APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

should corporations have the same rights as citizens

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Dixie said:
Well the first question is designed to make you think about your position. Is the act of making money more rare in politics, actually going to make money less important? Of course it won't, it will make what little money they can get, even MORE important and crucial, and the politician even more beholden to the source. You are smart enough to understand, there will always be a loophole... you want to make it where only individuals can contribute... okay, here's $5,000 from the XYZ Corporation for you to donate in your name to the candidate WE support! See how simple that was? And what about The Media? In your idea, do you account for the increased influence the MEDIA will have in telling us about the candidates and issues, now that we've restricted it elsewhere?

As I said, I can see where your idea is wonderful, IF we lived in a perfect world! That is the problem I have with Libertarianism... it all sounds GREAT if the world only worked that way! It doesn't.... simple as that!
Click to expand...

I get the princple of someone getting money from a particular source to donate~~~All of that happens now in PAC's. If PAC's are made illegal, it will make those kinds of transactions much more transparent unless said donor does not file taxes.

Money that is more important coming from individual people is exactly what we want candidates to be aware of and who we want them to be beholden to! The "we the people" being said group! We don't want them whoring after corporate dollars and beholden to them for it.

Media are already biased and that bias is causing an implosion because the American people are on to them and tuning them out!


Let's make politicans accountable during elections to Main Street Dix.
 
Dixie said:
Is the act of making money more rare in politics, actually going to make money less important? Of course it won't, it will make what little money they can get, even MORE important and crucial, and the politician even more beholden to the source.
Click to expand...

No. THat's not true. It will keep politics from becoming a spending competition, and force cadidates to focus their message, instead of relying slick corporate productions. A candidate speakinging into his webcam and posting on the internet is nearly free.

Candidates will be less beholden, as their candidacies will not rely on glossy productions, but will rely on their actual message.
You are smart enough to understand, there will always be a loophole... you want to make it where only individuals can contribute... okay, here's $5,000 from the XYZ Corporation for you to donate in your name to the candidate WE support! See how simple that was? And what about The Media? In your idea, do you account for the increased influence the MEDIA will have in telling us about the candidates and issues, now that we've restricted it elsewhere?

As I said, I can see where your idea is wonderful, IF we lived in a perfect world! That is the problem I have with Libertarianism... it all sounds GREAT if the world only worked that way! It doesn't.... simple as that!
Click to expand...

The new media. Webcams and portals make the cash unnecessary. Candidates should get travelling expenses to live speeches and a web server to do a blog on. to explain their policies. and that's it. That sounds good to me.

make it so.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. THat's not true. It will keep politics from becoming a spending competition, and force cadidates to focus their message, instead of relying slick corporate productions. A candidate speakinging into his webcam and posting on the internet is nearly free.

Candidates will be less beholden, as their candidacies will not rely on glossy productions, but will rely on their actual message.


The new media. Webcams and portals make the cash unnecessary. Candidates should get travelling expenses to live speeches and a web server to do a blog on. to explain their policies. and that's it. That sounds good to me.

make it so.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you wish, the proof is in the proverbial pudding. When CFR took effect, restricting campaign money from private enterprise, what happened? The money simply changed source... it started coming in through 527's instead. It's all great and wonderful to have such faith in your fellow man, that you believe he would simply do without money, forgo any funding, and attempt to win an election with "free media" ...but let's be real, it isn't going to happen. If there is a way for money to influence politics, it will find a way... no matter WHAT restrictions you impose. There is ALWAYS a loophole, and ALWAYS someone clever enough to find it!

The BEST solution, is to allow everyone to spend whatever amount they want to spend, have them be required to disclose it, so we have transparency, but allow the money to come from wherever. Restricting the funding is essentially restricting free speech, and it's a dangerous slope to go sliding down, in my opinion.
 
"Restricting the funding is essentially restricting free speech, and it's a dangerous slope to go sliding down, in my opinion"

Yeah - sounds dangerous. I feel so much safer having the corporations run America.
 
How about this for a thought:
If people would get off their dead McMansion size asses and actually study issues, politicians, etc. instead of relying on being spoon fed by 30 second sound bites provided by your friendly banker on behalf of their pet politician, we would not have to worry quite so much about the power of money in influencing politics.

WE, the People of the United States, are still the ones who darken that circle, poke holes in the punch cards, touch that touch screen, and in doing so select those who ask us for the opportunity to lead our government. We are also the ones who choose whether we allow mindless rhetoric to influence our decisions, or whether we want to use facts and knowledge. Therefore it is the fault of the people, not the fault of our constitutional liberties that demand free press and open expression of ideas, when money has undue influence over politics.
 
tom prendergast said:
Cunning linguistics do not disguise your fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.
Click to expand...

Cunning linguistics do not disguise your fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

Don't order the #69 in a Chinese restaurant, you may not know if you are coming or going!!
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
Don't order the #69 in a Chinese restaurant, it might be too rich for you!!
Click to expand...

It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.

The 70 fucks you up everytime, stain.
 
Good Luck said:
How about this for a thought:
If people would get off their dead McMansion size asses and actually study issues, politicians, etc. instead of relying on being spoon fed by 30 second sound bites provided by your friendly banker on behalf of their pet politician, we would not have to worry quite so much about the power of money in influencing politics.

WE, the People of the United States, are still the ones who darken that circle, poke holes in the punch cards, touch that touch screen, and in doing so select those who ask us for the opportunity to lead our government. We are also the ones who choose whether we allow mindless rhetoric to influence our decisions, or whether we want to use facts and knowledge. Therefore it is the fault of the people, not the fault of our constitutional liberties that demand free press and open expression of ideas, when money has undue influence over politics.
Click to expand...

It's a good thought, and ideally, democracy would work that way.

Unfortunately, it isn't reality. I love the polls that they do showing that people don't want negative ads, but there are more of them every election. Because they work.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.

The 70 fucks you up everytime, stain.
Click to expand...

Whoosh, there goes another rubber tree plant.

 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not cunning linguistics. He really made a stupid statement. Havng the government run by moveon.org is not the only alternative to having it run by corporations.

That's the form of the logical error called the false dichotomy, false dilemma, or false choice.

Look it up, stooge.
Click to expand...

The government is run by the people we elect, not by corporations or special interest groups. This discussion is about the money behind the enormous cost involved in running a large-scale national presidential campaign, and where it comes from. I personally don't see why it's a problem where it comes from, whether it's a union, a special interest group, PAC, individuals, or corporations. What is the difference where it comes from? Why are you insisting on singling out "companies" and arguing they would "unfairly influence" the body politic, when these other entities don't seem to cause that problem for you?

Can you offer some kind of logical explanation for that? Is money from George Soros' MoveOn.org somehow "less" influential in politics, you think? I am really interested to know! You don't like the George Soros example, use Rush Limbaugh, or some rich republican who could fund a 527 or PAC group! Is THAT money less influential than corporations? Corporations who are governed by their Board of Directors and Stockholders? There is some danger THERE to American government? I don't get it!
 
Let me ask you guys this.... Do you think MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, are corporations? If so, shouldn't we restrict them from "contributions" to political campaigns by virtue of the product they produce? If you are going to argue that we should restrict any "corporate" influence, wouldn't it have to include media corporations as well? Or do they get a pass with MoveOn.org and ACORN as purveyors of "truth" in America?
 
Dixie said:
The government is run by the people we elect, not by corporations or special interest groups. This discussion is about the money behind the enormous cost involved in running a large-scale national presidential campaign, and where it comes from. I personally don't see why it's a problem where it comes from, whether it's a union, a special interest group, PAC, individuals, or corporations. What is the difference where it comes from? Why are you insisting on singling out "companies" and arguing they would "unfairly influence" the body politic, when these other entities don't seem to cause that problem for you?

Can you offer some kind of logical explanation for that? Is money from George Soros' MoveOn.org somehow "less" influential in politics, you think? I am really interested to know! You don't like the George Soros example, use Rush Limbaugh, or some rich republican who could fund a 527 or PAC group! Is THAT money less influential than corporations? Corporations who are governed by their Board of Directors and Stockholders? There is some danger THERE to American government? I don't get it!
Click to expand...


But when elections depend on advertising expenditure and corporations are free to weild unlimited influence, politicians must please corporations inordinately. Your failure to understand this is why you are stupid.
 
Dixie said:
The government is run by the people we elect, not by corporations or special interest groups. This discussion is about the money behind the enormous cost involved in running a large-scale national presidential campaign, and where it comes from. I personally don't see why it's a problem where it comes from, whether it's a union, a special interest group, PAC, individuals, or corporations. What is the difference where it comes from? Why are you insisting on singling out "companies" and arguing they would "unfairly influence" the body politic, when these other entities don't seem to cause that problem for you?

Can you offer some kind of logical explanation for that? Is money from George Soros' MoveOn.org somehow "less" influential in politics, you think? I am really interested to know! You don't like the George Soros example, use Rush Limbaugh, or some rich republican who could fund a 527 or PAC group! Is THAT money less influential than corporations? Corporations who are governed by their Board of Directors and Stockholders? There is some danger THERE to American government? I don't get it!
Click to expand...

The difference is that when individual politicians are beholding to the average individual joe voter, they are not inclined to make special deals with corporations that use money to influence decisions for their profits. It's called corruption and I do not understand how you cannot see that?

Here's a breakdown analogy.

200,000 voters donate 10.00 dollars to a candidate (encouraged by his PAC's.) A corporation donates 400 million in ads for the same candidate. The candidate is elected; who will he be more beholden to? The guy's supplying the smart flashy ads presenting skewed truths bordering on falsehoods that secured his election or the average joes who vote lock-step with the BS ads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top