Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHow do you feel about GE backing Obama?
Next up Sony, Ikea or any number of foreign companies with locations in the US deciding to pump money into adds and commercials to affect the outcome of our elections.
So now companies have First Amendment rights, do they have all of the other constitutional protections as well? Can companies now vote?
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell, then you should have no problem with the Supreme Court decision, because that's not what it did.
I support laws placing limits on the money flow from corporate American into our political system. Others may disagree and I think it's a reasonable source of debate. But for the Supreme Court to rule that such laws are unconstitutional is ridiculous. Where in the constitution do *companies* have rights?
The Court did not rule that no limits can be placed. Limits to apply to individuals and to corporations as well.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSeeing that they own nbc msnbc cnbc and many other networks and were openly publically supporting Obama they were certainly trying to affect the outcome of the election via their "news outlets"
I don't care who they back. I don't want them using their huge corporate money to affect the outcome of elections.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76What is the limit that an individual can spend on political commercials?
Well, then you should have no problem with the Supreme Court decision, because that's not what it did.
The Court did not rule that no limits can be placed. Limits to apply to individuals and to corporations as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonDo you think that McCain would have won had the "media" been neutral?
Seeing that they own nbc msnbc cnbc and many other networks and were openly publically supporting Obama they were certainly trying to affect the outcome of the election via their "news outlets"
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou just essentially named the same company three times (the National Broadcasting Company). What are these other networks?
Seeing that they own nbc msnbc cnbc and many other networks and were openly publically supporting Obama they were certainly trying to affect the outcome of the election via their "news outlets"
Also, news outlets themselves are corporations. So what you have is one company buying another company. Would you like to discuss multiple media outlets being purchased, consolidated and monopolized under activist ownership to form a media empire? Does the name Rupert Murdoch ring a bell?
Yes, let's discuss the subject of breaking up borderline media monopolies.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWrong. As I have said time and time again, people vote with their pocket books. In fact, Reagan asked the quesiton, "Are you better off than you were four years ago" and Clinton said, "Its the economy stupid" and "W" and company got caught in a economic crisis ushering in Obama. I gaurantee, whether Obama has anything to do with the economy in 2012 and the economy is hurting, he will go bye, bye. In fact, the Dems should feel the same in this years election...assuming the economy does not turn around. It is the price that the progressives must pay for conditioning the masses to look to government as their source for everything.
Businesses are defined as organizations dedicated to making money - period. Individuals do not feel that same obligation to making money in their individual decisions as they do collectively as a business. This is why channelling their politics through businesses is a bad idea.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeBut the case that brought this to the Supreme Court was about free speech and had nothing to do with corporations. Again, political discourse was banned during election time and was the reason for the ruling. So if this ruling causes other problems then new laws need to be inacted to deal with them that do NOT hinder free speech....unless you are in favor of banning political discourse such as the one brought before the Supreme Court.
It is ridiculous from the Supreme Court to justify their actions in favour of influential and rich lobbyist groups using the Freedom of Speech ... man, I hope the Supreme Court of Justice isn't turning into some fundamentalist Freedom of Speech sect.
I support Obama in this.
Make no mistake, I have heard the likes of Chuck U Schumer come out in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" that would control free speech. He does so to silnece political pundits, as Obama referred to them. In fact, I heard him on TV compare such speech to pornography, and as such, should be censored. This is what this ruling comes down to for these guys, which is increased compitition for the hearts and minds of the populace come election time and they don't like it. Maybe if Congress had offerred each one of the Supremes $300 million like they did the Senator for Louisiana to pass health care or offerred them and their families free Medicaid like they did for the Senator from Nebraska to pass health care they would not have this problem. 😛
You see, corruption is tolerated ONLY if it benefits you politically. Otherwise it is abhorrent!! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGeneral Electric holds 80 pecent share of NBC Universal with 14 televsion centers (9 of which are in the top 10 market share) and 14 Spanish language television stations, (8 of which are in the top 10 market share)
You just essentially named the same company three times (the National Broadcasting Company). What are these other networks?
Also, news outlets themselves are corporations. So what you have is one company buying another company. Would you like to discuss multiple media outlets being purchased, consolidated and monopolized under activist o ...[text shortened]... och ring a bell?
Yes, let's discuss the subject of breaking up borderline media monopolies.
In Broadcast:
GE owns CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Mun2TV, Sci-Fi channel, Trio, and USA network.
In Film:
Universal Pictures
GE's uses the media outlets it owns to promote left-wing activism and global warming policies from which it can handsomely profit. And backs candidates such as Obama who fit this mold.
Originally posted by utherpendragonBesides NBC you've mentioned no other news channels.
General Electric holds 80 pecent share of NBC Universal with 14 televsion centers (9 of which are in the top 10 market share) and 14 Spanish language television stations, (8 of which are in the top 10 market share)
In Broadcast:
GE owns CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Mun2TV, Sci-Fi channel, Trio, and USA network.
In Film:
Universal Pictures
GE's uses th ...[text shortened]... cies from which it can handsomely profit. And backs candidates such as Obama who fit this mold.
Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch owns the largest news media empire in the world.
Originally posted by whodeyIt was about the "free speech" OF corporations.
But the case that brought this to the Supreme Court was about free speech and had nothing to do with corporations. Again, political discourse was banned during election time and was the reason for the ruling. So if this ruling causes other problems then new laws need to be inacted to deal with them that do NOT hinder free speech....unless you are in favor o ...[text shortened]... corruption is tolerated ONLY if it benefits you politically. Otherwise it is abhorrent!! ðŸ˜