http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story
Quote
In a 5-4 decision, the {supreme court of the USA}court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 21, 2010, 09:55:12 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22,0,4141508.story
Quote
In a 5-4 decision, the {supreme court of the USA}court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.
:horrormirth:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
"Limited Liability" and "Unlimited Freedom"; I'm sure thats what The Founders intended.
Yeah, there goes my last little bit of hope for humanity.
brb preparing napalm
We're fucking DOOMED. :lulz:
lol feudalism
WELCOME TO AMERCORP, CONSUMERS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUPERSIZE YOUR CANDIDATE?
Heard about this this a.m. I think we can expect SCOTUS to start being total and complete dickwads from here on out, no holds barred. I'm just waiting for them to totally fubar the CA prison system decision--as it is there're multiple interpretations of what they said yesterday. Fallout to continue, I suppose.
So this decision didn't shock me in the slightest. Sigh. Fucking assholes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100121/pl_politico/31786
QuoteAnother conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, filed a separate opinion that mostly concurred with the majority, but made the case for going even further by striking down disclosure requirements.
I should be surprised, but I'm really not. I come to expect this special brand of fuckery from Thomas. I always expept him to come to the exact wrong decisions for the exact wrong reasons every single time.
On the bright side
things are getting worse!
On the bright side, things aren't as bad as they're going to be.
:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz: :horrormirth:
Erm, wouldn't corps still be limited to the same 5000 dollars private individuals have under this? If so its fairly insignificant compared to campaign donations by the executives.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 03:43:55 AM
Erm, wouldn't corps still be limited to the same 5000 dollars private individuals have under this? If so its fairly insignificant compared to campaign donations by the executives.
The limit could be a dollar. It still doesn't make it right.
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy) Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 03:53:16 AM
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy) Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.
They've been restricted that way for over 100 years. Hasn't stopped the corporations from spending money on media, now has it?
My response to the OP was "Wait, what? WHAT?!" But then I read the article, and I had a wishful thinking moment, which was "So now people will figure out that they'll have to start paying fucking attention during elections, and see who wants what, because this will easily be the most obvious way of telling who is going to do some good vs. who is going to give big business moar moneys. Right?"
Nah, we already know what businesses give to politicians, the executive donations tell us that. In truth campaign money isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be (you need to double money spent in order to gain 1% in the polls). What we really need is to explain to the politicians that loses a corporate sponsor or three won't cost them the re-election.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 03:53:16 AM
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy) Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.
If it means that online speech of forums (blogs and forums) will no longer be threatened, then I'm all for it. I'm not convinced that particular justification is valid though.
Online speech is threatened now?
The example I've seen bandied about was comparing "Fahrenheit 911" to "Hillary: The Movie"
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it "one of the most important First Amendment cases in years."
why this is relevant:
Quote from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431223.html
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
I'd rather a government have no control in determining where the line should be, since they
will abuse it later, if not sooner.
It's wouldn't necessarily be their fault either. If that part of the bill was left in place you'd have a situation where if a contentious movie could not be shown whenever the creators wish, what about a text script of it which becomes a chain-email, or an inflammatory rant which suddenly goes viral at just the right moment? When you don't have the luxury of time to properly follow the money, how do you determine grassroots from astroturf?
Since everything is trending online, this would have inevitably affected popular blogs and forums within a few election cycles.
the implications are terrifying, something straight out of a distopian novel.
how long do you think it will be until the franchise wars starts like in demolition man or the corporate wars from rollerball?
heard the decision compared to the dred scott decision, saying that its worse.
well at least we can all say we remember when lady liberty got ass raped by ronald mcdonald and that aol guy (http://www.web-development-company.com/images/aol_icon.jpg)
Aha! I finally found the judicial opinion. I don't think the reporter read it.
The bit Thomas dissented from in the majority opinion was joined by all 8 other judges, so disclosure of campaign finances stays up (yes he could have singlehandedly undone that if the other 4 hadn't agreed to partly join the majority).
This is even less substantial than I thought, According to the opinion corporations are already forming their own PACs in order to get around the law, one of the cited reasons for the decision was that the law effectively discriminates against corporations that don't have the resources to deal with the red tape involved.
It has nothing to do with spending money on campaigns, and everything to do with political speech, its the 2002 McCain Feingold act, not the 1907 law mentioned. This has to do with being allowed to publish material in the runup to an election.
They cited Morse v Frederick (bong hits 4 Jesus) as a *defense* of free speech. :lulz:
The specific facts of the case are very disturbing. The plaintiffs were trying to put a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton up, not on TV, but on video on demand services, the FCC was expanding enforcement of the law, FP is right to have called this a threat to the internet.
Corporations are too powerful and too able to ignore the law. They are The Enemy, and anything that diminishes them is good news for me.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 03:43:55 AM
Erm, wouldn't corps still be limited to the same 5000 dollars private individuals have under this?
On direct donations: yes.
However they can spend everything they have on political advertising, if they so wish.
The implications for this are going to be hilarious. I cant wait until Chinese and Russian-backed corporations get in on the game. Gazprom is practically minting roubles nowadays.
Quote
In a 5-4 decision, the {supreme court of the USA}court's conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.
This is what makes me want to puke.
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.
So, let's look at mid-term elections.
In November, 36 seats are up for election: 19 Dems, 18 Republicans.
With the conjunction of Scott Brown winning, and the elimination of spending regulation, corporations will be spending millions to oust the Dems.
Democratic seats up for election are basically the entire west coast, some of the rust belt, and parts of new england. Look for most of them to be won by Republicans.
After that happens, Obama may as well declare himself a muslim and spend the rest of his term in Kenya, listening to Jeremiah White.
"Yes, we can... provided the skittish voters aren't duped into a xenophobic frenzy."
Horrormirth to follow?
Can you imagine the commercials? I mean most candidate commercials are to the edge nasty, but they will still have to work with the other party 98% of the time so they keep them this side of the line. If corporations are producing those commercials the mud slinging will be of epic proportions.
This law, it lets the corporate monkeys fling the poop far and wide at whicever candidate they wish right?
We should start a parent corporation then sub corp each of us individually then put all kinds of shit on the web. What could they do?
Nevermind, I forgot where I was for a moment... :x
If you're one of those people who want to see the house of cards fall, it's gonna be hilarious.
LMNO
- Reconsidering that move to Buenos Aires more seriously.
It's one of my favorite things to scream about.
A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON, GODDAMNIT!
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States describes the Rights of Citizens. A Corporation is not a fucking citizen.
Citizen A says "I want to support candidate B and give him $5,000" I may not like it, but that is a free choice by a citizen, protected by the First Amendment. It's his money, his opinion, his speech.
Corporation A says "We will give $5000 to candidate B" but it isn't an individual, it isn't the individual's money and it isn't the individual's speech. If the CEO likes candidate B and the President of the Board likes candidate C and most employees like Candidate A, then who gets the money? Whose speech is being protected? That $5000 is a profit made from the hard work of all employees and the shareholders... do you think that all support the same candidate? Hell no... this is simply a blanket to cover up saying "You rich old boys, feel free to grease the wheels and keep these plebes from electing people that aaren't in our plan."
But, hey we all got a sammich and thats what matters!* :lulz:
- Rat
*It's even supersized
Wait, we all get a sammich?
Forget I said anything. Gimme dat sammich.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 03:39:07 PM
Wait, we all get a sammich?
Forget I said anything. Gimme dat sammich.
Mayo! I will not rest until we have mayo in every fridge and a pickle in every jar.
:jihaad:
God, I hate this shit. Y'know what, maybe we should just start a corporation (The League of Dynamic Discorp?). This is bull. Fuck this "rights for the highest bidder" shit. Makes me wanna go all Ron English.
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 04:49:01 PM
God, I hate this shit. Y'know what, maybe we should just start a corporation (The League of Dynamic Discorp?). This is bull. Fuck this "rights for the highest bidder" shit. Makes me wanna go all Ron English.
Welcome to the Post-American Century™, Dimo.
What was it like, Roger? Y'know, when Ameri-co was still America? I never got a chance to really get to know it before it was replaced by this bizzarro-world doppleganger. Is it even possibe to pin-point the exact moment that the country died? I'm sure those greedy bastards snuck in the moment it flat-lined, in the still of the night, and replaced it with this cheap cardboard cutout, a placating place-holder, before anyone had a chance to even realize. And how did no one realize it was happening, anyway? I'll be willing to bet that they all looked up from their TV's at each other and asked "Is America acting weird, or is it just me?" and they responded, "I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm sure he's got it in control. Hell, the teevee still works, don't it?"
It'll never come back, either. At least not the way it was supposed to be, anyway. Nope. If we do ever get to ressurect it, it won't be much more than a re-animated corpse, a sausage monster, if you would. All Frankensteiny, slow and mumbly. Just the sum of its zombie parts, the "people" that consider themselves "Americans".
So, Roger, was it as cool as imagine it? Before the amber waves of grain were paved over for use as a parking lot for a new wall mart plaza. Before the purple mountain majesty was blasted to peices for the gathering of "resources." (Of course, they kept some of it intact, how else would they generate money for the tourisim and postcard industries?) When the word "People" and "Citizens" meant something different than "Corporations." Was it cool, or is the memory itself a cheap device to make Western poets swoon, to develop a sense of "patriotism" in the "people" so they won't think twice about spending their money on some American flag (that was, incidentally, made in China) to wave in the face of the rest of the world?
With minor edits, this very well could have been written in 1950.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 05:47:53 PM
With minor edits, this very well could have been written in 1950.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 05:30:20 PM
What was it like, Roger? Y'know, when Ameri-co was still America? I never got a chance to really get to know it before it was replaced by this bizzarro-world doppleganger.
Um, I'm not THAT old. This was all done back in the late 1800s.
But things weren't always THIS bad.
I remember a time when things were different.
I remember a time of chaos.
Ruined dreams.
This wasted land.
But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior.
The man we called "Max".
To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time.
When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel.
Gone now, swept away.
For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all.
Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped.
Their leaders talked and talked and talked.
But nothing could stem the avalanche.
Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men.
On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice.
And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed.
Men like Max. The warrior Max.
In the roar of an engine, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland.
And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again...
I, for one, am relieved.
I'm tired of waiting. It's not as though corporations have been on the sidelines, waiting for their moment. And, in my mind, there's only been the inevitable take-over of the rest of...what? The rest of what? They haven't left anything untouched.
You name it, they've got a stock number for it. And they continue to find ways to capitalize on anything they can.
There WILL be advertisements floating above earth, right next to the moon. They will be etched on your bagel, your urinal cake. They will imprint trademark symbols onto the DNA of the coffee beans that end up in your caramel machiato. They will find any way to drive The Message directly into your brain because it's easier than standard propaganda and makes more money.
I see these things as inescapable, only a matter of time.
We know these fuckers are evil, we know they make politicians, ready-to-order, your way.
I want Sponsored Politicians and I want them now.
I want Obama, and every asshole after him, wearing a suit that looks like a nascar...eh, car. That goes for the Senate as well.
Besides, they're just advertising, right? Surely, the American people aren't going to be persuaded to make a choice on what's best for the people as a whole, for the greater good, based on a corporate advertisement. They would know that they would have to make their own decisions based on hard evidence of practical, competent leadership. Right?
That was released the year I was born. Synchronicity? :asplode:
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 06:20:24 PM
That was released the year I was born. Synchronicity? :asplode:
No such animal. Coincidence.
And I am old as fuck. :x
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 05:57:15 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 05:47:53 PM
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. :?
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 06:23:16 PM
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.
I'm curious. Who's today's Elvis?
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 05:57:15 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 05:47:53 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:21:18 PM
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 06:20:24 PM
That was released the year I was born. Synchronicity? :asplode:
No such animal. Coincidence.
And I am old as fuck. :x
:lulz:
No I think fuck is quite a bit older :wink:
Besides,
I'm older than you!!
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.
Quote from: Khara on January 22, 2010, 06:28:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:21:18 PM
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 06:20:24 PM
That was released the year I was born. Synchronicity? :asplode:
No such animal. Coincidence.
And I am old as fuck. :x
:lulz:
No I think fuck is quite a bit older :wink:
Besides, I'm older than you!!
1. Before I was born, people reproduced asexually.
2. By a few months.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 22, 2010, 06:25:34 PM
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?
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...
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
America died in 1777 I think...
So, still-born then... Never had a chance...
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 06:54:26 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
America died in 1777 I think...
So, still-born then... Never had a chance...
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 22, 2010, 06:25:34 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 01:22:28 PM
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.
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: dimo on January 22, 2010, 05:57:15 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 05:47:53 PM
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...
:argh!: Well do you disagree, or am I doing my annoying habit of stating something obvious again? Which I do sometimes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 01:22:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.
Or were you after perfection?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
We had some good times. Some years had more good times than others. Relatively speaking, we had some good years. At least, that's how I read it.
I kinda like the way the 60s and 70s get described. Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better. It was upward movement. Now people mostly roll over and take it. And they wjine that the Wrong Person might get elected if you don't follow suit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.
Or were you after perfection?
Not perfection...
Which decades?
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
We had some good times. Some years had more good times than others. Relatively speaking, we had some good years. At least, that's how I read it.
Some good years? Years where the government and corporations weren't playing the same game they're playing now?
Man, there must have been some pages stuck together in my book ;-)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:16:21 PM
I kinda like the 60s and 70s. Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better. It was upward movement.
I think that a small minority of people tried to move things upward... we finally got civil rights for some people, so thats a win... except that we didn't ya know actually learn from that and recently at least some in that minority has shown that it doesn't think about Civil Rights, but rather Civil Rights for Them.
I thought the 60's and 70s were pretty good too, but only when I choose to look at some things and not others. But, we can do that sort of selective viewing for any decade including this one. For fucks sake, the US just elected a non-white non-old man as President. That's great... as in great for a key exciting plot point in the TV drama. But it didn't change anything, not really.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 01:22:28 PM
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.
Oh hell yes it was: it was about the corporate BACKING of now-to-be-constantly-blasted-opinions on politics, politicians and policy.
We are now not going to be deaf to the wishes of corporations (though we have always and ever been at their lobbying mercy), and instead will hear them ad nauseum. When politicians run, they can sit back and let their corporate backers make all their ads for them.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.
Or were you after perfection?
Not perfection...
Which decades?
70s and 90s were the best, overall.
But 2000-2009 was by far the FUNNIEST.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.
Or were you after perfection?
Not perfection...
Which decades?
70s and 90s were the best, overall.
But 2000-2009 was by far the FUNNIEST.
Well, I'll agree with you on the last bit... As Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction said yesterday "If Bush hadn't been so dangerous, he would have been my favorite president, just from the absurdity of it."
And fuck you Rain God. I used to be an optimist about this shit until I hung out around you. :lulz:
Requia, the original case was about a movie. However, the conservatives on the supreme court grabbed it, and ran with it in ways that had nothing to do with the original case. Roberts, Alito, et al had been wanting to do away with campaign finance reform for years. Their ruling ignored stare decisis and reversed previous decision upholding spending limits on campaigns. They upheld the idea that donations were a form of free speech. I repeat: Giving a politician money is an act of free speech, not commerce. Therefore, money is speech. So, a corporation (now a person) who spends a billion dollars in the name of a candidate to win an election is excercising free speech.
Keep in mind that the fact you as an individual can't come close to matching this is considered "fair".
LMNO, while I agree with your general point, it doesn't seem to be about direction donations, but instead having no upper limit on the funds a corporation can use to make attack adverts and other forms of highly targeted political media, and no limits on when these attacks can be used.
