Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

I have voted for/against the replacement of executives several times this year. I invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds/etfs, so I get all the voting materials and exercise my ownership stake.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Is uniting large groups of citizens into common causes equally disconcerting?
Click to expand...

Not in principle, but the monopolization of every cause by two parties is certainly proving unfortunate. Corporations don't have principles or a sense of justice unto themselves, they'll side with whoever has the best chance of winning so the candidate has an opportunity to repay their generosity. Score one for incumbency!

They won't be giving any money to the Ralph Naders and Ron Pauls of the world out of the kindness of their hearts, because they don't have hearts. They are machines we created to accumulate and leverage capital, not moral/ethical entities. They were never intended to play this role!

I have a feeling they're going to give it a shot anyway..
 
corplinx said:
Yeah, in the days before McCain-Feingold, corporations controlled all thought and created thought oligopolies. Corporations being in bed with politicians died when McCain-Feingold was passed. The supreme court is returning us to that state of anarchy.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the state of Constitution-shredding government opression that existed for the 100+ years prior to this ruling that saw every American citizen completely robbed of any and all freedom of expression.
 
johnny karate said:
It's ironic because someone championing unfettered freedom of speech asserted that freedom should be pushed to the point of obscenity, when in fact doing so would result in a restriction of that freedom due to anti-obscenity laws.
Click to expand...

Um... you are aware that he was using the term figuratively, don't you? There are no laws against figurative obscenities.
 
Ziggurat said:
Um... you are aware that he was using the term figuratively, don't you? There are no laws against figurative obscenities.
Click to expand...

He conveniently made that distinction after the fact, at which point he informed me he was ignoring any obscenities that happen to undercut his argument.

But since he's already accepted my imaginary apology, perhaps we can move on.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
He conveniently made that distinction after the fact
Click to expand...

The distinction was obvious to me upon first reading, without the need for any clarification. The figurative use made sense, the literal legal definition didn't. Other than a desire to try to "catch" your opponent in a mistake, I'm not sure why you would assume that he was using it in a way that made no sense when the obvious alternative did.
 
Of course the legal definition wouldn't make sense in that context, thus the irony.

When you use the term "obscene" without specifying to what you are specifically referring, this automatically includes anything deemed obscene. Including that which would render your statement hilariously ironic.

If he didn't want to leave himself open for ridicule, he should have been more specific. It's not my job to interpret someone else's statement in a manner most beneficial to them.

ETA:
Ziggurat said:
Other than a desire to try to "catch" your opponent in a mistake...
Click to expand...

Yeah well, welcome to arguing on the internet.

After rather obnoxiously being invited to move to China for disagreeing with him, he was setting himself up for a fall.
 
Last edited:
Drysdale said:
Did'nt want to start another thread about this.

If the unions can do this...http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/99103-unions-100m-to-save-the-dems

Can someone please point out to me why this is ok but corporations spending what they want is'nt?
Click to expand...

I don't think allowing either unions or corporations unlimited campaign spending is a good idea. Which is why I'll curse the recent SCOTUS decision on this for a long time to come.

Just what we need... more lobbyist money in our politics :rolleyes:
 
MattusMaximus said:
I don't think allowing either unions or corporations unlimited campaign spending is a good idea. Which is why I'll curse the recent SCOTUS decision on this for a long time to come.
Click to expand...
That's odd, because this decision had nothing at all to do with campaign spending.

Just what we need... more lobbyist money in our politics :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nor did it have anything to do with lobbying.
 
WildCat said:
This ruling wasn't about donations to candidates, but about 3rd parties promoting candidates. So Acme Rocket Skates Inc. can buy an advertisement saying "Vote for Wile E. Coyote", bypassing his campaign altogether.
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but was this all it was? Did it change any limitations on either corporate or individual contributions directly to campaigns?
 
Magyar,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

The ONE thing that every one seems to agree on in US politics - from the extreme left to the extreme right - is that the system is corrupt and there is way too much influence from big money.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think almost everybody can agree on that.

This ruling it seems to me has basically put a giant for sale sign on the US govt. out in the open.
Click to expand...

Agreed

There can be no doubt that ANY ONE from ANY party can from now on ONLY get elected with a corp behind them.
Click to expand...

By in large correct.

This should send the tea party, libertarians and the "JOOOS own the govt" crowd ballistic
Click to expand...

Most likely

but it should scare all of us!
Click to expand...

Agreed

This quote sums it up well
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a very good quote and a good observation.


INRM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom