Eric Cantor to address the rich-poor gap in speech at University of Pennsylvania Rea

[fskimospy]

Would be a good national discussion, wouldn't it? Personally, I don't know. The sheep would have a tough time surviving now without the shepherds to tell them where to graze and when to sleep. If they don't get sheered and poked in the ass every once in a while, they don't feel that the government is doing it's job.

Blah blah. Forget the sheep talk. If you could propose a policy to 'flush the party system' what would it be? Be careful not to run afoul of the first amendment right to freedom of association.

 

[MagickMan]

- No individual or corporation may contribute more than $500/yr to any political party or political special interest group. To hell with the "money=speech" BS.

- No person may spend more than $50,000 of their own money on their campaign.

- All ads must be vetted through a group such as factcheck.org before they're allowed to air or be broadcast via any medium.

 

[Craig234]

So you think a single party caused all that?

Nearly all of the Republicans and a large part of the Democrats make a corporatist majority.

So, who has the better agenda?

The progressive Democrats.

 

[palehorse]

Oooo, more blind, stupid liberals who hate the truth. The Dems are a farce, just like the Repugs, it's all the same BS run by corporate America. It all comes down to who you want in charge, the guys from the oil/war lobby or the guys from the pharma/legal lobby. And if you think there's any real difference you're just another group of stupid sheep blindly following the two party herd.

"Oh, oh, our party is different! They want to help us!" LMFAO

How pathetic.

this.

 

[MagickMan]

Nearly all of the Republicans and a large part of the Democrats make a corporatist majority.

So, who has the better agenda?

The progressive Democrats.

Neither. They both have their hands out. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Cow shit may smell better than pig shit, but you shouldn't be rolling around in either.

 

[fskimospy]

- No individual or corporation may contribute more than $500/yr to any political party or political special interest group. To hell with the "money=speech" BS.

- No person may spend more than $50,000 of their own money on their campaign.

- All ads must be vetted through a group such as factcheck.org before they're allowed to air or be broadcast via any medium.

So basically you want to overturn USSC constitutional precedent and then subject all political speech to the whims of independent bodies? Vetted to what standard? What constitutes an ad? What constitutes a medium? This will balloon into an unmanageable shit show in very very short order.

 

[Craig234]

Neither. They both have their hands out. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Cow shit may smell better than pig shit, but you shouldn't be rolling around in either.

Here's your homework - find five of the biggest pro-corporate corrupt sellout votes in recent years; document how the corporatists and the progressives voted.

Except you won't be bothered to actually get any facts to find out whether your lazy assumptions are accurate. So you will go on spouting lies. Who's corrupt? You.

 

[Ausm]

Here's your homework - find five of the biggest pro-corporate corrupt sellout votes in recent years; document how the corporatists and the progressives voted.

Except you won't be bothered to actually get any facts to find out whether your lazy assumptions are accurate. So you will go on spouting lies. Who's corrupt? You.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[ohnoes]

Looks like he cancelled because plebeians would be allowed to attend:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/Cantor_fled_Wharton_demonstrations.html

It would've been interesting to attend, although I'm sad that I missed all the excitement.

 

[woolfe9999]

So basically you want to overturn USSC constitutional precedent and then subject all political speech to the whims of independent bodies? Vetted to what standard? What constitutes an ad? What constitutes a medium? This will balloon into an unmanageable shit show in very very short order.

A better solution that perhaps involves fewer Constitutional problems is to require that each ad briefly display at the end the assessment of the independent body as to its truthfulness. Like for Politifact, you would show the truth-o-meter with the URL so the viewer can go read their fact checking on the add. The challenge would be to assure the absolute independence of the third party, but I like the idea in concept.

 

[fskimospy]

A better solution that perhaps involves fewer Constitutional problems is to require that each ad briefly display at the end the assessment of the independent body as to its truthfulness. Like for Politifact, you would show the truth-o-meter with the URL so the viewer can go read their fact checking on the add. The challenge would be to assure the absolute independence of the third party, but I like the idea in concept.

The thing is that there isn't a lot of evidence that what takes place in these ads even substantially affects voter opinions, and in the cases that they do affect them I'm not convinced that a fact checking site link at the end will change much.

I mean it couldn't hurt to give voters more information, but I really don't think the outcome would be to shift people away from political party voting or whatever that guy was gunning for.

 

[woolfe9999]

The thing is that there isn't a lot of evidence that what takes place in these ads even substantially affects voter opinions, and in the cases that they do affect them I'm not convinced that a fact checking site link at the end will change much.

I mean it couldn't hurt to give voters more information, but I really don't think the outcome would be to shift people away from political party voting or whatever that guy was gunning for.

Well candidates are spending more and more money on campaigns with each passing year, outpacing inflation, and the bulk of that money goes to TV ads. So I have to think the candidates and their consultants believe the ads are having a significant effect. You're probably someone who isn't very affected by such ads and you're projecting.

The thing about the fact check idea would not be so much the direct effect on viewers, but keeping the candidates honest to begin with. Who would pay a bunch of money to run an ad that had a "pants on fire" tag at the end? If the third party gave a poor truth rating to the ad, the campaign would likely either scrap it or else make some changes for better factual accuracy before running it.

- wolf

 

[MagickMan]

Here's your homework - find five of the biggest pro-corporate corrupt sellout votes in recent years; document how the corporatists and the progressives voted.

Except you won't be bothered to actually get any facts to find out whether your lazy assumptions are accurate. So you will go on spouting lies. Who's corrupt? You.

Maaaad sheep, maaaad sheep! :awe: Back to your shepherd for more sheering, lamb chop. Ask them about the Pharma payouts and the legal lobbies, while you're at it.

 

[MagickMan]

But, but, we don't want to fix the problem, it would be too hard. Whaaaa!!!

That's all I heard, sorry. :\

 

[MagickMan]

Well candidates are spending more and more money on campaigns with each passing year, outpacing inflation, and the bulk of that money goes to TV ads. So I have to think the candidates and their consultants believe the ads are having a significant effect. You're probably someone who isn't very affected by such ads and you're projecting.

The thing about the fact check idea would not be so much the direct effect on viewers, but keeping the candidates honest to begin with. Who would pay a bunch of money to run an ad that had a "pants on fire" tag at the end? If the third party gave a poor truth rating to the ad, the campaign would likely either scrap it or else make some changes for better factual accuracy before running it.

- wolf

See, that's good communication and an interesting twist on what I suggested. Very good work. :thumbsup:

Now, you other guys try it.

 

[Craig234]

MagickMan willfully ignorant and lacking in honesty.

 

[Craig234]

The idea of an independent fact-checking organization being required is terrible.

Besides constitutional problems, besides the fact of 'bias' so that 'conventional' views might be considered far more acceptable than 'radical' ones etc., to the point you get to it being a Pravda-like approval for political interests abused to silence free speech, we already have a better solution - such independent sources can comment freely.

So why isn't that more devastating to liars? The money of marketing. Fix that.

 

[MagickMan]

BAAHH! BAAHH! BAAAAHHHH!!

We should just rename this forum "When Farm Animals Attack!"

"But, but, our guys are honest, they only take dirty money 45% of the time instead of 53% of the time! Go read it for yourself!"

Gracie, go get the cattle prod!

 

[MagickMan]

The idea of an independent fact-checking organization being required is terrible.

Besides constitutional problems, besides the fact of 'bias' so that 'conventional' views might be considered far more acceptable than 'radical' ones etc., to the point you get to it being a Pravda-like approval for political interests abused to silence free speech, we already have a better solution - such independent sources can comment freely.

So why isn't that more devastating to liars? The money of marketing. Fix that.

I think we've already addressed that issue and now we're on to the point of how we can maintain the neutrality of the 3rd party fact checkers.

This is moving quickly guys, you gotta keep up.

 

[woolfe9999]

The idea of an independent fact-checking organization being required is terrible.

Besides constitutional problems, besides the fact of 'bias' so that 'conventional' views might be considered far more acceptable than 'radical' ones etc., to the point you get to it being a Pravda-like approval for political interests abused to silence free speech, we already have a better solution - such independent sources can comment freely.

So why isn't that more devastating to liars? The money of marketing. Fix that.

It's fact checking we're talking about, not opinion checking. Politifact and Factcheck don't concern themselves with interpretations and opinions. If someone can check facts objectively, I fail to see that as anything but an asset for the viewers.

 

[fskimospy]

Well candidates are spending more and more money on campaigns with each passing year, outpacing inflation, and the bulk of that money goes to TV ads. So I have to think the candidates and their consultants believe the ads are having a significant effect. You're probably someone who isn't very affected by such ads and you're projecting.

The thing about the fact check idea would not be so much the direct effect on viewers, but keeping the candidates honest to begin with. Who would pay a bunch of money to run an ad that had a "pants on fire" tag at the end? If the third party gave a poor truth rating to the ad, the campaign would likely either scrap it or else make some changes for better factual accuracy before running it.

- wolf

I know candidates spend more each year, but that seems to be due to the fact that most of politics is bullshit, and most campaign consultants are chosen more for their contacts than their ability. Seriously, go look at the research on campaign advertising and changing people's opinions. For example this was a pretty groundbreaking study when I was at UC San Diego: http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/lau/articles/LauEtAl_EffectsOfNegativePoliticalCampaigns.pdf

Sadly, I am willing to bet that most campaigns would not shy away from airing a campaign ad with a 'pants on fire' tag. The percentage of people viewing the ad that would actually take the time to check the website would likely be exceedingly small, and generally they would be the ones most skeptical of the message anyway.

This doesn't mean that more effective and honest TV ads would have no effect, but I find it unlikely that they will have anywhere close to the effect that some here might expect.

 

[fskimospy]

That's all I heard, sorry. :\

I don't think political parties are a problem, you do. Why don't you come up with some actual ideas instead of acting like you're 12 years old?

 

[MagickMan]

I don't think political parties are a problem, you do. Why don't you come up with some actual ideas instead of acting like you're 12 years old?

and that's why you're a sheep.

 

[Craig234]

MagickMan willfully ignorant and lacking in honesty.

Worth repeating.

 

[fskimospy]

and that's why you're a sheep.

And this is why you are stupid, and I won't be responding to you anymore.

Grow up.