Politics

[pkt77242]

Probably. That's no comment on me, but on "almost every politician who has ever served in your lifetime."


Like I said, a quid pro quo arrangement like that is already illegal. It's an issue of enforcement, not a need for new laws. Do you really think backroom deals would stop just because they pass campaign finance reform? If they don't enforce what exists already, what's the incentive to start?

It is an absolutely unenforceable law. That means the law is flawed. It isn't about that they don't enforce them, it is that it is almost impossible to do it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Probably. That's no comment on me, but on "almost every politician who has ever served in your lifetime."


Like I said, a quid pro quo arrangement like that is already illegal. It's an issue of enforcement, not a need for new laws. Do you really think backroom deals would stop just because they pass campaign finance reform? If they don't enforce what exists already, what's the incentive to start?

Definately no comment on you at all. Purely a comment on politicians in general.

On your second paragraph, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. It is wrecking our government and needs to end. Obviously the political addiction to campaign funds has grown too strong and an intervention is in order. Who is going to conduct it? Anybody who would enforce the law is probably not without a bit of mud on his/her shoes either, so it will continue to be brushed asside until the boards of the top companies just select our candidates directly and avoid the song and dance of an election. We will have a lot to look forward to then: No more safety net. No more minimum wage. No hope of universal healthcare. No pollution regulation. Lower standards of education. Just maximize those profits because our government exists only to protect the bottom line of the corporate princes.

 

[Cackalacky]

I would be such a whore for donations:
"Crack Slacky: Your Ace in the Hole!"

 

[chicago51]

Another issues is that prior to news media only has to cover juicy stories that get ratings. Prior to 87 we had something called the Fairness Doctrine for companies that used public airways. Companies that used public airways had to provide public service, one of the ways they did that was providing real fact based news. News was a money loser for the big networks but they still did it because they had.

There was also the equal time rule during election season.

Then in 96 the news industry was deregulated even further so FOX News which is often hate speech as well as MSNBC could actually be considered news and not entertainment.

 

[wizards8507]

Another issues is that prior to news media only has to cover juicy stories that get ratings. Prior to 87 we had something called the Fairness Doctrine for companies that used public airways. Companies that used public airways had to provide public service, one of the ways they did that was providing real fact based news. News was a money loser for the big networks but they still did it because they had.

There was also the equal time rule during election season.

Then in 96 the news industry was deregulated even further so FOX News which is often hate speech as well as MSNBC could actually be considered news and not entertainment.

Man you all really hate the first amendment, huh?

It's completely irrelevant anyways, as neither FOX News nor MSNBC use "public airways."

What do you think "hate speech" is?

 

[connor_in]

Man you all really hate the first amendment, huh?

It's completely irrelevant anyways, as neither FOX News nor MSNBC use "public airways."

What do you think "hate speech" is?

apparently when you call Bob a commie...

But not when he calls you a dumbass...

 

[ACamp1900]

FOX is often hate speech... ... and where am I suppsoed to start taking all this serious again?? lol

 

[Cackalacky]

FOX is often hate speech... ... and where am I suppsoed to start taking all this serious again?? lol

You know I would be a great political whore.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Another issues is that prior to news media only has to cover juicy stories that get ratings. Prior to 87 we had something called the Fairness Doctrine for companies that used public airways. Companies that used public airways had to provide public service, one of the ways they did that was providing real fact based news. News was a money loser for the big networks but they still did it because they had.

There was also the equal time rule during election season.

Then in 96 the news industry was deregulated even further so FOX News which is often hate speech as well as MSNBC could actually be considered news and not entertainment.

I think it's time to buy you a one way ticket to the socialist dictatorship of your choosing so you can live in Utooia. What will it be?

 

[chicago51]

I think it's time to buy you a one way ticket to the socialist dictatorship of your choosing so you can live in Utooia. What will it be?

Excuse me for thinking we live in society.

Dictatorship?

Last time I checked most of my post today were about protecting the integrity democracy.

I welcome honest debate on the role of government in general, as well as the role of the federal government vs state/local government. However I'll never apologize for thinking we live in a society where the fait of our neighbors and our communities matter.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Excuse me for thinking we live in society.

Dictatorship?

Last time I checked most of my post today were about protecting the integrity democracy.

I welcome honest debate on the role of government in general, as well as the role of the federal government vs state/local government. However I'll never apologize for thinking we live in a society where the fait of our neighbors and our communities matter.

Progressive taxes
Heavy regulation on business
economic stimulus
state run banks
state run education
state run health care
state run media aka your fairness doctrine
state run retirement
strict gun laws

List the countries in the world that have what you want.

 

[connor_in]

Every time I see that last pic all I hear is the scream at the start of csi miami

 

[chicago51]

Edit: Never mind the image didn't come out right.

 

[wizards8507]

Ain't no outrage like Huff Po outrage.

Cadillac Made A Commercial About The American Dream, And It's A Nightmare

I think the commercial is brilliant, and it's for an ELECTRIC car, which the Huff Po crowd should love.

 

[tussin]

Ain't no outrage like Huff Po outrage.

Cadillac Made A Commercial About The American Dream, And It's A Nightmare

I think the commercial is brilliant, and it's for an ELECTRIC car, which the Huff Po crowd should love.

It does send a pretty ill-advised message, that you should work hard and spend your money on asinine things like a $70K Cadillac.

EDIT: Although it is a commercial for a car, so of course they are going to say that in self-interest.

 

[wizards8507]

It does send a pretty ill-advised message, that you should work hard and spend your money on asinine things like a $70K Cadillac.

Did you watch the ad or just read what Huff Po said about it? The whole point of the commercial is that we DON'T "do all this" just for stuff. We do it because it's inherent in us, and the "stuff" is just a nice perk of success.

Why is a $70K Cadillac asinine? It would be asinine on my income, for sure, but I'm not the target audience. How much of a car is "too nice"? Nicer than the one you or I drive?

 

[ACamp1900]

Ain't no outrage like Huff Po outrage.

Cadillac Made A Commercial About The American Dream, And It's A Nightmare

I think the commercial is brilliant, and it's for an ELECTRIC car, which the Huff Po crowd should love.

Au contraire, Huff Po, there are few things more American than mocking other nations…

 

[wizards8507]

Au contraire, Huff Po, there are few things more American than mocking other nations…

Especially latte-sipping, 8-week-vacation-taking Continental European nations. 'Merica!

I wish IrishPat were here... Pussification of America...

 

[connor_in]

Au contraire, Huff Po, there are few things more American than mocking other nations…

 

[tussin]

Did you watch the ad or just read what Huff Po said about it? The whole point of the commercial is that we DON'T "do all this" just for stuff. We do it because it's inherent in us, and the "stuff" is just a nice perk of success.

All of the pro-American rhetoric (much of which I agree with) is masking the intended message of the commercial in the last sentence: The upside to working more is so you can own more stuff.

Why is a $70K Cadillac asinine? It would be asinine on my income, for sure, but I'm not the target audience. How much of a car is "too nice"? Nicer than the one you or I drive?

A $70K Cadillac is an insane purchase for anyone who isn't financially independent (meaning the sustainable returns on your investable assets exceed the sum of inflation and cost of living). Unfortunately, working 2 extra weeks in August won't give 99.99% of the commercial watchers the security to do that.

 

[wizards8507]

All of the pro-American rhetoric (much of which I agree with) is masking the intended message of the commercial in the last sentence: The upside to working more is so you can own more stuff.

Like you mentioned initially, it's a car commercial. Yeah, at the end of the day they want you to buy a car.

A $70K Cadillac is an insane purchase for anyone who isn't financially independent (meaning the sustainable returns on your investable assets exceed the sum of inflation and cost of living).

That's fair and I agree. I thought you were bristling at the notion of a $70K car existing in the first place.

Unfortunately, working 2 extra weeks in August won't give 99.99% of the commercial watchers the security to do that.

The "two weeks in August" line was a tongue-in-cheek zing at the Europeans who take all of August off. It wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

 

[tussin]

The "two weeks in August" line was a tongue-in-cheek zing at the Europeans who take all of August off. It wasn't supposed to be taken literally.

The message is still the same: Work more, buy nicer stuff.

They are targeting upper-class viewers, perhaps in the $100-150K income bracket, and hoping they see this commercial and say, "I work hard! I deserve a Cadillac; this is the American Dream!" My only point is for that targeted group buying a $70K car is not the American Dream (if such a thing even exists) and is an unequivocally stupid decision.


I think it's a good commercial with a bad message... if that makes sense.

 

[ACamp1900]

"Work more, buy nicer stuff."


There is a bad or wrong message in there? Damn, and to think this type of thinking is EXACTLY what got me out of poverty.... just saying.

 

[wizards8507]

"Work more, buy nicer stuff."

There is a bad or wrong message in there? Damn, and to think this type of thinking is EXACTLY what got me out of poverty.... just saying.

You're probably a bad Christian and I bet you hate poor people.

 

[ACamp1900]

You're probably a bad Christian and I bet you hate poor people.

Sure, but I own house now...

 

[tussin]

"Work more, buy nicer stuff."


There is a bad or wrong message in there? Damn, and to think this type of thinking is EXACTLY what got me out of poverty.... just saying.

It's subjective obviously, but IMO that is a bad message.

There are numerous studies that show material possessions have no impact on happiness and often the "keeping up with the Joneses" culture in America drives unhappiness. IMO, lifestyle impacts happiness only when money doesn't matter anymore and financial independence is achieved. This discussion reminds me of the Fight Club quote: "The things you own end up owning you."

 

[ACamp1900]

When ‘buying nicer stuff’ gets you out of harm's way in terms of where you live and what you live amongst... if definitely impacts your happiness and quality of life... I can vouch for that. I am not speaking to taking out credit to ‘keep up with the Jones’” I am speaking to a healthy incentive to better your lot in life, and rewarding yourself for all the hard work from time to time along the way. I think we are seeing totally different things in the message.

 

[tussin]

When ‘buying nicer stuff’ gets you out of harm's way in terms of where you live and what you live amongst... if definitely impacts your happiness and quality of life... I can vouch for that. I am not speaking to taking out credit to ‘keep up with the Jones’” I am speaking to a healthy incentive to better your lot in life, and rewarding yourself for all the hard work from time to time along the way. I think we are seeing totally different things in the message.

Well, a nice house doesn't qualify as "stuff." A house is an asset that will appreciate long-term... that Cadillac will basically be worthless in 15 years.

 

[wizards8507]

I saw an interesting blog post about House of Cards and how it highlights the fundamental flaw with liberalism. Specifically; misplaced trust in government.

[T]here is one way in which House of Cards relentlessly and continuously undermines the left-wing narrative, whether it intends to or not. In its heightened way, it shows the government as exactly what it is: a power center, inspiring all the soulless perfidy and amoral ambition that any power center is prone to inspire.

This is devastating to left-wing philosophy, because the central flaw of leftism is not its ceaseless cynicism about business, individualism, religion, or the common man—it’s that its cynicism evaporates into unicorn-and-rainbow stupidity when it comes to government. Insurance companies are too greedy to handle health care, but not the government. Individuals are too reckless to own guns, but not the government. Religion is too corrupt to preach morals, but not the government. The people are too foolish to know their own good, but not our old friend Uncle Government.

 

[wizards8507]

Well, a nice house doesn't qualify as "stuff." A house is an asset that will appreciate long-term... that Cadillac will basically be worthless in 15 years.

That's a question of financial wisdom, not right and wrong.