Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[giblets]

Some campaign contributors are more equal than others.

[Felch]

To start with, WTF were our Founding Fathers thinking when they did not set term limits for Congresspersons?

I think Congresspersons should have a term limit. Say something like a maximum of three four-year terms.

Nobody in Congress serves four year terms. And Congressional term limits come right out of the GOP's Contract for America.

[Jaguar]

Some campaign contributors are more equal than others.

Yes. See here:

All sorts of people get more "weight" than others. We're all entitled to speak freely. We aren't entitled to equal audiences. Matt Yglesias is smarter than me and writes better. Ellen Degeneres is more likable than I am. Google, god bless, has control of the most valuable advertising space ever, which they used against SOPA. I have no moral authority to say who can use what media to say what.

None of them has extra votes, though. Each person gets one vote.

Those are bedrock American principles. Senator Sanders should learn more about what America is all about.

[Jaguar]

If you care about inequality of political speech so much, demolish the New York Times building. Smash television sets. Burn books. Tell popular people to stop having so many friends.

Stop people from becoming educated, because God knows that well-educated people with good critical thinking skills can run roughshod over ill-thought-out arguments.

Inequality is everywhere, and you seem most concerned with vesting all of the power for political speech in the hands of a handful of Ivy League journalism majors.

[Hauldren Collider]

Journalism majors



Ivy League

[Dr Strangelove]

I have zero issues with sounding like a jerk. Voters are dumb. They are dumb-coated dumb sacks with dumb filling.

Doesn't change the fact that our political system is corrupt as hell.

All this disrespect for humanity coming from a fellow physician. I'm shocked! Shocked!
Just you wait another twenty years more.

[Jon Miller]

What people are missing here is that one of the key components of freedom that is recognized by americans (and the western world, now) is the weak being protected from the strong.

Important to this discussion, especially relating to speech/etc, is how much the (poorer) people need protection from the wealthy.

Jaguar referencing that people need protection from media personalities is just a distraction, and I expected him to realize that. That we cab say the same thing about media and wealth, doesn't change the importance for freedom/democracy of protecting the weak from the strong.

When even pieces like the Economist blog about poorer groups in the US acting against their own interests, it is obvious that an argument can be made that the (poorer) people need protection.

Protecting poor groups from strong groups has long been a part of American (and Western) Democracy and is a key component to it's success (and to it being defensible).

JM
(I am not saying what the obvious method which should be used to protect is, or how much needs to be done, but protecting the weak from the strong is a key component in our tradition of freedom, both as America and as the West.)

[Hauldren Collider]

Jaguar referencing that people need protection from media personalities is just a distraction, and I expected him to realize that. That we cab say the same thing about media and wealth, doesn't change the importance for freedom/democracy of protecting the weak from the strong.

Why don't you start by explaining how this is a distraction? On the contrary, it is proof that campaign finance limitations are nonsensical.

When even pieces like the Economist blog about poorer groups in the US acting against their own interests, it is obvious that an argument can be made that the (poorer) people need protection.

Is the Economist seriously your litmus test for fiscal conservatism? Really? And somehow their *****ing about something in the US, like they do in virtually every issue, makes it obviously a real problem? The economist, like you, totally buys into the inequality nonsense--the idea that growing inequality is actually a problem and is somehow inherently unjust. This is just false. Inequality is everywhere and if we didn't have it we'd be in a wonderful Harrison Bergeron-esque ****hole. The most compelling case I've heard anyone make for reducing inequality is fear of some sort of French Revolution/Bolshevik uprising which to tell you the truth doesn't worry me.

You need to lay off the Tom Friedman talking points for a little bit.

[Jon Miller]

Why don't you start by explaining how this is a distraction? On the contrary, it is proof that campaign finance limitations are nonsensical.

Because it is possible for media concerns to be the strong that the weak need protected against.

The issue here is of protecting the weak from the strong.

We can see where this is needed, in media, in UK/Russia/etc.

The argument can be made that the (poorer) people need (more) protection from the wealthy. I didn't say you had to buy into it, and I didn't expect you to (honestly). But it is made by the pro-capitalists/bankers/wealthy/etc.

If you think that the bad old days, 100+ years ago, before protections were implemented were better, than I think you have critical thinking problems.

JM

[MrFun]

Voters are dumb. They are dumb-coated dumb sacks with dumb filling.

You sir, are the master of The Truth. This is going in my sig.

[kentonio]

The economist, like you, totally buys into the inequality nonsense--the idea that growing inequality is actually a problem and is somehow inherently unjust. This is just false.

I'm guessing you imagine that those wanting to stop growing inequality really want some extreme where everyone has exactly the same income and wealth. This would be almost as idiotic as what you just said, which is why virtually no-one things it's a good idea. Income/wealth inequality is manageable and even useful at small levels as it can encourage people to work harder, be competitive and ambitious and try and improve their lives. When that inequality spirals so wildly out of control as it has however, it leads to mass resentment, injustice and hatred.

The most compelling case I've heard anyone make for reducing inequality is fear of some sort of French Revolution/Bolshevik uprising which to tell you the truth doesn't worry me.

For America the danger is not a mass uprising to overthrow the government but rather an underclass developing full of resentment and frustration. You've seen that in the past in your big cities and it wasn't pretty. Gangs, spiralling crime, extremist populism etc etc. If your ideal America is one where the rich hide away in guarded compounds, then huge income inequality is exactly what you want. See Mexico for more details.

[Aeson]

I generally assume that at least 99% of people are blithering ****wits, and have rarely been disappointed. For it to have any meaning in the way Kuci used it however, he must either have been refering to a small(ish) segment of society, or else he's an incredibly arrogant *****. This is generally my job, and I resent any intrusion onto my turf that he might have been making.

No, it had meaning even if Kuci used to to apply to everyone.

[quote]No, there isn't a very large distinction.[quote]

Yes there is. The distinction is an intelligent person will attempt to verify claims before acting on the ad info. The stupid person will not, or worse, will ignore blatantly obvious refutation of it. So an ad which gives the price of an item for a time period may provide actionable and true information that is of value to the viewer. A political attack ad of the sort I referred to (claims contrary to verified facts) does not provide true information and is that easily verified by sourcing the actual statements in context (which is almost always available).

It's all the same art of disinformation and propagandizing.

No, there are plenty of commercials and ads which give relevant and true information with or without excessive promotion. Perhaps the best example of this are ads which show the model number, price and picture ... and nothing else. You can see these on Google search results very commonly for queries about consumer goods. All the information given in those specific types of ads (not all Google ads) are verifiable facts.

If you think you're immune to it, or can even recognize it 100% of the time, you're lying to yourself.

It doesn't require 100% immunity to intelligently approach an ad or editorial. All that is required is the capability of critical thought and willingness to verify what facts are available before acting. That will put you far ahead of the average person buying shiny glass on HSN or voting for party lines.

We are all shaped by the news/information sources we get our information from, and no matter how much we might insist we are not susceptable to the sources bias, it's unfortunately not true. You'll see the obvious **** and feel smug about how you can recognize it and the poor dumb saps out there can't, but then you'll absorb the more subtle stuff without even realizing the irony.

Given that I gave an example of how an intelligent person is affected by ads, you sure are going on and on about how I've stated the opposite that they can't be (I haven't even addressed my own abilities) ... have fun with your moronic strawman ...

[Aeson]

Can you actually imagine a universe in which it isn't true? If you can't, how can it be a "problem"?

a) yes
b) n/a

[Aeson]

They vote for the people they want to vote for. Who are you to say that their criteria are bad?

It's not hard to see where some people vote for X based on criteria which is countered by X's actions afterwards. For instance, if I voted for Obama (I didn't) because he said he'd close Gitmo. Obviously in hindsight the criteria would have been a bad reason to vote for Obama. Hindsight isn't always necessary either. "Hope and Change" was obvious bad criteria if anyone actually wanted significant change, since before the election it was clear to anyone intelligent that Obama was simply more of the same (D).

[kentonio]

Yes there is. The distinction is an intelligent person will attempt to verify claims before acting on the ad info. The stupid person will not, or worse, will ignore blatantly obvious refutation of it. So an ad which gives the price of an item for a time period may provide actionable and true information that is of value to the viewer. A political attack ad of the sort I referred to (claims contrary to verified facts) does not provide true information and is that easily verified by sourcing the actual statements in context (which is almost always available).

There is no clearly distinction between the two, they are both using many of the same techniques to achieve basically the same result.

No, there are plenty of commercials and ads which give relevant and true information with or without excessive promotion. Perhaps the best example of this are ads which show the model number, price and picture ... and nothing else. You can see these on Google search results very commonly for queries about consumer goods. All the information given in those specific types of ads (not all Google ads) are verifiable facts.

Manipulative advertizing actually works. Even if an ad looks like its being open, theres a fairly good chance that its using a strategy to try and manipulate you by trying to play off against your expectations of advertising being manipulative.

It doesn't require 100% immunity to intelligently approach an ad or editorial. All that is required is the capability of critical thought and willingness to verify what facts are available before acting. That will put you far ahead of the average person buying shiny glass on HSN or voting for party lines.

You don't even see all the advertising you're being subjected to, theres just too much of it to consciously process on a daily basis.

Given that I gave an example of how an intelligent person is affected by ads, you sure are going on and on about how I've stated the opposite that they can't be (I haven't even addressed my own abilities) ... have fun with your moronic strawman ...

I have no idea what strawman you're talking about. I'm simply pointing out that if you think you're too clever to be sucked in by advertising, you're an idiot.