with the definition. It relies on something that cannot be measured easily and objectively.
A poll can be measured quite easily. And currently the program that the most people watch for the ads (25%) is the Super Bowl. How many of those 25% do you think would watch the Super Bowl for political ads? A LOT less than 25%.
So do you have to take a poll before you consume any media to define whether or not you are actively seeking certain content?
Quote:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I would bet that a law with this definition would rapidly lead to political parties and PACs creating grey areas, quickly making this definition hard to implement.
Can you provide an example?
I'm not a terribly creative individual, but I think we can all agree that when money and power are involved, people will find ways around whatever roadblocks you put up, particularly if there is no objective way of measuring the key factor.
Regardless, the loopholes in my mind come up because you can't define what someone is actively seeking. If a political ad is crucial to a TV show or movie (like extreme product placement), are people actively seeking it? They could just as easily watch another show which doesn't have the political messages, or they may be watching to show solely for the political messages. If you have to take a survey each time, it's not a terribly efficient way of doing things.
Also, how do you define an ad as being political v. any other type of ad? What if they are extremely subtle? What if they overtly advertise something else, but are also political in nature?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21623548 - 05/01/15 08:26 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
But the viewer is actively seeking that content, therefore if it was political would it not be exempt from the limit? Unless you are suggesting the viewer has to be actively aware of every set piece, line of dialogue, filming location, article of clothing, poster, etc, etc, etc, on the show.
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm simply stating that a 3rd party can't dictate political content above their individual spending limit.
Quote:
psyconaught said:
And is the 3rd party dictating the content if the 1st party (network) agree's to it? If i put a poster for a smoothie shop in the window of my print store the smoothie shop is not dictating my window content, it is a mutual agreement.
If the smoothie shop owner isn't paying you above the individual contribution limit, then it's fine for you to put up the poster.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
The issue is the word "dictate"
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21623804 - 05/01/15 09:25 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
The issue is the word "dictate"
Good point. I changed the last part as follows:
Quote:
unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the show political content.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
We've been through this quite thoroughly. I would like to partake in this discussion, but I think the best arguments for either side have been heard, and I think the arguments against reform (that I have seen so far) in this thread are very poor.
I think we have come to a very rational, reasonable conclusion, Falcon. I don't think we need validation from closed minded conservatives to demonstrate that. A lot of deep though has been put into the conclusion we have arrived at, and I don't think you're going to get that kind of input in this thread.
Arguing for the sake of argument is about as useful as jerking off.
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
    
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21623934 - 05/01/15 10:04 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I actually think the criticisms have helped improve on the original definition above. Each update that is made makes it harder to criticize. I think the above is looking pretty good now (thanks for your input as well, as noted in he OP).
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
Hmm, maybe I should read it. I just read through the first page a bit. It's just getting exhausting debating semantics, or people who see no need for change at all.
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21624251 - 05/01/15 11:34 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So do you have to take a poll before you consume any media to define whether or not you are actively seeking certain content?
If you have to take a survey each time, it's not a terribly efficient way of doing things.
I disagree that a majority of people will ever want to see political ads inserted in their programming, and I don't think a poll will ever even be necessary. But how about this? Short and to the point.
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it, or if a 3rd party puts a political statement into content people actively seek, then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits.
A statement is political if it discusses politicians or Government policy.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/02/15 10:38 AM)
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it,
just some? Now this literally makes everything having to do with politics an advertisement.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21625650 - 05/02/15 11:27 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it,
just some? Now this literally makes everything having to do with politics an advertisement.
No. Only paid political statements that people aren't actively seeking.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it,
just some? Now this literally makes everything having to do with politics an advertisement.
No. Only paid political statements that people aren't actively seeking.
I agree with psyconaught, "some" is way too easy of a criteria to meet. Find five people (or bribe them) to be actively seeking the content and you have "some." I was fine with having "majority" in the phrase earlier. I'm just think that "actively seeking" is too broadly defined and can easily be abused, especially if the only way to measure it is with a survey. It seems that we probably won't be able to come to an agreement on that point. For the record, I'm not necessarily against limitations on political ads, but it needs to be worded in an entirely objective way. Any grey area would make things messy quickly.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21625777 - 05/02/15 12:05 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If i go to a news stand looking for playboy and i happen to see a TIME magazine with a politically charged title then under your definition TIME magazine is now a political ad because I wasnt actively seeking it.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21625794 - 05/02/15 12:08 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I agree with psyconaught, "some" is way too easy of a criteria to meet. Find five people (or bribe them) to be actively seeking the content and you have "some."
You've actually got it backwards. The updated standard would apply if some people are NOT seeking political content.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I was fine with having "majority" in the phrase earlier. I'm just think that "actively seeking" is too broadly defined and can easily be abused, especially if the only way to measure it is with a survey. It seems that we probably won't be able to come to an agreement on that point. For the record, I'm not necessarily against limitations on political ads, but it needs to be worded in an entirely objective way. Any grey area would make things messy quickly.
I agree, and that's why I'm trying to see if this can be written in a way that's as objective as possible. I very much appreciate the input.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21625824 - 05/02/15 12:15 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
If i go to a news stand looking for playboy and i happen to see a TIME magazine with a politically charged title then under your definition TIME magazine is now a political ad because I wasnt actively seeking it.
That's a very good question - perhaps the first I find difficult to answer. Obviously, my gut feel is that it is not an ad, but then the text above may need to be modified somewhat.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
If i go to a news stand looking for playboy and i happen to see a TIME magazine with a politically charged title then under your definition TIME magazine is now a political ad because I wasnt actively seeking it.
That's a very good question - perhaps the first I find difficult to answer. Obviously, my gut feel is that it is not an ad, but then the text above may need to be modified somewhat.
"gut feelings" shouldn't be the deciding factor when dealing with 1st amendments issues.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21625840 - 05/02/15 12:20 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Your lastest revised "test" statement basically strips all freedom of press in this country. Its a horrifying proposal quite honestly.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21625916 - 05/02/15 12:42 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Your lastest revised "test" statement basically strips all freedom of press in this country. Its a horrifying proposal quite honestly.
No, it only limits political advertising. Again, I'm agreeing that we shouldn't restrict Time magazine from having a political cover.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Your lastest revised "test" statement basically strips all freedom of press in this country. Its a horrifying proposal quite honestly.
No, it only limits political advertising. Again, I'm agreeing that we shouldn't restrict Time magazine from having a political cover.
under your definition all political press would be considered advertising.
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits.
