meazza Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Something big changed in 2010... Yes, I turned 29 in 2010. Of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Yes, I turned 29 in 2010. Of course! Well in that case you need to drink 28 more of these with me tonight to celebrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Something big changed in 2010... You're a blithering idiot. How can you not see the parallel between your latest project and what really happened to the election process? It's not Citizens United, because mass media doesn't hold the monopoly on public opinion anymore. That's why everyone is rushing into trying to corral social media as their new communication platform. All citizens United did was level the playing field between large donor groups who were historically liberal and corporations who are more conservative. But in aggregate it did little to alter the massive change that happened with the birth off Facebook and Twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 You're a blithering idiot. How can you not see the parallel between your latest project and what really happened to the election process? It's not Citizens United, because mass media doesn't hold the monopoly on public opinion anymore. That's why everyone is rushing into trying to corral social media as their new communication platform. All citizens United did was level the playing field between large donor groups who were historically liberal and corporations who are more conservative. But in aggregate it did little to alter the massive change that happened with the birth off Facebook and Twitter see, I largely agree with you here. You are just an angry jerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 see, I largely agree with you here. You are just an angry jerk Paid troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Paid trollare you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 are you? Go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Go away. Bow down before the one you serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 It will never happen.... that's what they always say, but what would our grandfathers think about: Marijuana is legal My grandfather would think this is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 You're a blithering idiot. How can you not see the parallel between your latest project and what really happened to the election process? It's not Citizens United, because mass media doesn't hold the monopoly on public opinion anymore. That's why everyone is rushing into trying to corral social media as their new communication platform. All citizens United did was level the playing field between large donor groups who were historically liberal and corporations who are more conservative. But in aggregate it did little to alter the massive change that happened with the birth off Facebook and Twitter Incorrect. Citizen United made it so there's no legal difference between a 100 dollar donation and a 100,000 dollar donation. If you think that ruling hasn't impacted this election cycle then you're not paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 First rhino says it's money. Then he switches to party leaders. Now he's back to blaming the media. How many conspiracy theories are left? Who would win between the illuminati and the NWO? I say it's bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Incorrect. Citizen United made it so there's no legal difference between a 100 dollar donation and a 100,000 dollar donation. If you think that ruling hasn't impacted this election cycle then you're not paying attention. There is no difference other than means. The only argument against Citizens United is that you disagree with some political speech, so you want to ban it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 First rhino says it's money. Then he switches to party leaders. Now he's back to blaming the media. How many conspiracy theories are left? Who would win between the illuminati and the NWO? I say it's bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 First rhino says it's money. Then he switches to party leaders. Now he's back to blaming the media. How many conspiracy theories are left? Who would win between the illuminati and the NWO? I say it's bigfoot. What? I've never said either of the last two. It's always been the money. And that's not much of a conspiracy theory considering we're talking about a SC decision. Other than that, spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 In all seriousness, this element rarely ever enters my thought process while posting in PPP (or in my daily life). I won't deny I believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the cosmos. I do think it's possible that our planet has been visited at some point in its history, but even that I admit is speculation... speculation that is awfully entertaining to consider (for me, if for nothing other than ***** and giggles). And while elements of that subject do have rather obvious and far reaching implications within politics and the economy, I understand the crowd here isn't all that interested in having serious (albeit purely speculative) conversations about it so I don't ever really factor it into my thinking around these parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) What? I've never said either of the last two. It's always been the money. And that's not much of a conspiracy theory considering we're talking about a SC decision. Other than that, spot on. You said whoever has the most money in their campaign would win. Then we pointed out some people with a lot of money that lost. You rationalized that point by saying they lost because the party leaders couldn't sell them to the public. You rationalized that point further by saying that the media coverage is the one influencing the party's response. Now you're saying that they're working on preventing money from campaigns from taking control of media. ...campaigns run by candidates who raised the most money. and we've gone full circle. Money buys media. media influences party. party backs candidates. candidates (through donations) control the money. Edited April 3, 2016 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 You said whoever has the most money in their campaign would win. (false, I've said big money interests will/have already decided the winner) Then we pointed out some people with a lot of money that lost. (irrelevant to my argument) You rationalized that point by saying they lost because the party leaders couldn't sell them to the public. (not correct. I said the big money interests couldn't sell them to the public. My argument is/has been that the parties are both bought and paid for by the same folks. They're irrelevant) Then we pointed to people who lost that had party backing. (again, my argument is the party disctinctions are irrelevant due to the fact they're both marching to the tune of the same interests) You rationalized that point by saying that the media is the one that contols the party and pointed to changes (I never said this. I said the same big money interests that have already decided this election for us also own the majority of the media companies in the country.) Now you're saying that it's the money controlling the media and we've gone full circle. (no, you've just incorrectly summarized my argument) Money buys media. media controls party. party controls candidates. candidates (through donations) control the money. Incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 In all seriousness, this element rarely ever enters my thought process while posting in PPP (or in my daily life). I won't deny I believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the cosmos. I do think it's possible that our planet has been visited at some point in its history, but even that I admit is speculation... speculation that is awfully entertaining to consider (for me, if for nothing other than ***** and giggles). And while elements of that subject do have rather obvious and far reaching implications within politics and the economy, I understand the crowd here isn't all that interested in having serious (albeit purely speculative) conversations about it so I don't ever really factor it into my thinking around these parts. Yeah the topic of alien conspiraces does devolve quickly into the realm of batschitt crazy conspiracy theories My own opinion is that there is intelligent life beyond Earth (tho I do have my doubts about intelligent life on Earth). But intelligent life is like Christmas tree lights. The light comes and goes at different spots in the Universe but not close enough where they will interact another before going out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) Incorrect. I finally get it. You believe that it's all one big show. No one matters. Campaigns with money ( they don't have the REAL money) Media (controlled by the the real money holders) Party (doing what the money tells them.) People ( not relevant) The two party system, the bickering, it's just a ploy to coverup the people really in charge. While I'm looking at the circle of influence, I'm forgetting about the man holding it. (and yes, it's a MAN.) I'm going to agree. Has to be aliens. Aliens with big BALLS. Edited April 3, 2016 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts