Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Whatever that means.
    It means it is legal and possible to simply buy ALL the available air time. Or all the time when your*opponent's demographic is watching/listening/browsing.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  2. #52
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Where did you get your idea of freedom? I'm sorry, were you under the impression that freedom consists of one particular group having sway and say exclusively over others who don't have the resources to match? That's not freedom, that's oppression. It has nothing to do with socialism, why you'd bring that up is telling that you know as little about socialism as it seems you do about freedom.
    Freedom being the janitor and the CEO having an equal voice in our government.
    Get my ideas of freedom through studying my constitution and history. Don’t project on me exactly what it is that you want and then turn around and detest it… you want the snake to live, just don’t seem to realize it. But, truly, how could one miss that? Voluntary blindness isn't the direction one should start plodding off into when looking for truth... I generally agree with many of your viewpoints/posts, the tacks you take even...in this instance you are just plain way off.

    First, your attempt at a strawman, of putting me wanting only the rich or the corporate…show me any place where I even hinted at something like that…one should be cognizant that such attempts at manipulation in an effort to win a debate are rather off-putting at best. So…Go ahead, show me... I presume you will just skip this, best to forget the maladroit, the indelible internet air ball.

    Freedom...Janitor and CEO equal voice in government...?? They have equal voice at the polls, beyond that nothing is to be assured as that is hardly freedom. That would be an artificial imposition.

    Freedom is the opportunity to attain whatever voice one cares to strive to achieve in our polity. Its like burger flipping, good honest job, one can take pride in it, but it is not equivalent to the doctor operating on a ruptured appendix … now a talented and hard working janitor can take his talents wherever it is his capacities and luck will allow. Instance, Alan Grayson [D, FL], a pol who I do not particularly enjoy, but do admire the fact that he put himself through Harvard working as a night watchman and janitor… he has earned his voice… nobody deserves a microphone just because they were born with a mouth, one has to strive, has to devise a way to be heard above the din of all the others… that is not a right, the right is the opportunity to pursue.

    Sorry, but you seem totally unaware of your own socialist tendencies in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Ahh, it seems you are the socialist thinker, taking away private funding allowing exclusively for public funds to be used allows fairness because it creates equality in OPPORTUNITY. Not outcome. As it regards our government freedom is predicated on this notion.
    I don’t imagine you even see the nuanced irony of that paragraph.

    Let’s stretch your “thoughts” out a bit….So should we, to allow this "fairness" upon which our freedom is supposedly predicated, should we do this in every instance…? We would for there to be that true freedom, if taking your logic a little further down its own line, right? So, we should all be publicly funded if we want to start a business, so it will be fair…again, all of us, right? And to get a car, to be fair, we should all be publicly funded, for a house, for college, for food, for…

    For ...Total Nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    What on God's green earth gave you this impression? I want the snake dead, I want its family dead, I want to go to its house in the middle of the night and piss on its ashes.
    Sure not going to do much of any real damage going about it the way you suggest. Just sounds good to you, MSM will then be in complete control to choose who it wants us to focus on, nobody else will be able to do much of anything about it, liberal candidates will come out on top every time…oh, there will be a lot more candidates no doubt, at least initially, until all figure out the only way to win. Like in the old Soviet.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    This tells me you haven't listened to a word I said. But I will respond.. no, unfortunately the only way to kill the beast is to turn one head against the other.
    First of all, listening to the words you are saying when they only allow the two heads and one body to remain in actual control ...only allows the body to control everything. Right, like they will allow the one snake head to destroy the other… not going to happen. If it does, MSM will pretend to destroy the one and then we will just have the other in control, but as you said, same body… think either way this one entity is going to give up power? That would only be an illusion…to placate folks like you.

    We have to take back the power. There are more of us, the Tea Parties have been an attempt to go around the establishments of both the heads, its why so much scorn is heaped upon them by both the heads and MSM...and government [read: IRS et al].

