Can't you comprehend the direction of a conversation? I'm not going to spell out every little thing to you. I will just reiterate so maybe you can come out of your feeble little mind just a bit and get a clue.
Sorry guy, I'm not psychic, I'm not privy to the babble that goes on inside your head, I only see what nonsense spews out of your fingers.
Corporations should not even exist let alone have the special ear of our government. And for you to say that corporations and other special interests do not have more say in our government shows your ignorance. Corporations and special interests should have no say in our government.
Lets break this down, because you don't seem to do so well with English. Maybe it's a 2nd language for you? Not a big deal, but we'll work on it. Corporations are a contract entity between willing individuals. If your claim is that people shouldn't be able to form binding contracts to form groups, then I don't really know what to say in context of what we're talking about. I'm talking about freedom of speech, and you're off on a tangent about how companies shouldn't exist. Perhaps start a new thread on this?
As to your claim that I've said corporations and "special interests" (basically, anyone with lots of cash) don't have more say in government, I'd like you to pull the quote on that. What I've said is that bribery =/= freedom of speech. Do you understand the difference? I noticed you're not talking about freedom of speech here anymore, but your hatred of lobbying. I do notice that you've failed to acknowledge the point that no one lobbied Dr. Paul because he was true to the Constitution.
Why should corporations and "special interests" have no say in government? Do groups of people not have common interests? Should they not work to promote their interests? I love how you talk about corporations like they're anything other than a legal representation of a group of individuals.
You say the lobby is bribery which may be true but the fact is that no one should be able to lobby the government for special attention. Whether it is bribery or not is mute. How can politicains pander to special interest and be constitutional much less libertarian.
Uhhh... so you're saying you shouldn't be able to call your congressman and tell him you don't like a bill? To give your arguments for why a bill is unconstitutional? How about to say, "If you vote for this unconstitutional bill, I will vote for your competition." Is that legal in your world? How about, "If you don't vote for this bill, I will donate to your competitor's re-election bid." Is that fair play? You're trying to put limits on speech, and then claim it's only "evil corporations" that are using that speech.
The word is MOOT, btw, not mute. Points can't be silent, they can however be irrelevant or inaccurate. You do realize you can pander to libertarians and still be within the constitution right? I again raise the point of Dr. Paul: If we vote for and elect moral individuals, then lobbying becomes a moot point. If the guy you're giving lots of money to still votes for the constitution, you eventually stop throwing money down the drain on him.
Mass media has long been used to sway the masses. I doubt you understand that since you are very narrow in your thinking and seem to fixate on just certain aspects.
Certain aspects of... what again? Sentence structure for the win right? As to mass media to sway the masses, think about this: What other way do you sway the masses without media? Think of all the things that are classified as media and have been throughout time. Mass media is probably the ONLY way to sway the masses, short of word of mouth and hoping for the best right?
I have not once complained that I don't have an audience yet that seems to be your angle. So instead of trying to pry open your little mind and injecting the ability for comprehension I will just say that the abuse of power by mass media is perhaps the number one cause of this countries demise.
That's exactly what you're doing. You're seeing a guy in a nice house, looking at your shack and saying, "No one should be allowed to live in a nicer house than anyone else, it's not fair to the rest of us!" Let me try again in case you missed it: "No one should be allowed to broadcast their opinions to lots of people, it's not fair to the rest of us who can't broadcast our opinions to lots of people."
I'm not sure how you're not seeing this. You may be new to the Liberty train or something, maybe a prior Nader supporter bent on the corporation hate? I really don't know. As to the abuse of power, I can't even fault the media for this crap. I CAN fault the people who eat it up, watch sports all day, and haven't cracked a book in years. Often times, people deserve what happens to them. We have a country where it's impolite to talk about politics and where we're supposed to cheer the government no matter what atrocities occur, as long as the atrocities happen to people far away. You don't think we asked for this? 100 years of voting is how we got so far screwed here. Don't blame Fox news. Blame the people who WATCH Fox news. Blame the people who vote based on what the television tells them. Blame the people who can't be bothered to think for themselves long enough to objectively look at what our country does every day.
And you again can't stop fixating on a single way of thinking. If you want to hear views on this or comments on that then you can watch The View, listen to Alex Jones or watch some other talk show or documentary or whatever. But when news anchors and dipshyt sportscasters start pushing their opinions then that is intended for one purpose only. But you can't see the difference. And I mean YOU.
I notice you keep up with this fixation talk, but you never actually explain what this "single way of thinking" is. If you mean "logically" then guilty as charged!
So your complaint isn't that people on TV get to spout their opinions... it's that it ruined a sports broadcast? "They can have all the free speech they want, unless it's during football because that's my time!" That makes... well not sense. I'm not sure what it means I guess. I'm sure your hypothesis is that there's some sort of dark conspiracy where the guy was forced to say what he did, or that he was paid to, but in reality we have a long history in this country of commentators saying stupid things politically or just going off on political tangents. It doesn't happen often, but usually when it does the retribution from fans is swift and the person gets punished either with a smack from management, a fine, or a pink slip.
I'm not even going to address your condescending straw man argument. Oh, and I'm sure that your representative listens just as much to you and your special interests as he does for GM, Exxon Mobile, Dupont, Goldman or any other fake people.
Now how is that fair? I demolished all of your straw man arguments one by one, and you just make a vague wave at accusing my argument of being a straw man? Then you accuse ME of being condescending? Come on pal. You've got a real chip on your shoulder about companies. Do you feel the same way about small businesses or is it just when they get large that you hate them? You do realize that people actually run and manage these companies right?
If you understood that your vote IS your freedom of speech then perhaps you could understand the jest of my argument. But I don't think you are capable. If you weren't such a jerk I would try to educate you better.
Wait... so given that, how does the sport caster have "more freedom of speech" than you? Does he get multiple votes or something? Gets to cycle through the voting booth 3 or 4 times? Voting isn't freedom of speech, it's voting. Speech is quite different. You might claim voting is a form of speech? Best I can see. Obviously there are forms of speech that do not include voting.
As to the "jest" of your argument, I really wish it was in jest, but after reading it I think the gist of what you're writing here is composed of fallacious and illogical babble.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: