| 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 » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Bulk Cannabis Seeds  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?   Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
-------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
And it's no less laughable (and with any less of a partisan goal) than when you started. -------------------- 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: 9 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
I'd avoid influence, because unspoken/unwritten influence is something you could never determine. If Monsanto pays MSNBC to air a commercial, will that influence MSNBC to say nice things about Monsanto? Who could ever know?
We know that Hillary is currently leading the Democratic race for President. Did anyone ask me my opinion? No. Can we still be confident she's leading? Yes. It's all about statistics. You don't need to know every single person's desire. -------------------- 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: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
You would if you base your test on what a majority of the people are actively seeking. -------------------- 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: 9 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
I would argue that would be outside the scope of this law (media haven't traditionally been the organizations we're concerned about the Government going to bed with anyway).
A writer acts on behalf of the company, and if he includes content that the media outlet doesn't like, they will override him. Wooof made it clear that a media outlet is free to publish political content at their own discretion, and this was added to the definition.
No, not regardless of whether the content they are dictating is political. You misread.
No, not for making a political statement. For spending more than the allowable amount on political content. I don't know how many times we've had to correct people on this.
That's like asking if all murders now have to be done in public. It's against the law. Enforcement is another matter. -------------------- 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: 9 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
If satire is part of a program/publication, then it is not subject to the limit, per the definition. If someone pays to have political satire added to a program or publication, then yes. -------------------- 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 Trump's Bone Spurrs   Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 18,033 Last seen: 7 hours, 28 minutes |
| ||||||
I don't know how you would go about getting political favors for making statements without expenditure, but sure.
No, the writer is not a 3rd party.
I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted that way, to be honest.
That is a strawman. A complete misrepresentation of the outline. Either you are intentionally lying, or you don't understand it, but it clearly targets 'expenditure' not 'speech in general'.
I did answer your question. If you think making me reiterate my arguments over and over and over and over and over, makes your case, you're wrong. This whole thread has been a fucking circle jerk due to this very thing. -------------------- "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 04:48 PM)
| |||||||
|
Bigbadwooof Trump's Bone Spurrs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 18,033 Last seen: 7 hours, 28 minutes |
| ||||||
It's laughable that you think so, honestly, but I haven't come to expect much, if anything at all, from you. I find it interesting that you call use 'totalitarian', yet you wish to ban people from wearing perfume. You obviously can't be taken seriously. -------------------- "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
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Right. How unfortunate for you that the best you have is to resort to comments like that but to borrow your line... I haven't come to expect much, if anything at all, from you. The only reason to stifle free speech, is because you think there's some advantage to your "side". And people can still wear all the perfumes they want, just not around others who don't wish to be assaulted by the stench. You may want to think twice before calling others a liar. At least until you give up the practice. -------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
I completely agree, but I can have a lot of impact on the content of the show without ever dictating the content.
We know Hillary is leading because we took a poll of a representative population, thus we know some people's opinions. With media, I don't see how you can possibly know even a single person's desires. I'm going to ask this question for the third time now: "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? You said if someone watches a movie, they desire to do so, but if someone watches an ad they don'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." (Italics newly added) This question brings up the other point which you seem to be trying to make, in that ads are somehow different from other content. Can you objectively describe how they differ and how you can tell an ad from other content?
Wooof said he cannot act on behalf of the company because he is not a majority shareholder. Does someone in the company, who is a majority shareholder, have to approve every single decision for it not to be considered 3rd-party influence?
With all due respect, I don't think I did at all. As follows, the definition Wooof presented is: "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 segment is further defined as a 'publication/program.' Therefore if I want to dictate the content of a political publication/program, it is subject to limitation. No where does it say that the content I am dictating has to be political, only that the program is political. So if I pay Rush Limbaugh to speak wonders about Pepsi, it is subject to limitations. How is my interpretation not supported by the definition?
You are not correcting me, you are obscuring the point. If someone spends too much money on political speech and ends up in jail, the action that landed them in jail is making a political statement. It's as simple as that. Political speech, no matter how egregious, loud, or expensive, should never be cause to send someone to jail. That's what your law does, no matter how much you want to sugar coat it. As I've said before, we differ in opinion on this point and neither one of us is likely to be persuaded, so I don't really see the point in discussing it further.
The laws against murder are constantly enforced. Evidence is collected and cases are built. You are proposing a law that, presumably, will need to be enforced in some way. How do you intend to enforce it? How do you intend to screen media for content that was dictated by a third party? -------------------- 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.
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
-------------------- 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 |
| ||||||
The example we just went through. If I am ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, TNT, etc. I can make political statements on my station, never taking money from a third party, all in exchange for political favors.
You just wrote: "someone who owns 40% of the company cannot act in the companies interest when making political statements unless they get another 11% on board." And that a third-party is "anyone who is not acting on behalf of the publication or production." So if the writer cannot act in the company's interest, how are they not a third-party?
I just wrote this in response to Falcon. I don't see how my interpretation is wrong, but maybe you can find a mistake: "With all due respect, I don't think I did at all. As follows, the definition Wooof presented is: "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 segment is further defined as a 'publication/program.' Therefore if I want to dictate the content of a political publication/program, it is subject to limitation. No where does it say that the content I am dictating has to be political, only that the program is political. So if I pay Rush Limbaugh to speak wonders about Pepsi, it is subject to limitations. How is my interpretation not supported by the definition?"
I never said the law targets speech in general, I said that from this law people will be in jail because they made political statements. Again, as I wrote to Falcon: "If someone spends too much money on political speech and ends up in jail, the action that landed them in jail is making a political statement. It's as simple as that. Political speech, no matter how egregious, loud, or expensive, should never be cause to send someone to jail. That's what your law does, no matter how much you want to sugar coat it. As I've said before, we differ in opinion on this point and neither one of us is likely to be persuaded, so I don't really see the point in discussing it further."
You did not answer my question. Go look at your post. You quoted my question in conjunction with my statement about sending people to jail, then only responded to the part about sending people to jail. You never once mentioned who would be responsible for evaluating content to see if a 3rd-party dictated part of it and you never talked about how you would get information from secret meetings to evaluate these decisions. If you think you answered my question, you're wrong. -------------------- 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.
| |||||||
|
Bigbadwooof Trump's Bone Spurrs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 18,033 Last seen: 7 hours, 28 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Alright, I see what you're saying. I have edited it:
If a third party (sponsor or otherwise) wishes to dictate political content 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
| |||||||
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03 Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
If content isn't being dictated, that's a lot better than what we have today.
Exactly. A representative population will give us a statistically accurate estimate of people's opinions.
You can ask a representative population.
I've answered it every time. One person may indeed want to see a political ad, but what matters is whether the majority want to see it. We can conduct a representative survey to find out if a majority of people want their program interrupted with political ads, just like we can ask who people support for the next president.
I've answered that many times. If you believe a majority of people who go to a movie want to watch the Coca Cola ads or the political ads that precede it, we can do a representative survey of people going to the movies and confirm or not.
He updated his response to "the writer is not a 3rd party", which aligns with the definition.
Fair enough. Wooof already corrected himself.
You said "Political speech, no matter how egregious, loud, or expensive, should never be cause to send someone to jail". We COMPLETELY AGREE with the egregious and loud part. We only disagree on the "expensive" part. Get it?
Someone in the company can speak up. There are a large number of ways this can be enforced. And sometimes, people will get away with it. But it would still be illegal. -------------------- 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 Trump's Bone Spurrs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 18,033 Last seen: 7 hours, 28 minutes |
| ||||||
Ok, Television stations will have a monopoly on speech, as they already do, to some extent. However, wealthy people will no longer have a monopoly on speech.
The writer is employed by the company to create political content. He is not a 3rd party. If a minority of investors wish to dictate the writer's political statements, they are acting on behalf of their own political stance, and not the company's.
The reason that campaign finance reform is necessary, is because wealthy folks are buying political favor. It is necessary that campaign financing be limited in order to preserve democracy, because money in politics is corrupting the fuck out of everything in this country. If you are against limiting campaign finance, we will have to agree to disagree, because my mind will not likely be swayed on this topic.
