(October 25, 2014 at 3:31 am)Heywood Wrote: Democrats are now trying to regulate political videos you put up on the internet.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-o...le/2555270

Quote:Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on Youtube and were not paid advertising

Leftofacist duechbages

O'tay Buckwheat! So what is the purpose and the intended effect of the election commission proposal?

The purpose is to inform the electorate of the demographics of the political players and hold them to the election laws.

If the youtube videos are truly from independent individuals then "NOTHING" happens, no videos are taken down, no one fined or anything like that. It's not painful to report a $0.00 cost.

If you are a corporation or a political candidate, trying to hide and act like a popular groundswell, then the new rule would unmask you and hold you to the election laws.

What is soo terrible about that that warrants the douchbag name? Or are you just being a mindless Limbaughbot?

Gaddafi improved the standard of living (especially after 2004), I still hate him

The proposed policy violates free speech. Censorship is not the way to deal with disagreeable content in a free society.

(October 26, 2014 at 9:10 am)Cato Wrote: The proposed policy violates free speech. Censorship is not the way to deal with disagreeable content in a free society.

Ridiculous! Attributing speech is not curtailment nor censorship. None of the proposal pertains to stopping disagreeable speech.

(October 25, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Brakeman Wrote: O'tay Buckwheat! So what is the purpose and the intended effect of the election commission proposal?

The purpose is to inform the electorate of the demographics of the political players and hold them to the election laws.

If the youtube videos are truly from independent individuals then "NOTHING" happens, no videos are taken down, no one fined or anything like that. It's not painful to report a $0.00 cost.

If you are a corporation or a political candidate, trying to hide and act like a popular groundswell, then the new rule would unmask you and hold you to the election laws.

What is soo terrible about that that warrants the douchbag name? Or are you just being a mindless Limbaughbot?

Buckwheat? If you're going to stoop to racial slurs...and least get it right. I'm a cracker.

Second, you have no idea whatsoever what the proposed regulation is going to be or who it will apply too.....because it hasn't been written yet. Its kind of like Obamacare.....nobody will know whats in it....until its passed....and people will lie about it....just to pacify you so they can implement it.

Third, why do you need to regulate the posting of internet videos? The ability to create a video and post it on the internet for hundreds of thousands to see is with in the means of just about everyone 12 years or older? Its not like radio or TV ads which require tons of money to produce and disseminate.

Last, the only reasons whatsoever to regulate internet videos, are to either directly regulate to content of the speech....Or to simply make it harder for your average citizen to use the internet for political speech.

Regarding the "douchebag" name....I am simply imitating Minimalist's demotroll style of posting. I bet a hypocrite like you never once called him out on it.

.

(October 26, 2014 at 9:31 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Brakeman Wrote: O'tay Buckwheat! So what is the purpose and the intended effect of the election commission proposal?
..

Buckwheat? If you're going to stoop to racial slurs...and least get it right. I'm a cracker.

Second, you have no idea whatsoever what the proposed regulation is going to be or who it will apply too.....because it hasn't been written yet. Its kind of like Obamacare.....nobody will know whats in it....until its passed..

I certainly could have guessed that you're a cracker, despite that not being a racist slur. The "o'tay" is used to express an over exuberant agreement in a sarcastic manner, it has nothing to do with race.

Secondly you start a hot anti-democrat thread claiming that a FEC proposal is horrible, but when shown it makes perfect sense, you fall back to "we don't know, it hasn't be formally written yet!" (and you call me hypocritical!)

As for nobody knowing what is in it until it passes, that is really, really, really stupid. That is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this board by anyone, and we've had some brain addled doosies on here.

It's called reading. Despite the claims from embarrassed senators, everyone has the opportunity to read the proposals before voting on them. Always. Every time. Always.

The difference between Min's threads and yours is not POV, it's substance.

(October 26, 2014 at 9:51 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 9:31 am)Heywood Wrote: Buckwheat? If you're going to stoop to racial slurs...and least get it right. I'm a cracker.

Second, you have no idea whatsoever what the proposed regulation is going to be or who it will apply too.....because it hasn't been written yet. Its kind of like Obamacare.....nobody will know whats in it....until its passed..

I certainly could have guessed that you're a cracker, despite that not being a racist slur. The "o'tay" is used to express an over exuberant agreement in a sarcastic manner, it has nothing to do with race.

Secondly you start a hot anti-democrat thread claiming that a FEC proposal is horrible, but when shown it makes perfect sense, you fall back to "we don't know, it hasn't be formally written yet!" (and you call me hypocritical!)

As for nobody knowing what is in it until it passes, that is really, really, really stupid. That is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this board by anyone, and we've had some brain addled doosies on here.

It's called reading. Despite the claims from embarrassed senators, everyone has the opportunity to read the proposals before voting on them. Always. Every time. Always.

The difference between Min's threads and yours is not POV, it's substance.

Any proposal to regulate political speech on the internet is horrible.

(October 26, 2014 at 10:34 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 9:51 am)Brakeman Wrote: I certainly could have guessed that you're a cracker, despite that not being a racist slur. The "o'tay" is used to express an over exuberant agreement in a sarcastic manner, it has nothing to do with race.

Secondly you start a hot anti-democrat thread claiming that a FEC proposal is horrible, but when shown it makes perfect sense, you fall back to "we don't know, it hasn't be formally written yet!" (and you call me hypocritical!)

As for nobody knowing what is in it until it passes, that is really, really, really stupid. That is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this board by anyone, and we've had some brain addled doosies on here.

It's called reading. Despite the claims from embarrassed senators, everyone has the opportunity to read the proposals before voting on them. Always. Every time. Always.

The difference between Min's threads and yours is not POV, it's substance.

Any proposal to regulate political speech on the internet is horrible.

Ok, so then you are ok with Saudi Arabia using government to outlaw atheists expressing their position that no god exists? That is political speech.

You are a fucking idiot thinking a utopia of no rules ever is a possibility. Just as fucking stupid when Che supporters think you can get rid of the private sector.

If your political speech is lying or misleading voters it goes beyond mere dissent. Mudslinging is not the issue. Our politics has been full of that since the founders.

If a politician wanted to promote going back to slavery you'd be fine with that?

There is no such thing as absolute free speech, just like you cannot shout fire in a movie theater. Just like you cannot say "Go kill my neighbor". With all rights come responsibility.

Political speech has to be regulated as well, no different than it would be absurd to have roads and no stop signs. Citizens United however, has unfortunately created a climate where those stop signs and street lights are needed but are being removed in order to create a bigger plutocracy.

You are stupidly allowing a growing plutocracy and the internet will be worse off with stupid attitudes like yours.

I don't like the proposal one bit. I don't see that expanding the government's control of speech is a good thing. The proposal is to control political content that is not even paid-for. It would be the equivalent of the Crown restricting Paine's ability to write pamphlets.

It doesn't help that the chairman's motivation is so transparently political in itself; this wasn't a problem until it impacted his boss. It appears that he's willing to encroach upon a right for partisan advantage, and I'm tired of that shit.

(October 26, 2014 at 11:19 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I don't like the proposal one bit. I don't see that expanding the government's control of speech is a good thing. The proposal is to control political content that is not even paid-for. It would be the equivalent of the Crown restricting Paine's ability to write pamphlets.

It doesn't help that the chairman's motivation is so transparently political in itself; this wasn't a problem until it impacted his boss. It appears that he's willing to encroach upon a right for partisan advantage, and I'm tired of that shit.

That is exactly what the SCOTUS did with Citizens United. It gave more power to those with money. That court under the republican majority has sided with big business the vast majority of the time for decades.

It is not protecting our country from monopolies it is allowing monopolies to grow.

If the republicans of that court were objective it would be much harder to predict their outcomes. They are unfortunately extremely predictable.

---

If someone wants to claim bigger government is the problem, then it is the lack of self introspection on the part of business that has bullied society which requires government to step in. The part the private sector always seems to forget, is that no one should claim that they should have no right to exist, but they keep forgetting that they are only one aspect of society. They'd find they would have a much easier time if they would provide instead of exploit and they would also find that they could do even better by doing that.