|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to. It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too.
From the outside of what, though? The government is made by the citizens of the country. What other influence do you need for effective government, when the government only represents its people?
|
On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night.
My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue.
|
On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue.
Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself.
|
On August 14 2013 06:05 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to. It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too. From the outside of what, though? The government is made by the citizens of the country. What other influence do you need for effective government, when the government only represents its people?
From the outside of the government. Regulators are not omniscient. They can't fully know what their regulations will do without first asking those affected, hence the rule making process of allowing comments (which opens the door for a lot of lobbying).
|
On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself.
The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that.
|
Corporations and groups of people are not the same.
Nor can corporations be compared to other organised groups wich do have a legal construct like for example charitys, foundations or human right groups.
You can make a difference by looking at the goal of these groups of people.
For example:the goal to make a profit off the actions wich the group of people performs.
When one of the goals is to make a profit then you could exclude them from certain civil rights like free speech.
All people in the organisation can still have free speech individually but they do no longer have free speech when they are speeking as a respresentative for the organisation.
I find it far sought btw to see lobbying as a case of free speech though i guess technically it is the same ><
|
On August 14 2013 06:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:05 Roe wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to. It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too. From the outside of what, though? The government is made by the citizens of the country. What other influence do you need for effective government, when the government only represents its people? From the outside of the government. Regulators are not omniscient. They can't fully know what their regulations will do without first asking those affected, hence the rule making process of allowing comments (which opens the door for a lot of lobbying).
Those affected are the people of the country, who are represented by government. If a regulation hurts business, it hurts the people relying on that business or owning/working that business, and therefore those people will decide their government based on that.
On August 14 2013 06:23 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:17 Roe wrote:On August 14 2013 06:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:05 Roe wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to. It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too. From the outside of what, though? The government is made by the citizens of the country. What other influence do you need for effective government, when the government only represents its people? From the outside of the government. Regulators are not omniscient. They can't fully know what their regulations will do without first asking those affected, hence the rule making process of allowing comments (which opens the door for a lot of lobbying). Those affected are the people of the country, who are represented by government. If a regulation hurts business, it hurts the people relying on that business or owning/working that business, and therefore those people will decide their government based on that. Not neccesarely,economic considerations are not the only considerations people have when voting. There are also idealogical considerations. And the experts advising the government do not neccesarely have to be corporations working in that field. The government also has their own research centres and can contact independant research centres wich they can use to calculate or estimate the effects of their planned actions. The problem with lobbying is that they are not independant and only will put forward arguments in favor of the actions they like to see, and only arguments against the actions they dont like to see.
Of course, I was just making the point that you don't need corporate personhood to have this "outside" influence that can tell how laws will affect business, since you already have the people being represented.
|
On August 14 2013 06:17 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:05 Roe wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to. It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too. From the outside of what, though? The government is made by the citizens of the country. What other influence do you need for effective government, when the government only represents its people? From the outside of the government. Regulators are not omniscient. They can't fully know what their regulations will do without first asking those affected, hence the rule making process of allowing comments (which opens the door for a lot of lobbying). Those affected are the people of the country, who are represented by government. If a regulation hurts business, it hurts the people relying on that business or owning/working that business, and therefore those people will decide their government based on that.
Not neccesarely,economic considerations are not the only considerations people have when voting. There are also idealogical considerations.
And the experts advising the government do not neccesarely have to be corporations working in that field. The government also has their own research centres and can contact independant research centres wich they can use to calculate or estimate the effects of their planned actions.
The problem with lobbying is that they are not independant, they are biased and only will put forward arguments in favor of the actions they like to see, and only arguments against the actions they dont like to see.
|
On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that.
Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people.
I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system.
|
On August 14 2013 06:17 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:05 Roe wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. On August 14 2013 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 04:57 DoubleReed wrote:I don't know what "legal bribery" you are referring to. Lobbying? Especially when things like Citizens United is in the picture. Think about how often politicians are accused of taking bribes. Well it's never, because if they're smart, they'll do it legally. Lobbying can be used as a back door sort of bribery, but I don't think you can categorize lobbying as bribery. Here, two mayors in Florida were recently arrested for bribery. How many politicians have there campaigns financed for with large sums of money from cooperation's? You think that is all being done as a charity? Lobbying pretty much the same thing. quick google gives 3.3 billion spend in 2012. Source. That money didnt get spend for nothing. Its all there to influence decisions. The amount of money spend by cooperation's in politics is enormous. Is it bribery per se? No but it gives a tremendous influence in policies where it should be kept to a minimum so that the government can regulate as it is supposed to. It can be a problem, sure. But government needs information from the outside (i.e. be influenced) in order to govern effectively too. From the outside of what, though? The government is made by the citizens of the country. What other influence do you need for effective government, when the government only represents its people? From the outside of the government. Regulators are not omniscient. They can't fully know what their regulations will do without first asking those affected, hence the rule making process of allowing comments (which opens the door for a lot of lobbying). Those affected are the people of the country, who are represented by government. If a regulation hurts business, it hurts the people relying on that business or owning/working that business, and therefore those people will decide their government based on that.
Well, this is considered a better way of creating rules. A general election wouldn't be a very good forum for discussing regulatory specifics.
A good example of public comments being ignored would be California's failed attempt at deregulating their energy market. Yes they held elections and fixed things after the fact, but what a waste...
On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system.
Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to.
|
This last page of semantics confuses me on the definition of lobbying, can you please clear something up for me?
In my fictional scenario the government wants to bulldoze a neighborhood and put in a prison. The decision will affect a residential constituency, a charity, a public school, a corporation and a competing private prison in the area. Each trying to influence the decision with their biased views.
Is that lobbying?
Who should be allowed to give their opinions/facts/figures?
Is it legal to lobby for/against this?
Should it be?
|
On August 14 2013 03:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Stratos
You do know that very little of what Obama actually does lines up with what liberals want, right? Obama is an extremely conservative Democratic candidate that, if he was white, would fit in fine as a moderate Republican pre-Tea Party movement era. Show nested quote +DoubleReed
Yea it's ridiculous and quite frightening to realize that someone as conservative as Obama is labeled a socialist. Oh how right wing our politics are in comparison to the people. Man, there's always an excuse isn't there. Oh he's not a real liberal. Oh he's so conservative. Oh our politics are so right wing compared to the people (lolwut?). Oh if he was white those racists would just love him because he's actually conservative. Okay guys, keep telling yourselves that. Barack Obama is modern American liberalism, if it isn't socialist enough for you, then your problem is with American liberals and Americans in general for not being socialist enough. It's rather cheap and self-serving to pull out that kind of crap, though. God knows conservatives have been whining that George W. Bush was actually a liberal and not a real conservative for years, how well has that worked? We don't get to say oh well this guy isn't really one of us so our beliefs shouldn't take a hit because of his incompetence. Well we do get to say it but no matter how satisfying it is to our egos it has little utility because it sounds like a cop-out, which it is.
No, he's not. You need to 1) get some liberal friends, 2) watch something besides FOX, and 3) actually pay attention to what real liberals are saying, because if you think Obama is American liberalism, you are in for a very unpleasant reality check eventually.
Abortion
Healthcare
Government spending
Guns
Taxes
Affirmative Action
Government regulation
The environment
The education system
What positions is he notably liberal on? Abortion, the environment, and taxes. Even then, he has a very reasoned approach to abortion (being pro-Roe v. Wade doesn't make you a raging Lefty) and he isn't going off about raising taxes 200% (raising taxes from their lowest rates in God only knows how long doesn't automatically make you socialist). He takes a moderate approach to both.
On pretty much every other issue, Obama has only paid lip-service to it or has otherwise taken fully centrist actions that any moderate Republican would take. He takes the position of the vast majority of people (moderates) on things like government spending (not many people actually support mass cuts, and he has repeatedly offered to do spending cuts along with tax increases), government regulation, guns (no significant movements on this front), education (none here besides empty rhetoric), etc. He also takes a quite Republican stance on foreign/military policy (drone strikes? Military prisons? NSA?). And don't bring up healthcare. If you actually think Obamacare is a truly liberal piece of legislation, then you need to go back to school.
