Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bill Moyers)   "It's up to all of us to put a sign on every lawn and stoop in the land: 'Democracy is not for sale'"   (billmoyers.com) divider line 48
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, William F. Buckley Jr., Les Moonves, Bill Moyers, movie of the week, Gilded Age, disfranchisements, CBS Corporation  
•       •       •

1326 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2012 at 11:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-24 09:52:08 AM  
patdollard.com

The serfs are still buying the democracy thing? That's hilarious.
 
2012-09-24 10:00:31 AM  
I have seen a few of the 1% that vote for Romney and against Obama. I can tell you that that the reasons they give for voting are disappointing to say the least. At worst, the reasons given support your worst fear about our nation.
"A few of the 1%" is anecdotal but since they are only 1%, "a few" is almost statistically significant.
 
2012-09-24 10:03:46 AM  
Two polls released in the last few days report large majorities - as many as eight in ten - are in favor of clamping down on the amount of money that corporations, the super-rich, and those shadowy outside groups are pouring into the campaigns.

want to get big money out of politics? it'll only cost you a couple/few trillion bucks to rewrite the laws necessary to accomplish that goal....
 
2012-09-24 10:46:25 AM  
It's not for sale, it's sold.

Citizens United made sure of that.
 
2012-09-24 10:47:25 AM  

Calmamity: It's not for sale, it's sold.

Citizens United made sure of that.


You beat me to it. Exactly what I was going to say.
 
2012-09-24 11:12:05 AM  
The Republic, however, is.
 
2012-09-24 11:33:18 AM  
Maybe the two billion or so dollars going to these candidates for one election to get some tiny percentage of independent votes squeezed out of a few battleground states could be used to, I dunno, do some f*cking good? And that doesn't even include superPACs.
 
2012-09-24 11:45:02 AM  
Sorry, my "Be a Patriot - Vote Pro-Life" sign is staying right where it is.

/are these only in my area or are they nationwide?
 
2012-09-24 11:50:31 AM  

Calmamity: It's not for sale, it's sold.

Citizens United made sure of that.


Meh. Keep in mind that the whole reason CU even exists is because Americans "bought" the BS sold by the GOP. We elected a Republican, and he proceeded to put Republican judges on the bench so they could uphold Republican policy.

This wasn't inflicted on us. We asked for it.
 
2012-09-24 11:51:40 AM  
Thanks to that anonymous cameraperson, we now have a record of what our modern day, wealthy gentry really thinks about the rest of us - and it's not pretty.

I like Bill Moyers, so it is extremely sad to hear he pays no taxes and depends on government assistance.

What have you done, Obama?
 
2012-09-24 11:51:50 AM  

Shadowknight: Calmamity: It's not for sale, it's sold.

Citizens United made sure of that.

You beat me to it. Exactly what I was going to say.


Who knew the price of America was five Supreme Court justices?
 
2012-09-24 11:52:49 AM  

Weaver95: Two polls released in the last few days report large majorities - as many as eight in ten - are in favor of clamping down on the amount of money that corporations, the super-rich, and those shadowy outside groups are pouring into the campaigns.

want to get big money out of politics? it'll only cost you a couple/few trillion bucks to rewrite the laws necessary to accomplish that goal....


You'd probably need a Constitutional amendment.
 
2012-09-24 11:55:48 AM  
Maybe not for sale, but its certainly for rent if the price is right and until the next bidder comes along
 
2012-09-24 11:57:05 AM  

Calmamity: It's not for sale, it's sold.

Citizens United made sure of that.


And Obama said pretty much exactly that in his state of the union speech. And no one listened.
 
2012-09-24 11:59:05 AM  
The resentment, disdain and contempt with which they privately view those beneath them are an old story.

This is true of many regardless of political affiliation.
 
2012-09-24 12:00:23 PM  

cretinbob: The Republic, however, is.


images.wikia.com
NOT IF WE CAN HELP IT
 
2012-09-24 12:01:05 PM  
If democracy's not for sale, why have we wasted so much time and effort trying to export it over the last 70 years?
 
2012-09-24 12:02:33 PM  
Of course it's not for sale. Mitt can only possible serve 8 years as president.

He's not planning to sell the country to the Kock Brothers, just lease it for a while.
 
2012-09-24 12:03:43 PM  
It is for sale, at every level of government. Always has been, always will be. At even the lowest levels of government you virtually can't have a hope of winning without having money. What's funnier is the fact you (the royal you here,) no matter what your political leanings are, think you're really getting any better by so fervently supporting one candidate or the other. The wealthy people who control the government aren't going to enact laws that make them less powerful or wealthy. This goes for both democrats and republicans. It's cute that people try to make illusions of what candidate is either for or against the "common man" as if it makes a difference. You're essentially only voting for hotbutton social issues.
 
