OT - Politics as a Sport - Last night's debate

[tornado]

..Would Bill Moyer be able to say and have a show on any of the 4 major network and would he have the same freedom he has today?

The answer to me is easy, no and no! We need PBS.

then if he cannot succeed on his own why should the government take tax dollars and help him succeed ?
I think that is the very definition of unfairness and discrimination...just hand-picking one guy and bankrolling HIS success while leaving gobs of people in poverty who need the $$ way, way more than Bill Moyers does.
Why not give me the money that Bill Moyer is getting and let me see if I can succeed and have a talk show on TV and give my opinions?
Don't you see where such an endeavor is so incredibly unfair, since it picks just one guy, gives him millions in tax dollars, then supports his TV show under the guise of "this is the government helping the US people get what we think they should get".

[SFP]

T & LG I see your point of view but disagree.

LG - PBS does local programming where they have the funding. I happen to live in a community which there are quite a few shows focused on California and the SF Bay area.

T - Perhaps we need to maintain that window of public broadcasting open or otherwise all our news will be dictated by the few. If we did not do away with regulations regarding who can own what in regards to media/news outlets I'd feel better about letting this one slide. I'm more into free market economy within an environment of total transparency. Right now including our political climate is anything but transparent. Do you know how many corporations control the vast majority (over 80%) of our media? How about who controls our health insurance industry. Both are controlled by a handful of very wealthy global corporations which do not have the best interest of our citizens at all times. Until Main Street has a voice in this country I'm sticking to every conceivable avenue we can use to express and communicate the average Americans voice even if it is slanted a bit to the left.

BTW...I do not see Bill Moyer's belief system as left leaning but one that is concerned of the direction of this country. When is the last time you listened to him. He's had plenty of people from Republicans to Democrats on his show. Take a look at the Dave Stockman interview. Dave Stockman ran The Office of Budget and Management under Ronald Reagan!

http://billmoyers.com/segment/david-stockman-on-crony-capitalism/

[Da Coach]

I have listened and watched a lot of Bill Moyers for over 30 years on CBS and PBS. And he is extremely liberal in his ideas and politics. He describes himself as progressive, has provided millions of dollars of support to liberal organizations, and is constantly bashing and vilifying conservatives.

[SFP]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561720_10151470425468327_1970234570_n.jpg

Just because a person does not submit themselves to right wing rhetoric it does not mean they are also submitting themselves to the liberal rhetoric. Moyer may have liberal leanings but his overall teachings are about having a moral conviction. You can always argue about how much government you want or need but what we can all I agree on is that I do not want a few people or corporations to dictate our policies. We at least through our constitution have the ability to make the political changes we want. We have very little power over large international corporations.

[tornado]

I don't think it's hard to imagine what our founding fathers would have done...
in their days the newspapers were the equivalent of our TV stations now - and guess how they thought the papers should operate..

TOTALLY independent of the government - and had even one media outlet hinted that they should have funding from the government or get tax dollars then I think the hair on the back of the necks of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. would have stood on end as they riled in anger at such a thought.
Thus the strong language to keep the gocernment out of the media - totally

[Da Coach]

Journalism is the only profession explicitly protected by the Constitution...

This is simply not true.
Free speech is what's protected by the Constitution.
Journalism is not the same thing as free speech.
Every one of us has freedom of speech, and it is not dependent on journalism.

[Beninator]

I don't think it's hard to imagine what our founding fathers would have done...
in their days the newspapers were the equivalent of our TV stations now - and guess how they thought the papers should operate..

TOTALLY independent of the government - and had even one media outlet hinted that they should have funding from the government or get tax dollars then I think the hair on the back of the necks of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. would have stood on end as they riled in anger at such a thought.
Thus the strong language to keep the gocernment out of the media - totally

Have you ever heard of the US Post Office and the role the Founding Fathers planned to develop the newspaper industry and freedom of speech?

"Realizing that an informed citizenry was essential for a democracy to be successful, America’s first politicians authorized highly subsidized postage rates for a nascent newspaper industry that created the greatest proliferation of newspapers the world had ever seen and a national market for information long before there was a national market for goods. As early as 1785, Congress authorized government-sponsored stagecoach service primarily for mail and newspaper transportation, and until the advent of railroads, subsidized stagecoaches were the principal means of intercity public transportation. The constitutional power to establish post roads was seized upon to expand the national role in road development, leading by 1840 to a 150,000-mile network of post roads binding the nation into an integrated whole."

http://www.uspsoig.gov/foia_files/RARC-WP-12-012.pdf

[tornado]

Yikes - Ben - you have just unwittingly posted something that STRONGLY argues my point exactly - that even quotes Jefferson as saying...
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying . . . that
man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore
be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual
hitherto found, is the freedom of the press."
The whole thing argues for the FREEDOM of the PRESS and the GOVERNMENT staying hands off.

I have no idea where interpretation of that story ever came from but it's bogus...and I guess I can see why - it's coming from the folks
at the post office who want you to think the post office is the savior of all that's free and good!

...it appears to be the Post Office spokespeople simply reinventing reality in order to justify their own existence - which has been threatened a lot
recently with the rise of private carriers like FedEx & UPS, and by horrific mismanagement and near bankruptcy..

Remember - the Post Office did not exist when the Declaration or the Constitution were drawn up..
it came a few years later - and the government did indeed think it was important for the masses of people to be informed and educated so
they drew up the lower postal rates for newspapers, books, and ALL PRINTED MATERIAL - not just newspapers alone -
you can still get the "BOOK RATE" even today and you can even get it for tapes and phonograph records!
I am a record collector and have used what they call the "Library rate" or "Book rate" or "Publication rate" many times.

AND THE REASON WAS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SEEN AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE MEDIA -
IT WAS TO "FREE UP" THE MEDIA AND PUBLISHERS SO THEY WOULD NOT FEEL BURDENED (OR CONTROLLED) BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Remember - the first postage stamps didn't come along until 60 years later!!!
The postage was often controlled back in the late 1700's and early 1800's by unscrupulous local agents and postmasters and the newspapers
were essentially being blackmailed with unreasonable postage charges - by both elected and UN-elected people so the feds saw that coming and legislated to prevent it.

[SFP]

I don't think it's hard to imagine what our founding fathers would have done...
in their days the newspapers were the equivalent of our TV stations now - and guess how they thought the papers should operate..

TOTALLY independent of the government - and had even one media outlet hinted that they should have funding from the government or get tax dollars then I think the hair on the back of the necks of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. would have stood on end as they riled in anger at such a thought.
Thus the strong language to keep the gocernment out of the media - totally

I wonder what they would think of how few really control the news. In 1800 there were ~200 independently ran newspapers. Today there are 5 major corporations controlling our news. Something is out of whack!

I also wonder how they would feel about US Federal Reserve and the ability for corporations to fund elections. Do you know there are foreign concerns funding this election? The backdoor is through the Citizen United v. FEC Supreme Court decision.

[Da Coach]

That decision had nothing to do with foreign money funding elections. It simply reversed the McCain-Feingold restrictions that were violations of constitutionally protected free speech.

Here is where the foreign money is sneaking into this election-

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_campaign_open_door_to_china_mEQG5tC5tRZdbDbiTHGBcL

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/group-warns-of-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

[BradleyJD]

Please, let's not bring the founding fathers into this discussion. It is completely pointless to debate what they would think.

Honestly, if anybody (founding father or regular joe) from the Revolutionary time period saw how any of our branches were run today, they would be shocked to say the least.

Congress was never meant to be or designed to be a lifetime job for people. It was originally meant for people to actually represent the their constituents. Not collect kickbacks and tack on ignorant pork projects to every normal bill that goes through Congress.

You can elect Romney or re-elect Obama and nothing major will change. If you live your life waiting for a President to come and magically fix things you are going to grow old and gray waiting for that day.

If you want to fix America, try instituting term limits in Congress. Truly make all kick-backs illegal. Strictly oversee lobbying.

It might also help if actual people ran for President. It doesn't help having party-driven, political machine-made candidates presented every 4 years. Let's get real people, who have actually worked jobs (not held political offices for 40 years). Maybe then, politics could take a back seat and real work and change could happen.

Now I realize that is about as likely as the Cubs winning the WS or reality TV being taken off the air, but it would be nice to see!

[SFP]

Please, let's not bring the founding fathers into this discussion. It is completely pointless to debate what they would think.

Honestly, if anybody (founding father or regular joe) from the Revolutionary time period saw how any of our branches were run today, they would be shocked to say the least.

Congress was never meant to be or designed to be a lifetime job for people. It was originally meant for people to actually represent the their constituents. Not collect kickbacks and tack on ignorant pork projects to every normal bill that goes through Congress.

You can elect Romney or re-elect Obama and nothing major will change. If you live your life waiting for a President to come and magically fix things you are going to grow old and gray waiting for that day.

If you want to fix America, try instituting term limits in Congress. Truly make all kick-backs illegal. Strictly oversee lobbying.

It might also help if actual people ran for President. It doesn't help having party-driven, political machine-made candidates presented every 4 years. Let's get real people, who have actually worked jobs (not held political offices for 40 years). Maybe then, politics could take a back seat and real work and change could happen.

Now I realize that is about as likely as the Cubs winning the WS or reality TV being taken off the air, but it would be nice to see!

+1

[SFP]

That decision had nothing to do with foreign money funding elections. It simply reversed the McCain-Feingold restrictions that were violations of constitutionally protected free speech.

Here is where the foreign money is sneaking into this election-

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_campaign_open_door_to_china_mEQG5tC5tRZdbDbiTHGBcL

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...bama-campaign/

T - Put your head in a hole and just ignore what Citizen United decision has done to our election process. It so much easier for a foreign concern to put money into our elections then ever before. All they need is to be incorporated in the USA and use the money they make there for unlimited contributions to PACs and other organizations.

"McCain-Feingold restrictions that were violations of constitutionally protected free speech.", really like how? Citizen United v FEC gave Corporations the same rights as citizens. I'm still confused by that. Last I knew a Corporation could not serve in the army and perform other civic duties that American citizens have to perform. Corporations are citizens? What it has allowed is the ability for large international conglomerates to influence our political agenda like never before.

Senator X - Thanks Corporation W for supporting my friends PAC.
Corporation W - No problem we'll be there the next go around as long as everything goes the way we want it.

We need campaign reform laws like never before so we can perhaps create a foundation that will get our children's political structure close to what JD pointed out. Wake up America or we will be living in a country that closely resembles Russia.

[tornado]

SFP - you're addressing me on something that Da Coach had said - so I don't know how to respond..

and I think it is very important to discuss and consider what the Founding Fathers would have thought or did think...
In fact in MANY Supreme Court decisions - that's PRECISELY what he justices do - they do it ALL THE TIME...
..they look at all the other writings of those very people who wrote the Constitution and formulated what's in it.

They cite the "wall of separation" between church and state - in numerous court cases regarding what's CONSTITUTIONAL, but that phrase appears NOWHERE in the Constitution -
...but it does appear in one obscure letter written by Jefferson more than a decade after the constitution was signed!
That's only the best example - but MANY other court cases and Supreme Court determinations of what is Constitutional have come from Founding Fathers' writings as much as 30 years later!

BTW -as an interesting argument - this "wall of separation" was cited only twice or so in all of the first hundred years of legal proceedings in the ENTIRE USA..
but in the last 50 years or so it's been cited thousands of times -- and why?? Because it has now been bent so far out of shape and it's being used in cases that CLEARLY even the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted it used - like tearing down religious displays in public. NOBODY in Jefferson's day would have ever favored such a thing but now we have people arguing the "wall of separation" demands it! They are essentially taking Jefferson's own words and twisting them to use it against what he'd have clearly wanted.

[SFP]

Sorry T! I 100% agree that there needs to be a separation between church and state. No argument there whatsoever. I find it ironic though the same people who want to stop funding PBS are the first that want to fund religious groups for schools and other activities. It also goes the other way around. You can't have it both ways IMO. I do not mind the government funding non-profit organizations which provide services that benefit the community at large, regardless of affiliation. It's when the federal government starts creating strict guidelines that are religious or political in nature. ie Catholic Hospitals have to give abortions to receive funding is ludicrous and others who donot want any funds to go to planned parenthood because of what they stand for. Both organizations serve their communities at large.