The American variety. They think the free market is somehow a component of liberty. While they talk a good game about corporations, they really don't ever act on that part of the rhetoric, perhaps because corporations give huge dollars to free market/right wing think tanks, front groups, organizations and candidates. >> ^Yogi:

Which Libertarianism are we talking about here...European or American...there's a world of difference.

Nope, never said she should be shocked, my point is that neither candidate should be in a position where $500,000 worth of expenses for this kind of campaign should be considered normal.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^ghark:
Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Rachel should be shocked that the actual candidate for national office, would spend more in an entire campaign season, then some shadowy front group spent in two weeks? Sure half a mil is a chunk of changes, but at this rate, this unidentified front group will have outspent either of the candidates by election day.
The amount of money itself is not the salient issue. When the candidate spends money, he has a history, connections, historical funders, you can look into where his money came from. When an organization that has existed for less than a month is spending faster then either candidate, and you can't tell where the money is coming from, then how do you assess the motivations, or the ulterior motives of the message?

>> ^ghark:
Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...

Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Rachel should be shocked that the actual candidate for national office, would spend more in an entire campaign season, then some shadowy front group spent in two weeks? Sure half a mil is a chunk of changes, but at this rate, this unidentified front group will have outspent either of the candidates by election day.

The amount of money itself is not the salient issue. When the candidate spends money, he has a history, connections, historical funders, you can look into where his money came from. When an organization that has existed for less than a month is spending faster then either candidate, and you can't tell where the money is coming from, then how do you assess the motivations, or the ulterior motives of the message?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Not crazy about corporate front group CATO, which is funded by the Scaife Foundation and Koch Industries, but blankfist really wants me to upvote this, so here goes, in the name of bromance.


Well, I do see how they're so evil with their anti-police-state yet somehow subliminal pro-corporatist message here. *rolls eyes*

I also wonder why @NetRunner hasn't voted for this? I guess he endorses police states.

Not crazy about corporate front group CATO, which is funded by the Scaife Foundation and Koch Industries, but blankfist really wants me to upvote this, so here goes, in the name of bromance.

front group.

thanks

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

>> ^Peroxide:
I live in Alberta, frankly, it is disgusting how many individuals i have met who blindly believe anti climate change propaganda. For a deeper look at how the corporation and media are distorting our information, check out Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky.

I live in Ontario. And it's a funny thing to realize that a large number of people can't think for themselves. As soon as they turn around and say "look deeper" they turn to another talking and yipping windbag, who is spewing the same crap.

My faith in humanity continues to move backwards when the old irony meter is pegged at 11.

>> ^lampishthing:
Which is why everybody should be forced to study philosophy in school :-)
Ask some bloody questions before you believe the information!!!!


And basic economics, from the elementary level if you ask me

Haha, yeah, they're all the same thing.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^gwiz665:
Who are the ones that we left in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers!♪


"...but i repeat myself"

>> ^gwiz665:
Who are the ones that we left in charge? Killers, thieves and lawyers!♪


"...but i repeat myself"

Your video, Front Groups - The Hidden Persuaders, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^LordOderus:
>> ^StukaFox:
Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.

When, in any episode, has Penn ever said that their show is "neutral"? They almost always have a very obvious opinion about the subject matter of an episode, and they clearly point it out. The show isn't about debate and contrast between two sides. It's about them calling out things that they believe are Bullshit. So while I agree with you that they are very one sided (and usually very liberal) you can't hold it against them. That's what the show is. If they presented themselves as a fair and balanced debate show, or the news, and were still blatantly one sided coughFOXcough then that would be something to criticize.


hhehehe cause CNN and MSNBC are totally neutral! All network news is dead to true journalism. That is why I just listen to the voices in my head...MUAHAHAHAH

(I might of consumed far to much sugar today)

>> ^StukaFox:
Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.


When, in any episode, has Penn ever said that their show is "neutral"? They almost always have a very obvious opinion about the subject matter of an episode, and they clearly point it out. The show isn't about debate and contrast between two sides. It's about them calling out things that they believe are Bullshit. So while I agree with you that they are very one sided (and usually very liberal) you can't hold it against them. That's what the show is. If they presented themselves as a fair and balanced debate show, or the news, and were still blatantly one sided *coughFOXcough* then that would be something to criticize.

Fuck Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" -- their show IS bullshit. It's a bunch of Libertarian crap being fobbed off as a "neutral" opinion. Look up the sources they use on the show and you'll find example after example of corporate shills, Randist loons and far-right front groups. On occasion, they accidentally do a good show (the death penalty show and the one about video games were both balanced), but the rest of the time their show is nothing but a smoke-screen for Penn's wacked-out political views.