Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech by HKCavalier

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I guess it depends whether you view the spirit of the law as meaning individuals, excepting where it specifies "the people," or whether a corporation falls under "the right of the people to peacefully assemble."

Either way, it's been interpreted to allow the biggest possible backdoor for government corruption. So what else is new? Hey Justices, how're all your buddies who gave you campaign contributions when you were just little regular old judges? Wave 'em hi for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:04 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

But will this address the non-disclosure of funding sources for "non-profit" groups like Americans For Progress?

In other words, is this going to make it easier to expose that the Tea Parties are being wholly funded and underwritten by Fox News and Big Oil?

And that snark aside, this REALLY doesn't bode well for the little folk. Wal-Mart can now freely give as much as it wants, yet if YOU, as an EMPLOYEE of Wal-Mart, want to go onto your Facebook page and diss Wal-Mart and the people they're giving to, they are also completely within their rights to fire you. In other words, not only can they buy speech, but they can as well buy silence of any dissent.

Not sure I'm comfortable with that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was going to post this under Byte's THROWING THE PARTIES thread.

It doesn't matter what parties are in power IF you remove the effect of MONEY MONEY MONEY from the elections. The only way to do that is to require that the FCC.. which licenses the spectrum to private parties with the stipulation that they also SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ... require its licensees to provide FREE AIR TIME to all viable candidates.

But this... this is a friggin' OUTRAGE.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was going to post this under Byte's THROWING THE PARTIES thread.

It doesn't matter what parties are in power IF you remove the effect of MONEY MONEY MONEY from the elections. The only way to do that is to require that the FCC.. which licenses the spectrum to private parties with the stipulation that they also SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ... require its licensees to provide FREE AIR TIME to all viable candidates.

But this... this is a friggin' OUTRAGE.

Actually, Signy, it's even worse than that. It doesn't matter WHAT the FCC says, or the Federal Election Commission (FEC), either, until you get a CLEAR definition of what a "viable candidate" is. At present, you're eligible for federal matching election funds - but only after you've raised a sufficient amount of money. This is designed ostebsibly to keep every Tom, Dick, and Harry from declaring candidacy to get matching funds (which they would no doubt NEVER abuse, right?), but it also serves the dual purpose of ensuring that you in effect MUST have "corporate sponsorship" in order to be viewed as "viable" for the job. In other words, like the best loan rates and interest rates, the only way to qualify is to prove you don't need it.

I love this fucking system.

And this system loves fucking me. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:30 AM

Oh, and please DO add this topic to Byte's wonderful thread on throwing parties and throwing them out.

If we're lucky, the thread will one day serve as an archive, a how-to for dealing with entrenched incumbents who are more worried about monied interests than they are about the interests of the people they were allegedly elected to represent.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:36 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I don't know.

It might allow for the rising of a 3rd party or Independents. Think if a candidate was to secure the backing of Apple or Microsoft.

Or, it will just tie the government more to the corporations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:36 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Just when you think they can't get any *wronger* ... I read that headline like 4 times thinking I must be missing something. It really is hard to even guess at what their thinking was, and I know the rule of law is stone cold at best, but still, wtf?

FWIW:

http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html

by phone at (202) 224-5323

Left a message - Go Russ Go!

http://www.johnmccain.com/contact/

info - johnmccain.com

www.supremecourtus.gov or contact the Supreme Court's Public Information Office at (202) 479-3211.

telephone tree...

If you have a couple off hours you can read the members' opinions - Caution, Large File Ahead:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Think if a candidate was to secure the backing of Apple or Microsoft. Or, it will just tie the government more to the corporations.

Yeah, just what we need.. people with absolute monopoly control.. equipped with the military. Don't you know that's the basis of fascism???

BTW, may I point out that this travesty was approved by REPUBLICAN-appointed judges???? Anyone who thinks that voting Republican is some kind of protest vote also prolly thinks that shooting yourself in the foot is good aim!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Yeah, just what we need.. people with absolute monopoly control.. equipped with the military. Don't you know that's the basis of fascism???

BTW, may I point out that this travesty was approved by REPUBLICAN-appointed judges???? Anyone who thinks that voting Republican is some kind of protest vote also prolly thinks that shooting yourself in the foot is good aim!"

Don't disagree with you on any particular point. (Its a first I know, try not to faint)

However, I still say, we need to tie up the processes in Washington so that nothing they want gets done.

Then, get them out and put some people in who will actually give a damn about us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf, dismantling the government is not an option. As equivocal and counterproductive as it sometimes is, it is the ONLY force standing between you and corporations.

Now, lawmakers have mixed and impure motives at best... the need for campaign money and the desire for power competes with the fact that they have to stand before the people who elected them, and SOME politicians (Russ Feingold, for example) really DO want to do good.

Corporations, OTOH, have ONE and ONLY one motive: the highest amount of profit possible. Pay the least possible, and charge what the market will bear. Develop a monopoly. Sink the workers. It doesn't matter to them if it means shipping off American jobs to Chinese prison labor, or creating inscrutable pyramid schemes with funny-money, or dumping toxic waste in your water table, or ravaging the entire planet. They're answerable to nobody except (maybe) their shareholders, whose interests are the same as theirs: greater profitability, higher dividends, higher stock prices.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:22 AM

Quote:
I was going to post this under Byte's THROWING THE PARTIES thread.

It doesn't matter what parties are in power IF you remove the effect of MONEY MONEY MONEY from the elections. The only way to do that is to require that the FCC.. which licenses the spectrum to private parties with the stipulation that they also SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ... require its licensees to provide FREE AIR TIME to all viable candidates.

Ooh, that's a good idea. And makes sense given the context.

Maybe we can undermine the Supreme Court and write in letters to the FCC en mass requesting this policy change. I mean, they practice censorship in the name of public service, right? So if the supreme court considers money bought advertising and slander a form of free speech and restrictions on it a form of censorship, then this is right up their alley. Maybe that way they'd actually BE serving the public, instead of randomly bleeping out swearwords.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:23 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I guess it depends whether you view the spirit of the law as meaning individuals, excepting where it specifies "the people," or whether a corporation falls under "the right of the people to peacefully assemble."

Problem with that lies in Corporate Personhood, which is something never effectively nor completely addressed even under the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts, which themselves are for all intents and purposes, universally ignored.

See, quality of the law doesn't matter much when those charged with enforcing it are the ones helping break it, and this was a core problem before the Constitution itself was even signed, something Anti-Federalist BRUTUS pointed out quite effectively in #14-#15.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus14.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

And therein lies the problem with Laws in the first place - how, exactly, does one mean to enforce them ?

Hiring a professional class or caste to do it results in an all but inevitable corruption and class warfare, which can be temporarily, but not completely, stymied by proper oversight, but as the rot deepens (look at the Detroit PD, and Federal Task Force mess as an example..) then you wind up having everyone watching everyone else and nothing getting done in a culture of fear and abuse.

All in all, I'd say we would be best served going the other way, Corporations have ALWAYS had the Goverment and it's military forces in their pocket, it's why organised labor as a non-criminal enterprise or pacification arm of the corps has prettymuch failed - they can fight a corp, they cannot fight a corp and the gov, and if they could, what's to stop em from the disaster of just taking over ?

Although whether that'd actually BE a disaster depends on your interpretation, Catalonia didn't do too bad with it.

The quickest way, I think, to spike corporate abuses, would be to respect their property rights - heh heh.. tell em in essence, that's YOUR property, YOU hire someone to protect it.
The threat of an enraged populace will do the rest, and serve as a healthy check upon that kind of thing, not to mention operate as something of a release valve before the pressure builds to where folks who've lives have been destroyed start carbombing their offices.

As for gridlocking the system till nothing gets done, in THIS environment and toxic society, that's begging dictatorship, especially given that particular kind of gridlock was why executive orders wound up given the prominence they have, cause folks got frustrated with it, and manipulated by mass-media propaganda, foolishly handed more and more power to individuals in hopes of actually accomplishing something, ignorant of a real awareness of how and why the system works - you can see this in that whole "Czars" thing, an end run around that kind of gridlock, which is of debateable legality and certainly counter to the spirit of the structure.

Every time more and more power is handed to the executive or judiciary in hopes of breaking or overcoming congressional gridlock, it weakens the already ragged checks and balances and cranks us just one more notch down the road to dictatorship, and the mainstream media plays right along encouraging it because they benefit directly and financially from it.

That's a damned fools notion, cause there's a big, sharp, pointy hook underneath that delicious looking bait, and the name of that hook is Fascism.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:24 AM

Kwicko: Candidacy should be based on a petition method. Not money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"However, I still say, we need to tie up the processes in Washington so that nothing they want gets done."

Who is the 'they' ? Because something DID just get done - the corporations now get to run national and state politics. If by 'they' you mean corporations, 'they' can get even more done that 'they' want. UNTIL such time as new legislation is passed, which, I would like to point out, DEMOCRATS are already working on.

BTW, for anyone who thinks republicans are better, or that a vote for a republican is somehow an effective way to improve the system:

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) praised the decision.

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day," he said.

And National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said he hopes the ruling opens the doors for political parties to increase spending."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:30 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Wulf, dismantling the government is not an option. As equivocal and counterproductive as it sometimes is, it is the ONLY force standing between you and corporations.

Now, lawmakers have mixed and impure motives at best... the need for campaign money and the desire for power competes with the fact that they have to stand before the people who elected them, and SOME politicians (Russ Feingold, for example) really DO want to do good.

Corporations, OTOH, have ONE and ONLY one motive: the highest amount of profit possible. Pay the least possible, and charge what the market will bear. Develop a monopoly. Sink the workers. It doesn't matter to them if it means shipping off American jobs to Chinese prison labor, or creating inscrutable pyramid schemes with funny-money, or dumping toxic waste in your water table, or ravaging the entire planet. They're answerable to nobody except (maybe) their shareholders, whose interests are the same as theirs: greater profitability, higher dividends, higher stock prices."

NOT arguing for the dismantling of the government. Just tying things up, so that real people can have a chance at running things.

I doubt that anyone can say they are happy with the status-quo, or that corporations should run things.

What we need, are people who give a damn about what we (as Americans, as people) stand for.

Getting rid of the legacies of the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and all the rest..

Hell, it may not fix everything, but its a good start.

We need people in "power" who will give said "power" back to the people. As it was meant to be.

That salt of the earth farmer, that everyone wrote off as an uneducated redneck... that gutsy ghetto boy who folks wrote off as nothing more than a criminal... provided that they give a damn about our people...

THEY should be in charge.

Because, in the political spectrum of long odds, THEY know more about being an American than these people do.

THEY give a damn.

They want to change things for the better.

ETA: Also, these folks will respect the rights of the people, and of the states to govern themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:30 AM

Quote:
Wulf, dismantling the government is not an option. As equivocal and counterproductive as it sometimes is, it is the ONLY force standing between you and corporations.

Not addressed to me, I know, but gotta comment.

Dismantling corporations is also going to be an important step in the process of "taking back the machine" so to speak. I'm not sure if we even can change anything using our current system, but I'm making an effort. I'm just sick of the current parties. I think that they just have to go before anything else. Then maybe we have to purge the Supreme Court and justice system, get honest people in THERE too. THEN maybe we can go after the goddamn corporations. I'm not about to take back one government just to have THEM step in and set up house.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
NOT arguing for the dismantling of the government. Just tying things up, so that real people can have a chance at running things. I doubt that anyone can say they are happy with the status-quo, or that corporations should run things.

What we need, are people who give a damn about what we (as Americans, as people) stand for. Getting rid of the legacies of the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and all the rest..
Hell, it may not fix everything, but its a good start. We need people in "power" who will give said "power" back to the people. As it was meant to be.

That salt of the earth farmer, that everyone wrote off as an uneducated redneck... that gutsy ghetto boy who folks wrote off as nothing more than a criminal... provided that they give a damn about our people... THEY should be in charge. Because, in the political spectrum of long odds, THEY know more about being an American than these people do. THEY give a damn. They want to change things for the better.

I'm with you 1200%!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I'm with you 1200%!"

Holy crap..

I just fell out of my chair.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'm just sick of the current parties."

The way to improve them is, as SignyM pointed out, to get $$$$$ out of the system. The effects would be twofold - 1) existing legislation wouldn't be for sale to Congresspeople looking for campaign money, and 2) it would free up less well-funded but potentially better candidates to campaign.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW - it seems to me if we can sift through thousands of people to come up with one winner on American Idol, we can sift through thousands of candidates to come up with the top twenty or so who will actually run on competing platforms.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:40 AM

There are some things that are just universal, and one of them is knowing that both parties, the federal government, the media, AND corporations are all in it together to screw people over as much as possible. That's what happens when you establish an electoral college aimed at electing the "best-educated" (read: most rich).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:43 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"BTW - it seems to me if we can sift through thousands of people to come up with one winner on American Idol, we can sift through thousands of candidates to come up with the top twenty or so who will actually run on competing platforms."

Holy God... dammit, I need to stand up now.

I keep falling out my chair from shock.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:43 AM

CHRISISALL

The dystopian visions of the future are coming to pass.

"Thank you for your cooperation."

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"The dystopian visions of the future are coming to pass."

Only if we let them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The electoral college - yeah, that's gotta go, but it would need a constitutional ammendment.

"That salt of the earth farmer, that everyone wrote off as an uneducated redneck... that gutsy ghetto boy who folks wrote off as nothing more than a criminal... provided that they give a damn about our people... THEY should be in charge. Because, in the political spectrum of long odds, THEY know more about being an American than these people do. THEY give a damn. They want to change things for the better."

What happens to them ?

Here for example are the average beginnings of Mitch McConnell "McConnell was born in Tuscumbia, Alabama to Julia (née Shockley) and Addison Mitchell McConnell" and John Cornyn "Cornyn was born in Houston to Atholene Gale (née Danley) and John Cornyn II", both supporters of this decision.

How do they go from average person to corporate lackey ?

I think if you don't figure out what the corrupting influence is and remove it, you will get the same result.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:49 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The dystopian visions of the future are coming to pass."

Only if we let them.

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
"Yeah. Major bummer."

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
"Yeah. Major bummer."

Guess the Terminator came back in time before Independent BrownCoats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:02 AM

CHRISISALL

"Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith."

and what took THAT down, was a singular person... bent on freeing the people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Kwicko: Candidacy should be based on a petition method. Not money.

Granted, but we're talking about REALITY here, not idealism. If we were talking about what should be, rather than what is, we'd be discussing my upcoming coronation as king o' this dump. :) (sarcasm definitely intended).

But even the petition method is now wide open to Abuse By Money™. Think about it. If I, the CEO of Giant MegaCorp, want a certain candidate on the ballot, I have but to hire a team to get the petition online, hire a PR company to get the word out, and hire an ad agency to buy time on the networks and place banner ads everywhere my target demographic might look. And of course, I'll *know* my target demographic, because I'll have bought the right research to find them.

So again, money wins.

We can't change the system until we learn how to use it against itself.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:11 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm with you 1200%!

Shit. Sorry dude, that was a typo. I meant 2000%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The dystopian visions of the future are coming to pass.

"Thank you for your cooperation."

The laughing Chrisisall

Or, alternatively,

"Thank you for your corporation."

Works just as well in this context.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wouldn't it be a HOOT to start a reality TV show based on... Choose Your Candidate!????

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Shit. Sorry dude, that was a typo. I meant 2000%."

Stop it...

I just passed out again and hit my head.

Now it hurts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Shit. Sorry dude, that was a typo. I meant 2000%."

Stop it...

I just passed out again and hit my head.

Now it hurts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith."

and what took THAT down, was a singular person... bent on freeing the people.

Or, if you read the original "1984" that it was lifted from, they weren't taken down at all. They won.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Bytemite
Candidacy should be based on a petition method. Not money.

Kwicko
Granted, but we're talking about REALITY here, not idealism.

BTW, that's the major problem with the proposition system in California. You'd THINK it would be a way to get direct democracy. But what happens is a wealthy individual, group of individuals, corporation, or group of corporations create a fictitious group, then fund the group and all its petition signing efforts. The more people you have out there flogging the petitions, the more chance they have of getting on the ballot. And THEN they spend money to sell it to 'the people' who often don't even read the ballots, but instead vote with their gut. Many, many bad laws have gotten on the books that way, for example Prop 13, the single biggest factor in bankrupting California (and tranferring billions from homeowners to large landholding corporate interests, like railways and ulilities.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Or, if you read the original "1984" that it was lifted from, they weren't taken down at all. They won."

Thats why its called fiction.

NOT saying we dont have a long, tough fight ahead of us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:33 AM

Quote:
Wouldn't it be a HOOT to start a reality TV show based on... Choose Your Candidate!????

Sig! Sig that's awesome!

It's the perfect way to bring this to the public, they've already been preconditioned to accept reality television. Take something they put on us to distract us with entertainment and TURN it on them!

EDIT: Except... There's one problem, the media is also corporation controlled. You'd have to do it on the internet, and have it be nationwide but for local elections. You'd have to be non-profit so you keep corporate influence out. You'd have to find and "reality tv-ify" independent candidates only.

I'd start out as a parody, people like humour. Then as seasons go on, start to make it a serious platform for independent candidates. And when the parties start to think it's a tool they could co-opt, you invite them in to get completely smashed by the independents. >)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, that was actually Rue's idea. But it's a great one!

How do we start? With Idol, the judges go on a hunt. It's pretty easy to tell who can sing and who can't. But what do the starting candidates begin with? A three-minute stump speech? And, who judges? Locals? A nationally-known panel? What "seat" are they running for, if any? Or is is just for exposure?

And how should we frame it? Flipping back-and-forth each week between Town Hall-style meetings (each candidate gets five minutes to debate a member of the audience ) and boxing-ring type debates? Call-in audience votes?

I could see how this could be totally trivialized, OTOH it might really shake things up!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Put it on YouTube.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
That salt of the earth farmer, that everyone wrote off as an uneducated redneck... that gutsy ghetto boy who folks wrote off as nothing more than a criminal... provided that they give a damn about our people... THEY should be in charge. Because, in the political spectrum of long odds, THEY know more about being an American than these people do. THEY give a damn. They want to change things for the better.

Allow me to point out some problems with this from personal experience...

A - They don't WANT to be in charge.
(Trust me when I say it sucks!)

B - They are limited in effect by whatever rules exist in place to secure the status quo and prevent radical changes, some of which are there for damned good reason.
(Look at Hugo Chavez as a classic example of how good intentions can go so very, very badly when the madness of power begins chewing on a persons psyche)

C - As soon as they act, they're gonna piss off a LOT of people, not just the structures, but the people employed by, benefitting from, or supporting them, as well as a lot of outrage for not playin ball, not bein a team player, and generally being a meddling busybody - I shit you not, at least one decision was responded to by the local Development Authority (four of whom voted for me!) with the outraged cry "Who put YOU in charge?!", as if I was some kinda damn usurpatious upstart...

To which my reply was - "You Did."
And they quite immediately set about trying to rectify THAT mistake, despite that being *WHAT THEY ASKED ME TO DO* when they voted me into the friggin office in the first place.

A matter of being careful what one wishes for, cause I've found that often enough, the meanest, cruelest thing you can ever do to anyone is find out what they desire in their hearts...

AND GIVE IT TO THEM, GOOD AND HARD!

Which brings us to...

D - They're gonna be real pissed off at you for putting them in that position, and you almost certainly *will* wind up pissed off at them, cause no two people ever agree 100% on every damned thing, so sooner or later they'll piss off even the most rabid supporter at least somewhat.

E - They might be unqualified to a degree of not being able to effectively DO the job, case in point what I know about economics would fit in a thimble, and it was only the good graces that the rules allowed it that enabled me to temp-contract two people who DID know enough about it to help get things done - I note for the record they DID get the road fixed, and FOR the price budgeted.

F - There's also the inevitable interference from not only bribery/chicanery attempts, but escalating harrassment of your candidate, their family (this is what bit Ross Perot on the ass) which can go to some pretty extreme measures up to and including violence - and while in that case, whitebread suburbanties versus a ghetto thug was a no-contest proposition which made it a dead letter from get, it *IS* going to be a problem.

Not tryin to rain on your parade here, just pointing these things out before you put your boot in the beartrap, as the key to pulling stuff like this off is being three steps ahead of the other guy and perhaps a bit, ummm.. "inspired" - to put it kindly, besides.

-F

ETA: Don't EEEEVEN *think* it, no.. HELL no, okay ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:04 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Gotta throw in some UFC style action...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Allow me to point out some problems with this from personal experience...

A - They don't WANT to be in charge.
(Trust me when I say it sucks!)

B - They are limited in effect by whatever rules exist in place to secure the status quo and prevent radical changes, some of which are there for damned good reason.
(Look at Hugo Chavez as a classic example of how good intentions can go so very, very badly when the madness of power begins chewing on a persons psyche)

C - As soon as they act, they're gonna piss off a LOT of people, not just the structures, but the people employed by, benefitting from, or supporting them, as well as a lot of outrage for not playin ball, not bein a team player, and generally being a meddling busybody - I shit you not, at least one decision was responded to by the local Development Authority (four of whom voted for me!) with the outraged cry "Who put YOU in charge?!", as if I was some kinda damn usurpatious upstart...

To which my reply was - "You Did."
And they quite immediately set about trying to rectify THAT mistake, despite that being *WHAT THEY ASKED ME TO DO* when they voted me into the friggin office in the first place.

A matter of being careful what one wishes for, cause I've found that often enough, the meanest, cruelest thing you can ever do to anyone is find out what they desire in their hearts..."

Allow me to retort.

A hearty "FUCK YOU. THE PEOPLE PUT ME IN CHARGE EXACTLY BECAUSE OF YOU BASTARDS."... would go a looong way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, BYTE, carrying this idea forward... which I believe has true merit!...

Hell, I've even got my stump speech and gimmick half done. Because, you see, I would be the candidate you never see .. at least not until the end! My image would be a blank, black shield. And my stump speech???

I'm here today, not as Republican or Democrat, young or old, black or white, but as a blank shield. YOUR shield. YOUR candidate. A candidate for all of you: nurses and farmers, plumbers and teachers, mothers and fathers, busboys, waitresses, all of you.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:28 AM