The Almighty US Government

[Minimalist]

The US is the ultimate one-trick pony. We have only one answer to every problem....no matter how fucked up it is.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06...opposition

President Barack Obama asked Congress to approve $500 million to arm and train “moderate” Syrian rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, as the administration seeks to rein in Sunni extremists whose fight has spilled across the Syrian border into Iraq.

[Crossless2.0]

The US is the ultimate one-trick pony. We have only one answer to every problem....no matter how fucked up it is.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06...opposition

President Barack Obama asked Congress to approve $500 million to arm and train “moderate” Syrian rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, as the administration seeks to rein in Sunni extremists whose fight has spilled across the Syrian border into Iraq.

It's high time we collectively admit that we aren't good at playing this game.

[Heywood]

Nope.

The Koch brothers can still speak their mind. They can protest on the street corners, hand out pamphlets or publish their views online. They can also publish books that people choose to purchase or not.

They just wouldn't be able to buy more speech.

Pamphlets and the publishing of books or views on the internet all cost money. They all employ the use of using money to multiply the size of the audience which can hear your speech. It seems you are okay with some kinds of political ads but not others. If you are okay with the publishing of pamphlets but not TV ads, I think your position is a little inconsistent......and I still think it amounts to censorship.

Banning all political ads means no more bumper stickers. No more signs in your yard...no more buttons, pins, ribbons, tee-shirts, etc. Do you really want to live in a world where the only way to express your views is to buy a soap box, stand on a corner and give a speech?

The more I think about your idea, the more ridiculous it becomes apparent.

[DeistPaladin]

Pamphlets and the publishing of books or views on the internet all cost money. They all employ the use of using money to multiply the size of the audience which can hear your speech. It seems you are okay with some kinds of political ads but not others. If you are okay with the publishing of pamphlets but not TV ads, I think your position is a little inconsistent......and I still think it amounts to censorship.

Well, I do know you like to commit the ad neuseum fallacy, so I won't debate the "free speech" issue any further.

I can see your point about the costs of blogs. A distinction could be made over their picayune costs of a website, even a professionally designed and maintained website, relative to dumping millions of dollars into slick 30 second TV ads.

The alternative that I can see would seem to be variations on our current system, where the wealthy and monied interests can buy elections and thus our government leaders can be bought and sold. If you're fine with that, then by all means keep our current system.

Your tweaks are not unlike the others introduced over the years that attempt to distinguish "good corruption" from "bad corruption" and figure out where those lines are. As others on this thread have noted, the distinction between a "bribe" and a "campaign contribution" is a fine one indeed.

[Crossless2.0]

I'll agree to plutocrats' "rights" to buy elections if they'll concede everyone else's "rights" to Jacobin-style mob actions with the occasional sanguinary public crucifixion. It's a win-win and would make great TV.

[Heywood]

Pamphlets and the publishing of books or views on the internet all cost money. They all employ the use of using money to multiply the size of the audience which can hear your speech. It seems you are okay with some kinds of political ads but not others. If you are okay with the publishing of pamphlets but not TV ads, I think your position is a little inconsistent......and I still think it amounts to censorship.

Well, I do know you like to commit the ad neuseum fallacy, so I won't debate the "free speech" issue any further.

I can see your point about the costs of blogs. A distinction could be made over their picayune costs of a website, even a professionally designed and maintained website, relative to dumping millions of dollars into slick 30 second TV ads.

The alternative that I can see would seem to be variations on our current system, where the wealthy and monied interests can buy elections and thus our government leaders can be bought and sold. If you're fine with that, then by all means keep our current system.

Your tweaks are not unlike the others introduced over the years that attempt to distinguish "good corruption" from "bad corruption" and figure out where those lines are. As others on this thread have noted, the distinction between a "bribe" and a "campaign contribution" is a fine one indeed.

You started out from a position that "all" political ads should be banned. Realizing such a position is ludicrous you back peddle to you want to curb the speech of rich people. You really have no problem with average Joe using his wealth to spread his political message. But if they are the Koch brothers...then you got a problem. I find it hypocritical that you mention the Koch brothers several times but never mention a liberal rich person like Soros....but whatever.

What about the people who are poorer than you. Should your ability to use your wealth to multiply the audience who hears your message be curbed as well? I mean it is simply unfair to poorer people that you have more resources to spread your message then they do.

What about people who are simply better speakers. Should their abilities to speak and convey their message be curbed so as not to disenfranchise the less articulate?

I really think you just want to censor political messages you don't want other people to hear. You think you can discern bullshit from that which isn't, but you don't give the masses the same credit. You are a typical elitist that needs to control what the masses are exposed too.

[DeistPaladin]

Hello boys and girls, it's time for "spot the logical fallacies"

You started out from a position that "all" political ads should be banned. Realizing such a position is ludicrous you back peddle to you want to curb the speech of rich people.

This one is called "poisoning the well". Just because I accept some of your points and modify my position isn't a sign that I'm not logical. Quite the opposite actually. When you learn things or consider other points you hadn't before, the responsible thing to do is modify your opinion.

You really have no problem with average Joe using his wealth to spread his political message. But if they are the Koch brothers...then you got a problem.

Red herring fallacy or the introduction of irrelevant points to the discussion. The problem we've identified is that our government and its leaders are bought with money from special interests and the wealthy. "Average Joe's" activities don't enter into it because they don't have near the effect. My congressman isn't going to change his vote simply because I start a blog.

I find it hypocritical that you mention the Koch brothers several times but never mention a liberal rich person like Soros....but whatever.

Ad hominem tu quoque, also known as "c'mon mom, everybody does it".
Also known as...

BOTH SIDES!
BOTH SIDES!
BOTH SIDES!

Soros is an anomaly which side wealthy contributors back and his efforts are dwarfed by those of the Kochs, et al.

But really, we're not even talking about political affiliation. I mention the Kochs as the most prominent example in the news but there are certainly others. What we're discussing is that money is too important to politicians and how politicians are bought by lobbyists and special interests.

What about the people who are poorer than you. Should your ability to use your wealth to multiply the audience who hears your message be curbed as well? I mean it is simply unfair to poorer people that you have more resources to spread your message then they do.

See above. This is a red herring. Blogs don't buy senators. The millions of dollars in TV ads do.

Basically, if it cost your candidacy thousands of dollars to run a campaign (bumper stickers, t-shirts, blogs, pamphlets, etc) instead of millions (a deluge of TV ads), we're in a different world. Politicians would still be concerned about raising enough money to run but those resources could easily be met by grassroots efforts and would not rely upon billionaires and special interests.

In sum, the substantially lower costs of running a campaign would mean more attention would be paid to voters and their will rather than who's giving them the needed millions.

What about people who are simply better speakers. Should their abilities to speak and convey their message be curbed so as not to disenfranchise the less articulate?

Red herring.

The rest is just ad hominems.

I really think you just want to censor political messages you don't want other people to hear. You think you can discern bullshit from that which isn't, but you don't give the masses the same credit. You are a typical elitist that needs to control what the masses are exposed too.

[Heywood]

Soros is an anomaly which side wealthy contributors back and his efforts are dwarfed by those of the Kochs, et al.

Warren Buffet reportedly donated 1.2 billion dollar to pro-abortion groups.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/18...hanks-Fox#

Bloomberg promised to outspend the NRA.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolrepo...d-the-nra/

Liberal Billionaire Tom Steyer has pledged 100 million dollars toward democratic causes in the 2014 election cycle alone.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/to...03617.html.

Soros isn't some anomaly as you suggest.

[DeistPaladin]

Soros isn't some anomaly as you suggest.

You glossed over my post where I said...

But really, we're not even talking about political affiliation. I mention the Kochs as the most prominent example in the news but there are certainly others. What we're discussing is that money is too important to politicians and how politicians are bought by lobbyists and special interests.

...but you seem to insist on changing the subject for some reason.

But hey, guess what, their money would be removed from the equation too. There are liberal lobbying groups on K street that would be disempowered by my proposed changed.

I want popular opinion, not money, to dominate American politics, no matter whether that money comes from the left or the right.

Isn't that what you want? If not, why not?

[Minimalist]

Soros isn't some anomaly as you suggest.

Thank goodness.


But maybe it is just enlightened self-interest?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27...n-the-pipe

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer is no dummy. He sees the writing on the wall.

I'd strongly suggest you read this entire piece titled "The pitchforks are coming . . . for us Plutocrats"

And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.