So, Corporations Can Now Spend Money On Political Campaign Ads | WrestleZone Forums

So, Corporations Can Now Spend Money On Political Campaign Ads

ZeroVX

2-Time WZCW Mayhem Champion
Gee, I wonder how this will go...

So, about a week ago, the Supreme Court overturned a century-old law which prevented corporations from sponsoring political campaigns. By doing this, any corporation can express their views on candidates running for any office.

Your thoughts?

Mine are leaning towards the negative. Many argue that this is about allowing corporations freedom of speech. Last I checked, this rule applied to people, not representations of them. What this will most likely result in is one of or both of two things:

One: Corporations will run ads expressing their views on political candidates, whether positive or negative, without much in terms of proof. Granted, this most likely happens with normal political ads, but now there will be more of them, which will make it harder for the average voter to choose who to vote for, what will the overabundance of mudslinging.

Two: Corporations can now have politicians sponsor them. The corporations will get more money and revenue from having a politician give them a rub, and the politician will most likely get a cut of the profits as a thank you and get a push in the election they happen to be running for, thereby ruining the political process even further than it already is.

Agree with my views? Disagree? Think I'm being a paranoid nutcase? Lay it on me.
 
it was actually inevitable that the courts would overturn the law that was passed. However I don't like it personally. I hate organizations like Move-On.org who will abuse this privilege. This is one decision that's gonna bite the supreme court in the ass.
 
This ruling doesn't really change anything. Corporations and unions have always been able to spend money on candidates. The thing is, they will either do it secretly, through funneling it through something, or they will do it out in the open.

Really what is needed is complete transparency on who donates to what candidates. Then we know who's supporting who.

I mean think about it, if a candidate really wanted to get money from a union or corporation, they would find a way. There's way too many easy ways to get the money to them. So I'm saying, since we have such an inevitability, we should at least be knowing exactly who's giving to what candidate. Instead of it all being hush hush and hidden, where everything's funneled through anonymous peoples.
 
One: Corporations will run ads expressing their views on political candidates, whether positive or negative, without much in terms of proof. Granted, this most likely happens with normal political ads, but now there will be more of them, which will make it harder for the average voter to choose who to vote for, what will the overabundance of mudslinging.
The average voter is retarted for allowing political ads to dictate who they vote for.

I don't see why this is a huge deal. Corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want with the profits they make. If they want to donate to a campaign, I don't see why they shouldn't have that right.
 
This won't change a thing.

Politicians have always been "bought" by corporations in the past. That's what "Special Interest Groups" and "Lobbyists" are all about. Instead of spending millions on special under the table money breaks, dinners, and vacations the corporations can spend that money directly into commercials! Hurray!

I'm sorry. It does change a few things.

1) If you don't side with a mega-corporation, they can now bury you. They aren't under some kind of strict "You have to tell the truth" law. They can go around spouting how you want to teacher Sex Ed to Kindergartners because you said in one speech that you wanted to teach Sex Education earlier in a student's career. Only, you meant 6th grade. Too bad the only thing people will hear is "Sex Ed to 5 year olds?!?!?!?!"

2) If you work with the corporations, you suddenly have millions and millions of dollars at your disposal that the rival doesn't have. Incumbents will just have to say "Yeah Auto Industry, I'm totally on your side" and voila. No more challengers getting their seat.

3) We're going to be getting deluged with ads. You thought a month before the Presidential Election was bad? Just wait. There is no grace period where ads that aren't from the specific candidates can't be aired anymore. Right on up to the last second you'll hear commercials completely stretching facts, making up lies, or telling the truth. I'll tell you what, I'll fuck everyone of you who can prove to me 5 ads you see are full on, 100% truth. Go ahead.

Real reform needs to occur by passing laws against lying in the commercials. We already have impartial groups that sit around like FactCheck.org and check to see what politicians say and if it's right or not. Now we should pass legislation that will fine their asses if they lie. No more "Obama is a Anti-Christ Kenyan!" or "Bush loves War! He'd send your grandchild to war if he could!"

On a side note, what about the practice of calling voters and telling them their voting center was closed/moved when it really wasn't? I know Right Wing Fanatic Republicans were notoriously bad for this on the Obama/McCain election day. Is that illegal?
 
This won't change a thing.

Well, actually, yeah it will.

Politicians have always been "bought" by corporations in the past. That's what "Special Interest Groups" and "Lobbyists" are all about. Instead of spending millions on special under the table money breaks, dinners, and vacations the corporations can spend that money directly into commercials! Hurray!

So? A corporation is treated like a person in the tax system. The Constitution gives the government no right to tax businesses, only individual income. Furthermore, the court system exists to settle grievances between individuals and between individuals and the government. Somewhere along the way, and a series of professors are lining up to kill me, businesses began to be treated as individuals. The problem is that the "individual" has paid the taxes that a human would to insure his rights, however, the business was not getting its rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court struck a blow for individual rights.

I'm sorry. It does change a few things.

I told you it would.

1) If you don't side with a mega-corporation, they can now bury you. They aren't under some kind of strict "You have to tell the truth" law. They can go around spouting how you want to teacher Sex Ed to Kindergartners because you said in one speech that you wanted to teach Sex Education earlier in a student's career. Only, you meant 6th grade. Too bad the only thing people will hear is "Sex Ed to 5 year olds?!?!?!?!"

Now you're just being ridiculous. For one, businesses will not want to alienate half of their potential clientele by going too far to one side. You should worry far more about PAC's making ads like that. A corporation wants your money, and isn't going to trivialize an important issue for a tax break when it could cost them a significant block of their income.

Secondly, to think that the amount of money a corporation can use to buy ad time will be restricted just the same as PACs. I don't think there is the slightest of possibility of seeing Walt Disney Presents "Barack Obama is a Communist and Voting For Him Will Make Your Children Die and Your Puppies Go To Hell." Conversely, there won't be any "Microsoft Presents: Technology to Make Your Penis Grow Will Only be Legal by Voting Democrat."

This panic first, pragmatism later approach is what the right is always accused of, but every time there is one pro-business law or court decision, the left is up in arms about a new corporate oligarchy.

2) If you work with the corporations, you suddenly have millions and millions of dollars at your disposal that the rival doesn't have. Incumbents will just have to say "Yeah Auto Industry, I'm totally on your side" and voila. No more challengers getting their seat.

Well, for one, both challengers would go for the biggest industries and biggest businesses. Bribes would be pretty worthless at this point, as both sides could promise the world, but a CEO is smart enough to know that neither side can deliver. The company would have to base their ads on the issues to get anything done.
3) We're going to be getting deluged with ads. You thought a month before the Presidential Election was bad? Just wait. There is no grace period where ads that aren't from the specific candidates can't be aired anymore. Right on up to the last second you'll hear commercials completely stretching facts, making up lies, or telling the truth. I'll tell you what, I'll fuck everyone of you who can prove to me 5 ads you see are full on, 100% truth. Go ahead.

1. The ad that says Obama will create death panels.
2. The ads that says Obama is a socialist.
3. The ad that portrays Nancy Pelosi as an evil woman who hates puppies.
4. The ad that says national healthcare will be too expensive and poorly run.
5. The Burger King ad that says their double cheeseburger is bigger.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

How many people are actually swayed by ads. I think Frank Lunz found one ad in the last cycle that made either side jump the dials, and it was the 3 AM ad.
Real reform needs to occur by passing laws against lying in the commercials. We already have impartial groups that sit around like FactCheck.org and check to see what politicians say and if it's right or not. Now we should pass legislation that will fine their asses if they lie. No more "Obama is a Anti-Christ Kenyan!" or "Bush loves War! He'd send your grandchild to war if he could!"

You....took.....both sides? You? Anyway, I don't think those ads are lies. I think they are exaggeration on a statement. I think they are alarmist, but everything in an election cycles is open for interpretation. It would be impossible to prove anything in either case. Name me 5 ads that are 100% false. If you can, I promise you they are PAC ads and not candidate ads. What then?

On a side note, what about the practice of calling voters and telling them their voting center was closed/moved when it really wasn't? I know Right Wing Fanatic Republicans were notoriously bad for this on the Obama/McCain election day. Is that illegal?

Almost as bad as posting Black Panthers in front of precincts to intimidate white voters? Both sides do it, but it can't be traced back to the candidate, and I doubt that Obama ordered The Panthers in front of the office and I doubt that McCain called to have the religious right call people and remind them that Obama was a Satanist. Can you really stop stupid people with passion from doing anything? Giving an idiot direction and motivation is a dangerous game.
 
Well, actually, yeah it will.

I totally came to that conclusion later in the post. You silly head.

So? A corporation is treated like a person in the tax system. The Constitution gives the government no right to tax businesses, only individual income. Furthermore, the court system exists to settle grievances between individuals and between individuals and the government. Somewhere along the way, and a series of professors are lining up to kill me, businesses began to be treated as individuals. The problem is that the "individual" has paid the taxes that a human would to insure his rights, however, the business was not getting its rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court struck a blow for individual rights.

So. Businesses are people now? Bullshit. Especially seeing as how most "Pro-Business" bills tend to come with cutting taxes to the Rich and cutting benefits to those starving people on the side of the road. Really helping people there, huh?


I told you it would.

You're being such a little bitch. Go cry in the Bar Room.

Now you're just being ridiculous. For one, businesses will not want to alienate half of their potential clientele by going too far to one side. You should worry far more about PAC's making ads like that. A corporation wants your money, and isn't going to trivialize an important issue for a tax break when it could cost them a significant block of their income.

What's going to stop the Rockefeller Foundation (that owns rather a large amount of banks and corporations) from burying the first person who goes against some type of Pro-Bank legislation? It's not like people can stop going to banks.

Secondly, to think that the amount of money a corporation can use to buy ad time will be restricted just the same as PACs. I don't think there is the slightest of possibility of seeing Walt Disney Presents "Barack Obama is a Communist and Voting For Him Will Make Your Children Die and Your Puppies Go To Hell." Conversely, there won't be any "Microsoft Presents: Technology to Make Your Penis Grow Will Only be Legal by Voting Democrat."

