Am I the only one sickened by this?

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Laws can be rewriten and changed, and if pepsi got the power, they would do it.

 

Oh I know exactly how it works, MONEY. And if you dont believe it, why is OJ free, why are the Enron executives not in jail and getting millions when their workers get next to squat, and why are cigs still legal when they do nothing but kill you and serve no practicaly use. Money talks and laws walk when the price is right.

 

If Pepsi got the moeny together, bought a canidate, we would no longer be drinking coke. And they have the moeny to do it, which makes me ask why they havent yet.

 

And what about my rights not to be arrested by cops who are funded by pepsi? What about my rights to walk down the street and not see pictures of Britney Spears everywhere? Its corporate graffiti and its illegal yet I see it everywhere.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Laws can be rewriten and changed, and if pepsi got the power, they would do it.

So what? Such laws would be unconstitutional to begin with, but fine let's pretend to live in your world where Pepsi has just bought itself a Constitutional amendment banning Coke. What the fuck does that have to do with your post about Pepsi putting ads on police cars and then having the police adopt a policy of disproportionately enforcing the criminal law against Coke drinkers? Allow me to answer that for you: Not a fucking thing. You've gone from the police violating rights for a corporate villian to Pepsi using money to change the law. This is not the same thing. Pepsi's ability to change the law does not depend on them putting ads on police cruisers. As you note later on, they could change the law now if they wanted to.

 

Oh I know exactly how it works, MONEY. And if you dont believe it, why is OJ free, why are the Enron executives not in jail and getting millions when their workers get next to squat, and why are cigs still legal when they do nothing but kill you and serve no practicaly use. Money talks and laws walk when the price is right.

 

You take this little cynicism gimmick rather seriously don't you? The only comment in there really even worth discussing is the cigarette one. This, though, has much to do with this nation's traditional emphasis on liberty, though certainly cigarettes are a lot worse than a lot of things that are illegal. Note, I never said that corporations should be trusted nor that money did not influence the political process, I merely said that you're idea was fucking dumb.

 

If Pepsi got the moeny together, bought a canidate, we would no longer be drinking coke. And they have the moeny to do it, which makes me ask why they havent yet.

 

They would have to buy more than one candidate, but let's not quibble. I never said Pepsi was above any of this. But once again we're talking about changing the laws. And things are starting to get preposterous in your little Brave New World of uninformed halfwittery. But sure they can use money to try to change the law. This has nothing to do with ads on police cruisers in exchange for stricter enforcement of the law against Coke drinkers, which is what we are discussing. By the way, you fucking moron, do you want to know why Pepsi hasn't done it yet? Because Coke has money too, and isn't just going to sit by and watch itself get banned.

 

And what about my rights not to be arrested by cops who are funded by pepsi? What about my rights to walk down the street and not see pictures of Britney Spears everywhere? Its corporate graffiti and its illegal yet I see it everywhere.

 

What right not to be arrested by cops who are funded by Pepsi? What the fuck are you talking about? Your right to not be arrested does not depend on how the police are funded. It is rooted in the Constitutional prohibition against the suspension of the writ of habeaous corpus. I know of nothing prohibiting the police from being funded by advertising money. And since when is "corporate graffiti" illegal? Since when do you have a right to walk down the street and not see it? Do you own the property upon which the ads are located? Do you have a clue as to what the fuck you are talking about? Please stop inventing these fantasy rights. I'm talking about real rights rooted in the Constitution, the English common law, and this nation's history. All of a sudden you have a "right" not to see an advertisement, just because you don't want to see it? Learn to distinguish between what we call policy and what we call law.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Got a little off topic and spread the idea, sorr-fucking-e,

 

Arent the police suppose to be funded by taxes, which is the public, not private corporations, which can theoretically create a conflict of intrest.

 

And Enron screwing over its people, lying to the public, and executives walkign away with millions isnt valid because? Its not a gimmick, this is who I am, I hate pretty much everything.

 

So coke makes pepsi illegal, I was just proposing an idea. watch me dance.

 

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/attachme...ments/o2038.htm best I could find about the illegalness of corporate graffiti,and its not from the us, so I dont know how it holds up, but on short notice, best I coudl do. And Im pretty sure microsoft got chewed out pretty bad for something they did which was called corporate graffiti.(http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/04/19/ibm.guerilla.idg/ found it)

 

The constitution says "promote the general welfare', it doesnt say, put adds on everything. Selling people stuff they dont need is not promoting general welfare, nor does it form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, or provide for the common defense.

 

I have the right to be left alone, and so do you.

[Guest The Czech Republic]

They are not going to make it illegal to drink one cola over the other, you dumbshit. And even if they did, hooray!, I drink Pepsi and the police would be on my side, according to your theory that beverage preference and corporate funding would get in the way of due process and equal rights. Because as far as interfering with due process and equal rights, race has that base covered.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Let me start by saying, I'm not the guy to defend the whole Enron thing.

 

There's nothing anywhere that says how anything is supposed to be funded. How the police are funded is a local issue, not a federal one, and so it could theoretically vary depending on the municipality. They are usually funded by taxes, yes. But I don't see the conflict of interest when it comes to putting ad space on a police cruiser. It's a bargained for exchange, and doesn't create that much of any special interest on the police's part if any at all. The bus driver doesn't give special treatment to a Pepsi drinker, should there happen to be a Pepsi ad on the side of the bus.

 

Your link on illegal corporate graffiti, refers to stuff that actually is, in a sense, graffiti. Not bought and paid for ad space.

 

As far as your promoting the general welfare argument, that is a policy choice made by Congress, the state's and municipalities as to how to go about doing that, and to be determined by the political process. One does not normally refer to the Constitution's preamble when making a legal argument anyway, because the preamble has no legal effect to it.

 

Believe it or not, our right to be left alone is found lacking when balanced against the right of not just corporations, but you or I as individuals to express ourselves in an advertising medium.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Damn LC you're fast.

 

There's nothing anywhere that says how anything is supposed to be funded. How the police are funded is a local issue, not a federal one, and so it could theoretically vary depending on the municipality. They are usually funded by taxes, yes. But I don't see the conflict of interest when it comes to putting ad space on a police cruiser. It's a bargained for exchange, and doesn't create that much of any special interest on the police's part if any at all. The bus driver doesn't give special treatment to a Pepsi drinker, should there happen to be a Pepsi ad on the side of the bus.

 

Yeah but its still an outside fund invested in public intrest. That cant be legal, can it? And Id like to bring this up, Pepsi and your school. If anyone knows what channel one is, they can follow this, if not, channel 1 is a tv show that has news and pepsi commericals.

 

Now, Pepsi has for years given money to schools provided 2 things, they show channel 1, and they school sells only pepsi produts. This is horribly wrong since a corporation is paying for your education(I think our school got like 50000 dollars, which paid for alot of things) which if i understand it, has to be provided for by the state and its taxes. Its once again and outside intrest in a state operation.

 

Its not like Pepsi is giving them the money, it only gets the money provided those 2 things and schools have lost money provided by pepsi if they dont, and I believe one school was sued by pepsi for not allowing the kids to watch channel 1 because it was a breach of contract or something.

 

And to top it off, Pepsi gets domiance of your beverage choice and controls the news you see, atleast for part of the day, while it shows you only pepsi and sony commericals.

 

Your link on illegal corporate graffiti, refers to stuff that actually is, in a sense, graffiti. Not bought and paid for ad space.

 

Well when i walk down the street and see ads on the street saying live in concert on such and such a date, i dont think thats legal.

 

As far as your promoting the general welfare argument, that is a policy choice made by Congress, the state's and municipalities as to how to go about doing that, and to be determined by the political process. One does not normally refer to the Constitution's preamble when making a legal argument anyway, because the preamble has no legal effect to it.

<--- not a lawyer.

 

Believe it or not, our right to be left alone is found lacking when balanced against the right of not just corporations, but you or I as individuals to express ourselves in an advertising medium.

 

Doesnt that tell you something is truly messed up.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

sorry about the triple post all.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Yeah but its still an outside fund invested in public intrest. That cant be legal, can it? And Id like to bring this up, Pepsi and your school. If anyone knows what channel one is, they can follow this, if not, channel 1 is a tv show that has news and pepsi commericals.

 

Now, Pepsi has for years given money to schools provided 2 things, they show channel 1, and they school sells only pepsi produts. This is horribly wrong since a corporation is paying for your education(I think our school got like 50000 dollars, which paid for alot of things) which if i understand it, has to be provided for by the state and its taxes. Its once again and outside intrest in a state operation.

 

Its not like Pepsi is giving them the money, it only gets the money provided those 2 things and schools have lost money provided by pepsi if they dont, and I believe one school was sued by pepsi for not allowing the kids to watch channel 1 because it was a breach of contract or something.

 

And to top it off, Pepsi gets domiance of your beverage choice and controls the news you see, atleast for part of the day, while it shows you only pepsi and sony commericals.

yeah some of that kind've sucks, but it is a contract, and you generally give something up to recieve your benefit. And some of it isn't that big of a deal.

 

I'm not going to talk about general principles when it comes to public entities recieving private money, but advertising in public space is done frequently, and there's not really a legal problem with putting ads on police cars.

 

Your link on illegal corporate graffiti, refers to stuff that actually is, in a sense, graffiti. Not bought and paid for ad space.

 

Well when i walk down the street and see ads on the street saying live in concert on such and such a date, i dont think thats legal.

 

I know, but I didn't think we were talking about that at the time.

 

Believe it or not, our right to be left alone is found lacking when balanced against the right of not just corporations, but you or I as individuals to express ourselves in an advertising medium.

 

Doesnt that tell you something is truly messed up.

 

Quite the opposite in fact. Freedom of expression is one of this nation's historically most cherished and protected rights, and is enumerated in the first amendment. Your privacy right, on the other hand is not even specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, even if it were, it pretty much only extends to your home, your personal property, and other areas where you have a legitimate expectation of privacy. If Pepsi were allowed to paint a billboard on your living room wall, that would be one thing, but advertising in public areas is not any serious infringement of your right to be left alone.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Quite the opposite in fact. Freedom of expression is one of this nation's historically most cherished and protected rights, and is enumerated in the first amendment. Your privacy right, on the other hand is not even specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, even if it were, it pretty much only extends to your home, your personal property, and other areas where you have a legitimate expectation of privacy. If Pepsi were allowed to paint a billboard on your living room wall, that would be one thing, but advertising in public areas is not any serious infringement of your right to be left alone.

 

Glad to see we've gotten this civil.

 

Freedom of expression is not the same as putting up a ad saying anything, thats marketing, thats selling and promoting. If I was to take a picture I made and hang it up in a city street with no other purpose other then to show it off as art (wether you like it or not), that would be freedom of expression, but it still wouldnt be legal without the right permission.

 

Pepsi somewhat does run billboards in your home, in to form of commericals, and I know that sounds stupid to say but let me flesh this out. Tivo and other similar products are being sued because they remove commericals from shows, when that is the function of tivo, to rid you of those commercials, which are basically billboards into your head and living room when you dont want them there, I dont think anyone watches commericals because they want to.

 

Whenever you see an add, image or logo, that images goes into your head, and if you see it only once, it can still be there for your entire life. Constant viewings of logos and adds keep the idea and image fresh in your head, thats why they advertise on everything, which to me is not only disgusting, its disturbing, its trying to make you buy their product based on recognition(sp), not on actual content.

 

Today, while shopping I saw a mother giving a kid coke to clam him down, how that works I have no idea, since coke is mainly sugar and water, but the coke corporation has made strides in convincing the world that coke is the only product, pepsi has done the same thing, and I think its like a 50/50 split on who drinks it. So when i saw that mom giving her kid, who was probably less then 1, a coke, I got offended, partialy becomes the mom is stupid for doing it and because coke has done their job well in making another coke drinker for life.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Quite the opposite in fact. Freedom of expression is one of this nation's historically most cherished and protected rights, and is enumerated in the first amendment. Your privacy right, on the other hand is not even specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, even if it were, it pretty much only extends to your home, your personal property, and other areas where you have a legitimate expectation of privacy. If Pepsi were allowed to paint a billboard on your living room wall, that would be one thing, but advertising in public areas is not any serious infringement of your right to be left alone.

 

Glad to see we've gotten this civil.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not.

 

Freedom of expression is not the same as putting up a ad saying anything, thats marketing, thats selling and promoting. If I was to take a picture I made and hang it up in a city street with no other purpose other then to show it off as art (wether you like it or not), that would be freedom of expression, but it still wouldnt be legal without the right permission.

 

Whether you like it or not, an advertisement is expression under the first amendment. You can't just call it selling and promoting to claim it's not.

 

Pepsi somewhat does run billboards in your home, in to form of commericals, and I know that sounds stupid to say but let me flesh this out. Tivo and other similar products are being sued because they remove commericals from shows, when that is the function of tivo, to rid you of those commercials, which are basically billboards into your head and living room when you dont want them there, I dont think anyone watches commericals because they want to.

 

You can chose not to watch tv. That is why this is not an invasion of your privacy. You turn the tv on and you turn the tv off and you chose what to watch. Of course everybody would rather not watch commercials, and people would get rid of them if they could, but it's quite another thing to imply that those commercials are invading your right to be left alone. I have no intention of discussing Tivo because it's not really relevant. The discussion, to me, was never a matter of how evil corporations are. I'd rather not muddy the issues. The same goes for the rest of the post. I'm not disputing the purpose or effects of advertising, nor the goodness or badness of corporations.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Oh please, better to write it out then scream like monkeys at computers.

 

I dont see how its a freedom of expression when it doent take a stand on an issue or subject when the right to freedom of expression and speech seems to cover that. Its just tells you when where and what. Its not taking a side, or trying to start a debate, its trying to sell you something, I would not call that expression.

 

Advertisment has no value other then self promotion, even if something is funny or amusing, its only puprpose is to get you to buy the product or rememebr a corporate identity. I dont see how its covered, but I do see your point if you want to say its neutral, but if its neutral, then its an annoyance to anyone that doesnt want to know about it, and its annonying because it doesnt have a issue or point to be made.

 

Your point is made, but if I choose to watch TV, isnt it my decision what i want to watch, I dont want to see commericals, yet I as a viewer can not escape them, unless i turn the TV back off, which defeats the purpose of turning it on in the first place.

 

I mean you cant do anything anymore without an ad in your face. Cant read the mail, cant watch the news, cant listen to music (read an article today about hey record lables want to put words like pepsi into song lyrics) How is this fair to anyone? It continues to stress the point of money lets you do everything you want.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Oh please, better to write it out then scream like monkeys at computers.

What the hell does that mean?

 

I dont see how its a freedom of expression when it doent take a stand on an issue or subject when the right to freedom of expression and speech seems to cover that. Its just tells you when where and what. Its not taking a side, or trying to start a debate, its trying to sell you something, I would not call that expression.

 

Whether you understand what expression is or not is of exceedingly little consequence to me at this point. I'm about to call you a fucking idiot again soon though.

 

Advertisment has no value other then self promotion, even if something is funny or amusing, its only puprpose is to get you to buy the product or rememebr a corporate identity. I dont see how its covered, but I do see your point if you want to say its neutral, but if its neutral, then its an annoyance to anyone that doesnt want to know about it, and its annonying because it doesnt have a issue or point to be made.

 

None of this matters. It does not matter whether or not it has value beyond self-promotion. Nor does it matter if it annoys anyone or not. That is not the fucking issue. I don't even know why you said this. You just keep posting this ranting tripe vaguely related to the topic at hand. The protections that expression enjoys does not depend upon whether a simpleton such as yourself finds it annoying to watch a couple of commercials between your Saturday morning cartoons.

 

Your point is made, but if I choose to watch TV, isnt it my decision what i want to watch, I dont want to see commericals, yet I as a viewer can not escape them, unless i turn the TV back off, which defeats the purpose of turning it on in the first place.

 

And those commercials are not an invasion of your goddamned "right to be left alone" as I already said in a prior post. As such, the fact that you can't escape them carries no weight in the balance against one's right to use their money to express themselves by purchasing broadcasting time. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean a goddamn thing about anyone's right to broadcast them.

 

I mean you cant do anything anymore without an ad in your face. Cant read the mail, cant watch the news, cant listen to music (read an article today about hey record lables want to put words like pepsi into song lyrics) How is this fair to anyone? It continues to stress the point of money lets you do everything you want.

 

More submoronic tripe that has jack shit to do with anything we are discussing. Sweet Jesus, why don't you just start sending mail-bombs to ad agencies and get it over with already you fucking twat? Stop fucking whining about advertising and grow the fuck up.

 

If you chose to respond to this post, please, before you do, read your post over and ask yourself, "does this have anything to do with the matter I am discussing with one of the great minds of our generation(LooseCannon), or am I just posting self-indulgent whiny rants about consumer culture that a ton of other people have already written better substantively, more entertainingly, and more provocatively?" Someone appears to have done you a big disservice in your life up to this point, and indulged you in some half-cocked notion that anyone gives a shit about what you think. So let me be the first to tell you: No one gives a good goddamned. Make substantive normative arguments or shut the fuck up, because I'm just about done talking down to your level. Just so you don't get confused, these are the only issues we have up to this point differed upon:

 

A. Whether advertisements on police cruisers will lead to the selective enforcement of the law against those who use competing products.

 

or

 

B. The normative value to be put on one's right to expression compared with the inconvenience of a simpleton who doesn't like advertisements.

 

And in case you forgot while reading over those last two points, allow me to remind you: No one gives a bloody motherfuck about your inane, self-indulgent, pretentious, adolescent, and mediocrely expressed thoughts.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

[qoute]If you chose to respond to this post, please, before you do, read your post over and ask yourself, "does this have anything to do with the matter I am discussing with one of the great minds of our generation(LooseCannon), or am I just posting self-indulgent whiny rants about consumer culture that a ton of other people have already written better substantively, more entertainingly, and more provocatively?" Someone appears to have done you a big disservice in your life up to this point, and indulged you in some half-cocked notion that anyone gives a shit about what you think. So let me be the first to tell you: No one gives a good goddamned.[/quote}

 

Guess it is like monkeys screaming at a computer.

 

Your self delusions are better then mine, obviously. If you're so great how come you arent running things, oh thats right, you're not.

 

Once again, its shut up and just follow along mentality thrown at me.

 

And who says anyone cares what you think either. Lets all just sit back and let others think for us.

 

So you call putting up posters for artist a form of expression, what are you smoking.

 

I dont watch tv anymore because it all sucks. I tunred off the tv because of ppl like you who say shut up and watch, that, just do what everyone tells you.

And in case you forgot while reading over those last two points, allow me to remind you: No one gives a bloody motherfuck about your inane, self-indulgent, pretentious, adolescent, and mediocrely expressed thoughts.

 

so why bother to even respond then, oh thats right, because you have to prove you're superior. Why do I always run into these people.

 

hell why do any of us even bother to post a topic on anything.

 

You're just another sheep that says does as you're told and dont question.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Why do I always run into these people.

Maybe because you keep posting stupid shit in this forum?

[Guest LooseCannon]

Your self delusions are better then mine, obviously. If you're so great how come you arent running things, oh thats right, you're not.

 

I never claimed to be running things buddy. Just unlike you, I have a rudimentary clue as to what the fuck I'm talking about.

 

Once again, its shut up and just follow along mentality thrown at me.

 

Not at all. It's make an argument on fucking point to the discussion I'm having with you and not allow your addled brain to meander onto every little thought that occurs to you no matter how tenuously relevant. I can understand why quite a few people have apparently encouraged you to shut up and follow along, though. I won't disagree with them. You seem quite incapable of advanced thought.

 

And who says anyone cares what you think either. Lets all just sit back and let others think for us.

 

Show me where I posted my thoughts. Except for where I say what I think of you, I haven't posted what I think. I've made normative arguments. There's a difference. It's not very subtle. Let's see if you can grasp it.

 

So you call putting up posters for artist a form of expression, what are you smoking.

 

I never said this was expression protected by the first amendment, dipshit. I did say television commercials and other forms of legal advertising are protected by the first amendment. Nevertheless, putting up a poster *is* expression. You may not think so, but that might be because it appears the syphillis is finally spreading to your brain.

 

I dont watch tv anymore because it all sucks. I tunred off the tv because of ppl like you who say shut up and watch, that, just do what everyone tells you.

 

Hey, except for the elections last night, I haven't watched tv in 2 months, including not watching wrestling. Hooray for me. Hooray for you. Let's have a circle jerk. I don't come into this folder to find out what kind of tv you watch. I don't give a motherfuck what you watch, and I don't give a shit about what you think either. So keep it to yourself. Make arguments or shut the fuck up. No one comes in here looking to read the sophomoric rantings of an idiot on the intellectual level of a black-clothing-clad, highschool moron who fancies himself a poet and everyone else sheep. No one gives a shit.

 

so why bother to even respond then, oh thats right, because you have to prove you're superior. Why do I always run into these people.

 

hell why do any of us even bother to post a topic on anything.

 

You're just another sheep that says does as you're told and dont question.

 

1. Yes, to prove I'm superior. And because just about everyone else is. Might this tell you something about yourself if you're always running into people that treat you this way? I mean, good god man.

 

2. Let me encourage you to cease doing so, in this folder at least.

 

3. Baah, Baah. Go shoot up your highschool.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Ya know what, im not even gonna bother anymore because no matter what i say, you just want to tear it apart. Sorry if I have an opinion, sorry if i go off topic, thats what good artist do, they start at a and end at z. Sorry if I dont agree with what is told to me and I tend not to agree wtih everyone.

 

I love how people tell me they and their thinking are better then mine when their thinking gets us exactly what we have today, a horrible society that is going to war over money. But thats my opinion and totaly off topic, so ignore it.

 

And Im a college grad, that HS shit is well beyond over.

 

But answer me this, what is "July 24th, Lil Romeo Live in concert", in terms of expression? What does it express? Other then that you dont care what I think, I dont care what you think, lets move forward.

 

And call me faggot while you rape daddy.

[Guest LooseCannon]

You say you're not going to bother anymore, but then you keep on talking.

 

This is what not bothering looks like.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Im not arguing, that to me is not bothering, I ask but one question. It wasnt a page long arguement that it originaly was goning to be, so the arguement for me is over.