2012-09-24 12:04:26 PM  
Who pays for all those "Democracy is not for sale" yard signs? Can you form a non-profit that will raise money to help people who can't afford their own yard signs? If so, will that corporation be free to spend the money it raises spreading its political message, or should the government prohibit that corporation from spending money on political speech?
 
2012-09-24 12:05:21 PM  

topcon: It is for sale, at every level of government. Always has been, always will be. At even the lowest levels of government you virtually can't have a hope of winning without having money. What's funnier is the fact you (the royal you here,) no matter what your political leanings are, think you're really getting any better by so fervently supporting one candidate or the other. The wealthy people who control the government aren't going to enact laws that make them less powerful or wealthy. This goes for both democrats and republicans. It's cute that people try to make illusions of what candidate is either for or against the "common man" as if it makes a difference. You're essentially only voting for hotbutton social issues.


Oh god, so true. No one is better off under an amoral plutocrat than a collectivist do-gooder.
 
2012-09-24 12:06:58 PM  
How much do these signs cost? Are they made in China?
 
2012-09-24 12:11:53 PM  

mediaho: How much do these signs cost? Are they made in China?


RomneybuttonmadeinChina.jpg
 
2012-09-24 12:15:14 PM  

Epoch_Zero: topcon: It is for sale, at every level of government. Always has been, always will be. At even the lowest levels of government you virtually can't have a hope of winning without having money. What's funnier is the fact you (the royal you here,) no matter what your political leanings are, think you're really getting any better by so fervently supporting one candidate or the other. The wealthy people who control the government aren't going to enact laws that make them less powerful or wealthy. This goes for both democrats and republicans. It's cute that people try to make illusions of what candidate is either for or against the "common man" as if it makes a difference. You're essentially only voting for hotbutton social issues.

Oh god, so true. No one is better off under an amoral plutocrat than a collectivist do-gooder.


Fact: The president isn't going to change the economy. It's not happening. If John McCain were president right now, we'd still be in the same mess. People have some ridiculous fantasies about things actually changing when the president changes. I have no problems with Obama winning again.
 
2012-09-24 12:15:25 PM  
Do these signs cost more or less then your $45 bumper sticker?
 
2012-09-24 12:17:39 PM  

topcon: Epoch_Zero: topcon: It is for sale, at every level of government. Always has been, always will be. At even the lowest levels of government you virtually can't have a hope of winning without having money. What's funnier is the fact you (the royal you here,) no matter what your political leanings are, think you're really getting any better by so fervently supporting one candidate or the other. The wealthy people who control the government aren't going to enact laws that make them less powerful or wealthy. This goes for both democrats and republicans. It's cute that people try to make illusions of what candidate is either for or against the "common man" as if it makes a difference. You're essentially only voting for hotbutton social issues.

Oh god, so true. No one is better off under an amoral plutocrat than a collectivist do-gooder.

Fact: The president isn't going to change the economy. It's not happening. If John McCain were president right now, we'd still be in the same mess. People have some ridiculous fantasies about things actually changing when the president changes. I have no problems with Obama winning again.


I don't think you get it....he's BLACK.
 
2012-09-24 12:19:14 PM  
...because it's already been sold.
 
2012-09-24 12:19:49 PM  
We'll find out this November whether or not it is for the presidency.

Seems to work just fine for lower offices though.
 
2012-09-24 12:21:06 PM  

topcon: People have some ridiculous fantasies about things actually changing when the president changes.


So by your logic we'd still be in Afghanistan and have fought a fake war with Iraq had Gore been awarded the presidency in 2000?
 
2012-09-24 12:21:28 PM  

topcon: It is for sale, at every level of government. Always has been, always will be. At even the lowest levels of government you virtually can't have a hope of winning without having money. What's funnier is the fact you (the royal you here,) no matter what your political leanings are, think you're really getting any better by so fervently supporting one candidate or the other. The wealthy people who control the government aren't going to enact laws that make them less powerful or wealthy. This goes for both democrats and republicans. It's cute that people try to make illusions of what candidate is either for or against the "common man" as if it makes a difference. You're essentially only voting for hotbutton social issues.


A-farking-men to that. This whole race has boiled down to:
1) Jesus or no Jesus
2) Abortion or no abortion
3) AHA or something else
4) Government "hand-outs" or boot straps
5) Keep the Mexicans or throw them out
6) Same with the Muslims

My neighbor is a Romney voter and keeps pestering me to "debate" him so he can change my mind. His lawn is a forest of yard signs. Romney bumper stickers on every car. He knows I'm a doctor (dentist) and keeps telling me, "You're the only doctor I know that supports Obama. Obamacare will destroy your profession". There's no intelligent thought behind that statement. Medical insurance does not affect dentistry. It's just regurgitation from the pundits on Fox News.
The majority have been convinced their life depends on voting for A or B. In the end it makes very little difference. The wealthy and powerful will continue to carve up this country like a Thanksgiving turkey, and if we're lucky, we'll be left with the bones to gnaw on.
 
