Land of the Free

[The Emancipated Freak]

Politicians are just guests who were invited to debate or what have you.

I just wanted he 1000th post.

[tertius]

Politicians are just guests who were invited to debate or what have you.

I just wanted he 1000th post.

To bad, suckah! MINE ALL MINE.

[Bluefan75]

"Taking the money out of the process means only those stories deemed worthy of coverage get out there. Sorry if I prefer not to let ABC News or Fox News' director be my filter."

Who would you rather have as your filter, the DNC and RNC heads?

No, I'm my own filter. I don't want my access to information limited. If someone wants to pay for an ad in order to get a message out, then do so. I will then decide if the message is one worth investigating, supporting, or dismissing. If the news networks are the filter, you know something isn't getting out there, and I'd much rather be the one who decides whetehr I need to know about it or not.

It's one reason I miss usenet. There was no moderation or other type of control. A lot of crap was posted, but at least I could either ignore it, or if I chose to read it, I could do so knowing that it was posted as is, and there hadn't been some kind of filter applied to it. Since these types of forums have taken over what usenet was, this place is the closest to it. I may or may not think you're full of it, but it's my call whether I read your posts or not. Not some moderator who got tired of all the complaints from people who didn't like what you had to say.

[ColoWayno]

I take back everything I've ever said about the Gubment not being good at creating jobs. It seems that the fastest growing sector in the software industry is Gubment Regulation Compliance Software.

What would we do without the jobs these guys create? They are so great!

[Caje]

These things have been worked out, to some extent. Some of the states use a public financing system. In fact, an Arizona state senator/representative lost their seat when it was discovered they had secretly funneled outside cash into their campaign to get an edge over the other candidates.

Being a guest on a TV show isn't advertising, and politicians don't pay to go on TV shows, that I'm aware of, they are invited as guests.

Having public only funding doesn't necessarily mean its problems have been worked out, especially if you go from a state and local elections to a national election.

It might not be advertising exactly but is definitely campaigning (Pretty much the only way Newt is campaigning right now) and someone else is paying for it and as we know tends to be very biased. If a news organization gives an individual candidate an excessive and uneven amount of time to talk on air for free via interviews and the such isn't that the equivalent of a private organization paying for campaigning for a candidate?

[Caje]

To bad, suckah! MINE ALL MINE.

Since it was replying to me I am steeling some of your glory...INTERWEBS GLORY!!!!!!! Oh the lolcats.

[BryanM]

Being a guest on a TV show isn't advertising

Depends on which show. Late night "talk" shows are nothing more than 20 minute long infomercials. Charlie Rose however, even if someone is hawking something, actually has... talking.... involved.

If a news organization gives an individual candidate an excessive and uneven amount of time to talk on air for free via interviews and the such isn't that the equivalent of a private organization paying for campaigning for a candidate?

Bingo.

Obama was shoved down our throats whether we wanted him or not. And it sure as hell wasn't just his campaign and level of tanness that got him there: if he wasn't a prostitute for banks, he would not have been given that attention.

How many minutes of air time did Nadar, Kucinich or Paul get during their runs? How many hours of time did we spend on Hermit's penis last month? How many people are even aware what a Jon Huntsman is?

Better or worse, network television decides who wins, not us. It's never us. Draconian measures would have to be taken to level things out.

... and like everything else in modern America, we'd already passed it already in the late 20's, only to turn around and tear it apart again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule. At the very least it means they can't charge different candidates different prices for ads. That's something, I guess.

Public funding can be a good option.

God, we've been trying for a hundred years now. In the 90's, we even passed some stuff not once but twice. Which rammed into a veto and filibuster.

And the stuff that does sneak through on a state level? Courts often destroy them, like in Vermont.

It would take a constitutional amendment to bring corruption down even a little. But god, would it be nice to hear someone from a 3rd party talk on television for a change..

"Do party elections fall under the public funding rule or only general elections?"

Most of the proposals work/worked like this:

You have to reach X dollars in small private donations. You're then recognized as a viable candidate and receive public funds to bring you up to the cap. A portion of it is reserved for your primary race, the rest for the general election.

[tertius]

So, Obama is going to sign the NDAA, and codify the ability of Presidents to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...ill/singleton/

[Mark E. Hurling]

Heard that, and it's one of those really Bad Ideas.

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

And I have yet to hear about the NDAA on a major news source.