A statement is political if it discusses politicians or Government policy.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 9 months, 17 days
|
|
FAL, THIS IDEA is probably one the most ridiculous fucking things I've every heard in my life. I suggest you go get a glass belly-button installed.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21629711 - 05/03/15 11:34 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
That's a very good question - perhaps the first I find difficult to answer. Obviously, my gut feel is that it is not an ad, but then the text above may need to be modified somewhat.
"gut feelings" shouldn't be the deciding factor when dealing with 1st amendments issues.
Of course not. Here's one possible revision:
Quote:
If a political content is put in front of people for the purpose of making a political statement, some of whom aren’t actively seeking it, or if a 3rd party puts a political statement into content people actively seek, then the statement is an ad and is subject to individual contribution limits.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
that doesnt really change anything. The entire point of political journalism is to make a political statement.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21629748 - 05/03/15 11:45 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But people who read journalism are "actively seeking" it.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
That doesnt address my scenario though. The TIMES would still be considered a political ad under your definition if it had a political cover and just one person was looking for something else and happened to see it.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21630495 - 05/03/15 02:51 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That's why I changed the definition above. You don't put the Times on your shelf "for the purpose of making a political statement".
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
That's why I changed the definition above. You don't put the Times on your shelf "for the purpose of making a political statement".
This is still a fairly vague statement though. How do you determine if they are trying to make a political statement or not?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21630609 - 05/03/15 03:16 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
This is still a fairly vague statement though. How do you determine if they are trying to make a political statement or not?
The Times might be making a political statement by putting something on their cover, but if the cover is simply visible because it's sitting on a shelf of a News Stand, that's not a political statement.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The Times might be making a political statement by putting something on their cover, but if the cover is simply visible because it's sitting on a shelf of a News Stand, that's not a political statement.
The current iteration of your definition says "if a political content is put in front of people for the purpose of making a political statement..."
How can you determine for what reason content was put in front of people? The Times could put something on their cover, knowing full well that lots of people will see it and be affected by it, and still claim that they didn't do it for the purpose of making a political statement.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21630970 - 05/03/15 05:16 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed, but the Times can make a political statement on their cover because they're allowed to determine the content of their own paper. The question is whether the Times pays to have their content displayed on a store shelf for the purpose of making a political statement.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Exactly, the Times has to pay to make and distribute the content. So I'm a little confused; why does that not fall under your definition as a political advertisement?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21631543 - 05/03/15 07:44 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Exactly, the Times has to pay to make and distribute the content. So I'm a little confused; why does that not fall under your definition as a political advertisement?
Yes, they pay to make and distribute the content, but the store owner is the one who displays it in order to sell it.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
So as long as you're not the one physically displaying the content, it isn't an ad?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: BoldAsLove]
#21632924 - 05/04/15 12:50 AM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So as long as you're not the one physically displaying the content, it isn't an ad?
It depends if you're being paid to display it to make a political statement, or if you're displaying it to sell a product.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
I don't think that the latest iteration of your test adequately describes that. It just says that if content is put in front of people for the purpose of making a political statement, but I don't see any distinction as to who puts the content in front of people. If the Times, knowing full well that their content will be broadly displayed, chooses to make a political statement, I believe they fall under individual contribution limits per your definition.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 9 months, 17 days
|
|
This whole idea is one fucked-up, totalitarian idea. Here is at least one of the thing that I suggest is BAD:
1) The government create an agency to monitor this.
2) It will have a Czar and tens of thousands of NON-ELECTED Decision makers in it.
3) Their job will be to screen all advertisements to ensure that funny stuffWe isn't going on.
4) They will gain control and regulation on deciding what isn't and isn't 'Good' in term of political advertiements and speech.
5 One or the other parties gains control sufficiently to run the agency.
6 What ends up being a 'political advertisement'is what some faceless person at the agency decides.
7 Eventually, what happens, is they begin to limit advertising/ideas/ etc that oppose their political ideology.
8 their power morphs into control of books, media, etc, at every point in the chain.
Welcome to Faranheit 451.
Here's how I see your viewpoint on a lot of things FAL:
'The Government' is corrupted by money. The corruption causes the government to loot the treasury for for their friends in industry.
So, we have a 'henhouse' of political money, that is abused by politicians.....
So to fix the problem, we have more politicians and agencies, and other government people to write regulations and control it.
So, in order to protect the henhouse from the 'Government Wolves' lets put the control of the henhouse completely in their hands, and give them more power--Let's put the wolves in charge of guarding the henhouse. Yes. I'm sure that's the answer.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
This whole idea is one fucked-up, totalitarian idea. Here is at least one of the thing that I suggest is BAD:
1) The government create an agency to monitor this.
2) It will have a Czar and tens of thousands of NON-ELECTED Decision makers in it.
3) Their job will be to screen all advertisements to ensure that funny stuffWe isn't going on.
4) They will gain control and regulation on deciding what isn't and isn't 'Good' in term of political advertiements and speech.
5 One or the other parties gains control sufficiently to run the agency.
6 What ends up being a 'political advertisement'is what some faceless person at the agency decides.
7 Eventually, what happens, is they begin to limit advertising/ideas/ etc that oppose their political ideology.
8 their power morphs into control of books, media, etc, at every point in the chain.
Welcome to Faranheit 451.
You're right, that is a really BAD idea. 
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
Here's how I see your viewpoint on a lot of things FAL:
'The Government' is corrupted by money. The corruption causes the government to loot the treasury for their friends in industry.
So, we have a 'henhouse' of political money, that is abused by politicians.....
So far so good! 
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
So to fix the problem, we have more politicians and agencies, and other government people to write regulations and control it.
No, I'm just saying we don't allow big money in politics.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
I'm updating the OP to revert back to a statement that didn't have any show-stopping arguments against it:
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom aren’t actively seeking it, then the statement is subject to individual contribution limits. If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom are actively seeking it, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
What about ads for shows that make political statements? Can fox news purchase ad space on other networks?
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21644247 - 05/06/15 02:05 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
What about ads for shows that make political statements? Can fox news purchase ad space on other networks?
I'm curious what you think the answer is based on the test in the OP?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
It will never fly, simply for the reason that the government has a substantial interest in it.
It is easy to see why. The government is restricting in this case free speech on something it has a large interest in.
That's the kind of thing Totalitarian Governments do.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both said they are ready to Amend the Constitution to limit big money in politics. Have any Republicans taken that position yet?
Perhaps we know who the totalitarians are.
Yeah. We do know. You, Hillary and Bernie.
When you agree to shut down the NY Times I will accept shutting anybody else up. Actually, I won't. I was being facetious. More speech, not less, Benito.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But people who read journalism are "actively seeking" it.
This stupid shit again? Anybody who reads or watches any TV show about anything is actively seeking it. If there is a political ad on TV or in a newspaper you don't have to read it. this is one of the all time stupidest arguments I have ever read, by you or anybody else. Nobody is forced to read any political ad anywhere. Anybody who reads any political ad is actively seeking it. This is just another excuse for your totalitarianism, Benito.
By the way, journalism", as you seem to believe it to be, is a myth. They are all biased partisan hacks. Every fucking one of them.
--------------------
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
What about ads for shows that make political statements? Can fox news purchase ad space on other networks?
I'm curious what you think the answer is based on the test in the OP?
i have no idea, hence me asking you.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: zappaisgod]
#21644642 - 05/06/15 03:58 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But people who read journalism are "actively seeking" it.
This stupid shit again? Anybody who reads or watches any TV show about anything is actively seeking it.
Yes, that's exactly what I just said.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If there is a political ad on TV or in a newspaper you don't have to read it. this is one of the all time stupidest arguments I have ever read, by you or anybody else. Nobody is forced to read any political ad anywhere.
I guessed you missed all the explanations above for why it's not stupid at all. But as usual lately, you're arguments are nothing more than "bullshit", and "that's stupid". You no longer argue specific points.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
By the way, journalism", as you seem to believe it to be, is a myth. They are all biased partisan hacks. Every fucking one of them.
No one's disagreeing. But journalists shouldn't be limited by the cap because as you've agreed above, "Anybody who reads or watches any TV show about anything is actively seeking it."
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21644701 - 05/06/15 04:11 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
What about ads for shows that make political statements? Can fox news purchase ad space on other networks?
I'm curious what you think the answer is based on the test in the OP?
i have no idea, hence me asking you.
Per the OP:
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom aren’t actively seeking it, then the statement is subject to individual contribution limits.
Political content is that which provides an opinion on people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.
So if the ad included political content, then it is subject to the cap.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
So the New York Times can't advertise its business if it mentions that its a politically focused paper?
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21644811 - 05/06/15 04:31 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It depends whether the ad includes an opinion on people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.
For example:
"Read the Times for the latest election coverage" doesn't include an opinion, so it wouldn't be covered by the individual contribution limit.
"Read the Times to hear why Bush will destroy America" does include an opinion, so it would be covered by the individual contribution limit.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
What about
"Read the Times for the latest political coverage from the liberal perspective"
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But people who read journalism are "actively seeking" it.
This stupid shit again? Anybody who reads or watches any TV show about anything is actively seeking it.
Yes, that's exactly what I just said.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If there is a political ad on TV or in a newspaper you don't have to read it. this is one of the all time stupidest arguments I have ever read, by you or anybody else. Nobody is forced to read any political ad anywhere.
I guessed you missed all the explanations above for why it's not stupid at all. But as usual lately, you're arguments are nothing more than "bullshit", and "that's stupid". You no longer argue specific points.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
By the way, journalism", as you seem to believe it to be, is a myth. They are all biased partisan hacks. Every fucking one of them.
No one's disagreeing. But journalists shouldn't be limited by the cap because as you've agreed above, "Anybody who reads or watches any TV show about anything is actively seeking it."
Nobody should be limited. Period. End of discussion.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
What about ads for shows that make political statements? Can fox news purchase ad space on other networks?
I'm curious what you think the answer is based on the test in the OP?
i have no idea, hence me asking you.
Per the OP:
Quote:
If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom aren’t actively seeking it, then the statement is subject to individual contribution limits.
Political content is that which provides an opinion on people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.
So if the ad included political content, then it is subject to the cap.
The NY Times is political content. Do any of you mutts even read it?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21645208 - 05/06/15 05:56 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
What about
"Read the Times for the latest political coverage from the liberal perspective"
Per the definition in the OP, I don't see an opinion about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy, so it's ok.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
declaring yourself liberal/left is a statement of political association and support of certain government policies.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 9 months, 17 days
|
|
How about this case: Can you limit MSNBC when they talk about
'Republicans don't support Obama because he is black' and 'he is the smartest guy ever to get elected, that is, what about the MSM liberal stations that under the guise of 'news' basically sucked Obama's dick, promoted him at every turn bad mouthed convservative at every turn, and failed to vet him. that is pretty damaging to the country for new medias to act like that.
i dont think they should be regulated even if they are dumb and do nothing but tout the left. Same with the right.
Sorry Fal, but this sounds like a really dumb-shit idea, like 'the Fairness Doctrine'
LOL.
I am saying be careful. We don't want government regulating speech in any way, or controlling the media.
But hey, I have an idea! Why not defang the federal government and set them back to the limited entity they were origianlly designed to be. If they don't have all the programs and slush funds to feed their buddies in industry, they won't get corrupted by money will they?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is a Political Ad? [Re: psyconaught]
#21646971 - 05/06/15 11:49 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
declaring yourself liberal/left is a statement of political association and support of certain government policies.
Please reread the test:
Quote:
Political content is that which provides an opinion on people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
How about this case: Can you limit MSNBC when they talk about
'Republicans don't support Obama because he is black' and 'he is the smartest guy ever to get elected, that is, what about the MSM liberal stations that under the guise of 'news' basically sucked Obama's dick, promoted him at every turn bad mouthed convservative at every turn, and failed to vet him. that is pretty damaging to the country for new medias to act like that.
i dont think they should be regulated even if they are dumb and do nothing but tout the left. Same with the right.
Sorry Fal, but this sounds like a really dumb-shit idea, like 'the Fairness Doctrine'
I don't think they should be regulated either!!! I think rich people shouldn't be allowed to spend shitloads of money to influence politics.
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
I am saying be careful. We don't want government regulating speech in any way, or controlling the media.
Nor do I.
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
But hey, I have an idea! Why not defang the federal government and set them back to the limited entity they were origianlly designed to be. If they don't have all the programs and slush funds to feed their buddies in industry, they won't get corrupted by money will they?
In other words - why don't we give the rich people what they want most: a Government with no fangs.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 9 months, 17 days
|
|
No. What we want is so the government has nothing that they can give to get money. yu don't want money in politics, but you would be perfectly happy with MSNBC and the NY Times using their own money to put democratic candidates on a pedestal?
How is that any different?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
What we want is so the government has nothing that they can give to get money.
So how do you think we should go about removing the power of Congress?
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
yu don't want money in politics, but you would be perfectly happy with MSNBC and the NY Times using their own money to put democratic candidates on a pedestal?
You missed the key point in the above discussion: "If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom aren’t actively seeking it, then the statement is subject to individual contribution limits."
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Hey totalitarian... please tell us how one would know what the majority of people are "actively seeking" at any given moment?
Do you take a poll? Do you send out questionnaires? Do you rely on anonymous tips? Do you form a new government agency which the party in power can stack in their favor?
Thank the flying spaghetti monster that no-one gives a shit what you want, for this is one of the dumbest things you've posted about in some time.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
please tell us how one would know what the majority of people are "actively seeking" at any given moment?
Can you provide an example where we wouldn't know the answer?
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Thank the flying spaghetti monster that no-one gives a shit what you want, for this is one of the dumbest things you've posted about in some time.
While you thank your flying spaghetti monster that "no one gives a shit", I'll thank the pollsters for letting those of us living in reality know that the majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
no one is saying money should control politics. We've been arguing against your solution. Thats like saying if you don't support government funded roads you are anti-road.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
no one is saying money should control politics. We've been arguing against your solution. Thats like saying if you don't support government funded roads you are anti-road.
I apologize. What was your solution for preventing money from controlling politics again???
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
no one is saying money should control politics. We've been arguing against your solution. Thats like saying if you don't support government funded roads you are anti-road.
I apologize. What was your solution for preventing money from controlling politics again???
i dont pretend to know what the answer is. But i'm fairly certain gutting the 1st amendment isn't the right direction to go.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
If you don't like what somebody says don't listen. Fal wants to shut everybody up who doesn't agree with him. ShariaFal.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Fal wants to shut everybody up who doesn't agree with him. ShariaFal.
Not even close to what I said. I only want to limit the power of money from corrupting politicians.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If you don't like what somebody says don't listen. Fal wants to shut everybody up who doesn't agree with him. ShariaFal.
Yeah, 'Shariafal', the incredible lefty, who wants to stifle contrary voices by starting a thread on a forum loaded down with right-wing bias. Your logic is sound, I commend you, sir!
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
i dont pretend to know what the answer is. But i'm fairly certain gutting the 1st amendment isn't the right direction to go.
No, I think you do have an answer, and I think that answer is to be apathetic and sit around playin with yourself while another decade of corruption and bullshit slips through our fingers.
At least Starfire has something of substance to offer. I think I like his answer as much as I like my own. If either of these things were accomplished in an adequate fashion we might see some of the changes we are looking for.
Maybe if America's power wasn't so concentrated, the desire for control wouldn't be so great. On the other hand, if such great power could be harnessed by the people, it could be used to do incredibly great things!
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
zZZz
jesus
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,479
|
|
it's all an illusion anyway 
wake up. neo.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Q [Re: zZZz]
#21651462 - 05/07/15 11:58 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
 Quote:
zZZz said:
it's all an illusion anyway
wake up. neo.
I'm trying to wake uuuuup. I took the blue pill AND the red pill... in fact I've taken more different colored pills than I can probably even name, to no avail. 
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Maybe if America's power wasn't so concentrated, the desire for control wouldn't be so great.
exactly! i've always been a proponent of shrinking the power of the government. I think that would do a lot towards limiting corporate influence.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'
Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 9 months, 17 days
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Maybe if America's power wasn't so concentrated, the desire for control wouldn't be so great.
exactly! i've always been a proponent of shrinking the power of the government. I think that would do a lot towards limiting corporate influence.
You are a right-wing loon according to 'Botox' Nancy Pelosi..... after all to quote her..
".....heh...heh..heh....the republicans...he.he...cackle cackle....want to cut government...."
God that is one dumb ass bitch.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
Republicans don't want to cut government, regardless of what they say. They want to expand the executive arm in every way they possibly fucking can. The only shit they want to cut is social programs that benefit people other than their wall st buddies, and that is generally just to raise more tax money to use subsidizing companies shipping business to China. I don't know how they plan to continue subsidizing the shitty wages that places like Walmart give their employees, if they get rid of food stamps, and continue to lower the minimum wage. (Yes, it gets lower as time passes. It is not indexed to inflation, unfortunately.)
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
please tell us how one would know what the majority of people are "actively seeking" at any given moment?
Can you provide an example where we wouldn't know the answer?
Prove a negative? 
Now... care to answer the question???
Quote:
please tell us how one would know what the majority of people are "actively seeking" at any given moment?
Do you take a poll? Do you send out questionnaires? Do you rely on anonymous tips? Do you form a new government agency which the party in power can stack in their favor?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
If you don't like what somebody says don't listen.
That.
Quote:
Fal wants to shut everybody up who doesn't agree with him.
Exactly. Free speech for the totalitarian partisan hack and those who agree with him. Everyone else should gratefully shut the fuck up.
Quote:
ShariaFal.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
You clearly don't understand the arguments being made whatsoever. Apparently you think Fal wants to silence conflicting ideologies. He doesn't, at all.
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
No, having read his inane drivel for some time now, I understand fully what he'd like to see.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I'll elaborate... IMO the only reason to limit free speech is partisan hackery. As an he's an "ends justifies the means" kind of guy, I'm not surprised to see him advocate for the rights of others to be shat upon.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Republicans don't want to cut government, regardless of what they say. They want to expand the executive arm in every way they possibly fucking can. The only shit they want to cut is social programs that benefit people other than their wall st buddies, and that is generally just to raise more tax money to use subsidizing companies shipping business to China. I don't know how they plan to continue subsidizing the shitty wages that places like Walmart give their employees, if they get rid of food stamps, and continue to lower the minimum wage. (Yes, it gets lower as time passes. It is not indexed to inflation, unfortunately.)
both republicans and democrats are big government corporate whores. They just disagree on where to grow the government.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Can you provide an example where we wouldn't know the answer?
Prove a negative?
No - prove a positive. All you have to do is provide one example where the test doesn't work.
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Now... care to answer the question???
Quote:
please tell us how one would know what the majority of people are "actively seeking" at any given moment?
Do you take a poll? Do you send out questionnaires? Do you rely on anonymous tips? Do you form a new government agency which the party in power can stack in their favor?
Can you provide an example where there's even a question?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
You clearly don't understand the arguments being made whatsoever. Apparently you think Fal wants to silence conflicting ideologies. He doesn't, at all.
No, having read his inane drivel for some time now, I understand fully what he'd like to see.
Wooof is right. The only way you can win an argument is to pretend I'm making arguments that I'm not. I've repeatedly asked you to prove your accusations, and you repeatedly can't.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
both republicans and democrats are big government corporate whores. They just disagree on where to grow the government.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Fal wants to shut everybody up who doesn't agree with him. ShariaFal.
Not even close to what I said. I only want to limit the power of money from corrupting politicians.
Do you think poor people own the NY Times? The Comedy Channel? NBC?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Fal wants to shut everybody up who doesn't agree with him. ShariaFal.
Not even close to what I said. I only want to limit the power of money from corrupting politicians.
Do you think poor people own the NY Times? The Comedy Channel? NBC?
