-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
empty vessel
Member
I'm confused. You oppose the corporate form altogether? Not even I oppose that.
You aren't making any sense. Recognizing limits on state power--i.e., limits on corporations--is not "empowering" the state. The opposite, in fact.
That said, I am generally very much in favor of state power. I'm just not very big on the idea of inherent state power independent from popular control, as you and other "libertarians" like eznark are.
Aaron Strife
Banned
ADP says 176,000 jobs created so that probably means 2 for the BLS report.
They act VERY differently. If I brought legislation to the floor that created an instrument to help amplify, to an enormous extent, the voices of wealthy individuals at the expense of DEMOCRACY and I called it that, I would be jeered from the floor. But that is precisely what Citizen's United is and does.
Defending it is beyond suspicious. it's indefensible. Wrapping it infreedom of speech flags is nonsensical and a diversion from the reality of the specific, addressable problem. There is no slippery slope for citizens implied or even close.
electricpirate
Member
That's my point, the semantics don't mean much of anything, but the narrative matters some minuscule amount. Romney has an existing narrative of being inconsitent, for his flip flops Obama hasn't really come off as a flip flopper, probably because he's generally been good about explaining why he made the change, (Mandate) or he's flipped to a generally popular position (gay marriage, though he did get deservedly hammered till he "evolved"). And he's always taken the new position in full, where as Romney the other hand is literally trying to hold two conflicting positions at the same time (Mandate is a Tax federally but not at the state level, he should get hammered on this like Obama was hammered until he took a position on gay marriage), or literally just refuses to put forth any kind of detail (tax plan, healthcare immigration) that might show he has a position either way.
Either way, whether this matters (and at the absolute max, we are maybe talking about some fundraising changes, maybe a 1-2 tenth of a percent nationally) will largely be defined as if this continues a narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative where this hurts him, whereas Romney does. Pointing out that Obama has flipped doesn't actually change that.
The Librarian
Banned
Where have we seen this before? What newspaper has done what you've said to such an intensity? When has MSNBC gone on a rant about Jeff Merkley for not voting the way it wanted to? What is MSNBS's list of priorities?
I can't myself. Can you fill me in?
Adelson isn't the only millionaire giving to Romney's campaign.
I think you're looking at the micro and not the macro from the other side.
In a perfect world, no corporation should be allowed to speak. They're not people. They don't breathe, they can't fight for their country, they don't have emotions, and they don't look out what's best for anyone else. They only seek to make a profit, and they have a much better means of doing that – through shit tons of money – than they do the ordinary person.
We didn't fight a revolution because corporations were being taxed unfairly. We didn't fight it for a Microsoft or an Apple. We fought it for living, breathing people. (In before only white male property owners – still people, though).
You guys are going down a very slippery slope in equating the unique role the news industry plays in a society to everything else. They're not comparable.
benjipwns
Banned
I'm not a libertarian, I'm part of the family, and I'll generally accept it. But I'm not a "libertarian" as you put it.
Yes, I'm leery of the fully state endorsed corporate form as we think of it.
Just want to say since you're reading my posts for the moment, that I think you're easily one of the best GAF politik posters on many topics. Even though we might disagree often. Just wanted to say cheers.
So only certain people get to speak. Got it.stinkles said:
Goodbye New York Times. Goodbye Fox News. Goodbye MSNBC. Goodbye every union. Goodbye some dopes who wanted to make a move about Hillary.dax01 said:
Thankfully the state run media will be here to tell us the truth!
RustyNails
Member
I'm expecting 85K, factoring in government layoffs. By the way, when will government layoffs end? They're continuously happening since 2009 going into 2010 thanks in large part to Repub governors.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You're looking at it backwards. If we're running with the premise of money as speech then its about saying that some people are not allowed ten thousand times as much "speech" as other people.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
It's like I can't even post in this thread anymore without being sarcastic... a little grumpy these days I guess.
I was implying that you mold your views to fit the platform of a politician that you feel has all the answers.
benjipwns
Banned
How can you ever prevent this?
The alternative is a ban on everything not provided by the state. And then it's the parties with power, aka the Republicans and Democrats who already work tirelessly to take out any third party threats.
If anything Gary has "evolved" to eznark's views.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Depends - lots of old people love their newspapers or hate computers.
Citizens United ensures this.
It effectively adjusted the volume of free speech to 11. Yours is now drowned out by billionaires with megaphones.
.
I was actually surprised to see the results and read some of his apparent quotes. Those are definitely new.
When has this not been the case?
benjipwns
Banned
He ran into the libertarian and Libertarian establishment. Especially at the convention. He even admitted on Red Eye he hadn't thought through something like calorie labeling. Compared it to how he came around on drugs.
Might be one of the few politicians I may trust.
Oh dear, so it's the same as before, but allows billionaires or backed candidates to unseat incumbents. I'm trembling.
there used to be speed limits. Now we don't even require seatbelts.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So again, the philosophy seems to be "fight fire with fire": since getting money out of politics is a lost cause (apparently we shouldn't even be doing anything to mitigate it?) might as well just inject billions more into it and hope that somehow helps
Whatever their priorities are, it is only known and decided among a select few number of people. Again, you are asking for micro answers when this issue is much broader than that.
A media conglomerate can definitely have a biased viewpoint on presenting information or exerting influence in one direction. No one would dare limit the amount of money they would spend to do so. So, they should not be afforded special privileges that other corporations are not.
It doesn't make sense to me why George Soros (or corporate entities he's affiliated with) can't donate 50 million on behalf of whomever he wants, but Pat Robertson can broadcast any message he feels free to (repeatedly, 365 days of the year) just because he thought of creating a cable channel years ago.
benjipwns
Banned
what
Alternatively, we can make it so government has no reason to be bought!
I distinctly remember you complaining about Obama being bought out by the drugs companies. Do you not think that is a bad thing now? Don't you want something to prevent that? Or would you just prefer us to continue to be at the whims of corporations and billionaires.
benjipwns
Banned
And letting the state dictate terms would prevent this how?
I know I'm a bit late on this, but my god, that's such a dumb argument.
Yes, the government can exert power over media corporations.
We can do it already, regardless of citizen united.
We can shut them down because of libel, outstanding tax debt, we can censor them and put reporters on jail.
But we mostly don't, even though every democracy in the world (and the US for most of its life) didn't have a Citizen United type protection.
You know why?
Because people actually hate that type of shit, and they would not vote for someone who shut down newspapers randomly (hopefully).
So the only way to stop this completely theoretical threat that have never really a materialized anywhere, is to give corporation unlimited spending?
Bull-motherfucking-shit, and it's also not an accurate reading of Citizen United (which allow for certain limitations, I mean, corporations can't donate unlimited money directly to the candidate and they can't coordinate with him).
And what's really curios, is that all those free speech heroes always start with corporations.
What about real people?
I mean, the bill of rights grant me the rights to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and yet somehow, I need to get a protest permit from the government, which can be randomly denied.
Newspapers are not being shutdown for political reasons in this country (and at any given time in this country, there's always a media outlet dedicated to overthrowing and undermining) but you still can get arrested for a peaceful protest.
The state is tasked with the well being of its citizens, corporations is tasked with the profits of its shareholders.
??????? I honestly don't know what your trying to prove.
The state can easily reduce the influence of corporations through contribution limits and lobbying reform but if you want to continue to be at the whims of corporations because you have an irrational fear of the state so be it.
Black Republican
Member
Ted Strickland seems like a pretty good surrogate for team obama
cant believe ohio voted him out of the gov mansion
maybe future dnc chair?
cant believe ohio voted him out of the gov mansion
maybe future dnc chair?
benjipwns
Banned
But they should be. They are corporate speech.
The state doesn't give a shit about its citizens. Why would it?
The state won't do shit to corporations, it'll merely integrate them into itself to enrich themselves at our expense.
When has any state "reduced the influence of corporations"?
Bringing them into the state doesn't reduce their influence, it empowers them.
"Contribution limits and lobbying reform" empower incumbents and prevents any challenges against them.
No, what I said was that the only reason the drug companies were on board with Obamacare is because they are positioned to profit. More people with insurance = more people with access to drugs = more pharmaceutical profits.
I don't begrudge them that.
If the state doesn't look after its citizens and corporations dont look after the citizens..... Who does?
benjipwns
Banned
Huh?
Who is suggesting this?
Why are you shadowboxing?
The state is the people, its draw its power and legitimacy from them.
Are you against the concept of democracy?
Byakuya769
Member
Seeing this prolonged discussion that stemmed from TA's posting of excepts from a Kennedy opinion has been interesting. Interesting, in that his opinion in Citizen's United was another example of how he will bend over backwards to create hypothetical situations where congress acts absurdly (remember his question in the healthcare hearing, "what's to stop you from forcing people to buy broccoli?"). Yet when the issue is onerous police powers and limitations on civil rights, Kennedy will bend in the opposite direction to imply that officers will absolutely always act reasonably.
What a joke.
What a joke.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Because it's comprised and paid for by the people those same citizens? They are not mutually exclusive.
benjipwns
Banned
Are the New York Times and News Corp not corporations?
guffaw
Have you no concern for the minority?
And the state would never ever pursue its own goals...
So basically were all screwed. We can all just go back in time to the days of lords and kings. That worked out so well for the common man.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
How does the state look after itself without looking after the interests of its constituents? I'm not honestly clear on what you think "the state looking after itself" entails.
benjipwns
Banned
I don't know why you think divine right is justified and the only option.
Pretty easily? What does the state have to do with it constituents?
Divine right.....????? What are you talking about
Officerrob
Banned
89%
Barack Obama
on social, science, economic, healthcare, and environmental issues
85%
Jill Stein
on science, social, domestic policy, healthcare, immigration, and environmental issues
80%
Kent Mesplay
on social, healthcare, science, economic, domestic policy, and environmental issues
53%
Ron Paul
on foreign policy and environmental issues
19%
Mitt Romney
on environmental issues
Barack Obama
on social, science, economic, healthcare, and environmental issues
85%
Jill Stein
on science, social, domestic policy, healthcare, immigration, and environmental issues
80%
Kent Mesplay
on social, healthcare, science, economic, domestic policy, and environmental issues
53%
Ron Paul
on foreign policy and environmental issues
19%
Mitt Romney
on environmental issues
Frank the Great
Banned
obama 86%
mesplay 85%
jill stein 83%
everyone else below 40%. seems right
mesplay 85%
jill stein 83%
everyone else below 40%. seems right
Yes, and we can shut the down if we wanted.
Like, if the NYT start publishing pictures of kiddie porn all over its front page, you're saying we're not allowed to close it?
Again, who are you arguing against?
Consent of the governed is probably the most important idea of the American Revolution.
I find it profound, not laughable, but to each his own.
It's also right there in the decleration of independece -
Thomas Jefferson said:
I do, which is why our Constitution have strong protections for them.
I'm not sure I see the connection with what we're discussing here.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What does the state looking out for itself mean? I don't necessarily disagree that its possible, but I need to explicitly understand what kind of actions you think that entails.
It means those working for the state seek to enrich themselves and become entrenched in a ruling class at the expense of taxpayers. Case in point - pensions for members of Congress.
77% Obama: foreign policy, social, science, and economic issues.
77% Jill Stein: foreign policy, healthcare, economic, social, and science issues.
75% Gary Johnson: domestic policy, environmental, and immigration issues.
60% Ron Paul: domestic policy and environmental issues.
11% Romney.
Not too surprising results.
77% Jill Stein: foreign policy, healthcare, economic, social, and science issues.
75% Gary Johnson: domestic policy, environmental, and immigration issues.
60% Ron Paul: domestic policy and environmental issues.
11% Romney.
Not too surprising results.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Which is why we should always be trying to prevent the state from having mechanisms to enrich itself. I would hope everyone could agree on that.
Why do I get the feeling that this point is going to be spun back against me as an argument against public workers?
80% Obama & 77% Stein. Have donated to both campaigns already and volunteered for one.
Seems pretty accurate, my RWF (right-wing friend) got a heavy Paul/Johnson percentage and he's donated to both their campaigns. Oddly enough, he was only about 50% on the Romney meter. I guess it depends which Romney we're talking about, LOL.
Seems pretty accurate, my RWF (right-wing friend) got a heavy Paul/Johnson percentage and he's donated to both their campaigns. Oddly enough, he was only about 50% on the Romney meter. I guess it depends which Romney we're talking about, LOL.
The only way this is possible is by asking the people we have voted into power to write legislation that expressly limits their power to enrich themselves and limit their powers to do things that limit their ability to get re-elected. That we had to wait until 2012 for any real limits on insider trading for members of Congress should be testament enough to convince you the state does not have your (or "the people's") best interest in mind.
I won't even get into the whole incest of labor unions and the candidates they support.
Hobbestetrician
Member
92% Stein
91% Obama
23% Paul
3% Romney
No surprises there.
91% Obama
23% Paul
3% Romney
No surprises there.
- Status