Ahah, you only "think." I know. You know how humans work, FTS. Pretty sure we'll get Wal-Mart burying some pro-Union Democrat through a shell-PAC.

This panic first, pragmatism later approach is what the right is always accused of, but every time there is one pro-business law or court decision, the left is up in arms about a new corporate oligarchy.

I'm not panicking at all. Actually, I'm rather calm. I know where to look up facts about politicians. Sadly, most of the American public don't.

Well, for one, both challengers would go for the biggest industries and biggest businesses. Bribes would be pretty worthless at this point, as both sides could promise the world, but a CEO is smart enough to know that neither side can deliver. The company would have to base their ads on the issues to get anything done.

And bullshit the truth like McCain did to Obama, Bush did to Kerry, and vice versa throughout numerous campaigns.

Come on, did you see the ad where McCain accused Obama of calling Palin a pig, or wanting to teach Sex Ed to 5 year olds? Did you see the rampant "Vietnam Veterans for Truth" ads or whatever the fuck they were? They conveniently left out the fact that Bush didn't even serve a minute in Vietnam, he was back serving in the Texas Air National Guard.

1. The ad that says Obama will create death panels.

O.o

2. The ads that says Obama is a socialist.

:rolleyes:
3. The ad that portrays Nancy Pelosi as an evil woman who hates puppies.

One for FTS.
4. The ad that says national healthcare will be too expensive and poorly run.

Based off of bullshit stories from Canadians and the British, when you can go no further than these very forums to see that the British don't have a shit terrible, you're going to die NHS.

5. The Burger King ad that says their double cheeseburger is bigger.

Touche. Aimed at the all important "Fat Vote."


McCain kills babies with his bare hands, while they're still in the womb. Laugh it up, lover of a person who commits-Abortions-with-his-bare-hands-on-still-pregnant-women.

How many people are actually swayed by ads. I think Frank Lunz found one ad in the last cycle that made either side jump the dials, and it was the 3 AM ad.

Have you seen the people who still think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim? It would take 3 seconds on Google to refute that. But, then again, it's much easier to look at the TV and say "Oh, McCain endorsed it. It must be right." Only now it's going to be "Oh, Wal-Mart said it. It must be right, I buy my $1 cheeses from there."

You....took.....both sides? You? Anyway, I don't think those ads are lies. I think they are exaggeration on a statement. I think they are alarmist, but everything in an election cycles is open for interpretation. It would be impossible to prove anything in either case. Name me 5 ads that are 100% false. If you can, I promise you they are PAC ads and not candidate ads. What then?

I take both sides on numerous occasions. If you would actually try to decipher my Socialist Liberal mumbo-jumbo, you'd know that.

How are "exaggerations on a statement" not lies? That's semantics, and you know it. Arguing that Obama wants to teach Sex Ed to 5 year olds when all he did was argue for teaching it to children while they were younger (in no way implying 5 years old) isn't lying? Saying he called Palin a pig when it was an obvious misinterpretation of his quote? McCain endorsed all of those ads, by the by.

Or...well...I'm sure the Democrats put out a lie or "exaggeration of a statement" about McCain. I can't quite remember any though. Please. enlighten me.



Almost as bad as posting Black Panthers in front of precincts to intimidate white voters? Both sides do it, but it can't be traced back to the candidate, and I doubt that Obama ordered The Panthers in front of the office and I doubt that McCain called to have the religious right call people and remind them that Obama was a Satanist. Can you really stop stupid people with passion from doing anything? Giving an idiot direction and motivation is a dangerous game.

So it's not illegal to impede the National Electoral Process and use cunning/blatant lies to defraud the American Public of their right to Vote? Come on. At least make it a $500 fine or something.
 
So? A corporation is treated like a person in the tax system. The Constitution gives the government no right to tax businesses, only individual income. Furthermore, the court system exists to settle grievances between individuals and between individuals and the government. Somewhere along the way, and a series of professors are lining up to kill me, businesses began to be treated as individuals. The problem is that the "individual" has paid the taxes that a human would to insure his rights, however, the business was not getting its rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court struck a blow for individual rights.

Bzzt! No.

Even if corporations are treated like people in the tax system doesn't mean they should be. A corporation is not a person. It is run by people. It's a huge difference. This is not a blow for individual rights, it's the exact opposite. This has actually pushed individual rights back further.

Now you're just being ridiculous. For one, businesses will not want to alienate half of their potential clientele by going too far to one side. You should worry far more about PAC's making ads like that. A corporation wants your money, and isn't going to trivialize an important issue for a tax break when it could cost them a significant block of their income.

They can easily make back any income they lose from the people they still have, who would support their beliefs and buy more of their product than they already do.

Secondly, to think that the amount of money a corporation can use to buy ad time will be restricted just the same as PACs. I don't think there is the slightest of possibility of seeing Walt Disney Presents "Barack Obama is a Communist and Voting For Him Will Make Your Children Die and Your Puppies Go To Hell." Conversely, there won't be any "Microsoft Presents: Technology to Make Your Penis Grow Will Only be Legal by Voting Democrat."

