Are you serious? Have you seen the amount of propaganda we're exposed to without even realizing it, let alone questioning who's the messenger?Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Are you serious? Have you seen the amount of propaganda we're exposed to without even realizing it, let alone questioning who's the messenger?
Let's say you live in a town that's 99% Republican. You know that Republican business owners refuse to hire anyone who's known to support Democrats. You're a Democrat and want to donate money to the Democratic Party. Do you think you should be forced to publicly disclose these donations, knowing that they will prevent you from getting a job in this town? Before you go off on a tangent, it's not illegal to refuse to hire someone due to their political beliefs.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sure, it's called advertising.
Also, there's a huge difference between questioning the messenger, (something most Americans do on a daily basis) and placing arbitrary limits on their free speech.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 07-01-2011 at 08:14 PM.
Was that directed to me? When did you decide the quote function wasn't valuable?
1) How would I know which business owners are Republican?
2) What makes you think I'm limited to donating money to the Democratic Party?
WTF, do you know what an example is? At which point did I say that this is really your situation? Seriously?
Hope is the denial of reality
I wouldn't call them "arbitrary" limits. What makes you say that?
Have you ever stood in the shower reading your shampoo bottle, knowing every "active ingredient", manufacturer or distributor, but were surprised to find out later it could be traced back to a cosmetic company owned by a petroleum company?
Seriously. You've given me so much grief about my examples, rhetoricals, hypotheticals.....you should damn well be more specific about what you're hunting for before I answer.
So you'd be okay with unlimited campaign donations/advertising as long as it was clear where the funding was coming from?
I'd like as much transparency as possible, with the ability to trace soft money as it slushes around. As it stands now, money finds its way to: RNC or DNC or other Parties, PACs, non-connected PACs, super PACs, 527 groups, lobbying groups, unions, and finally individual candidates. Some with monetary limits and disclosure rules, some with none.
Some churches were alleged to "support a candidate" -- not just a general policy but specific people -- politicking with their tax exempt status and religious freedom. Same thing is happening with money as freedom of speech. But there are so many loopholes and back doors that can be exploited and corrupted.
Hence your support of arbitrary limits on free speech.
How's it arbitrary to want disclosure rules to be consistent? Whether it's an individual or a large corporation. Not sure I understand what you're saying....
It's arbitrary to pick a number and say that's how much you can spend of your own money before you become a swindling partisan scumbag.
Did you misinterpret my post? As it stands now, money finds its way to....some with monetary limits and disclosure rules, some with none.
In other words, the limits and rules on "Free Speech" (money) are already arbitrary. FEC has rules against bundling donations, but it's still being done in nuanced ways.
You're right, I didn't read that as closely as I should have. You haven't answered my question though.
Sure, as long as "clear" included funds-of-funds, and tax exempt groups bundling money (to purposely hide special interest donors).So you'd be okay with unlimited campaign donations/advertising as long as it was clear where the funding was coming from?
I wouldn't be opposed to that.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/...-outsiders/?hp
Got to love Soros' hypocrisy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yeah, but everything looks different from the emerald isle.
Which hypocrisy are you referring to? I see a few there, and don't much love any of them.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
The main one being that he constantly calls for the regulation of other industries, but the second his industry gets regulated (to a far smaller extent that anything financial firms have been dealing with), he bails.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh, yeah that one. Can't say I love it at all. I was thinking more along the lines of hypocrisies inherent to progressive ideology, but I suppose that qualifies too. Broaden it a bit to illustrate the fact that while he feels everything should be regulated, he also feels he should be exempt from regulation. Saw it from him in that campaign-finance debacle too.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I also note that unless Bill Gates and numerous other billionaires, Soros is doing very little to directly improve the quality of life of poor people. Most of his money is going toward advocating that governments do his job for him (with other people's money of course).
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote