On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs)
On October 24 2012 11:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney just cut an ad for this guy yesterday:
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
Hey, I hope Romney joins him and says the same thing. Women really respect that kind of religious commitment.
I know women who hold similar views, in fact one of my (female) classmates is very supportive of Todd Akin and believes that he was "correct" in his statements.
At the end of the day, people will (or at least should) be voting based on the economy, foreign policy, civil liberties, and other real issues, not because of non-sense like abortion.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
ADD goldfish... I'm stealing that.
oh no you don't son that's my "intellectual property"
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
ADD goldfish... I'm stealing that.
Yeah me too, he put that much more succinctly and caustically than I could have!
@Swazi, I am aware of the history of the States and indeed the role the Supreme Court plays, but it just seems to be tokenism to appeal to the more idiotic of voters. Talking about the Founding Fathers is the political equivalent of babykissing
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
ADD goldfish... I'm stealing that.
oh no you don't son that's my "intellectual property"
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
Hey, I hope Romney joins him and says the same thing. Women really respect that kind of religious commitment.
For instance, Todd Akin is beating Claire McCaskill in the polls again and I see yard signs up for him all over the place. At the end of the day people got over what he said and remembered just how much they hate Claire McCaskill.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
Someone who works for a union also doesn't have the same political views as the union leaders. It would be hypocritical of you to oppose something like Prop 32, which prevents unions from spending mandatory union dues on political campaigns without the workers consent. I'm gonna guess you won't be consistent in this regard, because unions are special.
On October 24 2012 11:39 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
romney is so used to buying everything he wants since the day he was born of course he thinks he can buy the election.
Do you actually know the man? This just sounds like a prejudice against wealthy individuals.
and you do know him? he makes 10 times more in a year with "investments" (that have a discount tax he wants to completely eliminate) than me and my dad will make combined in our entire lives but aw shucks he loves his wife and his kids (but not his dog) and I am supposed to relate to him? let me tell you, i will never do drugs but that story about obama selling cocaine is entirely more relatable to me. i don't even like the drug war so i would say obama dealing coke almost makes me like him more
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
shareholders, not employees.
shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees.
Incorrect.
Way incorrect.
The majority of shares has the say, even if that majority of shares is held by aminority of shareholders as is often the case. And you're missing the point that the money, or "speech", being spent here was earned by, yes, the workers.
Corporations are not formed for political influence. The controller(s) of these corporations should not be given some massive political influence, spending money in terms of "speech" even though that money was earned collectively, because you think it equates to "freedom" out of some backwards interpretation of the constitution.
Can't believe people really think it's a good thing for our Republic to have Citizens United. It so plainly is not.
weren't you the one incorrectly lecturing to me earlier about legal stuff.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group You don't have to be in or have a political party to voice concerns as a group. You and 10 of your friends can pool your money and take an add in the paper. So if you own a business with 10 employees you should be able to take an add as well. Now your employees might not agree with the ad, but it is your business.
But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. The owner of the business earned that money and paid the worker for helping. So the owner can do whatever he wishes with the money. Is there a company wide vote about the budget every year? No because the owner (or whoever the owner appoints) sets the budget.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers. Companies are made up of individuals.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
Someone who works for a union also doesn't have the same political views as the union leaders. It would be hypocritical of you to oppose something like Prop 32, which prevents unions from spending mandatory union dues on political campaigns without the workers consent. I'm gonna guess you won't be consistent in this regard, because unions are special.
Oh stop with the Prop 32. Unless corporations/businesses/other special interests are playing on the same field, I don't see why the unions have to roll over.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs)
Yeah stopping the Rodney King style beatings..not a BETTER thing.
I agree that there is an absolute over saturation of information out there to anyone who gets CNN, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. However, to argue that its not better now than before is ludicrous. Literally just now I watched Romney going back and flip flopping on the issues or Iraq and Syria. This further confirms for me that he is someone that absolutely does not deserve my vote. Whereas before modern technology, he could have gotten away with telling people what they wanted to hear to gain more votes, now its clear that is doing this, and thus turns many voters against him.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
Someone who works for a union also doesn't have the same political views as the union leaders. It would be hypocritical of you to oppose something like Prop 32, which prevents unions from spending mandatory union dues on political campaigns without the workers consent. I'm gonna guess you won't be consistent in this regard, because unions are special.
