Jump to content

Misinformation and hair-brained conspiracy theories have a price, Mr. Jones - $50M and more to come


Recommended Posts

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

you need to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with your dumb free speech hating plan of loving corruption

your plan just sucks

learn to cope

Your ability to write coherently sure sucks.  Exactly WTF does free speech hating plan of loving corruption anyway? :lol:

You simply trust politicians and lobbyists more than you do your fellow public don't you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Your ability to write coherently sure sucks.  Exactly WTF does free speech hating plan of loving corruption anyway? :lol:

You simply trust politicians and lobbyists more than you do your fellow public don't you?

I don't trust either

I oppose the public when they want to infringe on rights

I oppose the politicians and lobbyists when they want to infringe on rights

both want to do this all the time

your ability to comprehend writing sure sucks

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you are forcing them to not speak in private

the public doesn't have a right to listen to private conversations

The public has the right to know what our public officials and representatives are doing in our names.

Would you pick up a weapon to prevent this? I know I'd certainly pick one if you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

in many cases, sure

but the politicians and lobbyists have a right to not have their speech restricted too

and that right is more important

What restriction? WTF are you talking about? Spell it out man, FFS.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What restriction? WTF are you talking about?

forcing them to not speak in private is a restriction on their right to speak in private

a right which every citizen has protected by freedom of speech

them being politicians or lobbyists is not grounds to strip that right from them

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

how can you force them to speak in public

without restricting them from speaking in private?

you need

to flesh

this out

You do not

have to

restrict them to speak in

private.  You only ask/force them to share all

relevant info with

the public in an

open,

timely,

clear and transparent

fashion.

😀

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cougar said:

You do not

have to

restrict them to speak in

private.  You only ask/force them to share all

relevant info with

the public in an

open,

timely,

clear and transparent

fashion.

😀

they could just say they revealed all relevant information from their private conversations and not actually do so

so how do you enforce that effectively?

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

how can you force them to speak in public

without restricting them from speaking in private?

you need

to flesh

this out

 I suppose what might prevent a lobbyist to speak their mind freely is if the favor they're requesting is so outrageous or controversial that only a government could force it on us. Is this where the real rubber of your objection to improving transparency hits the road isn't it? Despite saying you don't trust politicians, governments or the public, you distrust perhaps even loathe the public more. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you also express a disdain for elitism? Why?

In the meantime what restriction? There is no mention of restricting speech in the federal Lobbying Act and none in the changes I propose.

I've simply proposed to make changes to that act by including as a principle, that there be no in-camera discussions were there is a clear direct public interest at stake.  All this does is to make the requirement to already disclose what is being discussed more robust.

Not only are you confused about the difference between listening and speaking you are also challenged with the difference between public and private not to mention privacy and secrecy.

No one should have the right to discuss a private interest in secret with a public official when that private interest impacts the public's. Are you so jaded, paranoid or faithful perhaps to believe otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In the meantime what restriction? There is no mention of restricting speech in the federal Lobbying Act and none in the changes I propose.

No one should have the right to discuss a private interest in secret with a public official when that private interest impacts the public's. Are you so jaded, paranoid or faithful perhaps to believe otherwise?

these two paragraphs totally contradict each other

I don't want any restrictions of free speech

I want this restriction of free speech

make up your mind

if you are going to stop them from speaking in private

how do you do that without a giant police state apparatus to spy on politicians and lobbyists to make sure they aren't discussing things that effect the public interest in private?

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

they could just say they revealed all relevant information from their private conversations and not actually do so

so how do you enforce that effectively?

Two ways. The first is slower. If changes to legislation are made that were requested of a politician outside of the venue involving the public the public will say 'wait a minute, these changes were never part of the discussion we heard'. Presumably the public would recognize they'd been swindled bringing shame and shit down on the government and vote the bums out.

The faster more direct route would be to mandate that reoffending politicians and lobbyist's keep contact tracing apps on their phones so we can keep tabs on the sneaky bastards.

Screw that, chip the f******.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Two ways. The first is slower. If changes to legislation are made that were requested of a politician outside of the venue involving the public the public will say 'wait a minute, these changes were never part of the discussion we heard'. Presumably the public would recognize they'd been swindled bringing shame and shit down on the government and vote the bums out.

The faster more direct route would be to mandate that reoffending politicians and lobbyist's keep contact tracing apps on their phones so we can keep tabs on the sneaky bastards.

Screw that, chip the f******.

the first way is totally ineffective

the public can vote them out now for not publicly talking about the proposed changes in legislation and they don't do that

the second way is a police state to spy on politicians and lobbyists private discussions

which is ridiculous over the top totalitarianism straight out of the KGB playbook

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Seems you didn't pay attention to the fact I said lobbyists should be working to garner public support.

Perhaps you don't know/believe/care who or what it is that politicians and public officials should be representing when in-camera with professional paid influencers.

No, you did not pay attention to what a lobbyist is.

A lobbyist is lobbying the people that can do something for them, their company or the organizations that can help them.

The  "public" has no authority, finances, backing to do any of that.

"Perhaps you don't know/believe/care" who actually has the ability to get things moving/doing/finance. It is not the "public" that is for sure.

"politicians and public officials " represent you, the voter and you selected them to make the decisions on the programs/policies/procedures that you voted them in to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ironstone said:

And your reliable sources would be....?

I don't follow washed-out actors with melted brains from years of heroin abuse that can't separate fact from fiction.  The number of times Russel Brand has embarrassed himself by repeating some dogshit story he read but never scrutinized is embarrassing - similar to Joe Rogan but at least that guy has the humility to admit when he's been caught saying something stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't follow washed-out actors with melted brains from years of heroin abuse that can't separate fact from fiction.  The number of times Russel Brand has embarrassed himself by repeating some dogshit story he read but never scrutinized is embarrassing - similar to Joe Rogan but at least that guy has the humility to admit when he's been caught saying something stupid. 

but you do follow news organizations that do the same shit you accuse others of

you don't seem to notice when they do it though

just when you think those whose politics you don't like did it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

No, you did not pay attention to what a lobbyist is.

A lobbyist is lobbying the people that can do something for them, their company or the organizations that can help them.

The  "public" has no authority, finances, backing to do any of that.

Yes that's precisely right.

Quote

"Perhaps you don't know/believe/care" who actually has the ability to get things moving/doing/finance. It is not the "public" that is for sure.

You honestly don't think the public has any actual capacity to motivate politicians?  Why do you think politicians and lobbyists are so afraid of the public's reaction to greater disclosure? 

Quote

"politicians and public officials " represent you, the voter and you selected them to make the decisions on the programs/policies/procedures that you voted them in to do.

Okay, but that's got nothing to do with making meetings with public officials public. They can still make whatever decisions they want.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

A lobbyist is lobbying the people that can do something for them, their company or the organizations that can help them.

The  "public" has no authority, finances, backing to do any of that.

This sounds like the basis for the admiration Trudeau has for dictatorships that can get things done.

Never mind the fact it's the public that authorizes and finances the government.

You figure a simple x on a ballot every 4 or 5 is all the accountability the public needs or deserves?

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes that's precisely right.

You honestly don't think the public has any actual capacity to motivate politicians?  Why do you think politicians and lobbyists are so afraid of the public's reaction to greater disclosure? 

Okay, but that's got nothing to do with making meetings with public officials public. They can still make whatever decisions they want.   

Yup, the public has very little influence on policy and processes and procedures. if you think they do, you are naive.

It has everything to do with having in camera meetings. Things are discussed and decided and if they were openly public, nothing would be accomplished by anyone. There would be too many comments and whiners and objections, just as seen in this forum. Consensus would never be achieved.

You voted for your representative to decide for you, over and out, like it or not.Oh and, they do not have to tell you everything that is said or done. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...