The court system is responsible. It would be handled just like, say, insider trading for example. We wouldn't get information from secret meetings, people do break the law, hell I myself do on occasion! ;-) However, if they are caught, punishment would not be light, and it would scale up depending on how egregious the offense was. Edited by Bigbadwooof (05/11/15 06:46 PM)
| |||||||
|
BoldAsLove Pokemon Master Registered: 03/10/11 Posts: 2,549 Loc: Kanto Region |
| ||||||
So do you intend to ask them every time new content is aired?
You haven't answered it, please read the question carefully. This has nothing to do with a majority v. the individual. The word in question here is "desire" and how it is defined. You have previously said that if a person watches a TV show then they likely desire to watch it, but if a person watches an ad, they don't. Why are the person's actions (which are extremely similar in both cases) leading you to two very different conclusions? This, in my mind, is crucial to your definition. Unless you want to take a survey for every piece of new media that comes out, you need to have an objective way of defining whether or not people desire to watch it.
Once again, you haven't actually answered it as this has nothing to do with a majority of people. Again, you've said if a person consumes some form of media (movie, tv show, etc.) they desired to do so, but the same is not true for an ad. What is your test for determining if something was an ad or not (and therefore if someone desired to view it or not)?
I completely understand your point. But you admit that your law would send people to jail for a particular type of political speech, the expensive kind. I think sending people to jail solely for any non-violent kind of political speech is so outrageously unacceptable that if such a law were to pass in this country (and somehow ruled Constitutional) I would move away, never to return. No non-violent political speech, of any kind, should ever land a person in jail and I refuse to live in a country where that isn't true. -------------------- 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.
| |||||||
|
BoldAsLove Pokemon Master Registered: 03/10/11 Posts: 2,549 Loc: Kanto Region |
| ||||||
If this were the end result of such a system, TV stations having a monopoly on speech, I think you'd have a much worse scenario than we currently have.
So are a majority of shareholder's required to sign off on all things that the company produces?
You're missing the point. I am not against campaign finance reform. I am against sending people to jail for non-violent political speech of any kind, expensive or not. Your law would send people to jail for certain forms of political speech. This is unacceptable in my mind. To borrow your words, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I will never believe it to be acceptable to jail people for any non-violent political speech. -------------------- 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.
| |||||||
|
Bigbadwooof Trump's Bone Spurrs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 18,033 Last seen: 7 hours, 28 minutes |
| ||||||
TV stations already have a monopoly on television. That is the only place they would have a monopoly. If you want to get rid of that then you're really going to be limiting speech.
No. Those employed by the company to create content will continue to do so.
We want people to be able to use media outlets to send political messages. We just don't want that system to be abused in an attempt to receive political favor. If you did not have jail sentences, the fines would just be a 'cost of doing business', and wealthy people would continue as they do now, and just pay the fines. It would only discourage less wealthy people from political spending. If we have jail time, it would be reserved for blatant offenses that demonstrate a total disregard for the new laws. We will have to agree to disagree, yes. -------------------- "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 07:25 PM)
| |||||||
|
akira_akuma Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ  Registered: 08/28/09 Posts: 82,455 Loc: Onypeirophóros Last seen: 6 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
make your own television and/or radio station's.
| |||||||
|
KauaiOrca Waterman  Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 3,750 Loc: Underground Alien Base |
| ||||||
|
What I find fascinating is how Presidential hopefuls go to the big money markets like California, New York, Texas in order to raise money so they can spend the bulk of it in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina on political ads.
The idea that money spending by corporations in political campaigns = freedom of speech is frankly one of the most bizarre rulings from the Supreme Court ever. -------------------- “Order is needed by the ignorant but it takes a genius to master chaos.” ― Einstein 
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Bulk Cannabis Seeds Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last 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 |
1,170 | 14 | 09/16/05 02:46 PM by LeftyBurnz |
|
|
just ranting (  1 2 all ) |
 meatman |
2,836 | 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 |
4,284 | 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 23,176 topic views. 0 members, 377 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
