Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 |
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: KauaiOrca]
    #21662058 -

Quote:
If Monsanto wants to pay for someone to say something pro-GMO, then that would be prohibited by these rules.


so now we're limiting ALL speech?


--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
    #21662287 -

psyconaught said:
Quote:
If Monsanto wants to pay for someone to say something pro-GMO, then that would be prohibited by these rules.


so now we're limiting ALL speech?


My mistake - Monsanto can pay for a pro-GMO 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.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/10/15 08:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: KauaiOrca]
    #21662291 -

KauaiOrca said:
Democracy, even representative democracy, as I see it, was intended to be a very open process.  What we need is to get CORPORATIONS out of the political process and place the responsibility of lobbying and donating and all of that back on INDIVIDUALS


:thumbup:


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21662993 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Not produce, but to insert or dictate political content.



If a 3rd party is paying production costs, you bet they're going to have a say about what goes into it. This is a huge part of the entertainment business now.

Quote:
I'm not following this at all (probably my own fault).  Can you provide an example to illustrate what you mean?



Sorry, it isn't very clear. Let me try and think of an example, I wrote that this morning and am very tired now, so I'm not sure exactly what I was trying to say. My general point though is just that, at this point, we have seemingly very different interpretations of your definition, and I don't think the definition should be open to interpretation at all.


Quote:
BoldAsLove said:
I don't understand what you mean applied towards political content. The money has to be spent to purchase political content?


Exactly.  Is there a better way to say it to make it clearer?



How do you define political content? How is it purchased and from whom? Does an Obama t-shirt count? Alternatively, does a white t-shirt and colorful array of sharpies used to make an Obama t-shirt count?

Quote:
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that there will ever be a question here, because "majority of people" is part of the definition.  A majority of people will never desire to have their programming interrupted by political ads (especially if the ad is of an opposing point of view).  And while you seem to disagree about that, we can always conduct surveys to find out.



What you're still not saying is how you can possibly know what someone is desiring. When a challenge about this comes to court, are they going to go back and survey every person who consumed the media in question? You say a majority of people don't want their program interrupted, but you don't know the intentions of every person in the country.

Quote:
Because you have to buy a newspaper, and turn on a tv to watch something.  You don't have to do anything to watch an ad.



That's not true. If I watch a TV ad, I have to turn the TV on. If I want to read a newspaper ad, I have to buy a newspaper. Ads are no different than "regular" content in that manner.

Quote:
I understand that it's theoretically possible that a majority of people want to have political ads in their programs and publications, but I'm certain that will never realistically be the case.  Do you disagree?


I do disagree, partially because you still haven't clearly defined an "ad" and partially because how can you possibly know what people are desiring right now, and moreover, how can you possibly decide what they will want in the future?

Do you disagree that someone does not ever (with very rare exceptions) have to pay attention (read, watch, listen, etc.) to an ad placed in front of them? If they choose to do so, who are you to say that they didn't desire to do so? Their actions say they desire it, but you say they don't and I don't understand on what grounds you are making that judgement. That's the main thing bugging me about the definition at this point.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
    #21663169 -

Enlil said:
I think you're missing the point.  All content aired on TV or printed in newspapers/magazines is paid for by 3rd parties who influence that content.  Those third parties certainly pay more than your intended limit.  As a result, all political content is banned from those publications altogether unless it is paid for by pooled money.  This means that there can be no reporting on political matters.


All you're telling me is that it is unimaginable, in your mind, for a news company to make it's own content without sponsor input. That does not mean it's not possible, I assure you.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21663202 -

Wow. I am shocked by the poor arguments being made here. Falcon and I have already gone through all of this. I really don't have the energy to respond to all of the reiterations of enlil's arguments over and over, he can make them himself, and already has.

I can't believe so much effort is being spent on dissolving the distinction between an ad and actual program content. If this is all you've got, then it's nothing that can't be handled.

Edited by Bigbadwooof (05/10/15 10:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21663243 -

Bigbadwooof said:
I can't believe so much effort is being spent on dissolving the distinction between an ad and actual program content. If this is all you've got, then it's nothing that can't be handled.


Up until now I haven't seen an objective test that determines the difference between content and an advertisement. Can you provide a test that easily and objectively says whether or not something is an advertisement?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove] * 1
    #21663372 -

BoldAsLove said:
Bigbadwooof said:
I can't believe so much effort is being spent on dissolving the distinction between an ad and actual program content. If this is all you've got, then it's nothing that can't be handled.


Up until now I haven't seen an objective test that determines the difference between content and an advertisement. Can you provide a test that easily and objectively says whether or not something is an advertisement?


That's because we have expanded the limitations beyond advertisements. Falcon previously had an outline that addressed 'ads', but we are after more than just ads.


Quote:
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 desire to watch. If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate content of a political segment of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation. A sponsor can still pay a political publication/program to air their non-political advertisement, but it may not then dictate any political content conveyed by that publication/program, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.


We are attempting to limit the spending of anyone paying for political speech. In fact, I will edit that further:

Quote:
If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate content of a political segment, on a media outlet of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation. A sponsor can still pay a political publication/program to air their non-political advertisement, but it may not then dictate any political content conveyed by that publication/program, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.



--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21663440 -

If you aren't trying to distinguish between "regular" content and ads, then how do you determine if the person watching the content desired to watch it or not? Is it not reasonable to assume that if they watched it then they had some desire to watch it? That seems like a crucial question for your definition to work.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21663591 -

BoldAsLove said:
If you aren't trying to distinguish between "regular" content and ads, then how do you determine if the person watching the content desired to watch it or not? Is it not reasonable to assume that if they watched it then they had some desire to watch it? That seems like a crucial question for your definition to work.


At this point, I don't see 'actively sought content' as a necessary term to define. I think we have adequately defined it, but it seems that many people disagree, so it may be time to dispose of this idea and move along.

The goal is to apply spending limitations on political content that is paid for by the sort of external entities that intend to purchase political favor.

Quote:
If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate content of a political segment, on a media outlet of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation. A sponsor can still pay a political publication/program to air their non-political advertisement, but it may not then dictate any political content conveyed by that publication/program, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.


Now, if this outline does not do that to your satisfaction (Which it very well may not, as it was written somewhat hastily), I am all ears. If you would like to propose changes that would make it more effective, they will be most welcome.

One thing that we all must understand is that this issue isn't just a hypothetical one. It is becoming a hot topic in politics today, and something (However modest or ineffective it may be) is likely to be done, in the way of 'campaign finance reform', in the near future.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Edited by Bigbadwooof (05/11/15 12:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21663607 -

Bigbadwooof said:
BoldAsLove said:
If you aren't trying to distinguish between "regular" content and ads, then how do you determine if the person watching the content desired to watch it or not? Is it not reasonable to assume that if they watched it then they had some desire to watch it? That seems like a crucial question for your definition to work.


At this point, I don't see 'actively sought content' as a necessary term to define. I think we have adequately defined it, but it seems that many people disagree, so it may be time to dispose of this idea and move along.



The current definition no longer includes 'actively seeking' last I checked. I think 'desired' is even less effective though.

Quote:
If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate content of a political segment, on a media outlet of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation. A sponsor can still pay a political publication/program to air their non-political advertisement, but it may not then dictate any political content conveyed by that publication/program, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined.


There's a couple issues I see with this definition off the top of my head:

1) Who counts as a third party?
2) What counts as a political segment?
3) How do you enforce it? How do you know if someone is dictating content?
4) Does this mean that non-third parties (when we define that) are exempt from these limitations? For example, can ESPN run political ads as much as they want on their channels?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21663787 -

BoldAsLove said:
If a 3rd party is paying production costs, you bet they're going to have a say about what goes into it. This is a huge part of the entertainment business now.


And we're saying if they want to have a say about what political content goes into it, then it should be subject to individual contribution limits.  That's the gist of this whole discussion.

BoldAsLove said:
My general point though is just that, at this point, we have seemingly very different interpretations of your definition, and I don't think the definition should be open to interpretation at all.


I agree that it shouldn't be open to interpretation.  But it also shouldn't be open to definitions other than the one we're discussing.

BoldAsLove said:
What you're still not saying is how you can possibly know what someone is desiring.

You say a majority of people don't want their program interrupted, but you don't know the intentions of every person in the country.

If I watch a TV ad, I have to turn the TV on. If I want to read a newspaper ad, I have to buy a newspaper. Ads are no different than "regular" content in that manner.

how can you possibly know what people are desiring right now, and moreover, how can you possibly decide what they will want in the future?

Do you disagree that someone does not ever (with very rare exceptions) have to pay attention (read, watch, listen, etc.) to an ad placed in front of them? If they choose to do so, who are you to say that they didn't desire to do so? Their actions say they desire it, but you say they don't and I don't understand on what grounds you are making that judgement. That's the main thing bugging me about the definition at this point


You never have to know the intentions or desires of every individual.  Just that of the majority, which is far simpler.

BoldAsLove said:
Up until now I haven't seen an objective test that determines the difference between content and an advertisement. Can you provide a test that easily and objectively says whether or not something is an advertisement?


As wooof already pointed out, you don't have to know that as it was taken out of the definition.

BoldAsLove said:
If you aren't trying to distinguish between "regular" content and ads, then how do you determine if the person watching the content desired to watch it or not? Is it not reasonable to assume that if they watched it then they had some desire to watch it? That seems like a crucial question for your definition to work.


Once again, it doesn't matter what any one individual is seeking; just the majority.

BoldAsLove said:
1) Who counts as a third party?
2) What counts as a political segment?
3) How do you enforce it? How do you know if someone is dictating content?
4) Does this mean that non-third parties (when we define that) are exempt from these limitations? For example, can ESPN run political ads as much as they want on their channels?


Have you even read the first post of this thread?  Your questions have all been answered already.  :smirk:


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21663826 -

Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:And we're saying if they want to have a say about what political content goes into it, then it should be subject to individual contribution limits.  That's the gist of this whole discussion.


You used the phrase "insert or dictate" but that isn't how it will necessarily go. A sponsor can invest money to have a say in political content without dictating what will and will not be included. The word that I think describes it best would be "influence", but I need to think about it more.

Quote:
You never have to know the intentions or desires of every individual.  Just that of the majority, which is far simpler.



A majority is made up of individuals. If you can't know the desires of the individual you certainly can't know them for the majority. Will you please answer this question, because I really think it sums up the issue? Or at least tell me why you think the question is irrelevant?

"Do you disagree that someone does not ever (with very rare exceptions) have to pay attention (read, watch, listen, etc.) to an ad placed in front of them? If they choose to do so, who are you to say that they didn't desire to do so? Their actions say they desire it, but you say they don't and I don't understand on what grounds you are making that judgement. That's the main thing bugging me about the definition at this point"

Quote:
As wooof already pointed out, you don't have to know that as it was taken out of the definition.



I agree, except you keep arguing that people don't want to watch advertisements (despite the fact that they do watch them), so you are the one who is distinguishing an ad from other content. You've said if a person watches a movie they desire to do so, but if they watch an ad they don't, so what's the distinction between the two?

Quote:
Once again, it doesn't matter what any one individual is seeking; just the majority.



Majority is made up of individuals. See above.

Quote:
Have you even read the first post of this thread?  Your questions have all been answered already.  :smirk:


Did you even read the post I was responding to? :smirk: Wooof was providing a completely different definition that I was replying to and may have changed definitions to fit the context, which is why I asked.

Also, did you even read your own first post? :smirk: Only the first of my four questions was answered. There is nothing about political segments, how to determine if someone dictates content, and what TV stations have the power to say.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Edited by BoldAsLove (05/11/15 09:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21663973 -

Ok, you point out some, if not all of the pertinent factors that must be addressed, boldaslove. Let's see if we can work these out.

I am going to use my outline, feel free to amend it at any time if anyone sees a gap. I wrote this hastily in an effort to clarify a previous point of contention, so there will likely be some shortcomings, but here it is:

Quote:
If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate content of a political segment, on a media outlet of any sort, their contribution is subject to limitation. A sponsor can still pay a political publication/program to air their non-political advertisement, but it may not then dictate any political content conveyed by that publication/program, unless it wishes for it's sponsorship to be subject to the limitations outlined. 


The questions that bold has brought to the table:

1) Who counts as a third party?
2) What counts as a political segment?
3) How do you enforce it? How do you know if someone is dictating content?
4) Does this mean that non-third parties (when we define that) are exempt from these limitations? For example, can ESPN run political ads as much as they want on their channels?

I will start off with Falcons definitions, and we will work from there. I have reordered them to align with your list:

Quote:

1) A 3rd party is anyone who is not acting on behalf of the publication or production.

2) Political statements are those which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.

3) To enforce the above, penalties should be placed on both the entity spending the money, and the entity receiving the money.

Spending includes all costs and opportunity costs specifically applied towards political content, except one's own time and labor.



Number four is not addressed by Falcon, so I will address it here. Any media outlet is free to publish political content at their own discretion. It is understood that media outlets will have a monopoly on political speech (As they already do) and that is something that can't be done away with, for obvious reasons. However, media outlets are not permitted to receive payment from a third party to dictate content beyond the limitations of political spending.

I will extrapolate further on Falcons terms:

1) A 3rd party is anyone who is not acting on behalf of the publication or production. This includes political content dictated exclusively by a minority of investors or by the owners of media outlets, as they are considered to be acting on behalf of themselves, and not the publication.

Number two seems adequate.

3) To enforce the above, penalties should be placed on both the entity spending the money, and the entity receiving the money. Penalties will be compounded with increasing number of incidences, and also based on the extent of the infraction. If there is a blatant and severe violation, jail time will be mandated.

Does that answer your questions? Any input is welcome :smile:


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21664516 -

Quote:
Number four is not addressed by Falcon, so I will address it here. Any media outlet is free to publish political content at their own discretion. It is understood that media outlets will have a monopoly on political speech (As they already do) and that is something that can't be done away with, for obvious reasons. However, media outlets are not permitted to receive payment from a third party to dictate content beyond the limitations of political spending.



Is payment exclusively defined as money? It would certainly be beneficial to them to receive political favor in exchange for running ads, would it not?

Quote:
1) A 3rd party is anyone who is not acting on behalf of the publication or production. This includes political content dictated exclusively by a minority of investors or by the owners of media outlets, as they are considered to be acting on behalf of themselves, and not the publication.


So someone who owns 40% of the company cannot act in the companies interest and are instead always acting in their own interest? That seems unreasonable.

Quote:
Number two seems adequate.


Number two doesn't even remotely answer what I asked you. You said "wishes to dictate content of a political segment, on a media outlet of any sort." I know the definition for political statements that you're using, but I have no idea what you mean by political segment.

Quote:
3) To enforce the above, penalties should be placed on both the entity spending the money, and the entity receiving the money. Penalties will be compounded with increasing number of incidences, and also based on the extent of the infraction. If there is a blatant and severe violation, jail time will be mandated.


This isn't what I asked. I asked about the practical parts of enforcement. How do you know if someone is dictating content? Must all company secret meetings now be held in public?

Also, I would debate this, but I know we are of differing opinions and will likely never come to a conclusion, but I don't think there is EVER a time when it is justifiable to send a person to jail only for political speech.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21664659 -

Quote:
2) Political statements are those which provide opinions, facts, or fabrications about people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.


wouldnt this limit satire as well?



Quote:
I don't think there is EVER a time when it is justifiable to send a person to jail only for political speech.


you're also not a totalitarian, i think thats where the major riff is. Fal and Woof think its completely acceptable to put someone in a cage if they start talking too loud in regards to politics.


--------------------
Think for yourself, question authority

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: psyconaught]
    #21664991 -

psyconaught said:
Quote:
I don't think there is EVER a time when it is justifiable to send a person to jail only for political speech.


you're also not a totalitarian, i think thats where the major riff is. Fal and Woof think its completely acceptable to put someone in a cage if they start talking too loud in regards to politics.


You're making a misrepresentation of our argument. Firstly, campaign finance reform would be unenforceable without the threat of jail time. Wealthy people would just pay the fines on top of their other expenditures, and it would be degraded to a 'cost of doing business'. That's why, under certain circumstances, when the law has been repeatedly broken, or the expenditure is blatantly and obscenely beyond the scope of the law, it must be punished in a way other than monetary punishment.

This law is no to control speech. It is aimed at limiting the kind of expenditure that is used to purchase political favor. It is not to be 'totalitarian'. You are being utterly disingenuous to make such a claim, as we have explained the reasoning on many occasions, and it has nothing to do with silencing anyone. Maybe you just can't perceive the argument, I don't know. Regardless, your referring to Fal and I as 'totalitarians' who want to throw those who oppose us in jail is clearly a strawman.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"No my dog won't bite you, tho it had the right to. You ought to give him credit, cuz he knows I woulda let him" - Modest Mouse (And Wooof!)
Every one of you should see this video.
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21665097 -

BoldAsLove said:
Quote:
Number four is not addressed by Falcon, so I will address it here. Any media outlet is free to publish political content at their own discretion. It is understood that media outlets will have a monopoly on political speech (As they already do) and that is something that can't be done away with, for obvious reasons. However, media outlets are not permitted to receive payment from a third party to dictate content beyond the limitations of political spending.




Is payment exclusively defined as money? It would certainly be beneficial to them to receive political favor in exchange for running ads, would it not?


Spending includes all costs and opportunity costs specifically applied towards political content, except one's own time and labor.

Quote:
Quote:
1) A 3rd party is anyone who is not acting on behalf of the publication or production. This includes political content dictated exclusively by a minority of investors or by the owners of media outlets, as they are considered to be acting on behalf of themselves, and not the publication.


So someone who owns 40% of the company cannot act in the companies interest and are instead always acting in their own interest? That seems unreasonable.


Precisely, someone who owns 40% of the company cannot act in the companies interest when making political statements unless they get another 11% on board. This is to ensure that all political statements are made on behalf of the company, and not some portion of that company that wishes to put out a personal message.




Quote:
Number two seems adequate.


Number two doesn't even remotely answer what I asked you. You said "wishes to dictate content of a political segment, on a media outlet of any sort." I know the definition for political statements that you're using, but I have no idea what you mean by political segment.


Oh, I see. A segment is a 'publication/program'. No this would not silence comedians or newspapers. Refer back to '3rd party'.

Quote:
This isn't what I asked. I asked about the practical parts of enforcement. How do you know if someone is dictating content? Must all company secret meetings now be held in public?

Also, I would debate this, but I know we are of differing opinions and will likely never come to a conclusion, but I don't think there is EVER a time when it is justifiable to send a person to jail only for political speech.


There will always be lawbreakers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. If these things surface, there will be mandated jail time. We are not in favor of sending people to jail for speech. Firstly, the content of their speech is in no way, shape, or form controlled by the government. Second, spending is permissible within the bounds of limitation. Also, speech that doesn't cost money, such as youtube videos, picket signs, and word of mouth are not subject to limitation in any way, shape, or form.

The goal is not to limit speech, it is to limit political expenditure. The sort of expenditure that is used to purchase political favor.

Edited by Bigbadwooof (05/11/15 12:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #21665208 -

Bigbadwooof said:
Spending includes all costs and opportunity costs specifically applied towards political content, except one's own time and labor.




So I can make statements in exchange for political favors (tacit or explicit) and it will not be covered by this law?

Quote:
Precisely, someone who owns 40% of the company cannot act in the companies interest when making political statements unless they get another 11% on board. This is to ensure that all political statements are made on behalf of the company, and not some portion of that company that wishes to put out a personal message.



So if a writer in a company decides that they should add in a joke about Obama for a television show, then all the production costs for that show will be subject to limits because he is not a majority shareholder and therefore cannot act on behalf of the company?


Quote:
Oh, I see. A segment is a 'publication/program'. No this would not silence comedians or newspapers. Refer back to '3rd party'.



So a political segment is then any publication or program that offers facts, opinions, or fabrications about the government or candidates? According to your definition, if a third-party wishes to dictate the content of any show that even mentions politics, they are subject to the limitation, regardless of whether or not the content they are dictating is political. Do you have a different interpretation?

Quote:
There will always be lawbreakers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. If these things surface, there will be mandated jail time. We are not in favor of sending people to jail for speech. Firstly, the content of their speech is in no way, shape, or form controlled by the government. Second, spending is permissible within the bounds of limitation. Also, speech that doesn't cost money, such as youtube videos, picket signs, and word of mouth are not subject to limitation in any way, shape, or form.

The goal is not to limit speech, it is to limit political expenditure. The sort of expenditure that is used to purchase political favor.


You can justify it however you want, but the end result is that if a law like this were enacted, there would be people in jail whose only crime was making a political statement. That is an absolutely unacceptable violation of liberty in my opinion. I would never tolerate such a law.

And you still didn't answer my question. Who gets to determine whether or not someone was dictating content, and how do they accomplish that task? Will all writers meetings now be open to public inquiry and comment?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21665291 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
luvdemshrooms said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
psyconaught said:
at least you admit you want all political speech limited.


For possibly the 100th time, it's political spending that should be limited.  Why do Wooof and I have to keep correcting people on this?


Because you refuse to see that you're, as usual, wrong


I'm wrong about me wanting to put a limit on political spending and that I want to limit all political speech instead?


Learn to use English as it is meant to be used. You're wrong that you have "corrected" anyone. In order to correct those that have pointed out the flaws in your totalitarian dreams, they would have to be wrong. Since they were not... you've corrected nothing. Your repeating the same foolish arguments is not "correcting" others.



Quote:
Show us all where I said that, or you're lying about me yet again.  Your lies are really getting old, as you have not once been able to back them up.


Since that's not what I said, the lie is yours. Again.


Quote:
Let's see if this is any different.  :popcorn:


Since you lied, again, there is no difference.

Really dude, learn to use a dictionary if you're so easily confused.


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 |

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A judge's ruling talk-radio hosts on-air activity could be considered campaign contribution. lonestar2004 960 2 07/08/05 10:02 AM
by lonestar2004
* Campaign finance reform Silversoul 1,171 14 09/16/05 02:46 PM
by LeftyBurnz
* just ranting
( 1 2 all )		 meatman 2,837 26 07/18/02 07:06 PM
by Senor_Doobie
* Campaign Overhaul unbeliever 496 2 10/26/04 02:32 PM
by JesusChrist
* Anti-poverty campaign gets it almost all wrong lonestar2004 1,396 18 07/07/05 02:11 AM
by Tao
* Secret FBI Docs Show Kerry Accepted Laundered Contributions Evolving 1,050 8 08/29/04 10:48 PM
by Evolving
* Don?t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again ekomstop 5,567 10 11/06/04 08:23 AM
by ekomstop
* The 10 most important contributions throughout time
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 TheOneYouKnow 4,287 68 02/24/04 02:16 AM
by Baby_Hitler

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
23,180 topic views. 0 members, 671 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.