2016 Postmortem

pantsonfire

(1,306 posts)

26. The opinion clearly was expressing a NO vote, you also voted NO.

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 06:10 AM

Mar 2016

Think about it this way....I've been asked to vote if someone is guilty, I decide Yes or No, based on my opinion (to the poll in this case). Then I'm asked to serve on a jury to decide if another opinion, that is clearly a No, should be hidden, well you already decided No before the jury started. If this makes no sense, no need to respond, we can leave the discussion here. I'm glad most folks are voting yes thus far.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Time Warner owns CNN (Hillary Clinton's 8th largest donor) [View all] blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 OP

Ridiculous bravenak Mar 2016 #1

Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #2

What is your problem? bravenak Mar 2016 #3

Are you against spreading awareness of this? Why... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #6

I think the problem is, what does "disclose" mean that they're not already doing? ucrdem Mar 2016 #14

Public knowledge that most "regular" folk don't know... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #20

The public at large understand you need all resources legal to win. FarPoint Mar 2016 #42

Public knowledge in the sense that it can be Googled, I guess. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #72

Spread whatever you want. I can have an opinion. bravenak Mar 2016 #27

Apparently blue can't, but you can. nt pantsonfire Mar 2016 #28

Whatever that means bravenak Mar 2016 #29

He expressed an opinion and it was blocked.... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #31

He resorted to personal insults rather than discussing the subject at hand. bravenak Mar 2016 #34

"Regular people do not care"....that's not personal? pantsonfire Mar 2016 #36

That is an opinion bravenak Mar 2016 #37

You said people need to avoid getting personal....anyway he was spot on. pantsonfire Mar 2016 #38

This is getting very personal bravenak Mar 2016 #40

You have no idea... Agschmid Mar 2016 #81

Not blocked, hidden. Agschmid Mar 2016 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author pantsonfire Mar 2016 #5

Alert results 0-7 JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #8

I can see you voted no (in the poll)...that makes you a biased juror. nt pantsonfire Mar 2016 #9

I'm reasonably certain Spacedog1973 Mar 2016 #11

Except the post is a direct response to the poll.... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #12

No Spacedog1973 Mar 2016 #13

Offensive is one of the reasons....do you agree with his sentiment? nt pantsonfire Mar 2016 #16

This would be worth looking into, ... JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #15

Well you're right on that point, but still....I think the comment... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #17

It was just an opinion expressed. Ok, bravenak claimed to speak for all regular people... JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #22

Just ignore her she isnt worth tbe agita SwampG8r Mar 2016 #48

So even though you don't dismiss bias, it only matters if its a deciding vote? pantsonfire Mar 2016 #18

I don't know what bias you're talking about, in this jury vote. JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #25

The opinion clearly was expressing a NO vote, you also voted NO. pantsonfire Mar 2016 #26

Ya think someone is bias on a jury? FarPoint Mar 2016 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author imari362 Mar 2016 #23

Couldn't of said it better myself +1 nt pantsonfire Mar 2016 #24

Until we change Citizens United.... Candidates must use all legal resources. FarPoint Mar 2016 #30

I want it addressed too bravenak Mar 2016 #32

You understand.. FarPoint Mar 2016 #39

Really, though bravenak Mar 2016 #41

Mmmmm....., edited upon being more awake. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #77

This was just trying to make something seem like a big secret scandal bravenak Mar 2016 #82

I don't either, after the early-morning knee jerk. SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #87

I'm happy to see that most people seem to disagree with you :) nt pantsonfire Mar 2016 #33

There are barely any people in this thread bravenak Mar 2016 #35

You got that right. FarPoint Mar 2016 #57

If nobody cares, why oppose disclosure? RedCappedBandit Mar 2016 #45

It is obviously disclosed bravenak Mar 2016 #47

If they already do, what's ridiculous about it? RedCappedBandit Mar 2016 #50

The idea that it is some secret scandal bravenak Mar 2016 #52

Ah, so you weren't replying to the OP. RedCappedBandit Mar 2016 #53

The people who are concerned, look for answers bravenak Mar 2016 #54

Don't really know who you're responding to. RedCappedBandit Mar 2016 #55

THIS IS A Matter of Credibility And Most Certainly Represents A CONFLICT OF INTEREST! CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #49

I don't think so bravenak Mar 2016 #51

False Drama Outrage.... FarPoint Mar 2016 #84

Conflict of interest is not ridicolous nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #86

Blue doesn't have a problem...you cannot speak for all Americans. pantsonfire Mar 2016 #4

CNN/Time Warner shouldn't need to disclose donations. JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #7

Citizens United was clearly a victory for you then... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #10

What's the limit on reporting donations? JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #19

I'm talking 100's of thousands from corporations.... pantsonfire Mar 2016 #21

Citizen United is in play. FarPoint Mar 2016 #44

Media, like CNN uses the public airwaves choie Mar 2016 #60

Anyone can look it up if they want to. FarPoint Mar 2016 #61

Legal doesn't mean ethical choie Mar 2016 #79

Then you must be an activist for changing Citizens United and Campaign Finance Reform. FarPoint Mar 2016 #83

You spelled shareholder wrong SwampG8r Mar 2016 #46

The people who voted no should be ashamed of themselves. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #56

More media transparency would be a good thing. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. RedCappedBandit Mar 2016 #58

Yes (nt) bigwillq Mar 2016 #59

This nonsense again? Time Warner has donated nothing to Hillary. DanTex Mar 2016 #62

Except that they have. Nice try at muddying the waters though ... Scuba Mar 2016 #63

Those are from Time Warner employees. Have you guys still not figured that out? DanTex Mar 2016 #64

Yeah we get it. Time Warner linemen coughing up hundreds of thousands. Yeah, that's it. Scuba Mar 2016 #65

Conspiracy! DanTex Mar 2016 #66

You need a tin foil hat. All we're asking is that TW make a disclaimer ... Scuba Mar 2016 #68

Time Warner has contributed no money to either campaign. DanTex Mar 2016 #70

No, but the guy who owns TW has, and TW has donated to Hillary's PAC. Scuba Mar 2016 #71

Time Warner is a publicly traded company. A lot of people own shares. DanTex Mar 2016 #73

Again, you're just trying to muddy the waters. Fail. Scuba Mar 2016 #74

I'm stating facts. TWX is a publicly traded company. And it has not contributed any DanTex Mar 2016 #75

What happened to the poster? Kind of disappeared when the smear redstateblues Mar 2016 #76

Thank you Dan FarPoint Mar 2016 #85

So corporations ARE people ... is that your point? JoePhilly Mar 2016 #67

Time Warner is also p[ushing for permission to merge with Charter Cable Armstead Mar 2016 #69

Please be more specific SusanCalvin Mar 2016 #78