2012-09-24 12:23:20 PM  
From the "About Us" page on BillMoyers.com:

Moyers & Company will be presented on public television by WNET in New York and distributed by American Public Television (APT), a leading distributor of high-quality news, documentaries, travel, drama and other programs to the nation's more than 350 public television stations. Moyers & Company is taped at CUNY TV, in the City University of New York television station's HDTV studio in midtown Manhattan. The Moyers & Company radio program is distributed by PRX.org, the Public Radio Exchange - public radio's largest distribution marketplace.

Recent episodes can be ordered by calling 1-800-336-1917; they will also become available soon from Amazon.com.


By my count no fewer than five corporations are involved in spreading Bill Moyers' political message. In this case, the political message he's spreading is that corporations shouldn't have the right to spend money spreading political messages. I wonder if he would feel the same way when his political messages are pulled off of WNET (a corporation) or when their distribution by APT (a corporation) is blocked, or when his messages are pulled from public televisions stations (which are almost all 501c3 non profit corporations, just like Citizens United was) or when sales of past episodes on Amazon (a corporation) are blocked. Or maybe he figures that *his* corporate sponsored speech should get a pass?

Citizens United was about the government's attempt to ban a movie with a political message, based on the fact that it was funded collectively through a corporation rather than by a single wealthy individual.
 
2012-09-24 12:32:50 PM  

Epoch_Zero: topcon: People have some ridiculous fantasies about things actually changing when the president changes.

So by your logic we'd still be in Afghanistan and have fought a fake war with Iraq had Gore been awarded the presidency in 2000?


Yep. If you don't think we wouldn't have went to war after 9/11, you're silly. Nearly everyone was for it then, based off the faulty information that was available, and the furor over the attacks. We're still wasting money in Afghanistan, too, despite Obama being president.
 
2012-09-24 12:36:34 PM  

topcon: Epoch_Zero: topcon: People have some ridiculous fantasies about things actually changing when the president changes.

So by your logic we'd still be in Afghanistan and have fought a fake war with Iraq had Gore been awarded the presidency in 2000?

Yep. If you don't think we wouldn't have went to war after 9/11, you're silly. Nearly everyone was for it then, based off the faulty information that was available, and the furor over the attacks. We're still wasting money in Afghanistan, too, despite Obama being president.


Are you literally the only person who believes both the Iraq-9/11 connection AND that Bush didn't jury-rig the war he wanted?
 
2012-09-24 12:36:37 PM  
The signs will be 23.99.
 
2012-09-24 12:36:39 PM  
On the bright side, billions have been shoved into the campaign, Romney is still behind. So maybe unlimited money doesn't get the results the money-spenders want.
 
2012-09-24 12:38:45 PM  

DubyaHater: ...
The majority have been convinced their life depends on voting for A or B. In the end it makes very little difference. The wealthy and powerful will continue to carve up this country like a Thanksgiving turkey, and if we're lucky, we'll be left with the bones to gnaw on.


Less than 2% of your DNA is different from a chimp's.

Small differences can be important.
 
2012-09-24 12:48:29 PM  

topcon: We're still wasting money in Afghanistan, too, despite Obama being president.


It's funny because you seem to think Obama didn't campaign on an escalation in Afghanistan. Is this the part where we ignore what he actually campaigned on, in favor of what you think he campaigned on?

I agree with the general point that we'd still be in Afghanistan had it been Gore instead of Bush, but there's no possible way Gore would have led an invasion of Iraq.
 
2012-09-24 12:57:42 PM  

ghare: DubyaHater: ...
The majority have been convinced their life depends on voting for A or B. In the end it makes very little difference. The wealthy and powerful will continue to carve up this country like a Thanksgiving turkey, and if we're lucky, we'll be left with the bones to gnaw on.

Less than 2% of your DNA is different from a chimp's.

Small differences can be important.


There are 100s of styles of washing machine at home depot, but they'll all take the skidmarks off your boxers.

Small differences can mean fark all.
 
2012-09-24 01:07:15 PM  

qorkfiend: Weaver95: Two polls released in the last few days report large majorities - as many as eight in ten - are in favor of clamping down on the amount of money that corporations, the super-rich, and those shadowy outside groups are pouring into the campaigns.

want to get big money out of politics? it'll only cost you a couple/few trillion bucks to rewrite the laws necessary to accomplish that goal....

You'd probably need a Constitutional amendment.



Yep.  Otherwise the free speech thing trumps all.
 
2012-09-24 01:17:24 PM  
As long as people blindly vote for a candidate based on the letter behind their name, it will never change. And since the majority of the US is retarded,it is going to stay this way.
 
2012-09-24 01:32:18 PM  
As long as people can continue to be convinced of the essential lie that money is equivalent to speech, this will continue and the country will continue its downward slide.
 
2012-09-24 01:56:02 PM  

ghare: On the bright side, billions have been shoved into the campaign, Romney is still behind. So maybe unlimited money doesn't get the results the money-spenders want.


I think the bigger impact comes from the House and Senate races, where there isn't the national attention to the campaigns and money can do a lot more for a campaign.
 
2012-09-24 02:27:50 PM  
"It's up to all of us to put a sign on every lawn and stoop in the land: 'Democracy is not for sale'"

Tell that to California, where the Democrats who dominate the legislature are owned, body and soul, by the unions who can turn off their funding like flipping a light switch.
 
2012-09-24 02:31:46 PM  
People only ever seem to have a problem with big money and special interests when they support the other guy.

The big money and special interests that support your guy are just fine, they're good hard working people.
 
2012-09-24 03:32:45 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: As long as people can continue to be convinced of the essential lie that money is equivalent to speech, this will continue and the country will continue its downward slide.


It's not a lie, it's a simple fact.

The person who can afford to stand on the street corner and espouse his political views has more power to engage in 'speech' than the person who can't afford to take the time off work or travel to the street corner. The person who can afford a bullhorn to speak through has more power to engage in speech than the one who does not. The person who can afford both a sign and a bullhorn has more power than that, the person who can afford a billboard has more power than that, and the person who can afford a billboard, a paid spokesperson, and some radio and TV time has still more power than that.

A person who is willing to spend money to make their speech heard will always have more power to engage in speech than those who don't. You don't want government telling you that you can't stand on a corner with a sign and a bullhorn spreading your message, even though your 'money' gave you the ability to buy a sign and a bullhorn that less fortunate people can't afford. But you do want government to tell some people that they can't spend their money on billboards or TV. You don't want money out of politics. You just want people who are willing to spend more than some arbitrary line out of politics. And somehow, people always want the line drawn somewhere within their reach, no matter the fact that that line will still be out of reach to many others.
 
2012-09-24 04:27:00 PM  
HAHA! Of course it is you silly man. This is America. Do you think it was ever not about the money? Why would you ever think that?
 
2012-09-24 04:45:26 PM  

Talondel: A Dark Evil Omen: As long as people can continue to be convinced of the essential lie that money is equivalent to speech, this will continue and the country will continue its downward slide.

It's not a lie, it's a simple fact.

The person who can afford to stand on the street corner and espouse his political views has more power to engage in 'speech' than the person who can't afford to take the time off work or travel to the street corner. The person who can afford a bullhorn to speak through has more power to engage in speech than the one who does not. The person who can afford both a sign and a bullhorn has more power than that, the person who can afford a billboard has more power than that, and the person who can afford a billboard, a paid spokesperson, and some radio and TV time has still more power than that.

A person who is willing to spend money to make their speech heard will always have more power to engage in speech than those who don't. You don't want government telling you that you can't stand on a corner with a sign and a bullhorn spreading your message, even though your 'money' gave you the ability to buy a sign and a bullhorn that less fortunate people can't afford. But you do want government to tell some people that they can't spend their money on billboards or TV. You don't want money out of politics. You just want people who are willing to spend more than some arbitrary line out of politics. And somehow, people always want the line drawn somewhere within their reach, no matter the fact that that line will still be out of reach to many others.


There are sign ordinances, noise ordinances, billboard regulations, etc.You dont get carte blanche to just go off and do and say what you whant where you want and how you want. Shame that's been stripped from the political process.
 
2012-09-24 05:18:14 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: There are sign ordinances, noise ordinances, billboard regulations, etc.You dont get carte blanche to just go off and do and say what you whant where you want and how you want. Shame that's been stripped from the political process.


Of course you're not free to do or say whatever you want. But under the Constitution government can (not always, but in general) limit the time, place, and manner of speech, so long as those regulations are content neutral. Content neutral means they can't discriminate against speech because of the content of the message. Regulations that target only political speech are almost always going to be unconstitutional.

But none of that was the point of my post. The point was that there is no way to separate money from speech, and even the people who claim they want to separate those don't really want them completely separated. What they really want is a regulation saying they no one can spend more conveying a political message than they do.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report