Well, you were just complaining that it’s not fair for the Kochs to have so much influence due to their money. I guess gaining influence through marrying the right people is fairer?
To be fair, he didn’t specify the news. So he could be upset about Clifford, the Big Red (Communist) Dog. Or Elmo, another red character. Is there no end to the communist agenda of PBS? Or the fact that it’s Sesame Street. You know, streets are in cities, hotbeds of liberalism. They couldn’t live on Sesame Road like good Americans. Or that they carry BBC World News America, a source of foreign propaganda. Or that they carry Antiques Roadshow, implying that America’s best days are behind it. And they carry foreign shows like Downton Abbey. Not only that, they show Red Green- a Canadian show with a character with a communist first name! Now wonder PBS is thought to be subversive!
(post shortened)
And you’d be wrong. Unless you consider that stories about the Ebola outbreak should be considered campaign advertising.
(post shortened)
While I didn’t specifically name a PBS news program, I did mention campaign advertising.
If people intend to prevent a Koch bros organization from expressing its political free speech, then they should also want to prevent “public”, taxpayer-funded television from using taxpayer dollars to campaign for/advocate for/promote one political party over the others. And the Soros funded organizations should face the same exclusion.
However, people being people, they will find a way to get their political free speech message to the voters.
“The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
-Princess Leia
Not likely considering how many do see that you overreached so much that your position includes educational programing (As per past interactions it is clear that you already do think that when Frontline or NOVA educate the people about climate change that that is leftist propaganda)
And they are as per what I have seen coming from many right wing sources. Making Christie and other Republican governors look like fools can get that impression to many conservatives.
Do you agree that people like Soros 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?
The best defense against political free speech is MORE political free speech, NOT less.
Who do you want to endow with this ultimate control of who can say what? Who is best able to determine which political free speech should be restricted? Clinton or Bush? Soros or Koch? elucidator or doorhinge?
It’s my position that none of them should be entrusted with such a power. YMMV.
The ignorance is strong with this one… 
Since there are no good examples coming from you, and PBS does not take political advertisements you need to produce good examples to show us that indeed PBS is advocating for a political party.
Hahahaha. Haven’t you finished beating that one-trick pony yet?
It’s obvious that you would allow the supporters of only one party to have unlimited access to “educate” the voters - as long as that group agrees with your views. Under the soon-to-be-enacted GIGObuster Limited Political Free Speech bill, will it include it’s own version of the Tarkin Doctrine -
“Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.”
-Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin
Yes, No, Yes, we aren’t much.
See that was easy. Now your turn to answer the questions.
Soros is a red herring, we recognize the meaningful campaign finance reform will mean the Soros can’t donate money either and we’re fine with it. This isn’t about left and right this is about democracy vs plutocracy. Given that you think the political motivations of the donor would determine our position on donations, I assume that it is what determines your position.
So the answer is that your answers to these questions are probably:
Do you agree that people like the Koch’s have more political power simply because they have money?
Yes.
Is that fair, just and equal?
It doesn’t matter as long as it fits my political goals.
Is fair, just and equal something we should strive for?
Not if it means that Republicans lose their advantage.
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?
They weren’t Republicans.
As I mentioned the Ebola issue, it is clear that everyone can see that I’m not a one trick pony, not my problem if you want to appear to otters as not paying attention.
Can I call it or what?
Yep it is clear that you do consider many science programs from PBS as propaganda. No wonder when many on the right also see evolution in the same light. As liberal propaganda.
And of course just a misrepresentation, the real fear mongering is always coming from the ones that would want to continue to scare us by continue to tell us that dealing with climate change will kill jobs, to scare us about the actual good science is doing with infectious diseases, and to continue to scare us with eternal damnation because evolution is not in the bible.
Since political power can be inherited, doesn’t this mean we should ban close family members of politicians from running for office?
(posts shortened)
Thanks for the answers. As you can see, I was repeating questions that elucidator had originally asked but had substituted Soros for Koch. Your answers would be equally applicable if Democrats were substituted for Republicans.
Politics isn’t fair. Rich people, such as the Clintons, or Soros, or Kochs will spend money to influence political races. Union members can pool their money to influence the outcome of political races. News media outlets will spend money to allow their news and entertainment employees to influence political races.
If you so desperately need to stop money from influencing political races, I wish you the best of luck. However, The best defense against political free speech is MORE political free speech, NOT less.
And certainly not less where the government is the arbiter of who can speak and who can’t speak.
The problem you guys keep on running into is that you can’t control “who”, you can only control “how”. No one is special. If the Kochs can’t spend $900 million on TV ads, then the Democratic Party can’t spend $900 million on TV ads. For people who cry all the time about fairness, you’d think they’d be okay with the idea that the Kochs are equal to the Democratic Party and have exactly the same rights.
Your one trick pony is repeatedly trying to hijack threads with CO2 is evil, global warming ads.
The best defense against political free speech is MORE political free speech, NOT less. You don’t have the popular support, or votes, to limit political free speech in a way that benefits your cause. I say, “Let the people speak”.
What? Seriously, now, da fuq?
I never suggested that government should be the arbiter of who can speak and who can’t. Nobody suggests such a thing. You can speak all you want to. Your right to speech is not dependent on the Kochs’ being ablt to buy elections.
Having a limit on what a person can contribute to political organizations and political advertisements is not an infringement on speech. If the Koch boys want to stand on a soapbox and shout their invective all day long in a public square, let them have at it. If they want to buy elections by carpetbombing political ads, that’s a step too far. And no, I don’t want different rules for George Soros. And yes, political parties would be limited in their spending as well.
First time I see some one calling Ebola and Creationism the same as AGW.
You are only looking silly by ignoring what one is saying.
As was shown already with cites and examples the Kochs are not doing much of a political thing, they are doing this in big part for their own bottom line and to do so they will continue to deceive the American people.
So speech can only be the sound you make by your mouth, right? Because any other kind of opinion expression (such as ads, or publishing a book, or putting up or handing out leaflets) you have to “buy”. Correct?
Incorrect. I would limit political advertisements only. If you want to write a book saying Mr. Obama is a poopyhead, knock yourself out. If you want to put up posters, go for it (assuming local ordinances are obeyed).
What is the difference, in principle, between “political advertisement” and a book? Or between “political advertisement” and a poster on the wall?