Organizing a group that will spent almost a billion is chump change for them.
Incidentally, having congress critters in their pocket is more important because with less profits seen last year it is clear that the subsidies and tax breaks are more important for them now.
For them it is profits ahead of good government or the environment.
I would go so far as saying that Maddow is the best that MSNBC has to offer. I would also say that Maddow’s persistent, and unproven, persecution of Chris Christi over Bridgegate proves that Maddow can not present the news with a liberal viewpoint without being unfair.
And you really think that was not implied before Citizens United? You are even ignoring that many on the left accepted those limitations, but as usual your sources only tell you part of the story.
(And History too, the History Channel gets a surprising level of Republican ads…
Maybe not so as the channel is now mostly about aliens and other conspiracies, so it is not a wonder that the unscientific crowd is the target)
Did anybody say it would be easy? Is it that it cannot be done, or just that you don’t want it to be done? Or that it cannot be done in a just and fair fashion, or that it would be difficult?
Do the Koch Brothers have more political power than you or I? Clearly, they do. Does that extra power derive entirely because they possess more money? Clearly, that is so.
Is that offensive to ideals of egalitarian democracy? We think so, how about you? Do you think it cannot be fairly and justly fixed, or you just don’t want it to be fixed? And if you think it cannot be fixed, is it OK with you if we give it a try?
And finally, this:
(post shortened)
Is there any hope that you will abandon this pointless and annoying affectation, that you will turn away from the path of the Shodan, the pink and the puckered?
You’re the one who is trying to ban political free speech that you don’t approve of. It’s my position that you can’t ban one group without banning others.
And you want to make it easier by outright rejection of any ideas and suggestions of the loyal opposition. Good luck with that.
You can certainly try to fix the problem - as you identify the problem - but you still have to convince a large number of voters that your way is the only way. And you have to do that without being able to shut down the political free speech of those you disagree with.
As usual you are not making sense because the more restrictive rules before applied to Republicans and Democrats alike.
What it is important IMHO is not to just see that and stop doing eternal vigilance, the Kochs and many others are funding the Republicans that are also listening to what their money is also manufacturing with the help of shady scientists to seed doubt on very important issues that will affect us all.
I’m sure that you understand that the battle over the Fairness Doctrine has already been fought and the Fairness Doctrine was overturned. What fresh legal arguments do you propose to reestablish it?
Some of you are. Some of you are trying (and failing) to stop others from discussing the issue.
The only campaign advertising that my tax dollars are funding is the endless stream of progressive, liberal, anti-conservative, and pro-Democrat programs on PBS. I think they should stop using my money to fund what is obviously a form of campaign advertising.
(post unchanged just to be an annoying dick about it)
Well, you answered the questions you wanted to answer rather than the one’s you were asked, but OK. So, anyway, you claim we can’t do it without cheating? But if we can, then its cool with you?
Kinda what I was asking, what perzackly are you claiming? That it can’t be done, that it can’t be done without cheating, or that it can be done but shouldn’t? Or all three at the same time?
Do you agree that people like the Koch’s have more political power simply because they have money? Is that fair, just and equal? Is fair, just and equal something we should strive for? And if money can be inherited, and therefore political power can be inherited, precisely how are we better than the landed nobility we rebelled against?
Well, there you have it, educational programs are liberal. Too bad that many issues are looked by the Republicans with ignorant tinted glassed.
As an example: many reports from PBS and NPR made good efforts to calm the population about the Ebola outbreak, while the right wing media and politicians used fear to drive the support for the republicans that made unfounded decisions regarding quarantines, one can say that it was a factor that worked for them in the last election, but the price continues to be that conservatives do not get good information and end up voting against their best interests.
In a different thread TimeWinder makes this point:
That was to reply to a poster that made the point of why the liberals and “their media” were poopooing the Ebola outbreak, I remember also a scientist being interviewed at NPR that said about the Fox news and the Republican politicians that were scaring the public then: “eventually politics has to yield to science”.
And so it is with the issue of controlling our emissions, the only recourse we have then if there is no counter to what the Kochs are doing is to indeed educate the people better so we should not fall for the siren songs from the ones in the pockets of the oil industry.
The fact that PBS news is often characterized in this faulty way provides a good reference for how deranged some other American news sources have become.
