Skip to main content

View Diary: That Sucking Sound? It's The 73 Billion-Dollar Corporate Robbery of The States (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  except the corporations (7+ / 0-)

    are taking all the tax money they have saved and are calling it free speech to further buy the political system.

    "The system is rigged' means something different to people who don't have a vested interest in keeping it rigged than it does to the people who rigged the system in the first place.  And all the pretence you set out about how just showing up and voting in a system dominated by the rich and by raising money from the rich works just fine for the little guy just isn't working.

    •  Really? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Sparhawk, FG, erush1345

      I always think this kind of message is arrogant.  

      After all, you are subjected to the exact same corporate money and commercials as every other voter.  Yet you manage not to believe everything you are told in Americans for Prosperity Commercials.  Do you think the vast majority of voters are not as smart or discerning as you are?  Do you think the vast majority of voters are so stupid or gullible that they have no choice to believe whatever they see in a commercial from a corporation, and are unable to see commercials from the left that counter that message, unable to find MSNBC on their cable channel, and unable to find internet sites that put out messages that counter the corporate message?  

      •  I have learned (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoMoreLies, burlydee, ask, JayRaye, Tonedevil

        to avoid the propaganda by reading source material from many sources but mainly excluding most US mainstream broadcast media, and the local newspapers.  I live in Georgia, where people tell me all the time that Fox News isn't biased and it isn't conservative. And it isn't about stupidity of other voters but priorities and awareness of how much we hear is conditioned by carefully paid for messages.   Many people never have an event or experience that calls this to their attention.

        So blame me for arrogance if you want, I don't care about your opinion of me at all.   But I know propaganda is effective, I know that big companies and political parties spend a fortune on it.  Frank Luntz is a byword around here for his messaging.

        And the internet,  routinely laws are introduced to dumb down the internet, provide corporate paid for search patterns to prevent equal access to sites, etc.   And many people don't have the luxury of access or the time to spend on the internet searching for alternative viewpoints.   Seems to me your disingenuous insistence that the playing field is really equal and fair is much more hurtful to the interests of people than my arrogance.  

        •  Um, MSNBC isn't too hard to find if people want to (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, VClib, erush1345

          I have to think that more than the 800,000 people who tune in to their prime time shows in this country know where to find it on their cable channels if they want to.  And Dkos isn't any more difficult to find that Drudge is.    

          And this:

          Seems to me your disingenuous insistence that the playing field is really equal and fair is much more hurtful to the interests of people than my arrogance.  
          Is absurd if your definition of "equal" and "fair" is that everybody's message is published on an equal footing -- and the government should guarantee that. That's against everything that is at the basis of the First Amendment.  We've always had some political messages more widely disseminated than others, even from the inception of this country.  People -- not government -- decide how much a message gets heard.  Government is supposed to stay out of the business of trying to "equalize" messages.  

          I'd really, really be interested in hearing how you think we can make political speech "equal" and "fair" without the government playing some roll in suppressing some speech and subsidizing other speech, which is EXACTLY what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.  

          •  you can't stick to my message (0+ / 0-)

            as you try to deflect.  Never once did I say anything about what government should do.   You are projecting what you fear not what I said.   And the playing field goes far beyond media into the money spent in elections, to buy officeholders, to prevent the wrong kind of people from voting, etc.   And you can pretend, but the less bright among the Republicans frequently give the game away by actually saying out loud them mean to stop people who support democrats from voting.

            I merely pointed out private interests in private media are using propaganda techniques and are co-opted,  and that many Americans have no clue as to what is happening.

            And 800K watch the almost liberal leaning MSNBC and there are over 150 million eligible to vote.  SO much for your argument.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site