Why The American Dream Could Come To An End

[vbnautilus 48]

VB, I think you GREATLY are exaggerating the number of people who want accurate information during an election cycle.

You must have gotten me all wrong since this is exactly what I was saying. Running a campaign has very little to do with getting information to people who want it. It has much more to do with controlling what kinds of information are available to people. For example, preventing your extramarital affair from becoming the story, or changing the conversation to be about swift boats instead of the policies.

That makes no sense. Providing is controlling and vice versa, unless you believe in magical information fairies that provide equal justice to all.

...I guess you're happy with the way the Chinese government "provides information to its citizens".

[hblask 1]

I guess you're happy with the way the Chinese government "provides information to its citizens".

??? That has nothing to do with the current conversation. Do you think you could reach every Chinese citizen for less than a billion dollars, even if you had total control of the economy?

[vbnautilus 48]

??? That has nothing to do with the current conversation. Do you think you could reach every Chinese citizen for less than a billion dollars, even if you had total control of the economy?

I just have no idea what you are even saying any more. We must be living in different worlds.You don't see how political campaigns involve propaganda. You think they are just about telling people what they want to know. You see no difference between controlling the available information and making information available. If there's no difference why do we even have free speech laws?I'm just completely baffled.

[AmScray 355]

??? That has nothing to do with the current conversation. Do you think you could reach every Chinese citizen for less than a billion dollars, even if you had total control of the economy?

My mental-vision of you every time you post is this.It doesn't take a billion dollars to provide information to people who want it. It takes a website with some search optimized content. The people will find it and if its novel information, they will link to it, which in turn will rocket that entry to the top of google rankings. Does it take a billion dollars to tactically crowbar a 'message' down everyone's throats against competition who are in a spending race to do the same?Yes, irrespective of whether they believe that message or not.It does not take a billion dollars to furnish information, especially to people looking for it.

[hblask 1]

I just have no idea what you are even saying any more. We must be living in different worlds.You don't see how political campaigns involve propaganda. You think they are just about telling people what they want to know. You see no difference between controlling the available information and making information available. If there's no difference why do we even have free speech laws?I'm just completely baffled.

Wait, are you suggesting that bureaucrats put some 'propaganda test' on any information that comes out during election season? Would it apply to MSNBC? What about DailyKos.com? Who decides? On what basis?

[hblask 1]

It doesn't take a billion dollars to provide information to people who want it. It takes a website with some search optimized content. The people will find it and if its novel information, they will link to it, which in turn will rocket that entry to the top of google rankings.

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

[hblask 1]

Does it take a billion dollars to tactically crowbar a 'message' down everyone's throats against competition who are in a spending race to do the same?Yes, irrespective of whether they believe that message or not.

Since this is, of course, the topic at hand, I'm glad you agree with me while at the same time acting like you don't.

[vbnautilus 48]

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

There are not 25 million people who want that information. Seriously, I don't think this is even controversial, I really don't get it.

[hblask 1]

There are not 25 million people who want that information. Seriously, I don't think this is even controversial, I really don't get it.

So you are saying that it takes a lot of money to get out information to uninterested people? So then why are you arguing with me?

[AmScray 355]

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

So, basically, what you're saying is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the internet.... ?I mean, like, literally nothing whatsoever?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I just have no idea what you are even saying any more. We must be living in different worlds.You don't see how political campaigns involve propaganda. You think they are just about telling people what they want to know. You see no difference between controlling the available information and making information available. If there's no difference why do we even have free speech laws?I'm just completely baffled.

I see no difference in making information available and controlling the available information. Could you explain the difference. How is releasing a documentery on Hillary Clinton the week before an election different than Oprah Winfrey having Michael Moore types on her TV show the week before an election.

[hblask 1]

So, basically, what you're saying is that you have no understanding whatsoever of the internet.... ?I mean, like, literally nothing whatsoever?

So are you claiming that trying to create a viral cat thingy is a valid campaign strategy? That anyone can create a meme at any time to the point that candidates can rely on it?

[CaneBrain 95]

How is releasing a documentery on Hillary Clinton the week before an election different than Oprah Winfrey having Michael Moore types on her TV show the week before an election.

If you had the money to play that documentary 7 times a day for 3 weeks during primetime TV hours, that's a good example of controlling. I think you have to almost be disingenuous to not realize that's what VB and Scram are saying. It's not the plaintiff in Citizens United that's the problem.....it's the unintended consequences of that decision that now let 22 people beat the populace over the head with their message because there is no limit on what they can do.If you can't see the difference between making a campaign ad you can run once or twice on TV and making a campaign ad you can run on TV and radio for 3 weeks straight, there's no point in discussing this further. And that's exactly what is happening for Romney: I could probably repeat word for word two of the anti-Gingrich ads that ran in Florida non-stop for two weeks before the primary. Because I literally could not escape them. They were on ABC, ESPN, both top 100 FM radio stations, et cetera.It's cool, though. I'm happiest with Obama v. Romney with Obama winning and that's what is going to happen because Romney has the 2nd most money and Obama has the most and he has the built-in incumbent advantage. Thanks absurd campaign finance laws!

[hblask 1]

If you can't see the difference between making a campaign ad you can run once or twice on TV and making a campaign ad you can run on TV and radio for 3 weeks straight, there's no point in discussing this further.

Are you claiming that federal bureaucrats should now decide the exact number of words that may be shown against them on TV? That seems to be the implication of this: running an ad once is OK, running an ad a lot is not. So, what is the magical line? What makes one more time so terrible?Here's the other problem: say that "corporations" can't run ads. So instead, a corporation hires a CEO. They pay the CEO ten million dollars. The CEO runs ads. Is that better? Or do you think individuals should not be allowed to speak? And if that is the case, what about the individual who decides who gets covered on CNN? Their decisions are worth at least as much as the candidates spend on ads. Are you saying that we should just trust massive media corporations instead?

[CaneBrain 95]

I guess if we just had a cap on the amount that any one person or corporation could spend, that would probably do the trick better and more efficiently than the usual "duh federal bureaucrat counting words" nonsense that I'm clearly not advocating.As for trusting the media.....no I don't trust them per se. I do trust that political news has become such a behemoth in this country that there are large media outlets for the right and the left and within those outlets there are people running the spectrum for far left to center left and far right to center right. Every now and then an independent sneaks in. I mean just cnn.com has 25-30 regular contributors ranging from way left (LZ Granderson) to the center (John Avlon) to the right (William Bennett) and in between. Political media has grown way beyond the point that it's just Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, the board of GE, and a few others "deciding" who gets to go on TV. Hell, the American viewers' appetite for news coverage has driven this. By the ratings, we like conflict and talking heads shouting at each other. Which of course means that the media has to deliberately create shows and situations involving opposing viewpoints.I understand that even with all these stratified news outlets that Ron Paul still gets the shaft and that's what you hate. But, at least under the old rules, Paul could capitalize on the media ignoring him by running as the outsider and crushing other candidates in the small donations area. Now, if he ever becomes a legitimate threat, Romney's 6 richest friends are going to annihilate him. Ads running day and night casting aspersions about the "racist newsletters", disingenuous and misleading ads that take his 9/11 foreign policy comments out of context, et cetera. Unless Mr. Paul has big money backing I don't know about, he's ****ed. For people who hate the media's ability to ostensibly play king-maker, CU is the ultimate example of cutting your nose to spite your face.

[Balloon guy 158]

The argument that 'He who spends the most money will always win' is incorrect.You yourself have been saying Mitt was going to be the republican candidate for months.Then Newt, who is severely underfunded compared to Mitt took the lead.Then Mitt, who was leading Florida before, wins it after spending a pile of money.So was the Florida required to vote Newt since he was leading?Or were they too continue to support Mitt because he spent the most money?All you are really saying is that you think spending 50 million on ads for a single state in a primary is 'too much money'Until you get some guy's butler elected president as a club house bet, you are really just applying your own beliefs to the results after the fact.People want to spend their money to support people they like should never be restricted in a free society. Just because I can give $500 and you can only give $100 doesn't mean there needs to be something done by the government ( who is made up of people who rely on that money in the first place) And the most any 'person' is giving is still only a small percentage of the overall pie. That's the beauty of having to spend a billion to get elected president, no one gets to buy the guy anymore.

[hblask 1]

I guess if we just had a cap on the amount that any one person or corporation could spend, that would probably do the trick better and more efficiently than the usual "duh federal bureaucrat counting words" nonsense that I'm clearly not advocating.For people who hate the media's ability to ostensibly play king-maker, CU is the ultimate example of cutting your nose to spite your face.

So would this cap cover media corporations? Because their in-kind contributions far exceed the expenditures of the candidates or groups supporting candidates.Can a candidate start a media corporation? How is that different from FOX or MSNBC?Go through my 1-4 list above. If you take away #4, you amplify the 1-3, while doing nothing for #5 through #300,000,000.Why is 1 through 3 preferable to 1-4? Nobody has made an attempt to answer this.If you start talking about limiting 2-4, then you amplify #1 to the point of drowning out all other information.

[DJ Vu 176]

PP doesn't do anything except abortion.

Pro-lifers should support PP."If you define pro-life as preventing abortions, Planned Parenthood is the most effective pro-life organization in the history of the world. No, it doesn't give teenagers the idea of having sex. That idea comes to them quite naturally, thank you very much. What Planned Parenthood does, more comprehensively than anyone else, is to distribute the means and knowledge to control your risk of getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. And those two things, combined with pressure to exercise that control assiduously, are the surest way to prevent abortions . If you wait till women are already unhappily pregnant, you're too late."

[The Ocho 970]

This is going to apply to two threads at once, but when my wife and I were first dating she had some hormonal issues. The best treatment for that was birth control. She had to stop seeing her regular Dr. because she didn't have health insurance, went to this crazy Catholic lady who refused to give her birth control because she didn't think and unmarried young woman should be on birth control. She then went to planned parenthood and got it for free.Those are my experiences with Catholics and birth control and planned parenthood.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is going to apply to two threads at once, but when my wife and I were first dating she had some hormonal issues. The best treatment for that was birth control. She had to stop seeing her regular Dr. because she didn't have health insurance, went to this crazy Catholic lady who refused to give her birth control because she didn't think and unmarried young woman should be on birth control. She then went to planned parenthood and got it for free.Those are my experiences with Catholics and birth control and planned parenthood.

Its always been one of PP's goals to reduce the number of Mexican babies....

[AmScray 355]

So are you claiming that trying to create a viral cat thingy is a valid campaign strategy? That anyone can create a meme at any time to the point that candidates can rely on it?

I did respond to your direct statement of:

Prove it. Create a website that gets 25 million hits in the next 3 months that gets the information "hblask is an ideological twat". It should be easy and require virtually no money, right?

... by furnishing a very real world and trivial example of how just that happens all the time. They may ebb and flow in terms of interest, but the significant of most lasts a lot longer than any given campaign cycle. If you understood shit about the internet, you too would be able to seek (and find) the facts on how this relates to campaign websites, but seeing as you are quite possibly the dumbest motherfucker on planet earth, that won't happen. What you will most certainly do, though, is multiquote this post, then fling the discussion off onto some ridiculous tangent, like this.

I don't buy that the left is mainly responsible for the breakdown of the family, but....if you combine the fact that red states tend to be net recipients of tax money and blue states net payers....wouldn't that support the theory that more government funding breaks down the family?

You think dumb. Your mind is no good. Intellectually disabled, developmentally delayed, mentally retarded.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Its always been one of PP's goals to reduce the number of Mexican babies....

And black.There are way more pps in minority neighborhoods than any other.If Im not mistaken Sanger was an avowed racist.http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

[AmScray 355]

If Im not mistaken Sanger was an avowed racist.http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

She was someone who understood the enormous implications of heredity, how that related to race and what role race played in civilization. Our current state of civilization has actually regressed, as far as our ability to honestly discuss something like that. The reason? The ideal of 'equality' is such a sacred cow that pointing out why it's undeniably bullshit is akin to heresy. We're not within light years of being able to actually discuss methods of fixing the problem, since mere acknowledgement of the problem itself meets with the most plaintive howls imaginable. Historians will look back on where we are now and chuckle. Eventually, out of necessity, political correctness will die. Not in our lifetimes, but eventually, when there's no where left to run and hide from it's consequences.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

And black.There are way more pps in minority neighborhoods than any other.If Im not mistaken Sanger was an avowed racist.http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

She was also against abortion. She called it "barbaric" I think is the word she used. She called them a disgrace to civilizaion.

[hblask 1]

I did respond to your direct statement of:... by furnishing a very real world and trivial example of how just that happens all the time. They may ebb and flow in terms of interest, but the significant of most lasts a lot longer than any given campaign cycle.

We are having this discussion in the context of a national political campaign. Campaigns need a predictable, reliable means of getting their message to tens of millions of people. Please tell me that you don't seriously think that 'creating cat memes' is a valid campaign strategy, because that would be:

Intellectually disabled, developmentally delayed, mentally retarded.