That all depends on what channels the ads air on. If Disney wanted to run a pro-Republican or anti-Democrat ad, then a pro-Republican channel would most likely sell the ad time for less than they would most. Likewise for Microsoft running a pro-Democrat or anti-Republican ad on a pro-Democrat channel.

This panic first, pragmatism later approach is what the right is always accused of, but every time there is one pro-business law or court decision, the left is up in arms about a new corporate oligarchy.

Because it gives more money to the rich businesses and panics the working middle-class, who could be screwed out of more money.



Well, for one, both challengers would go for the biggest industries and biggest businesses. Bribes would be pretty worthless at this point, as both sides could promise the world, but a CEO is smart enough to know that neither side can deliver. The company would have to base their ads on the issues to get anything done.

That's just wishful thinking. Political parties can't stay on the facts when talking about their opponents as it is. Do you really think a business who's looking to sell to a politician is going to do what the parties can't? They're more worried about saying whatever the politician wants to hear, instead of being truthful. This would have more to do with who's running at the time, but even then, don't expect a lot of truth.


1. The ad that says Obama will create death panels.
2. The ads that says Obama is a socialist.
3. The ad that portrays Nancy Pelosi as an evil woman who hates puppies.
4. The ad that says national healthcare will be too expensive and poorly run.
5. The Burger King ad that says their double cheeseburger is bigger.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

All five of those basically proved my previous point. There are no death panels, I don't know if Obama is a socialist, but if he is, so what, don't know Nancy Pelosi but she sounds like a bitch, for fuck's sake I live in Canada, we already have healthcare, why is this so hard for you to understand, and fuck Burger King.

How many people are actually swayed by ads. I think Frank Lunz found one ad in the last cycle that made either side jump the dials, and it was the 3 AM ad.

More than you would think, I imagine. Hell, up here, there were a ton of ads saying that Liberal party leader Stephan Dion was basically a douche. We still have Conservatives in charge.


You....took.....both sides? You? Anyway, I don't think those ads are lies. I think they are exaggeration on a statement. I think they are alarmist, but everything in an election cycles is open for interpretation. It would be impossible to prove anything in either case. Name me 5 ads that are 100% false. If you can, I promise you they are PAC ads and not candidate ads. What then?

.....an exaggeration on a statement IS A LIE! It's the exact same goddamn thing! Lie = exaggeration. It's in the freaking dictionary! I mean.....wow, did you really just say that?

Anyway, obviously it's difficult to prove what's a lie and what isn't in a political ad, but it's not impossible. It just requires some time and research, which a lot of people aren't willing to do. They'd just rather accept what they heard and move on. This is why allowing corporations the ability to make ads is a bad idea. If a corporation made an ad about you, saying that you raped sheep babies, unless you had enough money to start your own corporation and make a counter-ad, you're sunk.

Also, for five false ads, scroll up to the ones you mentioned.



Almost as bad as posting Black Panthers in front of precincts to intimidate white voters? Both sides do it, but it can't be traced back to the candidate, and I doubt that Obama ordered The Panthers in front of the office and I doubt that McCain called to have the religious right call people and remind them that Obama was a Satanist. Can you really stop stupid people with passion from doing anything? Giving an idiot direction and motivation is a dangerous game.

A point I somewhat agree with. Still, it doesn't mean this should be allowed. No one should try to negatively influence elections, that defeats the whole purpose of it.
 
Bzzt! No.

What the fuck does this even mean? You probably disagree, but it's the way that it works. That is not up for debate. This is why corporations were given free speech. Not my opinion, again, just the way it is.

Even if corporations are treated like people in the tax system doesn't mean they should be. A corporation is not a person.

Then, Constitutionally, it shouldn't be taxed. The Constitution does not give the government the right to tax anything more than personal income.

It is run by people. It's a huge difference. This is not a blow for individual rights, it's the exact opposite. This has actually pushed individual rights back further.

Is this going to be another debate where you say things like that and don't back them up? Furthermore, you aren't very bright if you don't get how that statement is tongue in cheek.



They can easily make back any income they lose from the people they still have, who would support their beliefs and buy more of their product than they already do.

No, this is wrong. No business wants to lose half of their clientele. The idea that it's easy for a business to talk half the people into buying twice as much is lunacy, at best.



That all depends on what channels the ads air on. If Disney wanted to run a pro-Republican or anti-Democrat ad, then a pro-Republican channel would most likely sell the ad time for less than they would most. Likewise for Microsoft running a pro-Democrat or anti-Republican ad on a pro-Democrat channel.

You're missing the point. There is not a single tax break that would make up for the loss of revenue. I am not going to buy twice as many copies of Windows as computers I own because I agree with their political view.


Because it gives more money to the rich businesses and panics the working middle-class, who could be screwed out of more money.

You forgot to yell, "What about the children?" Let me explain some things to you now. Telecom is barely taxed and not regulated. They make 23% profit, and since everyone has a cell phone or two, that is quite a significant amount of money. They endorse Democrats, so there is no push to regulate them. Most refining companies make around 9% profit. They are pro-Republican, so the legislature passes cap and tax. If the court rules in favor of business in this instance, it would be the fair thing to do, not something to do to shun the middle class. Furthermore, it would benefit the middle class, because where do you think the money to pay the tax increases come from? A few extra cents on every gallon of gasoline. There is a court decision that would be pro-business and benefit the middle class.




That's just wishful thinking. Political parties can't stay on the facts when talking about their opponents as it is. Do you really think a business who's looking to sell to a politician is going to do what the parties can't? They're more worried about saying whatever the politician wants to hear, instead of being truthful. This would have more to do with who's running at the time, but even then, don't expect a lot of truth.

Not at the risk of alienating half of their clientele. I am not going to but a TV for the shitter because Best Buy endorses John Cornyn.



All five of those basically proved my previous point. There are no death panels, I don't know if Obama is a socialist, but if he is, so what, don't know Nancy Pelosi but she sounds like a bitch, for fuck's sake I live in Canada, we already have healthcare, why is this so hard for you to understand, and fuck Burger King.

God, you have no idea how to find a joke. And Canadian Health Care is a joke. I'd give you sources, but why give you more pro-Republican sources like the NY Times? You know you were wrong about that now, right?


More than you would think, I imagine. Hell, up here, there were a ton of ads saying that Liberal party leader Stephan Dion was basically a douche. We still have Conservatives in charge.

Did the ads say he was a douche or use things he had actually done to show how he was a douche?




.....an exaggeration on a statement IS A LIE! It's the exact same goddamn thing! Lie = exaggeration. It's in the freaking dictionary! I mean.....wow, did you really just say that?

OK, you really have a simple mind. John Kerry hid inside of a boat during gunfire in Vietnam. His shipmates called him a coward. That is obviously and exaggeration, but show how it is a lie. Can you prove that he isn't? He had one chance to be brave, and failed.
Anyway, obviously it's difficult to prove what's a lie and what isn't in a political ad, but it's not impossible. It just requires some time and research, which a lot of people aren't willing to do. They'd just rather accept what they heard and move on. This is why allowing corporations the ability to make ads is a bad idea. If a corporation made an ad about you, saying that you raped sheep babies, unless you had enough money to start your own corporation and make a counter-ad, you're sunk.

Well, that's the worst argument you've made since "It's OK to alienate half your clientele, because the other half will buy twice as much."

If you think that's the case, then do you think we should ban ads from PACs too? PACs, who don't have a clientele, make far worse ads than any company would. Their ads are full of lies, yet they get played on TV all the time. What should happen here?

I doubt you even know what a PAC is.

Also, for five false ads, scroll up to the ones you mentioned.

No thanks, I find five ads that claim Universal Healthcare is a good idea.





A point I somewhat agree with. Still, it doesn't mean this should be allowed. No one should try to negatively influence elections, that defeats the whole purpose of it.

So then PACs should be banned? Well, that takes away from the right of the people to assemble and speak freely. That's unConstitutional, which goes back to Supreme Court decision, stating that if a business gets taxed like a person, it gets rights like a person.

Game over.
 
What the fuck does this even mean? You probably disagree, but it's the way that it works. That is not up for debate. This is why corporations were given free speech. Not my opinion, again, just the way it is.

That was in response to you saying this was a blow for individual rights.


Then, Constitutionally, it shouldn't be taxed. The Constitution does not give the government the right to tax anything more than personal income.

The Constitution has a lot of holes when it comes to plain old common sense. Corporation =/= person, therefore corporation =/= taxed like person.



Is this going to be another debate where you say things like that and don't back them up? Furthermore, you aren't very bright if you don't get how that statement is tongue in cheek.

Scroll down, I do back it up. Also, I don't look for jokes in a debate thread.





No, this is wrong. No business wants to lose half of their clientele. The idea that it's easy for a business to talk half the people into buying twice as much is lunacy, at best.

I mean buy the product more often. Or stock up on more of it. Example, if McDonalds suddenly started supporting Republicans, some Republicans would go there to eat more often, thereby giving them more business.





You're missing the point. There is not a single tax break that would make up for the loss of revenue. I am not going to buy twice as many copies of Windows as computers I own because I agree with their political view.

No, but you might buy some of their other products. Suddenly a Zune doesn't look so stupid, huh?




You forgot to yell, "What about the children?" Let me explain some things to you now. Telecom is barely taxed and not regulated. They make 23% profit, and since everyone has a cell phone or two, that is quite a significant amount of money. They endorse Democrats, so there is no push to regulate them. Most refining companies make around 9% profit. They are pro-Republican, so the legislature passes cap and tax. If the court rules in favor of business in this instance, it would be the fair thing to do, not something to do to shun the middle class. Furthermore, it would benefit the middle class, because where do you think the money to pay the tax increases come from? A few extra cents on every gallon of gasoline. There is a court decision that would be pro-business and benefit the middle class.

And you don't think corporations would take this opportunity to screw people out of more money? Even if you jack up the price of gas again, people are still going to buy it, because they need to drive. The possibility is still there.






Not at the risk of alienating half of their clientele. I am not going to but a TV for the shitter because Best Buy endorses John Cornyn.

Yeah, but if one of your TVs stops working, you'd probably go to Best Buy for a new one. Or if you wanted one for your bedroom, or whatever.





God, you have no idea how to find a joke. And Canadian Health Care is a joke. I'd give you sources, but why give you more pro-Republican sources like the NY Times? You know you were wrong about that now, right?

You know that since none of those sources are Canadian, they wouldn't know what they're talking about? Also, again, I don't look for jokes in a debate thread.




Did the ads say he was a douche or use things he had actually done to show how he was a douche?

They obviously used things he said or did, but whether or not they were true is up for debate. Like I said, you can pretty much say what you want to in these ads, and unless the viewers decide to look it up to see if it's true, chances are they'd believe it.






OK, you really have a simple mind. John Kerry hid inside of a boat during gunfire in Vietnam. His shipmates called him a coward. That is obviously and exaggeration, but show how it is a lie. Can you prove that he isn't? He had one chance to be brave, and failed.

That depends on the details surrounding the situation. Why did he hide? What was happening while he hid? Details like that.


Well, that's the worst argument you've made since "It's OK to alienate half your clientele, because the other half will buy twice as much."

If you think that's the case, then do you think we should ban ads from PACs too? PACs, who don't have a clientele, make far worse ads than any company would. Their ads are full of lies, yet they get played on TV all the time. What should happen here?

I doubt you even know what a PAC is.

A PAC is pretty much what I'm trying to use as an example here. A corporation could easily make a worse ad than a PAC could because people will listen to them, and in turn, buy whatever product they're selling. And don't tell me they won't, because if people will believe PACs, then they'll believe corporations.




So then PACs should be banned? Well, that takes away from the right of the people to assemble and speak freely. That's unConstitutional, which goes back to Supreme Court decision, stating that if a business gets taxed like a person, it gets rights like a person.

Game over.

Hm, ban ads that rarely ever support facts and serve to sling mud at the opposition instead of building up their own party and trying to get support through positive ideas? Ban that? Surely you jest.
 
No thanks, I find five ads that claim Universal Healthcare is a good idea.
FTS, those ads would be anything but lies. Free healthcare for all is a wonderful idea. Whether or not it's feasible in the real world or not is debateable. Personally I feel that it is. The NHS, while not perfect is, without a doubt a step up from the healthcare service we had before it came into existance.

And I'm unsure whether or not allowing corporations to sponsor campaign adverts is a good thing. On the one hand, it means that there'll probably be more ads produced (which could result in a higher voter turn out, which is always a good thing). But on the other there's the whole self serving aspect of it (companies getting a politition in power who's sympathetic to their cause as well as advertising themselves) which might not be such a good thing. But it's sometihng I'll have to observe in practice.
 
That was in response to you saying this was a blow for individual rights.

OK, but you completely missed the point of what I was saying.



The Constitution has a lot of holes when it comes to plain old common sense. Corporation =/= person, therefore corporation =/= taxed like person.

But, in order for it to be taxed, it has to be treated like a person. You don't understand this. I get it.




Scroll down, I do back it up. Also, I don't look for jokes in a debate thread.

No, you don't. And you should.





I mean buy the product more often. Or stock up on more of it. Example, if McDonalds suddenly started supporting Republicans, some Republicans would go there to eat more often, thereby giving them more business.

But that doesn't make up for the loss of half of the available clientele, not even close. It doesn't take my business degree to understand that. The losses from going overboard in an ad would not be made up for by tax cuts and a few extra McRibs being sold to Republicans.





No, but you might buy some of their other products. Suddenly a Zune doesn't look so stupid, huh?

I wouldn't buy a Zune is Best Buy and Microsoft endorsed me for President.






And you don't think corporations would take this opportunity to screw people out of more money? Even if you jack up the price of gas again, people are still going to buy it, because they need to drive. The possibility is still there.

Well, when you stop trying to only deal in hypotheticals about the evil corporations, we can have a debate. But so far, in two threads all you have done is demonize corporations and profits. You are debating like a college professor or someone else who does not deal with the real world. Stop dealing in theory. In all reality, corporations make 90% of the products and services you consume on a daily basis, and the only time anyone has a problem is when they feel that that corporation isn't bowing to them.






Yeah, but if one of your TVs stops working, you'd probably go to Best Buy for a new one. Or if you wanted one for your bedroom, or whatever.

OK, so when I need one, I will go there. I never said I wouldn't. You said people are going to spend extra money at a store because of their political beliefs. I was just showing that you're a moron.







You know that since none of those sources are Canadian, they wouldn't know what they're talking about? Also, again, I don't look for jokes in a debate thread.

I gave you multiple CBC articles. You just saw one that said FOX and went all lefty crazy. It's not my fault you don't read.





They obviously used things he said or did, but whether or not they were true is up for debate. Like I said, you can pretty much say what you want to in these ads, and unless the viewers decide to look it up to see if it's true, chances are they'd believe it.

That's true of all political ads. Why the fuck do you feel the need to demonize corporations for this? Moveon.org is the biggest offender in this area, but since their lefties, you don't feel the need to mention it.








That depends on the details surrounding the situation. Why did he hide? What was happening while he hid? Details like that.

Likely cowardice.




A PAC is pretty much what I'm trying to use as an example here. A corporation could easily make a worse ad than a PAC could because people will listen to them, and in turn, buy whatever product they're selling. And don't tell me they won't, because if people will believe PACs, then they'll believe corporations.

No, Obama has done everything he can to deligitimize corporations. Well, the ones that don't throw their unwavering support behind him at least.






Hm, ban ads that rarely ever support facts and serve to sling mud at the opposition instead of building up their own party and trying to get support through positive ideas? Ban that? Surely you jest.

Well, here's another alarmist false argument that is only supported by generalizations on liberal college campuses and have no basis in fact. You're getting really good at solely relying on these.

FTS, those ads would be anything but lies. Free healthcare for all is a wonderful idea. Whether or not it's feasible in the real world or not is debateable. Personally I feel that it is. The NHS, while not perfect is, without a doubt a step up from the healthcare service we had before it came into existance.
Wrong thread.

And I'm unsure whether or not allowing corporations to sponsor campaign adverts is a good thing. On the one hand, it means that there'll probably be more ads produced (which could result in a higher voter turn out, which is always a good thing). But on the other there's the whole self serving aspect of it (companies getting a politition in power who's sympathetic to their cause as well as advertising themselves) which might not be such a good thing.

Why is this bad? I don't understand why a group of citizens can make an ad to get a politician who supports their ideology is a good thing, but for a corporation it's bad.


But it's sometihng I'll have to observe in practice.

Well, at least you're open minded.
 
OK, but you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

No, I got it, I was just responding to the one point.





But, in order for it to be taxed, it has to be treated like a person. You don't understand this. I get it.

Well, maybe that needs to be changed.






No, you don't. And you should.

If I started looking for or trying to cause comedy in a debate thread, I'd wind up like I am in the Bar Room. Then the message I'm trying to convey would be lost.







But that doesn't make up for the loss of half of the available clientele, not even close. It doesn't take my business degree to understand that. The losses from going overboard in an ad would not be made up for by tax cuts and a few extra McRibs being sold to Republicans.

Maybe not immediately, but it could attract new buyers. Suppose a client of one company supported a political party, but the company they're buying from supports the opposition. It would most likely convince them to switch to another company that supports their party.





I wouldn't buy a Zune is Best Buy and Microsoft endorsed me for President.

Xbox, then?








Well, when you stop trying to only deal in hypotheticals about the evil corporations, we can have a debate. But so far, in two threads all you have done is demonize corporations and profits. You are debating like a college professor or someone else who does not deal with the real world. Stop dealing in theory. In all reality, corporations make 90% of the products and services you consume on a daily basis, and the only time anyone has a problem is when they feel that that corporation isn't bowing to them.

I'm looking at what's happened and offering my own observations of it. That's basically what you're doing, looking at the same thing and offering a different opinion. Even the proof that you offer up can be debated and viewed differently from person to person. Now, obviously I'm not trying to say that every corporation is going to jack up the prices of their products or whatever, but if you look at how gas prices skyrocketed back in the mid-00s, you can see that it's possible.








OK, so when I need one, I will go there. I never said I wouldn't. You said people are going to spend extra money at a store because of their political beliefs. I was just showing that you're a moron.

I'm saying they would go there more often than they would a store that didn't. People would wind up going to Best Buy more often than Future Shop if Best Buy supported a party they liked or had something else that the other store didn't or whatever. They are multiple reasons why people choose one store over the other. This is just another one.









I gave you multiple CBC articles. You just saw one that said FOX and went all lefty crazy. It's not my fault you don't read.

To be fair, I don't really trust CBC either.







That's true of all political ads. Why the fuck do you feel the need to demonize corporations for this? Moveon.org is the biggest offender in this area, but since their lefties, you don't feel the need to mention it.

Because corporations would create more ads, which would flood networks and over-saturate things. And I actually didn't know about moveon.org until you mentioned it. I'll look at it later.










Likely cowardice.

How do you know? Were you there?






No, Obama has done everything he can to deligitimize corporations. Well, the ones that don't throw their unwavering support behind him at least.

Can we have one discussion without you attacking Obama?








Well, here's another alarmist false argument that is only supported by generalizations on liberal college campuses and have no basis in fact. You're getting really good at solely relying on these.

Like I said, I'm making my observations based on what I've seen. If they happen to coincide with someone you don't like, so be it. That's how it is.





Why is this bad? I don't understand why a group of citizens can make an ad to get a politician who supports their ideology is a good thing, but for a corporation it's bad.

Because these ads very rarely show support toward their own party and instead choose to attack the opposition. If the ads were more positive and showed support for the party they supposedly represent, I wouldn't mind them as much. Instead, it's just mudslinging on a national scale, with very little factual basis.
 
How can you assume that corporations would flood the television stations with ads? You're dealing in hypotheticals. I think most corporations would distance themselves from the ads for the reasons I have given about losing half of their possible clientele.

Likely, we won't be seeing ads that say "McDonald's supports Sarah Paln."

The ads would likely be similar to the PAC ads with small print saying that this ad was paid for by "insert parent company name which we have never heard of."
 
How can you assume that corporations would flood the television stations with ads? You're dealing in hypotheticals. I think most corporations would distance themselves from the ads for the reasons I have given about losing half of their possible clientele.

Likely, we won't be seeing ads that say "McDonald's supports Sarah Paln."

The ads would likely be similar to the PAC ads with small print saying that this ad was paid for by "insert parent company name which we have never heard of."

Even so, it would still be there. And some corporations have enough money as it is that they wouldn't be as concerned about losing clientele as other would be.
 
Even so, it would still be there.

But, what I am saying is that there is no reason to not give corporations the same rights PACs have. Why should a corporation not have free speech? Because they would flood TV? There is only 16 minutes of ad space per hour on television. I am sure that these corporations would want to advertise their products. I am sure that corporations not buying political ads would still want to advertise. I doubt networks would order 18 minute episodes of Lost so that they can fill up with ad time for elections.


And some corporations have enough money as it is that they wouldn't be as concerned about losing clientele as other would be.

I don't think that you even believe this.
 
But, what I am saying is that there is no reason to not give corporations the same rights PACs have. Why should a corporation not have free speech? Because they would flood TV? There is only 16 minutes of ad space per hour on television. I am sure that these corporations would want to advertise their products. I am sure that corporations not buying political ads would still want to advertise. I doubt networks would order 18 minute episodes of Lost so that they can fill up with ad time for elections.

They can easily do both. They can advertise their products while having a disclaimer at the bottom saying "we support such-and-such". They can also simultaneously run political ads while having mini-ads at the bottom for whatever product they're trying to sell.




I don't think that you even believe this.

Would you believe me if I said I did?
 
They can easily do both. They can advertise their products while having a disclaimer at the bottom saying "we support such-and-such".

OK, fine. Your other argument is that these ads would be full of lies. If the end of a McDonald's ad says Vote Pawlenty, there would be no malicious smears.

They can also simultaneously run political ads while having mini-ads at the bottom for whatever product they're trying to sell.

Not likely. Best Buy would piss Sony off to no end in two different ways. One, the product would be given second billing. Two, what if Sony supported the other candidate? Would Sony pull products from Best Buy? That would cripple both companies.






you believe me if I said I did?

But the evil corporation onlee wuntz to make the mohneez!
 
Wrong thread.
Indeed it is. I'd be happy to continue it in a more apropriate thread though.
Why is this bad? I don't understand why a group of citizens can make an ad to get a politician who supports their ideology is a good thing, but for a corporation it's bad.
Call it an irrational fear/belief but an advert saying sometihng along the lines of "If the public sponsored healthcare comes to pass, patients wont have access to the latest and best treatments" sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline just doesn't sit easily with me. But as I say, I wont pass judgement on this untill I see it in action.
 
OK, fine. Your other argument is that these ads would be full of lies. If the end of a McDonald's ad says Vote Pawlenty, there would be no malicious smears.

But the political ad would have the smears with the disclaimer at the bottom "made by such-and-such". Plus, some people would see that the company supported the party in their product ad and think "hm, I wonder what they have to say about this party?" That would give attention to both ads.



Not likely. Best Buy would piss Sony off to no end in two different ways. One, the product would be given second billing. Two, what if Sony supported the other candidate? Would Sony pull products from Best Buy? That would cripple both companies.

Temporarily. Sony would sell their products solely to Best Buy's competitor, and business would pick back up for them. Meanwhile, Best Buy would solely sell products from one of Sony's rivals, and they would gain business as well.
 
But the political ad would have the smears with the disclaimer at the bottom "made by such-and-such". Plus, some people would see that the company supported the party in their product ad and think "hm, I wonder what they have to say about this party?" That would give attention to both ads.

Once again, this is nothing by hypotheticals. I have given you the reason why corporations are likely to avoid the smears. Your response is that corporations don't like money.





Temporarily. Sony would sell their products solely to Best Buy's competitor, and business would pick back up for them. Meanwhile, Best Buy would solely sell products from one of Sony's rivals, and they would gain business as well.

Sony would have less access to consumers in that Best Buy is everywhere and has lower prices than their competitors. It would be bad for Best Buy in that Sony and it's subsidiaries make up a large segment of Best Buy's inventory.

Good effort kid, but this one is done.
 
Once again, this is nothing by hypotheticals. I have given you the reason why corporations are likely to avoid the smears. Your response is that corporations don't like money.

They could get money from the people they're supporting. If the politician they're supporting feels they deserve his support in return, he'll give it, sponsoring them when he can, which will help drive up revenue. I think I remember mentioning that.




Sony would have less access to consumers in that Best Buy is everywhere and has lower prices than their competitors. It would be bad for Best Buy in that Sony and it's subsidiaries make up a large segment of Best Buy's inventory.

Future Shop can start selling Sony products exclusively, and starting matching Best Buy's prices to actively compete with them. In turn, Best Buy can replace Sony's products with ones from its competitors, like Samsung or Microsoft.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top