WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Cracks me up, with all the unlimited spending that was still legal even before Citizens United, not a peep from the liberals. Why could that be? It's simple, the unlimited spending benefited their candidates, their causes, and now when the tables have turned, there is shock and outrage of all the corruption between money and politicians. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If what you say here is true, and I believe it is, shouldn't you be as outraged over the Kochs as you are over Soros The problem is, I don't get outraged over Soros, so when I watch liberals get outraged over the Kochs, I just sit back and watch the hypocrisy unfold on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The problem is, I don't get outraged over Soros, so when I watch liberals get outraged over the Kochs, I just sit back and watch the hypocrisy unfold on its own. But shouldn't you get outraged over the Kochs as well (assuming you identify with the Tea Party or even the GOP as a whole)? That's what I don't get. I'm not trying to be combative or difficult, I'm honestly asking. I mean, the reason these guys exist at all is because the people within their parties allow them to hijack it, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Cracks me up, with all the unlimited spending that was still legal even before Citizens United, not a peep from the liberals. Why could that be? It's simple, the unlimited spending benefited their candidates, their causes, and now when the tables have turned, there is shock and outrage of all the corruption between money and politicians. lol You heard peeps from liberals and conservatives alike both before and after that ruling. Money in politics is a new thing people don't like? That's a ridiculous thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 You heard peeps from liberals and conservatives alike both before and after that ruling. Money in politics is a new thing people don't like? That's a ridiculous thing to say. No it's not, it's a factual observation. The media attention regarding money and politics is 100 times more intense than before the 2010 election cycle. To dispute that is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 No it's not, it's a factual observation. The media attention regarding money and politics is 100 times more intense than before the 2010 election cycle. To dispute that is ridiculous. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Link? What are you deaf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 No it's not, it's a factual observation. The media attention regarding money and politics is 100 times more intense than before the 2010 election cycle. To dispute that is ridiculous. Ya Citizens United was 2010. The legislature actually and finally tried to reform some of the finance laws and failed in court. Hence, more attention. Not to mention more money than ever on both sides. Regardless of who is president in the future they now have to campaign and raise a billion dollars taking time away....and whoever is challenging has to do that same so it's bad for them (although they don't have to balance it with being President). I costs too much money to run for office these days. That's a problem. Mo money, nothing can be done about it = media attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Ya Citizens United was 2010. The legislature actually and finally tried to reform some of the finance laws and failed in court. Hence, more attention. Not to mention more money than ever on both sides. Regardless of who is president in the future they now have to campaign and raise a billion dollars taking time away....and whoever is challenging has to do that same so it's bad for them (although they don't have to balance it with being President). I costs too much money to run for office these days. That's a problem. Mo money, nothing can be done about it = media attention. What they should do is scrap the whole thing and allow unlimited contributions from disclosed donors to the candidates directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 What they should do is scrap the whole thing and allow unlimited contributions from disclosed donors to the candidates directly. Fine by me. It still wouldn't prevent SuperPACs but I guess they would be less "powerful" and necessary. In any event, disclosure if the only remedy the constitution will allow w/ out an amendment. The democrats should have worked with McCain on teh Disclose Act and got the thing passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Fine by me. It still wouldn't prevent SuperPACs but I guess they would be less "powerful" and necessary. In any event, disclosure if the only remedy the constitution will allow w/ out an amendment. The democrats should have worked with McCain on teh Disclose Act and got the thing passed. There was no need, they had the advantage, now all of a sudden there is a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 But shouldn't you get outraged over the Kochs as well (assuming you identify with the Tea Party or even the GOP as a whole)? That's what I don't get. I'm not trying to be combative or difficult, I'm honestly asking. I mean, the reason these guys exist at all is because the people within their parties allow them to hijack it, no? I'm not in the business of getting outraged at people who are smarter, richer and more ambitious than I can be. What I can do, politically, is try to be the best I can within the legal guidelines, do everything I can to protect my fortress, teach my son to work hard and respect what he inherits, and hopefully show him how his hard work, smarts and determination will put him miles ahead of most people around him so he does not need to become dependent on anyone but himself. The key is to do everything you can to keep from relying on the state to hold you up. It's no secret that liberals like our president NEED people to be dependent upon the state. The energy I would waste being outraged at the rich is better spent teaching my family and child how to NOT depend on the state for anything. I individually am unable to change an election, but I am completely capable of protecting myself from whomever is elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 good point. and why we should all be very saddened by citzen's united. had a little clip of one of the aforementioned benefactors feigning ignorance of that group on last nights newsroom. But shouldn't you get outraged over the Kochs as well (assuming you identify with the Tea Party or even the GOP as a whole)? That's what I don't get. I'm not trying to be combative or difficult, I'm honestly asking. I mean, the reason these guys exist at all is because the people within their parties allow them to hijack it, no? The problem for you here is timeline. The question we should ask is: WHEN should our "saddening"(really starting to hate this latest PR word) really begin? With George Soros, or the Kochs....or with the labor union money that has been flowing into elections, and in most cases supporting outright corruption, since the beginning of the last century? Or, should we go back further, and look at Tammany Hall? The original Democratic political money/corruption machine. Hell at least we got Thomas Nast out of the deal...the father of mass media political cartoons. Now, take a look at his work...objectively...and tell us about hateful political speech. For every Tammany Hall, we can find a Republican cabal as well. It's just that they didn't grab the headlines. We can also find a long list of "Dusky Sally" attacks since Jefferson's campaigns. So, today, we have our era guys doing the same thing that's been going on since forever. So I ask: When, not why, am I supposed to be "saddened"? The only thing I am "saddened" by is the lack of historical knowledge required to ignorantly espouse that the Koch brothers = New Coke. If we want to get all special interest money out of politics, than that must include unions as well. Otherwise, we are lying to ourselves. The Citizens United and original FAIL of McCain/Feingold in court is because they both are predicated on protecting some special interests and going after others. No. ALL special interests must be treated equally under the law. As of now, they are: there are no restrictions on anybody. Show me equal treatment, and I can get behind it. Play games and try to shut out some, while letting the unions run wild, and you can blow it out your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Honestly newsroom has strung together a few pretty good episodes. It's a shame, although no unpredictable, that some portion of the potential audience won't like it b/c of the way it represents certain stories/people but it really does have the seeds to become a good show. And I don't even like Sorkin all that much. Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'm starting to really like this show. It's like a behind the scenes look at MSNBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Classless HBO doing the Osama story. Clearly a commercial for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) My favorite quote for the show so far : “I’m a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.” I'm sure if the show makes it far enough it will rip on the occupy folks heartily. But yes, so far the show has torn holes in the collective a-holes of the GOP and their primary block of voters; as well as the relentless attacks on mainstream media. I enjoy the show immensely. I'm starting to really like this show. It's like a behind the scenes look at MSNBC. I could not disagree more. The show is highly intellectual and honest. MSNBC is a blather of drooling morons who try their hardest to copy the Fox News business model and fail miserably at it. Edited August 6, 2012 by conner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Good God! I caught a glimpse of this show & I'm stunned. I expected it to be an election year campaign vehicle for Obama but I thought they'd be at leat a little bit subtle about it. Apparently the writers trained at the Randy Marsh school of subtext. This is like watching Keith Olberman's daydreams on TV. Interesting how you think this show and Olberman's are similar. I think they are nothing at all alike. Olberman is inaccurate, biased, hateful, and not very intelligent. It was rare I was ever able to watch his show without thinking "no, he's wrong". Did you notice the show just beat on NPR and their coverage of Giffords? IMO they simultaneously attacked Olbermann-like shows on that episode. Olbermann used the shooting to push his gun agenda, which is completely not the duty of any news show. I feel like this show rages against the concept of pushing a political agenda during a newscast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Interesting how you think this show and Olberman's are similar. I think they are nothing at all alike. Olberman is inaccurate, biased, hateful, and not very intelligent. It was rare I was ever able to watch his show without thinking "no, he's wrong". Did you notice the show just beat on NPR and their coverage of Giffords? IMO they simultaneously attacked Olbermann-like shows on that episode. Olbermann used the shooting to push his gun agenda, which is completely not the duty of any news show. I feel like this show rages against the concept of pushing a political agenda during a newscast. I don't watch it. I saw part of one episode & it was so over the top I decided not to subject myself to this big wad of self-extracted liberal splooge. The quote you posted says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Classless HBO doing the Osama story. Clearly a commercial for Obama. Classless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts