Corporations now have the right to spend money directly to influence elections

[The Good Reverend Roger]

BAH!  The 50s was arguably the worst decade since the depression.

NONE of the values people associate with the 50s existed.  What you had was:

1.  Pills.  Loads and loads of pills.  Google "Thalidomide babies" for further info.

2.  Mind-numbing conformity.  Wearing the wrong cut in a suit, or a hat that didn't match EXACTLY with everyone elses' got you tossed out of society.  No exaggeration.

3.  Rampant juvenile delinquency.  So it wasn't ALL bad.

4.  Lynchings.

5.  Political and religious lockstep.

There's more, but you get the idea.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

That was released the year I was born. Synchronicity?

No such animal.  Coincidence.

And I am old as fuck.   

 

No I think fuck is quite a bit older  

Besides, I'm older than you!!

[Jenne]

I think there was a WAY to allow the Hilary movie to move forward without deregulating how much corporations can spend on campaign ads.

Just saying.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That was released the year I was born. Synchronicity?

No such animal.  Coincidence.

And I am old as fuck.   

 

No I think fuck is quite a bit older  

Besides, I'm older than you!!

1.  Before I was born, people reproduced asexually. 

2.  By a few months.

[Captain Utopia]

I'm curious. Who's today's Elvis?

Lady Gaga?  I don't know, partly because we rarely make the heroes of our generation; that's left to the future.  Example - if they had found vaults of child-porn and socialist literature in Graceland after Elvis died, would kids today even know who he is?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The fifties were pretty bad... however, it was an imposition of Order which tipped the Chao back to the mess of disorder in the 60's. And the 60's are still affecting the US today... hell the Dem vs GOP fight that's happening right now is still the hippies vs The Man (even though the hippies are now the Man, so that's confusing as hell for them I think).

However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either. Hell, we had corporations running roughshod over employees (ages 3 and up), having shoot outs with unions, controlling steel and oil with Iron Monopolistic fists and making sure 'the right' people got elected.

Before the Civil War, we had slaves and fighting between the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' over slavery. With Lincoln, we had the Federal Government manipulating the Public with the emotional "Free The Slaves" rhetoric, while actually fighting over stuff like taxes and the 'preservation of the Union'. After the civil war, we get lynch mobs, segregation, carpetbaggers, abuse of the South by the North, and overall a nation held together at gunpoint.

America died in 1777 I think...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The fifties were pretty bad... however, it was an imposition of Order which tipped the Chao back to the mess of disorder in the 60's.

If that was the case, the 90s would have made the 60s look like the 50s.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

[Dimocritus]

America died in 1777 I think...

So, still-born then... Never had a chance...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

America died in 1777 I think...

So, still-born then... Never had a chance...

Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

[Freeky]

I'm curious. Who's today's Elvis?

Lady Gaga?  I don't know, partly because we rarely make the heroes of our generation; that's left to the future.  Example - if they had found vaults of child-porn and socialist literature in Graceland after Elvis died, would kids today even know who he is?

Oddly enough, she's the first who came to my mind as well, if only because she goes out of her way to be different, or that's how it seems to me.

[Requia ☣]

Requia:

Two things bother me about this.  One, as Regret said, it says that a corporation is a person, and is entitled to the rights of a citizen in this country.  Except, of course, when taking responsibility; then, it's an LLC, a Limited Liability Company, which is subject to more beneficial tax rules and legal protections. 

The other is that they have decided that money is speech.  Therefore, the people (which includes milti-billion corporations, mind you) with more money have "more" speech.  Now consider the economic divide, where the top one percent of the population controls roughly 50% of the nation's wealth.  And that's before you add in the corporations. 

So, the only messages you will be hearing during an election will be from that one percent who have all the money.

This ruling has nothing to do with money.  That's the reporter being a fucking moron.  The 'speech' in question was a movie, not cash.  Corporate personage was not directly invoked either*, they just said that corporations have first amendment rights, that would be why it includes freedom of the 'press', no corporate free speech means the government is allowed to control what the New York Times or MSNBC says.

*One of the cases used as precedent might have had corporate personage in it, haven't read all of those.

[Captain Utopia]

With minor edits, this very well could have been written in 1950.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I think it just is.  The kids in 60 years time will doubtless feel a detached nostalgia for today, much in the way we pine for a few sterling qualities in past lovers, while not spending much time thinking about all of the bullshit in minutia.  Does this help us choose new lovers who echo those qualities?  Sometimes, but not always.  It's a mechanism which provides pretty good results though.  Over time, and trial and error.

But I say this because the 50s and 60s were a time which coalesced some of the thoughts and principles which still animate us today.  They came into being because of problems and deficiencies of thought processes which still plague us, and maybe they can be defeated somehow, or maybe only parried to be made slightly less significant.  I think every period of history has at least one Elvis, but that there is a real danger of getting distracted by the nostalgia and forgetting the message.

Btw, I'm not picking on you here.. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this.  

Ok, I thought I was the only one...

  Well do you disagree, or am I doing my annoying habit of stating something obvious again?  Which I do sometimes.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

However, I will disagree with Roger on the 1800's... I mean I wasn't there like he was, but it doesn't seem to me that it was all that great for the 'people' either.

I was specifically talking about the court case that gave corporations the same rights as individuals.

Feh, that just affirmed it. They were buying politicians long before then.


 

Buncha crap.  We had some good years.

I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.

[Captain Utopia]

Requia:

Two things bother me about this.  One, as Regret said, it says that a corporation is a person, and is entitled to the rights of a citizen in this country.  Except, of course, when taking responsibility; then, it's an LLC, a Limited Liability Company, which is subject to more beneficial tax rules and legal protections. 

The other is that they have decided that money is speech.  Therefore, the people (which includes milti-billion corporations, mind you) with more money have "more" speech.  Now consider the economic divide, where the top one percent of the population controls roughly 50% of the nation's wealth.  And that's before you add in the corporations. 

So, the only messages you will be hearing during an election will be from that one percent who have all the money.

This ruling has nothing to do with money.  That's the reporter being a fucking moron.  The 'speech' in question was a movie, not cash.  Corporate personage was not directly invoked either*, they just said that corporations have first amendment rights, that would be why it includes freedom of the 'press', no corporate free speech means the government is allowed to control what the New York Times or MSNBC says.

*One of the cases used as precedent might have had corporate personage in it, haven't read all of those.

If I see something awesome, it costs me next to nothing to forward a link or copy+paste it to people I know.  I think this factor is becoming more significant (if it isn't already) than who has the funds to buy the most advertising space.

Because if some obscure blogger or forum member stumbles over a verifiable scandal (think: bitter, clinging to guns and religion), that has the potential to crush any advertising campaign.