You say that as though those are the only two candidates. And you would prefer a felon and compulsive liar? She's way more terrifying than Drumpf. Nothing he talks about he could ever get passed. Hillary has enough corporate sponsorship in her pocket that if she is elected (and I use that word lightly), certain doom and woe is upon us.

No sir. Sensible sane and rational people(sarcasm intended) would treat sponsorship of Olympic games similarly if sayyy, the Olympic committee used child labor or trashed the environment building the arena and got corporate sponsors behind them....Wouldn't we then have to listen to the same type of gimps, the same who trash their own powers of reason, come out of the wood-works to protest that horrifying scenario!?? Watch them boycott coco-cola and mc donalds then?



WHAT CREATES THE LOWER-CLASS PEOPLE anyway, duh???

All governments work the same dude, a few people force the masses to perform according to their rules or be fined or imprisoned.

Draaakonian bullshit.

Personally, I boycott coke and mc donalds because their food is non-nutritive shit that causes diabetic epidemics in adults and children-Less is more.

Besides, corporate sponsorship of anything is a waste of resources when the same could be used for advancement both physically and spiritually of the entire species.

It's 2014 sir, and pretty much ALL governments and law enforcement works on the same arcane model, be they called democracies or dictatorships....po-tay-to, fucking pa-tah-to

How does this have anything to do with McDonald's, Coca Cola, and Corporate sponsorship of the olympics? Many low class people in america or every other country are the same kind of asshole...the only difference is how the governments and law enforcement work.

>> ^budzos:

No, I'm not afraid I'm going to lose control and shove someone unnecessarily. I haven't "assaulted" anyone since I was twelve.
What I'm afraid of is being in the proximity of people who would "absolutely file assault charges" for something where nobody was really hurt and the guy has already paid the price of looking like a complete asshole in front of the whole world. You would "absoultely" press the issue and try to sic the government on him. Why? Justice? Get fucked.
>> ^Porksandwich:
>> ^budzos:
People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.


Is the fear of being sued for shoving people or the choice of not attending things where you may be offended/irritated/whatever and not being able to shove someone?
Hell you can't even put your hands on someone like that when they are on your own property for something as simple as wearing a mascot outfit and trying to hand you something...well NORMAL people can't get away with it at least.
I'd absolutely file assault charges against him if he put his hands on me or my kid (if I had kids) like that. He wouldn't put up with me going out and shoving his teenage kids....double standards are fun.



So he looked like an asshole in front of the world, he chose to do what he did. Him looking like an asshole doesn't negate the fact that he shoved someone, specifically a kid for approaching him and trying to hand him something who wouldn't have been on the track if they didn't have permission from the event.

He doesn't suddenly become a victim because now he looks like an asshole in front of the whole world, the victim is still the person in the mascot outfit being shoved...on camera in front of the same audience.

I think you'd feel differently if he were shoving you on camera and not just shrugging your shoulders and thinking aww shucks the poor runner man looks like an asshole. You have the expectation to not be assaulted by little known people AND well known people. Entitled to your own opinion, even if it does let grown men shove kids around. All intentional, nothing accidental happening in that video.

No, I'm not afraid I'm going to lose control and shove someone unnecessarily. I haven't "assaulted" anyone since I was twelve.

What I'm afraid of is being in the proximity of people who would "absolutely file assault charges" for something where nobody was really hurt and the guy has already paid the price of looking like a complete asshole in front of the whole world. You would "absoultely" press the issue and try to sic the government on him. Why? Justice? Get fucked.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^budzos:
People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.


Is the fear of being sued for shoving people or the choice of not attending things where you may be offended/irritated/whatever and not being able to shove someone?
Hell you can't even put your hands on someone like that when they are on your own property for something as simple as wearing a mascot outfit and trying to hand you something...well NORMAL people can't get away with it at least.
I'd absolutely file assault charges against him if he put his hands on me or my kid (if I had kids) like that. He wouldn't put up with me going out and shoving his teenage kids....double standards are fun.

>> ^budzos:

People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.



Is the fear of being sued for shoving people or the choice of not attending things where you may be offended/irritated/whatever and not being able to shove someone?

Hell you can't even put your hands on someone like that when they are on your own property for something as simple as wearing a mascot outfit and trying to hand you something...well NORMAL people can't get away with it at least.

I'd absolutely file assault charges against him if he put his hands on me or my kid (if I had kids) like that. He wouldn't put up with me going out and shoving his teenage kids....double standards are fun.

People like you make me afraid to go out into the world.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.

Plus, Im guessing his shirt, shorts, shoes, and possibly his underwear. And anything else he dons on his way to the run and after the run will have a big corporate logo on it. So...... yeah. Hopefully some assault charges are in his future to go along with all that ill will he's generated. I don't see how the time frame that happened in could be a misunderstanding, and if he can't deal with the situation of corporate sponsorship of the events....he should stop going.

The main stream media is the liberal media that's my point. Society needs more people figuring that out. For as much as people hate them (FOX news, Glen Beck etc,) they do bring stories forth stories that the main stream does not. EX. Main stream imply that Muslims are a peaceful religion. Its not. The true desire of this religion is to convert or kill. They treat their women like dogs. How can Americans tolerate that? But yet main stream media play stories that they are a nice bunch of people. >> ^alcom:

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."
More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:
"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."
>> ^bobknight33:
This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."

More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:

"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."

>> ^bobknight33:

This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

>> ^MrConrads:
I fail to understand why if it is so imperative to have a free and unbiased press in order to have a healthy democracy why we do not fight, nay, DEMAND such a thing. If nothing else the last 8 years have proven this need. In my opinion it has been clearly shown that a country becomes more divided and obtuse rather than informed when living under a press that operates like it has here in America. We need to trust those who work in the field of journalism to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and do their duty just as much as any president or senator. So why does there seem to be this lack of oversight into one of the most important aspects of a democracy? Lawyers must swear an oath to the Constitution to uphold the law as it is written, and if they violate that oath they are disbarred. Presidents, Senators, Police, Doctors, and many other professions that are given the duty of upholding the common good must all live by similar ethics, so why not journalists and reporters? I believe that any and all who wish to work in such a profession should be sworn in to uphold the constitution, inform the public to the best of their abilities, and remain completely unbiased. If they cannot uphold these ideals they should be replaced by someone who can, that is if we want this grand experiment to work.


I agree with you in theory. However, I think it gets a bit touchy when private corporations are involved. All of these news outlets are privatized, so they all have their own agenda - their own spin on issues to target and reach a specific segment of the population. One of the main problems is that these private institutions see news as just another tv show/article/blog - it's all about ratings and corporate sponsorship (i.e. money). It's no surprise that the most unbiased news media out there is socialized (NPR) - they don't bow down to the mighty dollar coming from the fist of a corporation.

Notice also that your other examples of professions that are given the duty of upholding the common good are either government institutions or socialized (public officials and police officers). The doctor example is a touchy one, and in most industrialized nations, these would be socialized too - the reason they are held to such a high ethical standard in the US as opposed to journalists is that they're job is seen by the public as a more integral part of the human condition (protecting life). It's interesting though that most Americans support nationalizing health care in the US - in effect removing a majority of the greed, corporate motive, and lack of ethics out of the system.

Setting up any kind of ethical institution based on capitalistic principles is counter-intuitive. Ethics are only followed by corporations as long as it improves the bottom line.

If we're going to expect journalists and the private news media to hold themselves to an 'ethical standard', then we're going to have to:

a) reduce the privatization of the news media,
b) remove the rating system / corporate sponsorship from news programs,
c) realize that our society must start taking the news media as a serious ethical issue in the line of doctors/surgeons holding an ethical standard.

However, its a very fine line between preventing unethical behavior in an institution and upholding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Lawyers and government officials lie all the time and get away with it. So do journalists, reporters, and news corporations. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to be biased in these professions. That oath of which you speak seems to be less and less followed as privatization increases more and more.

</rant>

you know, recently i've been reading alot of naomi klein and chomsky thinking would obama really make that much of a difference? does it really matter who is in power anymore? and while i think the answer is (unforunately) probably not.. i just really don't want this person to have any sort of say in how i should live my life, or how my government should spend its money. seriously, i hate this stuff. it makes me so angry. i think the republicans are going to win again and martial law will prevail (by the way, did u know that martial law was reintroduced by the founder of Hewlitt Packard as deputy secretary of defense on the nixon administration?). under the guise of 'homeland security' you, as americans, will see further intrusion of your privacy by your government. your children will be fed lies on a daily basis at schools and their school will become mostly funded by corporate sponsorship. drilling for oil will continue and your national parks will get smaller. censorship will be slowly introduced into mainstream media.

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ahh, there is a part 3. Cool. Does this news station happen on cable TV? Anyone know what name it would be listed under?

As NetRunner said it's web only. They are still a very new organization and working up to a full cable news program. The special thing about them is they don't accept advertisements, corporate sponsorship or government subsidies. They rely purely on donation from viewers. This means that they are totally independent and can offer Real News. Paul Jay the founder explains it better.
I really hope this model succeeds, but it will need donations.


Hmm, well, I would still be a little worried about where the money does end up coming from. But it is at least a step in the right direction. Though, I don't think they could ever get on TV without actual sponcers...perhaps radio though.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ahh, there is a part 3. Cool. Does this news station happen on cable TV? Anyone know what name it would be listed under?

As NetRunner said it's web only. They are still a very new organization and working up to a full cable news program. The special thing about them is they don't accept advertisements, corporate sponsorship or government subsidies. They rely purely on donation from viewers. This means that they are totally independent and can offer Real News. Paul Jay the founder explains it better.

I really hope this model succeeds, but it will need donations.

This original proposal completely embraces 'punk' spirit... call it cyberpunk if you will. That I like. Everyone else wandered in and 'complicated it all up', which is how we do things around here, it seems.

Some kind of corporate sponsorship of the top 15 seems like one avenue (The top 3, top 15, etc., brought to you by - XYZ Corp!) - which would conform more to 'traditional' ad models than the unique proposal you've floated, dag. Consider that too... not saying one's better than the other, just 'easier to understand'.