To save America, we need another 9/11
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Thursday, May 23, 2024 06:04
VIEWED: 15024
PAGE 15 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How?
BTW- here's a question you never answered: What does Mr Tamm have to do with not getting FISA warrants?
I can't answer that question as it's presented, as it's a non sequitur.
As for M/F, it keeps radio talk shows from even discussing candidates ( however many days ) before an election. I think it's 60 ? Might be 90 even...
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, I see, It was an interpretation of the bill that radio hosts, being employed by corporations, could not express an opinion since that would represent an contribution. Apparently this might be extended to the blogosphere as well. Hmmm... Needs some consideration.
And yes, the question was a non-sequitur, but you never answered it.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeh, that's the sort of thing that has made me uneasy about it as well.
Still... any ideas on how -else- to reduce/minimize/block 'politicians bought and paid for'?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One channel, nationwide, 24-7.
Let em hash it out there, debate, discuss the issues, their platforms, what they wanna accomplish, etc.
When no major candidates are running, run local ones, and give everyone an equal share of time.
Problem solved.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe this idea is dumb, maybe not.............
ALL American citizens of qualified age, if they desire, should be able to log on to a website and enter their Presidential qualifications...ie. work experience, military experience, etc etc. Then a supercomputer collates all the data and spits out the top 10 qualified Americans for the job...no political Party involved, no Lib/Con label...just the best and most qualified civilians to do the job. Then they all go on stage for a few debates and America can vote...the winner becomes The President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like Frem's idea better, b/c the person who write the computer program determines the choices. And in these days of being able to record TV shows, you can always watch the candidates, no matter when they're aired.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Have webcasting available for this channel.
While I don't know that this would solve 100% of the problem (for instance; who determines who can run? Must they run footage from any US Citizen over the age of 35 who was from birth a Citizen, etc?), but certainly it would resolve some of it. Would we attempt to restrict -all other- advertising, or simply let 'em do whatever they want in other media and just not worry about it?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been thinking about that ...
Perhaps it would be up to the parties to determine who runs. (That's a whole can of worms in itself, which I'm still thinking about.) But for a party to be a valid party, it has to represent more than a certain fraction of the represented population. (It unfortunately acts as a barrier to entry. Perhaps the station should also be attached to a website where people interested in running but not able to make the percentage can put their positions out there and generate interest.)
You know, with mega-corp, inc now owning the media - and I mean ALL the media - everything you see, hear, and to some extent read has been reduced to government press releases (another name for that is propaganda), infotainment, commercials and heavily funded yap. In fact, the other stuff - the news, the shows - are actually commercials to draw you to watch - the commercials.
I really don' think we need bought and paid for free speech. So - no to political ads.
As SignyM pointed out a while ago, the other thing that's GOT to go is corporate person-hood. Because there's REALLY no reason for corporations to have political rights. Maybe we need to lean on Congress to pass a law against it.
Oh, and I'd make it a genuine TV station. While (as I remember) 75% of Americans are on-line, it's heavily skewed against minorities. And something like 98% of people have a TV. So TV is better b/c it reaches a wider and more representative audience.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
S'wenyways, I did some research on Stu Bykofsky. He falls on the conservative side. And apparently FOX news likes him b/c John Gibson had him on to defend the column at length. "John Gibson is a conservative American television talk show host ..."
It all makes sense. Having 'an enemy' and being 'at war' are what repubicans want most. And 9/11 was the 'good old days' for Bush and the people who put him in power. (Except for those seven minutes which I am ever so grateful were caught on film.)
More than a safe country, more than a safe world, more than anything - they want their leverage. Even if they have to call for another attack.
I don't EVER want to hear again about how it's democrats/ liberals/ progressives who don't care about terrorism.
The repubican/ conservative/ neocon stance is unconscionable.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As SignyM pointed out a while ago, the other thing that's GOT to go is corporate person-hood. Because there's REALLY no reason for corporations to have political rights. Maybe we need to lean on Congress to pass a law against it.
Ah yes, one of my pet bitches too, but that's the wrong way to go about it...
You see, it's already illegal, it's only a truly bizarre contortion and distortion cooked up by paid legal scholars and then rubberstamped by an ignorant judge as a precedent.
I'd say take it to the supremes and have them strike it down, but given that they are for the most part bought and paid for corporate lackeys, it'd take some real strongarming and leverage to do so - which bothers me greatly because as it stands, the rule of law is a weaker and weaker bond against them, and when folks feel that there is no other recourse, they'll result to violence, something I really do not wanna see here, but I think we will, alas.
Congress has tried a couple times to stuff that spilled milk back in the bottle, but each time has failed utterly in that the very concept that allowed them to escape it in the first place allows them to dodge any attempt to rectify it.
Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day, you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take back excess of power. This no man can deny.
Pat Henry - June 14, 1788
Woulda been easier not to have done such a dumbass thing in the first place - correcting it will NOT be an easy road, sadly.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME