Looks like Min's style is catching on. I'm a little surprised that it was Heywood who was the first to succumb to the sincerest form of flattery.

(October 29, 2014 at 11:19 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Looks like Min's style is catching on. I'm a little surprised that it was Heywood who was the first to succumb to the sincerest form of flattery.

I'm finding it distasteful really....but there needs to be balance

One thing I really dislike is how invective from both sides poisons the discussion, and makes compromise impossible.

(October 29, 2014 at 11:36 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 11:19 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Looks like Min's style is catching on. I'm a little surprised that it was Heywood who was the first to succumb to the sincerest form of flattery.

I'm finding it distasteful really....but there needs to be balance

You think acting more civil gives conservatives an undue advantage?

(October 29, 2014 at 11:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 11:36 am)Heywood Wrote: I'm finding it distasteful really....but there needs to be balance

You think acting more civil gives conservatives an undue advantage?

Civility isn't an effective strategy anymore. Countering Minimalist's hate and fear peddling requires the peddling of hate and fear. That's the hypothesis I am toying with at the moment anyways.

What is good about the Republican party

(October 29, 2014 at 12:11 pm)DramaQueen Wrote: What is good about the Republican party

Same thing about what is good about the democrats. The republicans serve as a counter balance.

Really we need to change the way elections are done. Watch these short but interesting videos in order

(October 27, 2014 at 7:56 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(October 27, 2014 at 12:52 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: My bias is against an overreaching government. What, exactly, is unreasonable about that? Be specific.

I'm also a strong proponent of resisting overreach by the government, but this case is not it.

Remember how I said "What is it about Republicans and LYING??"
Well thanks to your pushing, I went to find the source.

When I googled "Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign" I was swamped with page after page of right wing nuttery websites. No info there..

Don't you think it odd that none of those websites actually posted the public document proposal.. That's really odd isn't it. Well it would be if they weren't all lying sons of bitches..

Here's the actual proposal, it's not about the videos AT ALL! it's about paying people to post them and other things on the internet. If you work for a campaign then you have to record their salaries.

http://www.fec.gov/audits/2010/Republica...24RPIA.pdf

I wanted to post sections of it but the PDF is locked. You'll have to read it yourself, it's very short.

I'm going to guess that your unclear google search terms led you down the path of nuttiness, in particular the inclusion of the irrelevant phrase "anti-Obama" -- such language is bound to turn up birthers, racists, and other dipshits.

As for what you've linked, that appears to be a different matter, and not "the source" at all. The document you're looking for is actually in the OP's link. Forgive my assumption that you had already read it. Clearly you haven't.

Nothing in there proposes to protect the individual video producer from producing his own video and sharing it gratis with others. Just because something is "slickly produced" doesn't mean that it has been financed by an outside agent; software packages for audio and video production are nowadays very sophisticated and can produce professional results with a little time and practice.

It is that broad commission which would conceivably include private producers who make their own productions to air and share their own views that I find disturbing.



[I have taken the liberty of turning the document into an image for formatting purposes. The original PDF can be read here. -- Parks]

I used to be a "free speech" absolutist. Any fool should be able to say anything he or she likes, on any subject. And the rest of us should be allowed to say anything we like in response. And I guess I still lean that way. But more and more I find myself less concerned about "free speech" and more interested in "true speech".

For the fact is propaganda is a powerful tool, particularly when unleashed on a ill or misinformed audience. And Americans are nothing if not ill or misinformed. (How many will run around fearful of ebola, then not get a flue shot?) I don't know how one protects true speech from free speech, likely it can't be done. But our inability to separate the two is likely to bring an end to our society.

I don't think the answer to bullshit speech is to censor it. I think the answer to bullshit speech is to answer it.