(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.

What is it with republicans and lying?

Quote:Con·trol
verb \kən-ˈtrōl\
: to direct the behavior of (a person or animal) : to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want

There are no restrictive clauses mentioned at all. That is all in your head, planted there by faux news. Having to say that you're not a campaign committee who's using illegal funds is not a restriction of speech anymore than paying your income tax to the IRS. The content is not curtailed by quantity or amplitude.

If you disagree, give us a fucking citation, and if you can, we'll agree with you. If you can't you're a typical Limbaughbot.

This democunt thinks corporations don't create jobs. And the crowd agrees. Are democunts really this stupid?





If that's not bad enough, she seems to be running on her husband's credibility....not her own.

The Democrats' party is the lesser evil

(October 26, 2014 at 1:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: This democunt thinks corporations don't create jobs. And the crowd agrees. Are democunts really this stupid?
..
If that's not bad enough, she seems to be running on her husband's credibility....not her own.

She was giving a speech about how giving government money to corporations doesn't create jobs in the way that Ronny the dumb-ass Reagan claimed it would with his trickle down economics. It's difficult to not say some disconnected things when constantly giving speeches. The bush presidents gave hundreds of these gaffs. It's nothing more than funny.

Hillary has an impressive CV and her intelligence and education makes all of the bushies look like chimps. Compare her education with georgie's, I dare you!
As for running on Bill's credibility, are you kidding? Just how independent does a woman have to be to earn her own stripes??

I'm surprised that you picked out one of woman's gaff's and not the squatting nergo's in the white house. He just recently said that "Ebola is not very contagious."

I bet in your book that's grounds fer a lynchin'!

I agree that Citizens United was a major misstep. I don't think of hampering the ability of a corporation to buy adtime is hampering the free speech of an individual, and I think Scalia et al screwed the pooch on that decision big-time. I also agree (with what I think you're getting at) that like churches which must remain apolitical in order to retain their non-profit charter, corporations too ought to be required to remain apolitical in order to receive the legal benefits of incorporating. No matter what the SCOTUS says, corporations aren't people. They are conglomerations of people with one purpose in mind: maximizing profits for shareholders. Allowing the political process to be suborned by the profit motive is the road to ruin.

What I don't like about this proposal is that it would indeed hamper the ability of individuals to express their own opinions. Right, wrong, or indifferent, honest or deceitful, so long as it doesn't harm the safety of other citizens, the right to free speech ought not be infringed by anyone -- especially the government itself. Who would decide what is misleading? Could we be certain that that government offical would be perfectly objective and not bias his decision in favor of the political party which brought about his appointment? Of course not. That inherent conflict of interest makes this proposal incredibly dangerous to democracy -- just as dangerous as Citizens United, in its own way.

---

(October 26, 2014 at 11:44 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(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.

What is it with republicans and lying?

Quote:Con·trol
verb \kən-ˈtrōl\
: to direct the behavior of (a person or animal) : to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want

There are no restrictive clauses mentioned at all. That is all in your head, planted there by faux news. Having to say that you're not a campaign committee who's using illegal funds is not a restriction of speech anymore than paying your income tax to the IRS. The content is not curtailed by quantity or amplitude.

If you disagree, give us a fucking citation, and if you can, we'll agree with you. If you can't you're a typical Limbaughbot.

Firstly, if you're going to go with personal attacks, this conversation is not worth worth my time. Either you can discuss this civilly, or you cannot. If you cannot, I will end my side of this conversation and you can back to whatever it is you were doing, because I'm not interested in Internet dick-waving, and you shouldn't be, either.

Secondly, the link in the OP was to the Washington Examiner, not Fox News. Read the matter under discussion first, and then comment; that is the advisable order of operations.

Thirdly, in that article is this passage:

Quote: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.

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Clearly, the proposal is to extend FEC regulation to free political ads.

Your point that "no restrictive clauses are mentioned at all" is clearly disingenuous. The very purpose of regulating an outlet is to impose restrictions upon it.

If a private person makes a political statement on his or her blog, should that be subject to regulation? Should that person be required to behave in the same manner, with the same disclosures, as a PAC? Why or why not?

Me, I don't think a private individual owes the government jack-shit for an explanation about the expression of any opinion.

Finally, the last sentence in your post reveals an evacuated-middle fallacy going on in your thinking. In politics as with anything else, nothing is either-or. If you wish to practice such simplistic thinking, have at it. That doesn't for a moment mean I'm obliged to honor such arbitrary, and poorly-thought-out, divisions.

(October 26, 2014 at 9:24 am)Brakeman Wrote: Ridiculous! Attributing speech is not curtailment nor censorship. None of the proposal pertains to stopping disagreeable speech.

From McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:

Quote:It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

Publius would be dismayed at the idea of people, particularly those identifying as liberal, attempting to infringe upon anonymity's role in our concept of free speech.

(October 26, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Me, I don't think a private individual owes the government jack-shit for an explanation about the expression of any opinion.

No one cares about the opinion expressing from an individual. The FEC is only concerned with enforcing the controls on corporations, labor unions, and election campaigns that the legislature has previously voted for and enacted into law.

Nothing from the democrat's proposal is intended to curtail individual's speech in any way, besides, it would effect democratic leaning speech just as well as republican wouldn't it???

Your unreasonable bias comes from somewhere, fox news is a pretty good guess, but of course you could get it from numerous sources, even imagine it yourself.

(October 26, 2014 at 11:44 am)Brakeman Wrote: What is it with republicans and lying?

Hillary will let me know as soon as she's finished telling me about dodging bullets on a Bosnian tarmac.

They all lie, but politicians simply trot out 'I misspoke' and it is all forgotten.

(October 26, 2014 at 3:27 pm)Brakeman Wrote: No one cares about the opinion expressing from an individual. The FEC is only concerned with enforcing the controls on corporations, labor unions, and election campaigns that the legislature has previously voted for and enacted into law.

Sorry, I missed the part where that was mentioned. Where was it said that private individuals would not be held answerable?

The author of the recommendation specifically states she would want to go after individual bloggers whom she accuses of airing ads created by big donors. Wherever the ad was sourced, I think that individuals ought to be able to refer to, and repeat, the contents of an ad.

I also don't like the idea of the FEC, or for that matter the FCC or any other federal acronym organization, regulating the Internet, which is the last affordable means of mass communication open to the individual.

(October 26, 2014 at 3:27 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Nothing from the democrat's proposal is intended to curtail individual's speech in any way, besides, it would effect democratic leaning speech just as well as republican wouldn't it???

Setting aside for the moment the clear internal contradiction in this point, it would affect the followers of both parties. Why should that garner my agreement, as your question seems to imply? I'm not loyal to the Democrats or to the Republicans.

The contradiction lies in the argument that "it wouldn't curtail individual speech in any way", followed by "it would affect both parties equally", to paraphrase. Which is it? Would it have an effect, or not?

(October 26, 2014 at 3:27 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Your unreasonable bias comes from somewhere, fox news is a pretty good guess, but of course you could get it from numerous sources, even imagine it yourself.

My bias is against an overreaching government. What, exactly, is unreasonable about that? Be specific.

(October 26, 2014 at 1:47 pm)Brakeman Wrote: She was giving a speech about how giving government money to corporations doesn't create jobs in the way that Ronny the dumb-ass Reagan claimed it would with his trickle down economics. It's difficult to not say some disconnected things when constantly giving speeches. The bush presidents gave hundreds of these gaffs. It's nothing more than funny.

Trickle down economics isn't about giving corporations less government money. It was about government taking less money from corporations. Lefties like you and Hillarytard have this attitude that everything belongs to the government and you should be thankful you get to keep anything at all. Call it a misstatement if you want, but it certainly reveals that Hillary endorses a top down economic model.