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

Kratom Eye
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!

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: luvdemshrooms]
    #21674206 -

luvdemshrooms said:
"Me and mine" in that comment clearly meant... those who are on my side of politics and "the rest of you" clearly meant those on the other side of the political spectrum.


Ok, now how does this proposal help 'me and mine' get free speech, while fucking those on the other side of the political spectrum?  What would I get that they don't?  :popcorn:


--------------------
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: BoldAsLove]
    #21674317 -

BoldAsLove said:
In my opinion, the definition should be a concise description of objective criteria that a statement has to meet before a punishment is allowed.

I can't offer a better solution at the moment, and quite frankly, I've thought about this problem for a while now, and I don't think there is an answer that will be completely objective and specific enough so that it doesn't infringe on the right of free speech. However, I would love to see such a definition.


Is this less subjective?
Quote:
Any broadcast program or publication 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.

Advertising costs (using fair market value) for political content are subject to individual spending limits; however, the production costs of the advertisement are not.



--------------------
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]
    #21674348 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
luvdemshrooms said:
"Me and mine" in that comment clearly meant... those who are on my side of politics and "the rest of you" clearly meant those on the other side of the political spectrum.


Ok, now how does this proposal help 'me and mine' get free speech, while fucking those on the other side of the political spectrum?  What would I get that they don't?  :popcorn:


So you haven't read the thread? :lmafo:

Trolling isn't becoming.


--------------------
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
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #21674393 -

luvdemshrooms said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
luvdemshrooms said:
"Me and mine" in that comment clearly meant... those who are on my side of politics and "the rest of you" clearly meant those on the other side of the political spectrum.


Ok, now how does this proposal help 'me and mine' get free speech, while fucking those on the other side of the political spectrum?  What would I get that they don't?  :popcorn:


So you haven't read the thread? :lmafo:


Of course I've read the thread.  Now answer the questions:
How does this proposal help 'me and mine' get free speech, while fucking those on the other side of the political spectrum?  What would I get that they don't?  :popcorn:


--------------------
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]
    #21674440 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Of course I've read the thread.


It would appear not, as your answers are in the thread.

But I'll play while laughing at your trolling...

Quote:
How does this proposal help 'me and mine' get free speech, while fucking those on the other side of the political spectrum?


It doesn't help you get it. You already have it. It takes it away from others.


Quote:
What would I get that they don't?


You would get to keep your freedom of speech.

Again, trolling doesn't become you. It doesn't help your agreement, nor does it make you appear smarter.


--------------------
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
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #21674532 -

luvdemshrooms said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
luvdemshrooms said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
how do you feel the poor would get more free speech than the wealthy?


"Me and mine" in that comment clearly meant... those who are on my side of politics and "the rest of you" clearly meant those on the other side of the political spectrum.


Ok, now how does this proposal help 'me and mine' get free speech, while fucking those on the other side of the political spectrum?


It doesn't help you get it. You already have it. It takes it away from others.


You corrected me above when I thought "the rest of you" meant the wealthy, and told me it clearly meant "those on the other side of the political spectrum".

Now, what would be taken away from the other side of the political spectrum that would remain on my side?


--------------------
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]
    #21675094 -

Already answered, troll


--------------------
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
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #21675477 -

It's amazing how every I time I ask you to back up your claims, you never can.


--------------------
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]
    #21675555 -

Quote:
Already answered, troll


What's amazing is how you always deny it's been done.

That's quite a character flaw.


--------------------
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
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: KauaiOrca]
    #21675588 -

KauaiOrca said:
zappaisgod said:
KauaiOrca said:
zappaisgod said:
I don't mean you specifically.  I mean everybody.  The MSM are whores plain and simple.  I think they are worse than the politicians.


They are corporations … legal entities … Corporations, for the most part, exist to generate profits.  It's the ownership of these corporations that needs far more examination.  This paper, generated by a Swiss University, give the first real scientific explanation for who really owns what on this planet.  The likelihood that there really is a tiny, tiny group of humans at the top of the Wealth Class that coordinates not just the media, but global policy on many levels is very real. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995


I saw nothing scary there.


Scary, I guess, is a relative term.  If it doesn't bother you that a tiny, tiny fraction of humans have the ability to exert tremendous influence and control on most of the corporations that own/control virtually all of the resources on this planet, then more power to you.

I believe that the more diversified ownership and power is, the better. I believe that the concentration of power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands on this planet is the greatest threat we face to freedom and progress as a species.


Nothing ever gets through. :flowstone:

Corporations are owned by millions and millions of shareholders.  Probably the biggest single entity that owns stock in corporations are pension funds. Workers.  Then there are just regular people who invest for themselves.  That is who owns corporations.  I owned a corporation once myself.

Do you know what tiny tiny fraction of the population I am concerned about having excess control?  Media owners.  What is that old saw about not getting in a pissing contest with somebody who buys ink by the barrel?  Well fuck that shit.