The idea that Obama is actually a liberal is one of the saddest lies coming out of the Republican camp, and the problem here is that crackpot conservatives think that their incredibly ridiculous brand of extreme conservatism is the only way to be a Republican, and anything besides it is far-left socialist dogma, which is ridiculous and ignorant. If you guys really think Obama is a liberal as opposed to merely another moderate, I can't wait for the day that an actual liberal gets into a significant office and really pushes truly liberal ideas to the national forefront. Things like actual universal healthcare, significantly lowering education prices, hard-line financial reform, a significant trimming of the over-bloated military budget, and paying more than simple lip-service to gun regulations. You guys will have fucking heart attacks.
|
On August 14 2013 06:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 06:24 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:59 DoubleReed wrote:On August 14 2013 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2013 05:14 DoubleReed wrote:Free speech sure does get a bad rap from liberals today. I love free speech, but fuck corporate personhood. Dude, if you learned the kind of legal bullshit that companies try to get away with using 1st amendment rights, you wouldn't say that. Verizon argued it had the right to look at everything you do while on their network because of the first amendment. Corporate Personhood makes free speech look like a joke. Verizon challenges net neutrality with first amendment claims How would that work? People have free speech but groups of people don't? As for the Verizon case, Verizon wants to treat different customers differently, not spy on you. It works like this: corporations are not people. They do not have the rights enshrined in our constitution. They have whatever rights that we determine them to have as a society. Their rights are a matter of pragmatism rather a matter of constitutionality. I am not frightened of corporations being sent to the gas chambers. This is not something that keeps me up at night. My question still stands - how do you differentiate between people and groups of people? That's the crux of the issue. Huh? I don't understand the question. A corporation is a legal construct. It's not just a group of people. It's independent of people. That's the whole point of a corporation. A corporation is something unto itself. The legal construct dictates how the group of people will collaborate. But it's still at it's core a group of people - the corporate veil doesn't fully change that. Yes it does. That's the whole point of creating a corporation. Read up on corporate personhood. One of the big effects is that shareholders are not held responsible for the corporations' debt or damages beyond their investment in the corporation. A group of people is not a corporation and a corporation is not a group of people. At its core, its not a group of people, but a robot constructed by a group of people. I'm fine with them having most of the rights they have. Obviously we want them to be able to make contracts and be sued and stuff. Even the shareholder stuff I'm cool with. Fine. However, they should not get the full protections of the constitution because they are not people, and the constitutional rights are reserved for people. It makes a mockery of our justice system. Yeah that's what the 'corporate veil' refers to.
Err... so do you agree with then? I'm confused. That's an example of something that does change under corporations...
|
On August 14 2013 06:55 Wolfstan wrote:
This last page of semantics confuses me on the definition of lobbying, can you please clear something up for me?
In my fictional scenario the government wants to bulldoze a neighborhood and put in a prison. The decision will affect a residential constituency, a charity, a public school, a corporation and a competing private prison in the area. Each trying to influence the decision with their biased views.
Is that lobbying?
Who should be allowed to give their opinions/facts/figures?
Is it legal to lobby for/against this?
Should it be?
opinions/facts/figures ofc they can there is nothing wrong with it but when for example the prison is financing the next election of several officials you get a conflict of interest and then it becomes a problem.
|
On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote + The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!).
Biased much?
On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Come on, just because you can make a graph or spectrum of things doesn't mean the graph is an accurate representation of real life. These kinds of graphs just feed into the silly centrist notion that all sides are legitimate and have good points on all issues. It's all just equivocation of the same idiotic "Well liberals want restrictive gun laws! That's just like peddling nonsensical bullshit about sex to women in the form of 'crisis pregnancy centers!'"
I get really exhausted from people constantly trying to equivocate to seem wise and "above it all." It's nothing more than a social dominance trick, because it allows people to essentially not take sides in a conflict while pretending to be reasonable (instead of the distinct possibility of just being half-crazy).
My argument is not that all sides are legitimate. My argument is that both major sides in American politics are illegitimate. My argument is that you should use your own critical thinking to analyze issues individually, rather than voting along party lines.
On August 14 2013 02:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. "Hey, you have views that might contradict some of mine, we can't be in the same party!"It would just be too hilariously hypocritical." Couldn't the same thing be said about any coalition government ever in a parliamentary democracy? If we wanted to be consistently grossly unfair about the whole business.
True, that could be said. All the more reason to vote according to one's own consistent set of ethical/political principles, rather than following political parties.
|
On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much?
Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality.
"Women's bodies fight off rape babies!"
"Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!"
"Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!"
"Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!"
"Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!"
I could go on, but you get the point.
|
Biased much?
I'm always a little confused by accusations of being biased. I'm not a journalist delivering a story here. How is being "biased" a negative thing in this context? Yes, I'm giving my opinion. You say very biased things too. It's not a big deal. I'd prefer to say what I mean straightforwardly because it's fun and it's also a better way for people to gauge who they're talking to.
For instance, you know exactly where I stand on libertarianism now. Easy to discuss it at this point. Hooray!
My argument is not that all sides are legitimate. My argument is that both major sides in American politics are illegitimate. My argument is that you should use your own critical thinking to analyze issues individually, rather than voting along party lines.
Ehhhh.... you're conflating republican with conservative and democrat with liberal. The fact is that there are actually a good amount of economically conservative democrats. And within the parties there are disagreements and ideological differences. You're the one painting with too broad a brush in this specific case.
My point is to argue against equivocation. The Democrats are pretty bad right now, but they're not crazy like the Republicans at the moment. And for people to claim that "it's all just one party" or "they're all the same" or whatever is really not getting it. This is intellectually lazy.
Again, this is a social gimmick that humans do to each other and themselves. It feels really good to declare that you're above it all and you're essentially "taking a third option." But this is simply empowering the crazier side which needs to be resisted as much as possible. The Democrats are more legitimate than the the Republicans right now. This should be recognized, even by libertarians like yourself.
And that doesn't mean buying a donkey and never criticizing the democrats or something. Just don't say that all the sides are equally wrong.
|
Straw manning conservatives as a single disgraced Republican and everything else straw men is pretty cute. I love the caricatures. You're actually close on a couple points, I'll give you that. Racism and sexism aren't huge societal problems in desperate need of solution since most of society has moved on. The businesses that refuse to hire based on race and sex are the losers in capitalism. Most everyone still has the opportunity to improve their lot in life if they work hard. I say liberals have been waging a war on this ability with their idiotic policies, but it's still there.
Considering how HuffPo has had almost a post every three pages for the last hundred or so, I think it's time for some discussion from the right. Here's Mark Levin (conservative talk show host with over 7.5 million listeners a week, on Sean Hannity making a very quick case for why we're currently in a post-constitutional society that's less and less a representative republic.
2 Short Videos:Mark Levin on Hannity
I'll keep some barf bags handy for those of you having that reaction to Fox News.
|
On August 14 2013 07:44 Danglars wrote:Straw manning conservatives as a single disgraced Republican and everything else straw men is pretty cute. I love the caricatures. You're actually close on a couple points, I'll give you that. Racism and sexism aren't huge societal problems in desperate need of solution since most of society has moved on. The businesses that refuse to hire based on race and sex are the losers in capitalism. Most everyone still has the opportunity to improve their lot in life if they work hard. I say liberals have been waging a war on this ability with their idiotic policies, but it's still there. Considering how HuffPo has had almost a post every three pages for the last hundred or so, I think it's time for some discussion from the right. Here's Mark Levin (conservative talk show host with over 7.5 million listeners a week, on Sean Hannity making a very quick case for why we're currently in a post-constitutional society that's less and less a representative republic. 2 Short Videos: Mark Levin on HannityI'll keep some barf bags handy for those of you having that reaction to Fox News.
Well, other than some of the phrases which made me laugh out loud, I'm all about this. Though, I can't hear people say "statists" without cracking up.
This is the goal of Wolf PAC, the Super-PAC against Super-PACs. In order to get rid of corporate personhood, we basically need a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, things like the failure of the Disclose Act means that that's probably not going to work through the Federal Government. But as he says, you can go through the states with an Article V Constitutional Convention, which is feasible. The 17th Amendment used the convention as leverage for congress to pass the amendment. You don't actually need to go the full distance.
Generally, this is something that conservatives and liberals agree on. So that's pretty cool.
|
On August 14 2013 07:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:14 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 21:32 DoubleReed wrote: The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy. Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!). Biased much? Conservatives do have a disturbing trend of being detached from reality. "Women's bodies fight off rape babies!" "Racism/sexism don't exist anymore!" "Being able to fight three different wars at once is the only way any country can ever be safe!" "Everyone is able to get a job whenever they want, regardless of their circumstance, and pay to move their way up in the world, get an education, and move up in socioeconomic status! I did it, so obviously everyone can!" "Kids can just get jobs anywhere to pay off those student loans, and young kids can just get jobs anywhere and save for college while they're in high school!" I could go on, but you get the point.
I would certainly agree that conservatives are more "anti-science". However, liberals also ignore reality when it suits them, ranging from ignoring the criminological literature on gun control, to their obsession with blank slates in spite of biological evidence that nature matters as much as or more than nurture, to pretending that there is a gender wage gap, to ignoring consensus among economists that minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.
Essentially, every side lies and ignores science in order to support their views, and while I would agree conservatives do it more often, that doesn't excuse liberals either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