Actually, many unions have bylaws in place assuring >50% of the union members approve of their political expenditures. Teacher's unions do, anyway.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
hat lies have teacher unions ever told? that there are too many kids in classes and they are underpayed? that sports and music and art are being cut to keep the militaryt horses fed? stop repeating things you hear and think
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs)
Yeah stopping the Rodney King style beatings..not a BETTER thing.
seriously? how can you interpret me to mean this? srsly
I agree that there is an absolute over saturation of information out there to anyone who gets CNN, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. However, to argue that its not better now than before is ludicrous. Literally just now I watched Romney going back and flip flopping on the issues or Iraq and Syria. This further confirms for me that he is someone that absolutely does not deserve my vote. Whereas before modern technology, he could have gotten away with telling people what they wanted to hear to gain more votes, now its clear that is doing this, and thus turns many voters against him.
I'm skeptical that anybody is being turned away from Romney for this reason. I think the amount of oversaturation of information has actually just made people stop caring about facts entirely. Everybody's got facts. Facts are cheap. Facts mean everything. Facts mean nothing.
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
? This is a very common stance on abortion.
as to your edited part: if you believe everything is part of "god's plan" as the saying goes, then yes, you would believe that God intended for you to go through rape.
Hey, I hope Romney joins him and says the same thing. Women really respect that kind of religious commitment.
I know women who hold similar views, in fact one of my (female) classmates is very supportive of Todd Akin and believes that he was "correct" in his statements.
At the end of the day, people will (or at least should) be voting based on the economy, foreign policy, civil liberties, and other real issues, not because of non-sense like abortion.
I have to confess that I'm a fan of what the abortion issue has meant lately. It used to be a great rally-cry for Republicans. They talked it up every election, and yet no matter how much government control they'd get, abortion hasn't gone anywhere.
It was a total meaningless right-wing boogeyman. They didn't want it to go away, since it was winning them votes. Republicans used to love this issue.
The tables have turned on this issue slowly, but surely. And now, it's basically reversed. It's an issue that Republicans hate to talk about, as women are becoming a bigger voting demographic and, believe it or not, are mostly pro-choice.
It is a meaningless issue, ultimately, but it does matter to people. And it is important. The only reason abortion is a "meaningless" issue is because despite all their opposition, Republicans have refused to actually do anything about it. It's widely accepted that abortion isn't going anywhere, even though you have a Supreme Court that was largely nominated by conservative, Republican Presidents.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
edit: talk about "superfluous attributes" lol
I beg to differ, modern technology makes it much harder for things to be covered up. How many Rodney King beatings were there before that one was video taped and caused mass riots across the country? Though I agree you must take the 24 hr. news cycle with a huge grain of salt, you cannot deny that it absolutely airs every single possible piece of dirty laundry that a candidate could possibly have.
When the only thing people ever learned about candidates came from the stump speeches that they would hear outside their local town center, how often do you think the candidate told them exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went to the next town and did the same to them? Things like that are no longer possible, as modern technology will catch you 9 times out of 10 (just ask Romney).
It makes things DIFFERENT, it's doesn't make things BETTER
sure, you can have more facts and more facts-checking
but when you have a population with the attention span of an ADD goldfish and no education...
we don't have politics, we just have advertising
edit: the dirty laundry bit is as much of a bad thing as a good thing. All attention on dirty laundry (sells eyeballs), no attention on actual politics (doesn't sell eyeballs)
Yeah stopping the Rodney King style beatings..not a BETTER thing.
seriously? how can you interpret me to mean this? srsly
I agree that there is an absolute over saturation of information out there to anyone who gets CNN, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. However, to argue that its not better now than before is ludicrous. Literally just now I watched Romney going back and flip flopping on the issues or Iraq and Syria. This further confirms for me that he is someone that absolutely does not deserve my vote. Whereas before modern technology, he could have gotten away with telling people what they wanted to hear to gain more votes, now its clear that is doing this, and thus turns many voters against him.
I'm skeptical that anybody is being turned away from Romney for this reason. I think the amount of oversaturation of information has actually just made people stop caring about facts entirely. Everybody's got facts. Facts are cheap. Facts mean everything. Facts mean nothing.
Exactly, look at Kony 2012 for a good example of 'internet activism' gone awry. People think that clicking 'like' on a page on Facebook is them doing their part, where for the most part it does absolutely fuck all.
Plus with more information, comes more false information. It's pretty hard to sift through everything that is thrown at you, and discern what is factually correct or not.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://howtotakecareofgoldfish.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Fancy-Goldfish.jpg)
