How did money become free speech?

[Into the Night]

What are you talking about? The purchase and use of meth is a federal crime.

Congress has no authority to implement such a law. They exceeded their authority. Nothing in the Constitution gave them the power to implement any such law.

 

[Into the Night]

I understand that advertising is not free, so why don't we make it fair by having both parties in an election help pay for what the other wants to advertise?

Article I, and the 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments gets in your way. The federal government as no authority to require someone to pay for someone else's advertising.

Socialism doesn't work?

Never has.

5 of the 10 most prosperous countries in the world are socialist...........New Zealand, Finland, Denmark to name a few.

These are not socialist countries.

Socialism does work if done correctly.

There is no way to 'do it' correctly.

Price controls of any kind do not work. That may be the case in a capitalistic nation with no caring for its people but it doesn't make them fair.

Nope. They never work...period. The end result is ALWAYS shortages.

Remember Turing and the company he bought that produced a life-saving drug to treat a parasitic infection that affects babies and aids patients and he raised the cost of the pill from $13.50 to $750? This made treatment of this life-threatening illness unaffordable and all in the name of greed, given that the cost of making the pill was less than $4.

I never said capitalism is perfect. It is, however, the only system that creates wealth. Socialism only steals wealth. If you need this drug, I suggest you take your case up with Turing or create your own company to make this drug and sell for what you think is fair.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't say that they elected Trump. I said they helped elect Trump by spending money to run an advertising campaign to degrade the opponent.

Paradox noted. Irrational statement.

 

[Into the Night]

Fascism? You need to explain why you believe this is fascism. Throwing a word out there without explanation is drama but not necessarily reality.

You might try looking up what fascism is.

Fascism is one of two forms of socialism (the other being communism). In fascism, you still own the property, factory, business, etc.; but the government tells you how to run it. They tell you things like what you can manufacture, who you can sell to, what you can charge, etc. It can only be implemented by a dictatorship or oligarchy.

Communism is where the government just outright takes your property, factory, business, etc. It too can only be implemented by dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

[What if...?]

Whether or not it was made up is irrelevant. I'm just asking how do you sue corporations without this mechanism? It doesn't require in-depth analysis or even legal history; just your thoughts.

Why does something have to be a person?

Since its all made up, why not just say that you can sue a registered business formed under the limited liability incorporation provides.

You are acting like English common law is akin to the law of gravity. It is not.

A business does not NEED to be a person in order to do business.

"Into a body" was just the easy, bureaucratic way to do it.

 

[Hedgology]

Why does something have to be a person?

Since its all made up, why not just say that you can sue a registered business formed under the limited liability incorporation provides.

How would you do it?

You are acting like English common law is akin to the law of gravity. It is not.

That is merely your interpretation of my words, which is faulty.

A business does not NEED to be a person in order to do business.

"Into a body" was just the easy, bureaucratic way to do it.

Who are you doing business with and how exactly are you conducting business? And if you feel like you are being wronged in some way, how do you address your grievances?

 

[D_NATURED]

As always, you can know the answers to these questions by reading the opinions in which they were decided.

Well, corporate personhood came from an embedded plutocratic law clerk who creatively rewrote a decision to establish corporate personhood that was NOT established by the deciding judges. Union Pacific VS Santa Clara County, I believe. Early right wing corruption of democracy at it's finest.

 

[Into the Night]

Boy.

No.

I am talking about addressing the use of a science whose sole purpose is manipulation.

Advertising is not a science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Advertising is based on psychoquackery.

The one directly responsible ffor the current divide in this country.

Nope. The divide in this country is between those espousing Marxism and those wanting to keep this nation as a republic. In many ways, it's a city vs country war. It has been building for many decades. The Marxists are now being much more obvious in their stated goal. It is not a new divide.

I mean, both sides paid for it, but it isn't good for us.

Look at us.

Advertisements mean nothing for this conflict.

 

[Into the Night]

"Equalize"?

Where did I say anything about equalizing?

In your post.

We already HAVE laws regarding harmful untruths. Libel. Slander.

Redirection fallacy. We are not talking about libel and slander laws.

Persuasion is just lying effectively for money. Not sure why you are so steadfastly defending it.

Redirection fallacy. We are not talking about lying for money. However, if you want to go in this direction, I do not support lying, whether for money or for free.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. Not me.

Spend all you want. Just don't spend it on manipulation and it won't be a problem.

Advertisements don't manipulate. They inform, and sometimes even entertain. People are completely free whether to buy the product being advertised. No ad forces them to buy.

The same is true for campaign ads. People are free to vote how they wish. No ad forces their vote.

 

[Into the Night]

The fraud was the manipulation he used to GET elected.

Redefinition fallacy.

Has nothing to do with campaign promises.

Yes it does, just as I described. Redefinition fallacy.

You are dilligently missing my point.

No, you are reduced to redefining words to different meanings at different times that are convenient to you at the time.

Try sticking to English. It works better.

 

[Luckyone]

Article I, and the 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments gets in your way. The federal government as no authority to require someone to pay for someone else's advertising.

Never has.

These are not socialist countries.

There is no way to 'do it' correctly.

Nope. They never work...period. The end result is ALWAYS shortages.

I never said capitalism is perfect. It is, however, the only system that creates wealth. Socialism only steals wealth. If you need this drug, I suggest you take your case up with Turing or create your own company to make this drug and sell for what you think is fair.

FYI:


What are the best examples of socialism working in countries?
13 Answers
Bruno Rivard
Bruno Rivard, There Is No Alternative
Answered Dec 17, 2014 · Author has 242 answers and 842.3k answer views
Strictly speaking there are none, nor were there any ever. All attempts failed. One partial exception is the scandinavian countries which incorporate important socialist elements alongside market economics. Still in Sweden approx 90% of businesses are privately owned, but with tight regulations and the proviso that all workers be part of a union and the unions are politicized and extremely powerful. This doesn't seem to drag them down; Sweden is a well functionning, prosperous country, clean and ordered, with high quality social services and classes as one of the most innovative nations, ahead of the USA, which rancks 4th. The extent to which cultural factors contribute to the success of Scandinavian countries is contentious but the socialistic aspects of their societies appear to work extremely well.

There are other nations that implement aspects of socialism, but to a markedly lower extent. one notable example is Canada. Canada is interesting because it implements socialistic policies in a very heterogeneous way because a lot of power is devolved to the provinces. Primarily, it is law that the standard of quality of life be the same throughout the country. This involves "equalization transfers" from wealthy provinces to less wealthy one. Since Canada's wealth is largely derived from natural resources that are a public good this is seen as obvious and fair. It is also law that healthcare be a public service although this varies across provinces.

Of all provinces, Quebec is the most socialistic. Several industries are nationalized, like electrical power, as is large parts of finance, which is regulated (as it is throughout Canada). The agricultural sector, which is a primary industry, is dominated by worker-owned cooperatives and they cohere in an economic planning body that directs production since problems with market outcomes led to wastage of produce and unpredictability of climate caused unwarranted bankrupcies. Somehow it has been very successful and helped diversify the industry in a rational manner.

The trade unions are very powerful, similar to Sweden, though corruption has caused some problems recently, leading to several prosecutions. Nevertheless, Quebec formalized it's "Quebec model of development" or "social economy" explicitly modeled after the Scandinavian countries. Quebec is a very young society and has had great successes as well as failures, but it's cultural and artistic output is world reknown and the industry is advanced and varied. The constant debate about secession from Canada is notable because a Quebec nation-state would have free-reign to move further toward socialism or social democracy and a sizable portion of the population would favor this. Something to look at closely...

 

[Into the Night]

The most money won. Usually. Statistically.

A statistical analysis has never been run. Buzzword fallacy.

It only takes one event to prove your theory that money forces people to vote a particular way to be wrong. Statistics is not a proof. Supporting evidence is not a proof. Conflicting evidence can certainly be a proof of falsification. This is true of science as well, which is why science does not use consensus or supporting evidence. These principles come from formal logic and philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

Trump got billions for free from the media.

Are you serious??? :lamo

And simply peppered his incoherent speeches with words and phrases conservatives have been conditioned to rage at.
Without that conditioning he never would have gotten the nomination.

Psychobabble. Conservatives are not 'conditioned'. Their rage is genuine. It stems from the attempts by Marxists to implement fascism in this country for the past several decades.

 

[Into the Night]

FYI:
What are the best examples of socialism working in countries?
13 Answers
Bruno Rivard
Bruno Rivard, There Is No Alternative
Answered Dec 17, 2014 · Author has 242 answers and 842.3k answer views
Strictly speaking there are none, nor were there any ever. All attempts failed. One partial exception is the scandinavian countries which incorporate important socialist elements alongside market economics.

Paradox noted. Irrational statement.

FYI:
Still in Sweden approx 90% of businesses are privately owned, but with tight regulations and the proviso that all workers be part of a union and the unions are politicized and extremely powerful.

Which is a fascist system.

FYI:
This doesn't seem to drag them down;

It does.

FYI:
Sweden is a well functionning, prosperous country, clean and ordered, with high quality social services and classes as one of the most innovative nations, ahead of the USA, which rancks 4th.

WRONG. The USA has a far bigger economy than Sweden! Whether you measure it as an absolute or on a per capita basis. See the statistics on this from the CIA, the UN, and international trade records.

FYI:
The extent to which cultural factors contribute to the success of Scandinavian countries is contentious but the socialistic aspects of their societies appear to work extremely well.

WRONG. Where those factors are in place it is hurting the nation involved.

FYI:
There are other nations that implement aspects of socialism, but to a markedly lower extent. one notable example is Canada. Canada is interesting because it implements socialistic policies in a very heterogeneous way because a lot of power is devolved to the provinces. Primarily, it is law that the standard of quality of life be the same throughout the country. This involves "equalization transfers" from wealthy provinces to less wealthy one. Since Canada's wealth is largely derived from natural resources that are a public good this is seen as obvious and fair. It is also law that healthcare be a public service although this varies across provinces.

Of all provinces, Quebec is the most socialistic. Several industries are nationalized, like electrical power, as is large parts of finance, which is regulated (as it is throughout Canada). The agricultural sector, which is a primary industry, is dominated by worker-owned cooperatives and they cohere in an economic planning body that directs production since problems with market outcomes led to wastage of produce and unpredictability of climate caused unwarranted bankrupcies. Somehow it has been very successful and helped diversify the industry in a rational manner.

The trade unions are very powerful, similar to Sweden, though corruption has caused some problems recently, leading to several prosecutions. Nevertheless, Quebec formalized it's "Quebec model of development" or "social economy" explicitly modeled after the Scandinavian countries. Quebec is a very young society and has had great successes as well as failures, but it's cultural and artistic output is world reknown and the industry is advanced and varied. The constant debate about secession from Canada is notable because a Quebec nation-state would have free-reign to move further toward socialism or social democracy and a sizable portion of the population would favor this. Something to look at closely...

Canada too is economically very weak.

Socialism can only survive by stealing from others. It does not create wealth. Only capitalism does that.

 

[Into the Night]

It is not equalization to require an industry to stop manipulating the American people.

Yes it is.

 

[Into the Night]

Direct to campaign donations have been Limited so I don't know what you're talking about. Moreover policy , laws,etc., are set by Congress and the Senate and signed by the president , laws of which are interpreted by the Judiciary via case law, and are all branches of the federal government. TV Advertisements are regulated by the FCC which stands for Federal Communications Commission. Other laws governing advertising in General are made by Congress such as the truth in advertising act Etc note that cigarette advertising has been banned by Congress. Not all policy are laws but all laws arise out of policy objectives of the pertinent governing bodies, including that of the federal government

You don't seem to get it. Congress is exceeding their authority.

The federal government has no authority to limit campaign money, quantity of advertisements, or set any related policy whatsoever.

 

[Luckyone]

Paradox noted. Irrational statement.

Which is a fascist system.

It does.

WRONG. The USA has a far bigger economy than Sweden! Whether you measure it as an absolute or on a per capita basis. See the statistics on this from the CIA, the UN, and international trade records.

WRONG. Where those factors are in place it is hurting the nation involved.

Canada too is economically very weak.

Socialism can only survive by stealing from others. It does not create wealth. Only capitalism does that.

The big problem I see with ALL your answers is that you are relating greatness with economic success. I can understand that kind of thinking as a large portion of U.S. citizens have been taught from birth that money is God and that we all must be better than our neighbors and competitors.

Nonetheless, I don't need to look for answers on Google to know that we are by far not one of the happier nations in the world. There are many (and I do mean many) other nations where people live happier than we do here. Money is important for happiness but it is certainly not the only thing and for the past 40-50 years we have continued to move toward greed and away from all the other factors that are important. Now, under Trump, it has gotten to the extreme as with him success is ONLY measured in money.

I don't know what the perfect answer is but I do know that as I have grown older the greed that is being seen has grown exponentially to the point that our middle class has almost disappeared and it is now mostly about rich and poor with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This direction cannot continue because the end result cannot be anything else than total disaster. Something needs to be done or 90% (or more) of the population will be hurt and either a rebellion will occur that will kill a large portion of the population or a dictatorship will emerge that will do the same.

Staying with the present system is not a solution, unless of course, you are in the top 10% of the economic ladder and do not feel what the rest feel. Even then, the benefits of being in that top 10% would probably not last long and your children or your grandchildren would then be the ones to suffer.

We talk and discuss and argue all of this but the reality is that we are not heading north, we are heading south and Trump is not the solution. Of that, I am 100% sure. His solutions are only economic and then only temporary given that each of his solutions will bring about more unrest and more inequality among ourselves, at least from an emotional basis.

The rich will continue to get richer and the poor get poorer.

We did have a good balance about 50 years ago when money was not as much of a goal as it is now. In 1984 a survey was done and 34% said that money was the most important. The same survey was done in 1998 and the percentage of people that said money was the most important thing had grown to 68%, Imagine what it is now......No, I don't need to imagine it, I can just see it here on this message board. Seeing the support for Trump here, I can imagine the number of people who see money being the most important is probably now around 80%.

Well, you can laugh all you want now but ultimately it will all come crashing down, much like the companies that Trump bankrupted. In his case though, a bankrupted company is no big deal other than to the people that got hurt as he can come up with another company the very next day and keep going forward. That is not the same case with Nations. Bankrupt a nation once and it is over, and I don't mean bankrupt only in an economic way but in an emotional way.

With over 60% of the people hating what Trump is doing, there is no way that an emotional bankruptcy won't occur if he remains. You can't run a country successfully if most of the people in the country are not in favor of the way the country is being run. Period!

 

[Into the Night]

And now we shall examine an example of the attitude that all money is evil.

The big problem I see with ALL your answers is that you are relating greatness with economic success. I can understand that kind of thinking as a large portion of U.S. citizens have been taught from birth that money is God and that we all must be better than our neighbors and competitors.

I have never related greatness with economy or economic success.

Nonetheless, I don't need to look for answers on Google to know that we are by far not one of the happier nations in the world.
There are many (and I do mean many) other nations where people live happier than we do here.

'Happy' is a subjective term. It has nothing to do with where you are located or how much money you make.

Money is important for happiness but it is certainly not the only thing and for the past 40-50 years we have continued to move toward greed and away from all the other factors that are important.

Money and profit does not automatically mean greed. A company that does not make profit will not be around long. Companies make profits by providing a product or service that people want. That product or service helps to make them happy.

Now, under Trump, it has gotten to the extreme as with him success is ONLY measured in money.

WRONG. He is a patriot. He also happens to be successful in handling and making money. He knows capitalism is the only system that produces wealth. He is trying to remove blocks to capitalism.

I don't know what the perfect answer is but I do know that as I have grown older the greed that is being seen has grown exponentially to the point that our middle class has almost disappeared and it is now mostly about rich and poor with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This direction cannot continue because the end result cannot be anything else than total disaster. Something needs to be done or 90% (or more) of the population will be hurt and either a rebellion will occur that will kill a large portion of the population or a dictatorship will emerge that will do the same.

The answer to world peace is profit. You don't shoot your customers.

Staying with the present system is not a solution, unless of course, you are in the top 10% of the economic ladder and do not feel what the rest feel. Even then, the benefits of being in that top 10% would probably not last long and your children or your grandchildren would then be the ones to suffer.

Providing product and services to people does not cause suffering. It is serving society.

We talk and discuss and argue all of this but the reality is that we are not heading north, we are heading south and Trump is not the solution.

His successes are many, but not reported in the news. He has made a few mistakes as well, such as tariffs. No one ever wins in a trade war.

Of that, I am 100% sure.

Probably because you are biased to begin with against Trump.

His solutions are only economic

Nope. He has, for instance, finally dealt effectively with North Korea and it's threats. He has improved U.S. relations with Israel significantly. He pulled out of the Paris climate 'change' agreement which was unenforceable and simply part of the Church of Global Warming. He is opening up school choice. He appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He forced Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria to retreat from Mosul and Raqqa, respectively.

I suggest you get your eyes off the money pile and look around.
...deleted excessive whining...

there is no way that an emotional bankruptcy won't occur if he remains.

Emotions aren't a form of money and you can't take them to the bank. Go get trained and make yourself more useful to somebody.


This is a classic case of whining about one's lot in life because they happen to be working in a part of the economy that has a glut of workers, thus reducing their wages. There is one and only one way out of this. One must become trained so they are more competitive in the marketplace. It is just the same thing any company must do to maintain it's market share. What we see here is a gross misunderstanding of economics.

 

[Luckyone]

And now we shall examine an example of the attitude that all money is evil.

I have never related greatness with economy or economic success.

'Happy' is a subjective term. It has nothing to do with where you are located or how much money you make.

Money and profit does not automatically mean greed. A company that does not make profit will not be around long. Companies make profits by providing a product or service that people want. That product or service helps to make them happy.

WRONG. He is a patriot. He also happens to be successful in handling and making money. He knows capitalism is the only system that produces wealth. He is trying to remove blocks to capitalism.


The answer to world peace is profit. You don't shoot your customers.

Providing product and services to people does not cause suffering. It is serving society.

His successes are many, but not reported in the news. He has made a few mistakes as well, such as tariffs. No one ever wins in a trade war.

Probably because you are biased to begin with against Trump.

Nope. He has, for instance, finally dealt effectively with North Korea and it's threats. He has improved U.S. relations with Israel significantly. He pulled out of the Paris climate 'change' agreement which was unenforceable and simply part of the Church of Global Warming. He is opening up school choice. He appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He forced Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria to retreat from Mosul and Raqqa, respectively.

I suggest you get your eyes off the money pile and look around.
...deleted excessive whining...

Emotions aren't a form of money and you can't take them to the bank. Go get trained and make yourself more useful to somebody.


This is a classic case of whining about one's lot in life because they happen to be working in a part of the economy that has a glut of workers, thus reducing their wages. There is one and only one way out of this. One must become trained so they are more competitive in the marketplace. It is just the same thing any company must do to maintain it's market share. What we see here is a gross misunderstanding of economics.

You talk as if you know but the reality is that every person has a different reality than your own. As such, you should say in your responses "for me........this is what I believe"

Money is not the driving force for everyone and economics isn't either. There are plenty of people in the world that work for alms and do well with their lives. I happen to believe there is a middle ground but that is not something that you believe. You are in it for the buck.

In addition, there are different ways to accomplish goals and some are better than others and Trump's way of accomplishing goals in my opinion destroys things (such as honor, respect, caring, etc) , meaning that I believe he is doing more damage than good.

It is evident we disagree but you certainly are entitled to your opinion, the same way I am.

I do believe that ultimately you will be disappointed in Trump but that is yet to be seen. I once worked for someone very much like Trump and in the end everyone left him. He was alone. In the process, he hurt a lot of people that believed his words and his intentions. His intentions from the very beginning were for himself as he cared nothing about the people he was selling to. In the end, he died broke as well, mostly from having to defend himself against all the people that were harmed and hated him.

Anyhow, I thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts even though the responses were always critical. Nonetheless, you took the time.

I wish the best for you but feel sorry as to how misguided you are.

Live and learn. I have done much of that in my life and I am no dummy.

 

[OscarLevant]

You don't seem to get it. Congress is exceeding their authority.

The federal government has no authority to limit campaign money, quantity of advertisements, or set any related policy whatsoever.

On what do you base this claim?

 

[D_NATURED]

Are you serious??? :lamo

Psychobabble. Conservatives are not 'conditioned'. Their rage is genuine. It stems from the attempts by Marxists to implement fascism in this country for the past several decades.

Marxists implementing fascism? ROFLMAO. Fascism is a right-wing ideology associated with white nationalism, corporatism, hyper-patriotism/militarism, religiosity and racism. Conservatives have worked SO hard to mix it up with other, unrelated ideologies in order to escape their historical connection to NAZIs. They have misused it over and over, as they love to do, which is how propaganda works. You lie, over and over for many years, and eventually the lie becomes the default meme.

Consider how the right used the phrase "democrat" party as propaganda. It's really the Democratic party, not the democrat party, but the word "democrat" sounds more like "aristocrat" or "autocrat", so it has a negative vibe. The truth is, the aristocrats and autocrat wannabes are found on the right much more often. The true American fascists try to cover their stink with the word play that appeals to their low-IQ base. Like most fascist propaganda, it's dishonest but effective for herding (conditioning) morons.

The irony of your statement is that over the last several decades, the right wing fascists have made great gains in American politics, starting with grandpa NAZI, Ronald Reagan. He began the new tradition of borrowing trillions to give rich people tax breaks, cutting the safety net out from under poor Americans in the process to "balance" the expense, which still ironically creates great debt AND great need.

You think your rage is genuine? I say there's nothing genuine about the right wing except their racism and greed. America's greatest failure was that we defeated fascism in Europe only to have it lie dormant here with too little opposition. While Maccarthy was hysterically chasing the ghosts of communism, flesh and blood NAZIs were still plotting against the government and people of this nation from within. With Trump's election, they feel empowered to crawl out of the shadows.

How do we get them to crawl back in?

 

[Into the Night]

You talk as if you know but the reality is that every person has a different reality than your own. As such, you should say in your responses "for me........this is what I believe"

Money is not the driving force for everyone and economics isn't either. There are plenty of people in the world that work for alms and do well with their lives. I happen to believe there is a middle ground but that is not something that you believe. You are in it for the buck.

Again, you demonstrate your hatred of corporations. You have no idea what I'm 'in it for'. It's certainly not the buck. I am not paid by Trump. My business is independent of anything Trump is doing. However, I do support Trump in his efforts to unblock the economy so more can enjoy the benefits of it.

In addition, there are different ways to accomplish goals and some are better than others and Trump's way of accomplishing goals in my opinion destroys things (such as honor, respect, caring, etc) , meaning that I believe he is doing more damage than good.

History shows otherwise. Don't believe the fake news.

It is evident we disagree but you certainly are entitled to your opinion, the same way I am.

You believe in the fake news. You are being lied to.

I do believe that ultimately you will be disappointed in Trump but that is yet to be seen.

The more I see of his actions, the better I like the guy.

I once worked for someone very much like Trump and in the end everyone left him.

Everyone isn't leaving Trump.

He was alone.

Trump is not alone! He has a large portion of the nation supporting him!

In the process, he hurt a lot of people that believed his words and his intentions.

The only ones Trump is going to hurt are those dependent on government handouts and socialism. They deserve getting hurt. It's time they get off their butts and contribute to society.

His intentions from the very beginning were for himself as he cared nothing about the people he was selling to.

You should really pay attention to his speeches and his election campaign. NONE of it has been about himself.

In the end, he died broke as well, mostly from having to defend himself against all the people that were harmed and hated him.

Obviously, Trump is not broke. He will not die broke. He is well able to not only defend himself, but he knows how to take the offensive as well.

Anyhow, I thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts even though the responses were always critical. Nonetheless, you took the time.

I wish the best for you but feel sorry as to how misguided you are.

Live and learn. I have done much of that in my life and I am no dummy.

I think it is YOU that is misguided, listening to the fake news and ignoring what Trump has accomplished.

 

[Into the Night]

On what do you base this claim?

The Constitution of the United States.

 

[OscarLevant]

The Constitution of the United States.

so, explain how has the congress exceeded it's authority based on the Constitution?