None of the above. And the poor don't own Fox News or Rush Limbaugh either. I hope this is going somewhere...
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
The point is that money owns the media. Why should not non media money get access?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
The point is that money owns the media.
And who pays money to the media to provide the specific content that they do?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Yada, yada, yada
Keep dreaming. You're a legend in your own mind and an authoritarian to boot.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Political statements are subject to individual contribution limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people desire to watch
at least we have distilled down what you actually mean. You want unpopular speech limited.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Political statements are subject to individual contribution limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people desire to watch
at least we have distilled down what you actually mean. You want unpopular speech limited.
Not at all. How did you come to that conclusion? Anyone should have the right to say anything they want that is unpopular. Similarly, people should have the right to pool their money together to get out unpopular messages.
I'll say it again (and Wooof and I have been saying this a lot), the goal is to limit individual political spending. Even for popular ideas.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
your statement says that political statements must be limited if they are not what the majority of people want.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
your statement says that political statements must be limited if they are not what the majority of people want.
I don't think it does. It says "Political statements are subject to individual spending limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people who are viewing them desire to watch, provided a 3rd party isn’t paying to insert or dictate content."
So if they're part of the programming you want to watch, then they're not subject to the spending limit ('provided a 3rd party isn't paying to insert or dictate content').
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
The point is that money owns the media.
And who pays money to the media to provide the specific content that they do?
Consumers.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
your statement says that political statements must be limited if they are not what the majority of people want.
I don't think it does. It says "Political statements are subject to individual spending limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people who are viewing them desire to watch, provided a 3rd party isn’t paying to insert or dictate content."
So if they're part of the programming you want to watch, then they're not subject to the spending limit ('provided a 3rd party isn't paying to insert or dictate content').
Fascist.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
The point is that money owns the media.
And who pays money to the media to provide the specific content that they do?
Consumers.
Exactly. So the media panders to the consumers, while Government panders to Big Money.
Government should pander to consumers, not Big Money, which is what this whole thread is about.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
The point is that money owns the media.
And who pays money to the media to provide the specific content that they do?
Consumers.
Exactly. So the media panders to the consumers, while Government panders to Big Money.
Government should pander to consumers, not Big Money, which is what this whole thread is about.
You asked who payed. You didn't ask who controlled. I get the NY Times dropped at the end of my driveway every day. I pay for it. I agree with almost nothing they write in any opinion vein.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
It aint cheap, either.
--------------------
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,096
Last seen: 12 days, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
your statement says that political statements must be limited if they are not what the majority of people want.
I don't think it does. It says "Political statements are subject to individual spending limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people who are viewing them desire to watch, provided a 3rd party isn’t paying to insert or dictate content."
So if they're part of the programming you want to watch, then they're not subject to the spending limit ('provided a 3rd party isn't paying to insert or dictate content').
Fascist.
You think Falcon is a right-wing extremist? Or are you still unaware of the meaning of the word 'Fascist'?
--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
The OP has been updated to reflect the latest thougts from another thread.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
your statement says that political statements must be limited if they are not what the majority of people want.
I don't think it does. It says "Political statements are subject to individual spending limits, unless they are part of a publication or program that a majority of people who are viewing them desire to watch, provided a 3rd party isn’t paying to insert or dictate content."
So if they're part of the programming you want to watch, then they're not subject to the spending limit ('provided a 3rd party isn't paying to insert or dictate content').
Fascist.
You think Falcon is a right-wing extremist? Or are you still unaware of the meaning of the word 'Fascist'?
Fascism is leftist
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
fascism
Syllabification: fas·cism
Pronunciation: /ˈfaSHˌizəm/
Definition of fascism in English:
noun
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Fascism is an italian word used to describe Mussolini's regime. Which was not leftest
--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
Yes it was. Leftism is government control
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Perhaps the better way to analyze this is to forget about left or right and look at what fascism is: control by a small number of people.
The proposal on the table is to ensure the masses have a say in our Government, and not just the rich. That's the opposite of fascism.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
The masses currently do have a say. Your proposal is to shut up those you disagree with by removing their free speech rights.
Good for you.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
The definition of fascism is far right. I think you're confusing fascist with dictatorial governments. Stalin was a dictator but he was a communist not a fascist, far left.
--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
The masses currently do have a say. Your proposal is to shut up those you disagree with by removing their free speech rights.
Good for you.
So 'the masses' currently have a say? Ok, then how would this proposal 'shut up' those I disagree with? Would they have any less say than the masses who you just declared "have a say"?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Asking a repeatedly answered question is rather foolish of you.
Thanks for the laugh.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Since you refuse the answer the question, I'll pose it to our fellow shroomers:
Has LDS answered the question of how campaign finance reform would 'shut up' those I disagree with? Would they have any less say than the 'masses' who LDS claimed "have a say"?
If no one comes to LDS' defense on this, LDS is welcome to answer the question himself.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I already did.
That you can't accept it is on you.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The OP has been updated to reflect the latest thougts from another thread.
So I guess we have a version that works? No one's found a hole in this latest version yet? Enlil, care to chime in now?
The point here was simply to demonstrate that this concept is doable.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I suspect it's more that people got tired of pointing out the stupidity of the concept.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
What makes you feel the latest version is stupid? What's the flaw?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
The same as it's been. Attempting to control speech.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
What makes you feel the latest version is stupid? What's the flaw?
You're really missing the point. Its the matter of limiting speech that everyone has issue with.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Once again, this would limit individual political spending, not political speech.
If you guys are ok with politicians being bought by the highest bidder, then fine, continue to spread your ass wide and take what comes from that. Personally, I'd prefer they help the middle class like they used to from the 40's to 70s when the middle class was at its height. Now the rich are at an all time high, and you seem to prefer that.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
once again with the strawmen. No one wants bribery and no one is arguing for that. Some of us just don't think limiting the 1st amendment is the way to do that.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
.Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Once again, this would limit individual political spending, not political speech.
 Repeatedly making the same dumb-ass comment doesn't suddenly make the trampling of free speech rights palatable.
Quote:
If you guys are ok with politicians being bought by the highest bidder, then fine, continue to spread your ass wide and take what comes from that.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Quote:
Personally, I'd prefer they help the middle class like they used to from the 40's to 70s when the middle class was at its height.
The government shouldn't be helping any "group". They especially shouldn't be forcing people to help anyone they don't wish to help.
Quote:
Now the rich are at an all time high, and you seem to prefer that.
As long as the rich achieved their wealth through legal means... no, I don't have a problem with that.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The OP has been updated to reflect the latest thougts from another thread.
So I guess we have a version that works? No one's found a hole in this latest version yet? Enlil, care to chime in now?
The point here was simply to demonstrate that this concept is doable.
I'm fine with the first part of the definition.
I don't like the part about advertising costs. I think your definition of advertising is difficult to judge (almost anything could be considered advertising) and therefore the cost to distribute content is greatly limited. For example, the way I read it, the cost for publications to distribute material is subject to limits.
And I'm going to counter some of the comments above. I'm not necessarily against limiting political spending, and thus the extent of speech. Granted, the contribution limits (if a useable definition was found) I would have, would be much higher than what Falcon wants I'm guessing, but I don't see an issue with putting a very high limit on speech. That individual would still be able to spread their message far and wide, but not to an unlimited extent. I realize that my opinion is likely unpopular here, but I think it is necessary. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way of accomplishing it without opening up the door for silencing dissent and other gross limitations on speech. Thus I am in favor of the concept, but don't think the implementation is possible.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Enlil 
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The OP has been updated to reflect the latest thougts from another thread.
So I guess we have a version that works? No one's found a hole in this latest version yet? Enlil, care to chime in now?
The point here was simply to demonstrate that this concept is doable.
It's so broad that it makes everything an advertisement. Michael moore movies are advertisements and therefore banned unless he can somehow get tens of thousands to share the cost to make them.
You've succeeded in proving that it's easy to curb political spending as long as one is willing to remove all protection of political speech and undercut the entire foundation of representative government.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I'm fine with the first part of the definition.
I don't like the part about advertising costs. I think your definition of advertising is difficult to judge (almost anything could be considered advertising) and therefore the cost to distribute content is greatly limited. For example, the way I read it, the cost for publications to distribute material is subject to limits.
Ok, I added distribution costs to production costs. Does that fix the problem?
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I don't see an issue with putting a very high limit on speech.... Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way of accomplishing it without opening up the door for silencing dissent and other gross limitations on speech. Thus I am in favor of the concept, but don't think the implementation is possible.
I honestly don't understand how the current definition would silence dissent or grossly limit speech. Can you help me understand your thinking?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Q [Re: Enlil]
#21704307 - 05/20/15 09:33 PM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
It's so broad that it makes everything an advertisement. Michael moore movies are advertisements and therefore banned unless he can somehow get tens of thousands to share the cost to make them.
I guess you haven't read the updated OP that I was referring to yet. Here's the answer to that point.
Quote:
Enlil said:
You've succeeded in proving that it's easy to curb political spending as long as one is willing to remove all protection of political speech and undercut the entire foundation of representative government.
People would still be free to speak all they want, provided they don't spend too much. And the revised definition allows for considerable spending (you can make your political movie and spend all you like producing it!)
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
If production and distribution costs aren't subject to limitation, then advertising isn't subject to the limitation. All expenditures on advertising are production and distribution costs.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Ok, I added distribution costs to production costs. Does that fix the problem?
Yes, but now I think all first-party costs are not subject to limits. What else is there besides production and distribution?
Quote:
I honestly don't understand how the current definition would silence dissent or grossly limit speech. Can you help me understand your thinking?
Your current definition wouldn't, because I don't think it limits anything. However, your past definition was too vague. When I read your definition of advertising, in my mind almost anything can be argued to be an advertisement in some way. Therefore, virtually all speech is advertising and potentially subject to limitation.
For example, newspapers wouldn't be able to distribute their publications, same for magazines and other print publications. This is a gross limit on speech.
As for silencing dissent, that is a side product of the vagueness of the definition and selective enforcement. If the definition of advertising is open to interpretation, then whoever has the authority to interpret it has the power to limit speech. They (person, people, or government body) would have the power to silence dissent. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen or that it would happen quickly, but corruption is rampant, and no one should have that power. Hence the need for a 100% objective and specific definition.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Q [Re: Enlil]
#21704525 - 05/20/15 10:29 PM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
If production and distribution costs aren't subject to limitation, then advertising isn't subject to the limitation. All expenditures on advertising are production and distribution costs.
I don't think that's true at all, unless you're playing another semantics game. If I want to pay to put an ad on TV, then I pay the station's advertising cost.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Ok, I added distribution costs to production costs. Does that fix the problem?
Yes, but now I think all first-party costs are not subject to limits. What else is there besides production and distribution?
Advertising costs. The costs to get your statement on a tv commercial, or in a magazine.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I honestly don't understand how the current definition would silence dissent or grossly limit speech. Can you help me understand your thinking?
Your current definition wouldn't, because I don't think it limits anything.
So why oppose it anymore? It simply limits advertising costs based on fair market values.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
As for silencing dissent, that is a side product of the vagueness of the definition and selective enforcement. If the definition of advertising is open to interpretation, then whoever has the authority to interpret it has the power to limit speech.
What's an example of something that the current definition couldn't define? I'm actually in agreement with your (and everyone else's) interpretation of things, like a Michael Moore movie being an advertisement.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Advertising costs. The costs to get your statement on a tv commercial, or in a magazine.
Those are distribution costs, are they not?
Quote:
So why oppose it anymore? It simply limits advertising costs based on fair market values.
I don't think it does much of anything at all at this point. I don't support legislation that doesn't do anything.
Quote:
What's an example of something that the current definition couldn't define? I'm actually in agreement with your (and everyone else's) interpretation of things, like a Michael Moore movie being an advertisement.
It's not what the current definition can't define, it's that everything falls under the definition. A news story, an editorial, a song, a movie, a tv show. Anything, that's remotely related to politics, could be argued to be advertising. The only criteria, according to your definition, is that it intends to persuade people of something, and how would you prove it doesn't?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Advertising costs. The costs to get your statement on a tv commercial, or in a magazine.
Those are distribution costs, are they not?
I don't think so.
Distribution Costs - Expenses relating to the transportation of goods from production locations to customers, resellers, or other destinations.
If I pay to put an ad on tv or in a magazine, I'm paying for the number of minutes of airtime I use or the size of the ad on a page, not the distribution costs.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
What's an example of something that the current definition couldn't define?
It's not what the current definition can't define, it's that everything falls under the definition. A news story, an editorial, a song, a movie, a tv show. Anything, that's remotely related to politics, could be argued to be advertising. The only criteria, according to your definition, is that it intends to persuade people of something, and how would you prove it doesn't?
But it's not nearly that broad. It's limited to content which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy. And remember, any publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit.
I think the best way to discount the above definition is to provide an example showing the current definition is still unclear or over-reaching.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I don't think so.
Distribution Costs - Expenses relating to the transportation of goods from production locations to customers, resellers, or other destinations.
If I pay to put an ad on tv or in a magazine, I'm paying for the number of minutes of airtime I use or the size of the ad on a page, not the distribution costs.
The number of minutes is what you use to distribute your good (the commercial) to the customer. Without the TV time you are paying for, your commercial wouldn't be distributed. So isn't the cost a distribution cost?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But it's not nearly that broad. It's limited to content which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy. And remember, any publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit.
I think the best way to discount the above definition is to provide an example showing the current definition is still unclear or over-reaching.
The definition of political is broad. What isn't a fact, opinion, or fabrication? And besides, I was talking about your definition of advertising, when I said overly vague and broad.
I provided an example in my last post. I could easily argue that most political news stories fit your definition of advertising, and are obviously political. Therefore they are subject to distribution limitations. (Note: I'm still arguing against your penultimate definition as I don't think your current one limits anything, so the point would be moot)
How can you determine if media is trying to be persuasive or not? The entity that has the ability to make that judgement under your proposed law would have way too much power.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
If I pay to put an ad on tv or in a magazine, I'm paying for the number of minutes of airtime I use or the size of the ad on a page, not the distribution costs.
The number of minutes is what you use to distribute your good (the commercial) to the customer.
The cable infrastructure is what's used to distribute the content, and it's a sunk cost, which a cable company pays if I advertise or not. I'm paying for air time. I'm not paying for distribution. Do you still disagree?
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Without the TV time you are paying for, your commercial wouldn't be distributed. So isn't the cost a distribution cost?
I do agree that if you didn't pay for the air time, it wouldn't be distributed. But I also think distribution costs and air time are totally different.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
The definition of political is broad. What isn't a fact, opinion, or fabrication? And besides, I was talking about your definition of advertising, when I said overly vague and broad.
But only a political advertisement would be subject to spending limits, not any advertisement.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I provided an example in my last post. I could easily argue that most political news stories fit your definition of advertising, and are obviously political.
But they're not subject to the limitation based on the latest definition, because "a publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
How can you determine if media is trying to be persuasive or not? The entity that has the ability to make that judgement under your proposed law would have way too much power.
It doesn't matter because "a publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
Only if I pay someone to make a political statement is it subject to the limitation. And if I'm not paying to sell a particular product, like Coke, then I'm probably paying to sell a political statement. I agree with you that anything that seems like a political ad IS a political ad. Why else pay for it?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I don't think that's true at all, unless you're playing another semantics game. If I want to pay to put an ad on TV, then I pay the station's advertising cost.
That's a distribution cost. Paying a station to broadcast content is no different from paying USPS to deliver it to someone's door.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Q [Re: Enlil]
#21705826 - 05/21/15 10:30 AM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I don't think that's true at all, unless you're playing another semantics game. If I want to pay to put an ad on TV, then I pay the station's advertising cost.
That's a distribution cost. Paying a station to broadcast content is no different from paying USPS to deliver it to someone's door.
I don't believe either of those is a distribution cost (although the money may be used to pay for distribution).
Still, I tightened up the definition further to make the distinction:
Quote:
However, advertising costs paid to put political content into public view (not including production costs), assessed at fair market value (to prevent circumventing this rule) are subject to individual spending limits.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,262
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
So we're back to Michael Moore not being able to publicize and distribute his movies.
The reason I've stayed out of this for the last couple weeks is that it's become obvious to me that your tests either censor everything or nothing. It's frustrating that you haven't been able to see that after all of this time, and I'm beyond the point of trying to get you to understand.
--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.
Ask an Attorney
Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: Q [Re: Enlil]
#21707138 - 05/21/15 05:08 PM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
So we're back to Michael Moore not being able to publicize and distribute his movies.
But that's not true. He can publicize his movies if his advertising avoids "opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy." For example, the ad can say "See Michael Moore's opinion about what happened to the United States after September 11" or he can get like minded people to contribute money for publicizing his movie. Furthermore, he's not paying anyone to play his movies in theaters.
Quote:
Enlil said:
it's become obvious to me that your tests either censor everything or nothing. It's frustrating that you haven't been able to see that after all of this time, and I'm beyond the point of trying to get you to understand.
But that's not true. Only political advertising costs are limited. "A publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The cable infrastructure is what's used to distribute the content, and it's a sunk cost, which a cable company pays if I advertise or not. I'm paying for air time. I'm not paying for distribution. Do you still disagree?
Yes, I still disagree. That's like saying that if I pay a trucking company to distribute my goods it isn't a distribution costs because the real costs are the roads and trucks. If you pay a cable company to air content, you are paying for distribution.
Quote:
I do agree that if you didn't pay for the air time, it wouldn't be distributed. But I also think distribution costs and air time are totally different.
Please explain, because I'm not able to follow your train of thought.
Quote:
But they're not subject to the limitation based on the latest definition, because "a publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
Quote:
It doesn't matter because "a publication or broadcast program is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
I'm focusing on the second part of your definition. I have no issue with the first part, except that enforcement will be a nightmare. The second part of the definition does define limits for first-party spending, which is what I take issue with. However, I think it's clear we need to settle our debate about what costs are and are not subject to limits first. As it stands, I don't think your definition limits any first-party costs at all (but you have a different interpretation), so I'm having trouble debating this point. If I were to debate, I'd be debating against an older iteration of your definition.
Quote:
Only if I pay someone to make a political statement is it subject to the limitation. And if I'm not paying to sell a particular product, like Coke, then I'm probably paying to sell a political statement. I agree with you that anything that seems like a political ad IS a political ad. Why else pay for it?
You're talking about third-party spending, my statements are all in regards to first-party spending.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The cable infrastructure is what's used to distribute the content, and it's a sunk cost, which a cable company pays if I advertise or not. I'm paying for air time. I'm not paying for distribution. Do you still disagree?
Yes, I still disagree. That's like saying that if I pay a trucking company to distribute my goods it isn't a distribution costs because the real costs are the roads and trucks. If you pay a cable company to air content, you are paying for distribution.
Quote:
I do agree that if you didn't pay for the air time, it wouldn't be distributed. But I also think distribution costs and air time are totally different.
Please explain, because I'm not able to follow your train of thought.
No need to explain. I removed distribution costs a couple posts ago because you and Enlil have a different definition than what I read it to be.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
The second part of the definition does define limits for first-party spending, which is what I take issue with. However, I think it's clear we need to settle our debate about what costs are and are not subject to limits first. As it stands, I don't think your definition limits any first-party costs at all (but you have a different interpretation), so I'm having trouble debating this point. If I were to debate, I'd be debating against an older iteration of your definition.
You are exactly right. There are no limits to first party costs, other than costs to put political content into public view (not including production costs). I've updated the definition again to make this clearer.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Sorry, I missed that. Still how is putting something into public view different from distribution costs. Isn't distributing something putting it into public view?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
how is putting something into public view different from distribution costs. Isn't distributing something putting it into public view?
According to you and Enlil, yes. So let's go with that.
Now, we've said there is a contribution limit on what first parties can pay to put political content into public view. So if they're paying someone to get their content to the public, that's capped, but if someone pays them (such as a tv station, newspaper, movie theater, etc) for their content, then that would be no problem.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
So if first-party distribution costs are limited, then a newspapers printing and distribution costs are limited as well. Fox News' costs to run and air it's TV station are also limited. The cost to distribute a comedian's Comedy Central special where he makes a political joke is also limited. Etc.
This is the problem with your definitions of political and advertising. They cover everything, which means almost all speech can potentially be limited.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So if first-party distribution costs are limited, then a newspapers printing and distribution costs are limited as well.
But they're not limited. I removed distribution costs about four posts ago. Please read the OP (note, you should click on it to ensure you see the most recent version, as a mouse-over might open an older version).
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So if first-party distribution costs are limited, then a newspapers printing and distribution costs are limited as well.
But they're not limited. I removed distribution costs about four posts ago. Please read the OP (note, you should click on it to ensure you see the most recent version, as a mouse-over might open an older version).
your rule still prohibits political magazines, newspapers, shows, etc from advertising their business. Basically you're shutting down all political discourse over a certain volume.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is Political Spending? [Re: psyconaught]
#21710578 - 05/22/15 01:38 PM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No, it doesn't. It ensures that if they advertise, they keep political remarks out of the ad. Read the example above.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
how is that not restricting speech?
this trailer would be illegal under your rule. So would any rage against the machine concert, among many other things.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is Political Spending? [Re: psyconaught]
#21710744 - 05/22/15 02:19 PM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No, it doesn't. It ensures that if they advertise, they have to keep it non-political. For example, Quote:
psyconaught said:
how is that not restricting speech?
this trailer would be illegal under your rule. So would any rage against the machine concert, among many other things.
Yes, that trailer would have to modified somewhat under the proposed rules for it not to be a political ad.
However, Rage Against the Machine would NOT be restricted because they're not paying people to have their music listened to.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur
Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
However, Rage Against the Machine would NOT be restricted because they're not paying people to have their music listened to.
A third party is paying to distribute political music. That falls under your restrictions.
--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is Political Spending? [Re: psyconaught]
#21711420 - 05/22/15 05:18 PM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
A third party is paying to distribute political music. That falls under your restrictions.
Does it? Can you quote the sentence that you are referring to?
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So if first-party distribution costs are limited, then a newspapers printing and distribution costs are limited as well.
But they're not limited. I removed distribution costs about four posts ago. Please read the OP (note, you should click on it to ensure you see the most recent version, as a mouse-over might open an older version).
You removed "distribution" and replaced it with costs to "put political content into public view." How are the two things any different? My point above still stands.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
You removed "distribution" and replaced it with costs to "put political content into public view." How are the two things any different? My point above still stands.
You left out a key component: "costs paid by the first party to put political content into public view.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You left out a key component: "costs paid by the first party to put political content into public view.
I'm confused, my examples are all about first-party costs. Can you explain how they don't fit your definition of a first-party cost to put something in public view? I've quoted them here for ease.
Quote:
A newspapers printing and distribution costs are limited as well. Fox News' costs to run and air it's TV station are also limited. The cost to distribute a comedian's Comedy Central special where he makes a political joke is also limited. Etc.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
zZZz
jesus
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,479
|
|
u guys aren't really helping the cause by playing into their game, a game that cant be won to begin with, it isnt even a game, it's just plain ole subliminal slavery
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I'm confused, my examples are all about first-party costs. Can you explain how they don't fit your definition of a first-party cost to put something in public view? I've quoted them here for ease.
Quote:
The cost to distribute a comedian's Comedy Central special where he makes a political joke
That's not limited, because the comedian isn't paying Comedy Central to broadcast his show.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
Fox News' costs to run and air it's TV station are also limited.
The costs to run it's TV station are production costs, which are excluded. And Fox doesn't pay the cable company to air its programming.
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
A newspapers printing and distribution costs are limited as well.
Printing is a production cost, and so it is excluded. Distribution for newspapers is the one gray area I can see your point on. I updated the definition to exclude putting publications on display that are for sale.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
That's not limited, because the comedian isn't paying Comedy Central to broadcast his show.
So in this case, the comedian is the first-party, and Comedy Central is the third-party? Even though Comedy Central is paying the comedian to produce the show?
Quote:
Printing is a production cost, and so it is excluded. Distribution for newspapers is the one gray area I can see your point on. I updated the definition to exclude putting publications on display that are for sale.
I think your fix does address this.
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So in this case, the comedian is the first-party, and Comedy Central is the third-party? Even though Comedy Central is paying the comedian to produce the show?
As long as the comedian "does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit" then it is ok. Similarly, Comedy Central "is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is Political Spending? [Re: Enlil]
#21719969 - 05/25/15 07:44 AM (8 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
The reason I've stayed out of this for the last couple weeks is that it's become obvious to me that your tests either censor everything or nothing. It's frustrating that you haven't been able to see that after all of this time, and I'm beyond the point of trying to get you to understand.
The test now seems to work for every example that's been provided. Are there any examples showing the current test doesn't work?
Again, this isn't about whether there should be a law limiting campaign contributions (that's a matter of opinion), its about whether such a law could work.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
BoldAsLove
Pokemon Master
Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
So in this case, the comedian is the first-party, and Comedy Central is the third-party? Even though Comedy Central is paying the comedian to produce the show?
As long as the comedian "does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit" then it is ok. Similarly, Comedy Central "is free to publish whatever political content it desires, provided it does not accept third party payments to insert, dictate, or modify political content beyond an individual contribution limit."
Right, but what I'm asking is are the comedian and Comedy Central the same party? What say can Comedy Central have in the content of the set?
--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor and Ferdinand , the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
what I'm asking is are the comedian and Comedy Central the same party? What say can Comedy Central have in the content of the set?
No, they are not the same party because networks generally pay third parties for content. If Comedy Central happens to own the comedian's program, that could be seen as a way to circumvent the spending limit, which the definition says is not permitted.
However, with that said, if the comedian wants to make political jokes, and if Comedy Central isn't paying them to insert, dictate, or modify political content, then that would be perfectly fine per the current definition.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 7 months, 6 days
|
|
Sorry to resurrect an old post. But I looked up "What is political spending" on Google, and this discussion was Google's #2 hit. I thought that was kind of interesting.
Carry on.
--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Ellis Dee
wingnutx
Zahid
1 2 all )
Snobrdr311
Source
Divided_Sky