Quote:
danielpalos
I thought the point was that mainstream media moguls have a conflict of interest in reporting news and manipulating public opinion to suit their private profit motive.
|
So what? You think this conflict didn't exist when the first Amendment was ratified? In fact, there was even more reliance on fewer major sources of "news" back then.
Quote:
danielpalos
Consider that my capitalism friendly version would automatically qualify industry moguls like Mr. Gates and Mr. Grasso for elected office, if they choose to run for public office.
|
What in god's name are you talking about?
Quote:
danielpalos
Nothing I am advocating for should be construed that any citizen of the Union should be denied or disparaged in their petitions for redress of grievances.
|
Well, isn't that nice. But it nonetheless leaves violation of their freedom of speech/press rights (try reading the first amendment in its entirety)
Quote:
danielpalos
Running for public office has always had criteria for eligibility.
|
Eligibility for what?
Quote:
danielpalos
Why should the populace of the sovereign state of California be required to endure the mistakes of the past, when market friendly public policy could ameliorate the standard of living of the populace of the US.
|
What in god's name are you talking about? You realize that you have not managed to string together a clear and coherent thought in this thread?
__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"
----Denny Crane