Bill Gates' wealth is not the cause of anybody else's poverty and he has in fact enabled greater freedom for anybody.  That he got rich as fuck doing so is not detrimental to the bums who spew out babies they can't afford without responsible fathers.

If you are stupid you will probably stay poor.  Oh well.  That is how it works.  To what extent should winners subsidize losers?  We already pay almost all the income taxes



The same stupid shit gets posted here by the same stupid people.  Here is the secret to success in life.

Get to fucking work doing something other people value.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #21675614 -

You claimed that you answered my question.  Your logical fallacy is Burden of Proof.


--------------------
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: zappaisgod]
    #21675656 -

zappaisgod said:
Quote:
KauaiOrca said:
If it doesn't bother you that a tiny, tiny fraction of humans have the ability to exert tremendous influence and control on most of the corporations that own/control virtually all of the resources on this planet, then more power to you.


Corporations are owned by millions and millions of shareholders.  Probably the biggest single entity that owns stock in corporations are pension funds. Workers.  Then there are just regular people who invest for themselves.  That is who owns corporations.


Do you seriously believe those millions of people influence and control corporation decision making?!?!?


--------------------
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]
    #21675657 -

There are rather strict limits on campaign contributions


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21675673 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You claimed that you answered my question.  Your logical fallacy is Burden of Proof.



Of course it is.  :lmafo:

It was answered. If you don't care for the answer... that's your issue.


--------------------
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
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21675689 -

zappaisgod said:
There are rather strict limits on campaign contributions


That was your first post in this very long thread.  We're looong past 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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21675729 -

It remains a fact that you just cannot wrap your head around.  I get your point.  We all do.  You want everybody who doesn't hew to your leftwing nutnonsense to be excluded from the arena of public discourse because your arguments are worthless and weak and cannot stand on their own merits.  You fear dialogue because your worldview is a failure.  How did it work out in the good old USSR?  Tell me about the satellite image of North Korea.  How is Greece doing?



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21675782 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
BoldAsLove said:
Massive fines and/or sanction on business would work wonders for making the cost of political ads just far too high to be worth it. Keep in mind here, when I say 'massive' I really do mean outrageously high penalties. Why do you think that wouldn't work as a deterrent?


That's fine too, provided they're high enough to actually have a deterring effect.


Would you allow fines to replace jail time in this proposed law?

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Is this less subjective?
Quote:
Any broadcast program or publication 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.

Advertising costs (using fair market value) for political content are subject to individual spending limits; however, the production costs of the advertisement are not.



Yes, I think that is a big improvement over what you had before.

When you say advertising costs are subject to individual limits, do you mean if a third party pays them or if anyone (including the publication) pays them?


--------------------
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]
    #21675985 -

BoldAsLove said:
Would you allow fines to replace jail time in this proposed law?


Sure, if they have a deterring effect.  The Koch brothers are ready to spend nearly $1 billion to buy their way, and I'm sure they expect to receive a favorable return on their investment.  So the fine to deter that would have to be quite significant.

BoldAsLove said:
I think that is a big improvement over what you had before.

When you say advertising costs are subject to individual limits, do you mean if a third party pays them or if anyone (including the publication) pays them?


A great point.  I added the word "However" to the second part show it would also have an individual spending limit.

Quote:
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.

However, advertising costs (not including production value) for political content, assessed at fair market value, 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.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/14/15 01:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21676207 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
BoldAsLove said:
Would you allow fines to replace jail time in this proposed law?


Sure, if they have a deterring effect.  The Koch brothers are ready to spend nearly $1 billion to buy their way, and I'm sure they expect to receive a favorable return on their investment.  So the fine to deter that would have to be quite significant.



I'm good with using as large a fine as needed.

Quote:
A great point.  I added the word "However" to the second part show it would also have an individual spending limit.

Quote:
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.

However, advertising costs (not including production value) for political content, assessed at fair market value, is subject to individual spending limits.



Just to make sure I understand. Summed up: third-party spending is always subject to limits, first-party spending is subject to limitations on the advertising costs only?


--------------------
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]
    #21676214 -

BoldAsLove said:
Summed up: third-party spending is always subject to limits, first-party spending is subject to limitations on the advertising costs only?


Yes, first party spending is subject to limitations on the fair market value of advertising costs only.  Unless you convince me otherwise.  :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
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 |

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 1,170 14 09/16/05 02:46 PM
by LeftyBurnz
* just ranting
( 1 2 all )		 meatman 2,835 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 1,049 8 08/29/04 10:48 PM
by Evolving
* Don?t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again ekomstop 5,566 10 11/06/04 08:23 AM
by ekomstop
* The 10 most important contributions throughout time
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 TheOneYouKnow 4,273 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
23,152 topic views. 0 members, 49 guests and 34 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 0.039 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.