2016 Postmortem

RedCappedBandit

(5,514 posts)

50. If they already do, what's ridiculous about it?

Reply to bravenak (Reply #47)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 06:12 AM

Mar 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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