U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2011, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,589,390 times
Reputation: 7921

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
The argument seems to be that some will still do it so why even try. Well people still murder people even though we have laws against it. Should we just get rid of those laws as well. Donations by corporations is no more than bribery. Lets call it for what it is. We already have laws on the books for this. If they do it, put them in jail. That would be a good start. Right now it is legal bribery.
That's a pretty good counter argument. It's going to take me some time to come up with a reply. But I believe I can. Stay tuned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2011, 05:51 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 9,956,434 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
That's a pretty good counter argument. It's going to take me some time to come up with a reply. But I believe I can. Stay tuned.
Why try to prove me wrong. Why not consider the possibility that I am actually right. This is not a partisan issue. Republicans should and have agreed on this issue. It was the activist supreme court that gave corporations 1st amendment rights and said that laws that limit corporations free speech rights were unconstitutional...at least 5 out of 9 of them did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 01:27 PM
 
4,990 posts, read 4,456,253 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
2, The media, The media in Canada is prevented, by law from reporting falsehoods over the airwaves. If they do they are caught, charged, fined and if they persist they will lose their permit to broadcast. Why do you think we have no FOX or MSNBC stations in this country? They would have to change their entire modus opperendi in order to be here and what they do is all they know. The media has a horrible detrimental effect in the USA and it always has. Even George Washington was slandered and libeled by his opponents. John Adams actually got the unconstitutional "Aliens and sedition act" passed because of this horrible character asasination that was the public discourse of the day. William Randolph Hearst took full credit for forcing the American government into the Spanish American war with his poison pen. You would think that after over 200 years the American public would get wise to the lying propaganda that comes at them from the media bit alas, that does not seem to be the case.
Excellent post.

In my view the internet is one of the most powerful and democratic communication mediums the 20th century has produced.

A housewife can theoretically set up a website which is just as accessible to the global community as one created by Fox News.

It truly has ushered in a information and communication revolution. Not to mention a few that have made elites around the world spooked into trying to censor and control this great medium.

In my view, non-discrimination in terms of accessibility of information on the Net AND the ability of individuals to store information on the Net (not using Net Neutrality here, because it has become such a loaded term and its definition has become confounded) should be made extensions to the Constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and/or Freedom of Press.

Let the emo-lunatic scribble whateva he wants on that d@mn chalkboard, just don't take away my ability to rip to shreds and debunk any and everything him and his cult say and do, on this global platform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,072,726 times
Reputation: 11273
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.
“No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure,” said Deutch in a statement provided to ThinkProgress. “No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch Brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1%.

No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”
At least someone is (possibly, hopefully more than lip-service) learning from our mistakes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
I see why we need corporate 'persons' (they're not fully persons anyway), so I don't want to scrap that.
Why do corporations need personhood?

Last edited by chielgirl; 11-20-2011 at 01:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 01:47 PM
 
4,126 posts, read 4,330,776 times
Reputation: 1610
I agree. I seldom agree with democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 06:17 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 9,956,434 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder View Post
I agree. I seldom agree with democrats.
well this should be a non partisan issue. I mean who really wants special interests groups controlling congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 06:40 PM
 
4,126 posts, read 4,330,776 times
Reputation: 1610
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
well this should be a non partisan issue. I mean who really wants special interests groups controlling congress.
I don't disagree with democrats because they are democrats but because I usually disagree with their politics. Nothing partisan about that. I just happen to agree with this one on this particular issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 06:43 PM
 
12,439 posts, read 9,956,434 times
Reputation: 3129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder View Post
I don't disagree with democrats because they are democrats but because I usually disagree with their politics. Nothing partisan about that. I just happen to agree with this one on this particular issue.
Well I agree with Paul on a number of issues, and I am not a republican. We should all come together on this issue. It will take bipartisan support to get a constitutional amendment through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 07:00 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,292 posts, read 10,107,693 times
Reputation: 3530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
We have a thing called freedom of speech. It allows news agencies to tell outright lies, if they so choose. We believe that are people are smart enough to see through the lies.

No censorship, no thanks
But apparently we are not smart enough to see through the lies

Because they have "permission" to tell outright lies how does freedom of speech come into play? From my understanding they are not restricted from saying anything but the airwaves are censored from telling lies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2011, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,589,390 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
Why try to prove me wrong. Why not consider the possibility that I am actually right. This is not a partisan issue. Republicans should and have agreed on this issue. It was the activist supreme court that gave corporations 1st amendment rights and said that laws that limit corporations free speech rights were unconstitutional...at least 5 out of 9 of them did.
Sorry it took so long to respond. Why try to prove you wrong? Because while you put up an excellent argument, nevertheless I believe you are wrong.

I go back to the war on drugs--we have regulated, restricted out the wazoo, yet still drugs are widely available. The war on drugs has not acheived the intended results of stopping the flow--not even close.

Regarding your comparison to murder, there is a key distinction between murder and either campaign or drug violations. Murder is malum in se i.e. wrong in itself, and thus prohibited. Drugs & campaign violations are prohibitum malum, i.e. wrong simply because they are prohibited.

When something is prohibitum malum it is inherently tough to enforce, and invariably loopholes will be found and/or black markets arise. We see this time and time again, whether with drugs, booze, prostitution, gambling, etc. But there is really not much of a black market for 'murder for hire' (pulp novels notwithstanding) because it is malum in se and thus much more readily enforceable.

Again, as long as government is so big, powerful, and has 4 of every 10 dollars flowing thru its hands, people are going to find ways to access it and direct some of that money flow into their pockets. The solution is not to regulate & restrict the buying & selling of influence. The solution is to eliminate the influence in the first place by radically reducing the size and scope of government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top