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Keep doing what your doing and that's precisely what will happen...and it isn't MSM "doing it" they're just the medium not the source.
    Of course MSM is only a tool, but now you will allow it to continue to be the controlling influence. How you cannot see that is the voluntary blindness alluded to earlier. If we do not allow people who want to assemble outside the heads/one body, we do not allow them their own access to create media, to go up against the corporate/govt/media complex, it will just be that same complex managing the situation, controlling it all the way using their media tools.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    All of that, to agree on this...great googalah moogalah... The only contention is your seemingly insistent view that common every day folk can match multi billion dollar conglomerates in the pocketbook, they can't and it is absurd to think otherwise...
    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    You can't throw the premise out the window and than try getting into particulars...
    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    argument ad absurdum
    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    and how do you do that currently? eh? Take a stab in the dark...
    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Than you quite simply are unaware of the "schematics"...
    None of these were particularly worth putting any real effort into responding to as you put no thought at all into what your responses were, just lazy pushing them to the side…so I will do the same…acknowledging that you conceded the arguments.

    1. You have given up so let’s have an illusion instead.
    2. Nobody threw anything out but you.
    3. An argument pushed to inevitable absurdity due to your poor, impossibly absurd, premise.
    4. Rubio, Rand Paul and Cruz have done it, bucked the establishment…Johnson was unable using obviously tepid and ineffective methods.
    5. Obviously knowledge of the actual schematics would require that an idealistic belief that public control over the system would make the system somehow better only belies a simple socialistic dream…you are a dreamer…Imagine that.
    6. Should probably also work on your then and thans, your and you’res…just saying…
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  3. #53
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    It means it is legal and possible to simply buy ALL the available air time. Or all the time when your*opponent's demographic is watching/listening/browsing.
    Per the First Amendment, yes.

    (As a practical matter, no.)
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #54
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    It means it is legal and possible to simply buy ALL the available air time. Or all the time when your*opponent's demographic is watching/listening/browsing.
    it is not actually possible, given that there are over 200 channels, and it wasn't even possible given economic realities when there were only three. The only person who can monopolize air time is the President, and I can see why Presidents would favor campaign finance reform which would inhibit their challengers.

  5. #55
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,180

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Utility Man View Post
    Looks like Mitch might want to sell himself to the highest bidder.

    I have to wonder what it would be like to own a politician.

    What do you all think about individuals being able to buy a politician ?

    Thoughts or comments ?
    Why shouldn't individuals be able to buy a politician - the unions have owned Obama for years.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #56
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    it is not actually possible, given that there are over 200 channels, and it wasn't even possible given economic realities when there were only three. The only person who can monopolize air time is the President, and I can see why Presidents would favor campaign finance reform which would inhibit their challengers.
    There's no need to blanket the country.

    Just areas that are "in play". Its how ad money is disbursed now.

    I get that its a sticky wicket. I can see the "speech" argument.

    But I can see the obvious problems too. Simply having money shouldn't convey a ridiculously louder "voice". Nor should amassing huge sums be necessary to simply be heard.

    Add to this the tendency to grossly, cynically apply the science of persuasion and its a recipe for disaster.

    I think a simple solution would be to alter FCC license to require "x" amount of airtime, radio and tv, during election season, under existing PSA regs. Free of charge but distributed by lot, preferably to the top 3 (or more for congressional seats) to allow a voice to third parties.

    They can spend all they want making the ads, and the people get a little break from political ad bombardment.

    Its just a thought, but just falling back on the freedom of speech argument doesn't address real issues with unlimited campaign money.

    I prefer public funding myself. If politicians are only gonna work for those who fund their campaigns, then the people as a whole should fund campaigns.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #57
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Mitch McConnell to Argue Free Speech Case Before Supreme Court

    The problem is that you're only allowing for political parties to speak. No message may be widely disseminated unless approved by a political party.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •