|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And I am of the opinion of let them battle it out. |
Agree, let the public decide.
Sure, corporations/unions/etc. can really suck, but I would have been afraid of the precedent had they ruled the other way.
| Fox wrote: |
| I just don't see how anyone can paint this ruling as beneficial for the average American. |
Perhaps it isn't.
However, the ruling was about not suppressing the speech of certain speakers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And we disagree on the solution. We've added regulations, things have gotten worse. Why not try the opposite? It would also be interesting to see what other countries do. |
I guess I don't see how the solution to "too much corporate influence in politics," can possibly be, "more corporate influence in politics." How is this a solution even worth trying?
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| That's your counter-argument? Currency is worth less than it has been in any time in history? |
Currency being reduced in value = prices of goods and services increasing = cost of elections increasing. That explains some of the increase. The election in question being particularly historic, and thus getting more donors involved. That explains much of the rest of the increase (I don't know why you ignored this half of my explanation in your response). I don't see what's so counter-intuitive about that.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| A historical election? Umm, you do know they said that in 2004 and 2000 right? As Bascapser noted, every election sets a new record. |
Who said that about 2000 and 2004? There was nothing especially historic about the election of George Bush.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And I am of the opinion of let them battle it out. |
Letting the middle and lower class "battle it out" with unions, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy (both domestic and foreign)? Let them engage in a donation battle they can't possibly win, and which will have the most detrimental of results for them as their losses continue to push our legal system further and further away from benefitting them? Okay, thanks for making your stance clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I just don't see how anyone can paint this ruling as beneficial for the average American. |
Perhaps it isn't.
However, the ruling was about not suppressing the speech of certain speakers. |
The speech of certain speakers wasn't being supressed. Monetary donations are not a form of speech, and any speaker could still express any idea they cared to. If the CEO of Walmart wanted to say, "I think McCain would be the best president," he could. No ideas were being barred from expression, and thus this was never an issue of freedom of speech.
So we have here a ruling that you agree is quite possibly detrimental to the average American, and which is actually not relevent to our right to free expression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And I am of the opinion of let them battle it out. |
Letting the middle and lower class "battle it out" with unions, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy (both domestic and foreign)? Let them engage in a donation battle they can't possibly win, and which will have the most detrimental of results for them as their losses continue to push our legal system further and further away from benefitting them? Okay, thanks for making your stance clear. |
Obama won almost entirely on individual contributions. Check it out. PAC contributions were less than 1% of his funds, but individual contributions made up 85%.
-------------------
Anyway, here's a list of top donors from 1989. Anybody notice whose party they favor?
I tend to believe freedom of speech is bounded only by the compelling interests of nat'l security and the immediate health and welfare of individuals. If corporations are people, then they get to speak as people on public affairs. The case did not address corporate personhood, but perhaps an amendment to the Constitution could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And I am of the opinion of let them battle it out. |
Letting the middle and lower class "battle it out" with unions, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy (both domestic and foreign)? Let them engage in a donation battle they can't possibly win, and which will have the most detrimental of results for them as their losses continue to push our legal system further and further away from benefitting them? Okay, thanks for making your stance clear. |
Obama won almost entirely on individual contributions. Check it out. PAC contributions were less than 1% of his funds, but individual contributions made up 85%. |
McCain-Feingold was in effect for that election.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| If corporations are people, then they get to speak as people on public affairs. The case did not address corporate personhood, but perhaps an amendment to the Constitution could. |
Expressing ideas and donating money are two totally different things. The donation of money is not protected under the First Amendment. As such -- again -- this case has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Second, even if we consider corporations people (perhaps one of the single stupidest ideas in the history of the world, and the history of corporate personhood shows us that it's totally illegitimate anyway), they're still not citizens. Why on Earth should non-citizens be able to donate money to our political campaigns? Who here seriously thinks, "We need more non-citizen participation in our political process?"
Everything about what is happening here is wrong. The entire ruling in question is quite possibly one of the least valid legal rulings in the history of our nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its great that McCain-Feingold was in effect. We'll have a go of it without McCain-Feingold and see if the sky falls.
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| If corporations are people, then they get to speak as people on public affairs. The case did not address corporate personhood, but perhaps an amendment to the Constitution could. |
Expressing ideas and donating money are two totally different things. The donation of money is not protected under the First Amendment. As such -- again -- this case has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Everything about what is happening here is wrong. The entire ruling in question is quite possibly one of the least valid legal rulings in the history of our nation. |
How can you read the facts in Citizens United and tell me expressing ideas and donating money are two totally different things? Under McCain-Feingold, they would not have been able to distribute that movie advocating against Hillary's election. That is a regulation of political speech.
| Fox wrote: |
Second, even if we consider corporations people (perhaps one of the single stupidest ideas in the history of the world, and the history of corporate personhood shows us that it's totally illegitimate anyway), they're still not citizens. |
Ultimately, this wasn't at issue in the case.
Here's some constructive criticism, Fox. If you've already expressed the same opinion twice or more on the same thread, don't come back until you have some new facts to lay out on the table. It doesn't get more persuasive because you've said it over and over again. Try to act a little more like the animal and less like the news organization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| How can you read the facts in Citizens United and tell me expressing ideas and donating money are two totally different things? |
Because they are. We're expressing ideas right now. It is illegal for the government to forbid us to express these ideas. That's what the First Amendement protects: the expression of ideas. Not the venue. Not the expenditure of money. The expression.
A giant billboard just outside of school property saying, "Screw Obama!" would be a really effective way to get my message out there, but I'm not allowed to express my idea in that fashion, and rightly so. I can still express my idea, just not in that venue.
Free speech is a total red herring when it comes to the issue of contributions to political candidates.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Second, even if we consider corporations people (perhaps one of the single stupidest ideas in the history of the world, and the history of corporate personhood shows us that it's totally illegitimate anyway), they're still not citizens. |
Ultimately, this wasn't at issue in the case. |
It was completely relevent, but the activist judges in the majority simply chose to ignore it.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Here's some constructive criticism, Fox. If you've already expressed the same opinion twice or more on the same thread, don't come back until you have some new facts to lay out on the table. |
Here's some constructive criticism for you: if you're going to brainlessly repeat the same tired, poorly thought out talking points to me that other people in this thread all ready have, expect the same answers and don't complain when you get them. Other people have all ready made the case you have made here, no idea why you felt the need to repeat it if you didn't want to see the same responses. If my response to X is Y, and other people have all ready said X a number of times, and you don't want to see me say Y again, then stop droning, "X... X... X..."
You're also under the mistaken assumption I'm here to persuade anyone of anything, which is incredibly stupid in its own right. I'm here because I like articulating my own ideas and I like hearing the ideas of certain other people who I think are well informed. I'm totally uninterested in trying to persuade you of anything. You have your ideas, and you'll stick with them. Have fun with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Obama won almost entirely on individual contributions. Check it out. PAC contributions were less than 1% of his funds, but individual contributions made up 85%.
-------------------
Anyway, here's a list of top donors from 1989. Anybody notice whose party they favor? |
Here is another page from OpenSecrets which unfortunately is down now:
The top industries supporting Barack Obama are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $10,426,240
2 Retired $5,833,088
3 Securities & Investment $5,766,851
4 Real Estate $2,948,998
5 Misc Business $2,663,985
6 Education $2,660,466
7 Business Services $2,606,598
8 TV/Movies/Music $2,546,425
9 Misc Finance $1,732,590
10 Health Professionals $1,672,076
11 Printing & Publishing $1,156,646
12 Commercial Banks $1,106,946
13 Computers/Internet $1,092,692
14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $894,361
15 Non-Profit Institutions $672,388
16 Insurance $545,245
17 Retail Sales $510,419
18 Other $486,097
19 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $440,061
20 Construction Services $407,872
Note: most of those #1 law firms work for financial institutions.
While many of those contributions may have been from individuals, they were in those industries. Just because some individual contributes does not mean that he is not supporting an industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I just don't see how anyone can paint this ruling as beneficial for the average American. |
Perhaps it isn't.
However, the ruling was about not suppressing the speech of certain speakers. |
The speech of certain speakers wasn't being supressed. Monetary donations are not a form of speech, and any speaker could still express any idea they cared to. If the CEO of Walmart wanted to say, "I think McCain would be the best president," he could. No ideas were being barred from expression, and thus this was never an issue of freedom of speech. |
Again, I have to revert to the ruling (which I already posted on page 3 of this thread in case you missed it.)
| Quote: |
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.
By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker�s voice.
The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. |
| Fox wrote: |
| So we have here a ruling that you agree is quite possibly detrimental to the average American, and which is actually not relevent to our right to free expression. |
No, that's not what I agreed to.
I said perhaps it isn't beneficial for the average American, as you claim. There's a big difference between not beneficial and detrimental. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
Again, I have to revert to the ruling (which I already posted on page 3 of this thread in case you missed it.)
| Quote: |
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.
By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker�s voice.
The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. |
|
I understand what the ruling says. It's simply wrong. Donation of money is not speech, and thus a law regulating who can or cannot donate money -- or in what quantity they can donate -- in no way, "Identifies certain preferre speakers," and in no way constitutes, "Taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others." This is simply not a reasonable representation of these laws, which is part of the reason why this is one of the most ludicrious judicial rulings in the history of our country. No one was having their ability to express ideas taken away by the laws in question, period. The entire majority opinion is a farce.
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| So we have here a ruling that you agree is quite possibly detrimental to the average American, and which is actually not relevent to our right to free expression. |
No, that's not what I agreed to.
I said perhaps it isn't beneficial for the average American, as you claim. There's a big difference between not beneficial and detrimental. |
The likelihood of this being a 100% neutral change with regards to the average American is essentially nil; at least a slight shift (more likely a substantial one) is almost assuredly going to occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Obama won almost entirely on individual contributions. Check it out. PAC contributions were less than 1% of his funds, but individual contributions made up 85%.
-------------------
Anyway, here's a list of top donors from 1989. Anybody notice whose party they favor? |
Here is another page from OpenSecrets which unfortunately is down now:
The top industries supporting Barack Obama are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $10,426,240
2 Retired $5,833,088
3 Securities & Investment $5,766,851
4 Real Estate $2,948,998
5 Misc Business $2,663,985
6 Education $2,660,466
7 Business Services $2,606,598
8 TV/Movies/Music $2,546,425
9 Misc Finance $1,732,590
10 Health Professionals $1,672,076
11 Printing & Publishing $1,156,646
12 Commercial Banks $1,106,946
13 Computers/Internet $1,092,692
14 Civil Servants/Public Officials $894,361
15 Non-Profit Institutions $672,388
16 Insurance $545,245
17 Retail Sales $510,419
18 Other $486,097
19 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $440,061
20 Construction Services $407,872
Note: most of those #1 law firms work for financial institutions.
While many of those contributions may have been from individuals, they were in those industries. Just because some individual contributes does not mean that he is not supporting an industry. |
Thanks for this, ba.
You're absolutely right, and I'm glad you made this point. The distinction between individual contributions and corporate/union contributions is not as clean as McCain-Feingold would have us assume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And we disagree on the solution. We've added regulations, things have gotten worse. Why not try the opposite? It would also be interesting to see what other countries do. |
I guess I don't see how the solution to "too much corporate influence in politics," can possibly be, "more corporate influence in politics." How is this a solution even worth trying? |
1. I am not saying the problem is too much corporate influence. I am saying the problem is the system itself helps certain vested interests at the expense of others.
2. Because it brings more transperency.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| That's your counter-argument? Currency is worth less than it has been in any time in history? |
Currency being reduced in value = prices of goods and services increasing = cost of elections increasing. That explains some of the increase. The election in question being particularly historic, and thus getting more donors involved. That explains much of the rest of the increase (I don't know why you ignored this half of my explanation in your response). I don't see what's so counter-intuitive about that. |
So basically you're blaming inflation. Got it. I'm not ignoring anything, you just confused me a little with your statement.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| A historical election? Umm, you do know they said that in 2004 and 2000 right? As Bascapser noted, every election sets a new record. |
Who said that about 2000 and 2004? There was nothing especially historic about the election of George Bush. |
Well 2000 was the closest election since 1876. It was the only election decided by the Supreme Court. I'd say that would make it pretty historic.
Ok, perhaps my memory is a little off in regards to 2004.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And I am of the opinion of let them battle it out. |
Letting the middle and lower class "battle it out" with unions, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy (both domestic and foreign)? Let them engage in a donation battle they can't possibly win, and which will have the most detrimental of results for them as their losses continue to push our legal system further and further away from benefitting them? Okay, thanks for making your stance clear.[/quote]
No problem! I have more faith in people than you do I suppose.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