Which is of course an indirect donation, but I'm sure there is some slight technical difference.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
I thought the 60's and 70s were pretty good too, but only when I choose to look at some things and not others. But, we can do that sort of selective viewing for any decade including this one. For fucks sake, the US just elected a non-white non-old man as President. That's great... as in great for a key exciting plot point in the TV drama. But it didn't change anything, not really.
So what is your criteria for a "good year" or a "good decade" or a "good any period of time" if it isn't some subjective measure of good events outweighing bad?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:16:21 PM
I kinda like the way the 60s and 70s get described. Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better. It was upward movement. Now people mostly roll over and take it. And they wjine that the Wrong Person might get elected if you don't follow suit.
The 60s and 70s had a lot of people out on the streets, meeting other people, organising forms of protest, planning on how to get enough of the public mindshare to actually enact some form of change. Historically, that's how it's always been done.
But if you substitute being out on the streets for spending time on an internet forum, then we don't look so passive any more. What percentage of all protests in that period made an actual difference? And I don't think they were any less wrong-headed about a lot of things than we undoubtedly are. The thing is, even gardening forums discuss politics and ways to improve the human condition in their favour. I think we have more potential to forge a new form of politics than ever, the tools to do so (e.g. http://metagovernment.org/ ) are being written as we speak. Fuck the corporations, and fuck our elected leaders, they're still focussed on playing shuffleboard as the boat sinks, and in the end it'll be their short-sightedness which dooms them to have their place in history written for them.
Fact is, I can't think of a better fucking time to be alive. Fuck nostalgia.
In the ass.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:32:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Buncha crap. We had some good years.
I used to think so, but the more history I study, the worse it looks.
Meh, I lived through at least two good decades.
Or were you after perfection?
Not perfection...
Which decades?
70s and 90s were the best, overall.
But 2000-2009 was by far the FUNNIEST.
Well, I'll agree with you on the last bit... As Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction said yesterday "If Bush hadn't been so dangerous, he would have been my favorite president, just from the absurdity of it."
And fuck you Rain God. I used to be an optimist about this shit until I hung out around you. :lulz:
Again, it is not the job of a Holy Man™ to tell you pleasing lies.
Doing some checking, this will probably meant that corporations will be allowed to give money to politicians, since the part that says they can't buy ad space also says they can;'t give money directly, that money is still limited to 5000 dollars, by things not related to 441b, depends on whose responsible for amending the code.
Also, for all you doomsayers, was it like what you describe in 2001 before the law that was just overturned was passed?
@ Cain: I know, I decided to make it more of a polemic at some point. My bad for not being clear on the details.
You know, normally I can take this sort of shit in stride, but this one has really stuck in my craw. I think I'm gonna jump off the wagon for a bit.
Requia, this wasn't just the law that was overturned. They reversed previous decisions that went back decades.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:59:24 PM
Doing some checking, this will probably meant that corporations will be allowed to give money to politicians, since the part that says they can't buy ad space also says they can;'t give money directly, that money is still limited to 5000 dollars, by things not related to 441b, depends on whose responsible for amending the code.
Also, for all you doomsayers, was it like what you describe in 2001 before the law that was just overturned was passed?
So your position is because corporations already have undue influence in D.C., they should be allowed even more?
That is essentially what you are saying, isn't it?
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
I thought the 60's and 70s were pretty good too, but only when I choose to look at some things and not others. But, we can do that sort of selective viewing for any decade including this one. For fucks sake, the US just elected a non-white non-old man as President. That's great... as in great for a key exciting plot point in the TV drama. But it didn't change anything, not really.
So what is your criteria for a "good year" or a "good decade" or a "good any period of time" if it isn't some subjective measure of good events outweighing bad?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 07:16:21 PM
I kinda like the way the 60s and 70s get described. Not because things were good, but because people actually did something about making them better. It was upward movement. Now people mostly roll over and take it. And they wjine that the Wrong Person might get elected if you don't follow suit.
The 60s and 70s had a lot of people out on the streets, meeting other people, organising forms of protest, planning on how to get enough of the public mindshare to actually enact some form of change. Historically, that's how it's always been done.
But if you substitute being out on the streets for spending time on an internet forum, then we don't look so passive any more. What percentage of all protests in that period made an actual difference? And I don't think they were any less wrong-headed about a lot of things than we undoubtedly are. The thing is, even gardening forums discuss politics and ways to improve the human condition in their favour. I think we have more potential to forge a new form of politics than ever, the tools to do so (e.g. http://metagovernment.org/ ) are being written as we speak. Fuck the corporations, and fuck our elected leaders, they're still focussed on playing shuffleboard as the boat sinks, and in the end it'll be their short-sightedness which dooms them to have their place in history written for them.
Fact is, I can't think of a better fucking time to be alive. Fuck nostalgia.
In the ass.
I was responding to the original comment about when did America die. America, as this grand experiment started in 1776 has never been the America that gets talked about. Land of the Free? HA!
It's not about nostalgia, I'm not longing for the 'good old days', I'm saying that there weren't 'good old days'. Since its inception this country has been held hostage by powerful minorities focused on making money. Why was Ben Franklin a politician? Was it A) Because he was a good man and wanted the 'freedom for all', or B) Because he was a businessman and wanted the 'printing contracts for himself'?
When America began, it was freedom for White Male Landowners. Then, kicking and screaming they let White Females in, then a little minority here, then one there... and we're still fighting over 'who' should be covered by 'freedom for all'.
Face it, the 'America' we learned about in School is a lie, a positive, hopeful, beautiful lie... but a lie nonetheless.
Look at the past two years... The People rose up, they got energized for the first time in ages, they volunteered, they canvassed, they believed in Hope and Change... and now they are just as fucked as they were before, except that the President is capable of using the English language as intended.
It's not rape if you call 'Surprise'
vs
It's not rape if you call "Surprise me once shame on you, surprise me twice,er, uh, you can't be raped again..."
And Requia, a corporation is not a Person* and fucking Ohio Coal or Nike are not a printing presses.
* no matter what some idiot in a robe says
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.
The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings. If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it. But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.
That's what I'm pissed about.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
Speaking out for them? No.
Giving them shitpiles of cash? Ask John Kyl.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
It is when post-election you can say "Hey Senator, remember when I made all those awesome attack ads for you? Vote no on that bill, or next year, I'm making them for your competitor."
Assuming they aren't just promoting the candidate that they hand picked as a loyal schlub already.
Ok, I found the law that was actually overturned
QuoteSEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR
ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or for any
applicable electioneering communication'' before ``, but shall not
include''.
(b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 of such
Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For purposes
of this section, the term `applicable electioneering
communication' means an electioneering communication (within the
meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity
described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other
person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection
(a) of this section.
``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term
`applicable electioneering communication' does not include a
communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a political
organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of
this Act if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds
provided directly by individuals who are United States citizens
or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))). For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `provided directly by individuals' does not
include funds the source of which is an entity described in
subsection (a) of this section.
``(3) Special operating rules.--
``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An
electioneering communication shall be treated as made by
an entity described in subsection (a) if an entity
described in subsection (a) directly or indirectly
disburses any amount for any of the costs of the
communication.
``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section
501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts from
business activities or receives funds from any entity
described in subsection (a) shall be considered to have
paid for any communication out of such amounts unless
such organization paid for the communication out of a
segregated account
[[Page 116 STAT. 92]]
to which only individuals can contribute, as described
in section 304(f)(2)(E).
``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization'
means--
``(i) an organization described in section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such
Code; or
``(ii) an organization which has submitted an
application to the Internal Revenue Service for
determination of its status as an organization
described in clause (i); and
``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a
disbursement if the person has executed a contract to
make the disbursement.
``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize an organization
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which is
prohibited under such Code.''.
This is the *only* thing that is affected.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
Look at this pragmatically. It is clearly demonstrated that the amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated with the success of the campaign; the majority of the time, the candidate who has had more money spent on their behalf usually wins.
Now, take a race in state X, where candidate A is against dumping toxic waste in the public water supply, and candidate B is against regulating business that produce toxic waste.
There is strong support for candidate A from scientists and activists, who manage to raise an unprecidented $5 million for Candidate A from many, many donors.
However, Corporation FUCKEM inc, who produces toxic waste, made $100 billion dollars last year, and has decided to spend $50 million in support of candidate B.
So, while candidate A has both science and sanity on their side, candidate B is much more likely to win.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2010, 07:38:08 PM
LMNO, while I agree with your general point, it doesn't seem to be about direction donations, but instead having no upper limit on the funds a corporation can use to make attack adverts and other forms of highly targeted political media, and no limits on when these attacks can be used.
Which is of course an indirect donation, but I'm sure there is some slight technical difference.
Right on the money (sorry this is as far as I've been able to read in the thread lately.)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
If by support you mean buying all his air time for him and doing all his paper campaigning for him so he doesn't have to tap into his by-now billions from corporate backers but will only vote according to their now-bought dictates?
YOU BETCHA
By the way, anytime you want to judge what you should be "happy" about in government, take a look at what Fox News is celebrating. You don't want to be toasting with them, just saying.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:14:27 PM
Ok, I found the law that was actually overturned
QuoteSEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR
ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or for any
applicable electioneering communication'' before ``, but shall not
include''.
(b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 of such
Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For purposes
of this section, the term `applicable electioneering
communication' means an electioneering communication (within the
meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity
described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other
person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection
(a) of this section.
``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term
`applicable electioneering communication' does not include a
communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a political
organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of
this Act if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds
provided directly by individuals who are United States citizens
or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))). For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `provided directly by individuals' does not
include funds the source of which is an entity described in
subsection (a) of this section.
``(3) Special operating rules.--
``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An
electioneering communication shall be treated as made by
an entity described in subsection (a) if an entity
described in subsection (a) directly or indirectly
disburses any amount for any of the costs of the
communication.
``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section
501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts from
business activities or receives funds from any entity
described in subsection (a) shall be considered to have
paid for any communication out of such amounts unless
such organization paid for the communication out of a
segregated account
[[Page 116 STAT. 92]]
to which only individuals can contribute, as described
in section 304(f)(2)(E).
``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization'
means--
``(i) an organization described in section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such
Code; or
``(ii) an organization which has submitted an
application to the Internal Revenue Service for
determination of its status as an organization
described in clause (i); and
``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a
disbursement if the person has executed a contract to
make the disbursement.
``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize an organization
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which is
prohibited under such Code.''.
This is the *only* thing that is affected.
Aaaand this makes your argument how?
I see nothing here to negate what those of us see as an egregious potential for now-certain abuse are saying and have been saying...
Requia's right, of course.
What could allowing Exxon to purchase some congressional whores hurt?
What could go wrong?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 08:13:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
It is when post-election you can say "Hey Senator, remember when I made all those awesome attack ads for you? Vote no on that bill, or next year, I'm making them for your competitor."
Assuming they aren't just promoting the candidate that they hand picked as a loyal schlub already.
That's an interesting point, since "going rogue" has taken on a new flavah lately.
I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately. (lmnuendo?)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:27:35 PM
Requia's right, of course.
What could allowing Exxon to purchase some congressional whores hurt?
What could go wrong?
It's just freedom of speech, Rog. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
My point is that it doesn't affect campaign contributions.
That sad, I never got an answer, did what you're describing ever happen (more than it did last election anyway) before 2002 when this law was passed?
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:28:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:27:35 PM
Requia's right, of course.
What could allowing Exxon to purchase some congressional whores hurt?
What could go wrong?
It's just freedom of speech, Rog. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
I, for one, welcome our new corporate masters.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:27:44 PM
I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately. (lmnuendo?)
FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
Look at this pragmatically. It is clearly demonstrated that the amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated with the success of the campaign; the majority of the time, the candidate who has had more money spent on their behalf usually wins.
Now, take a race in state X, where candidate A is against dumping toxic waste in the public water supply, and candidate B is against regulating business that produce toxic waste.
There is strong support for candidate A from scientists and activists, who manage to raise an unprecidented $5 million for Candidate A from many, many donors.
However, Corporation FUCKEM inc, who produces toxic waste, made $100 billion dollars last year, and has decided to spend $50 million in support of candidate B.
So, while candidate A has both science and sanity on their side, candidate B is much more likely to win.
Candidate B, sponsored/bribed by Corporation FUCKEM absolutely deserves to win in that scenario. If the people, upon being informed of the connection, choose to still vote that way, then what exactly is wrong with that?
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2010, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:27:44 PM
I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately. (lmnuendo?)
FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.
I see. So the one to "legitimize" the crazies, the health insurance I can't explain just yet (hasn't percolated), and the last one seems too obvious to mention.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:35:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Erm, this is more complicated than i thought, this only effects the 2002 ammendment to 441b. I have no idea if it'll effect direct donations or not at this point.
Um no, I'm saying corporation have a fucking right to publish things. Freedom of the press and all that. because if you uphold that this can be done, then the government can proceed to censor the TV and newspapers at will.
Freedom of the press is stated implicitly in amendment I.
Freedom to buy government officials is not.
These are two very different things.
So coming out in support (or against) a given candidate is bribery?
Look at this pragmatically. It is clearly demonstrated that the amount of money spent on a campaign is correlated with the success of the campaign; the majority of the time, the candidate who has had more money spent on their behalf usually wins.
Now, take a race in state X, where candidate A is against dumping toxic waste in the public water supply, and candidate B is against regulating business that produce toxic waste.
There is strong support for candidate A from scientists and activists, who manage to raise an unprecidented $5 million for Candidate A from many, many donors.
However, Corporation FUCKEM inc, who produces toxic waste, made $100 billion dollars last year, and has decided to spend $50 million in support of candidate B.
So, while candidate A has both science and sanity on their side, candidate B is much more likely to win.
Candidate B, sponsored/bribed by Corporation FUCKEM absolutely deserves to win in that scenario. If the people, upon being informed of the connection, choose to still vote that way, then what exactly is wrong with that?
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:29:51 PM
My point is that it doesn't affect campaign contributions.
That sad, I never got an answer, did what you're describing ever happen (more than it did last election anyway) before 2002 when this law was passed?
Um, the bottom line is certainly in play here if THEY AREN'T PAYING FOR THEIR OWN ADS any longer.
That's where the bulk of campaign $ is spent.
QuoteHow do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
The law would require a 'paid for by fuckem' at the end of every ad.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2010, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:27:44 PM
I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately. (lmnuendo?)
FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.
Obviously this will change over time - but do you have a rough idea of what ratio exists of money associated with uncovered grassroot organisations (e.g. FreedomWorks) vs. astroturfers who are successfully appearing to be grassroot? For example - if FreedomWorks was formed in 2005 and was only uncovered in 2008, then you could get an idea of the trend at least.
It seems to me to be increasingly harder to keep secrets, but you can only definitively tell with the benefit of hindsight or paranoia.
OK, I'm gonna do it...
UUUUNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:35:56 PM
Candidate B, sponsored/bribed by Corporation FUCKEM absolutely deserves to win in that scenario. If the people, upon being informed of the connection, choose to still vote that way, then what exactly is wrong with that?
Except that 'the People' see 1 commercial for Candidate A, where he's trying to inform the public and 20 commercials from Candidate B's corporate pay boys which questions Candidate A's patriotism, honesty, credibility and gender.
for fucks sake, just go ask Max Cleland how easy it is to fuck over a candidate with bullshit "questions"....
FP, with enought spending, FUCKEM Inc can buy up every commercial spot in the media. Remember, "equal time" was struck down last year. Most people would never be aware of the connection.
Plus, please note all the people who still believe the "Death Panel" lie. It has been repeatedly been shown to be false, but they still believe. "The Facts" no longer matter in politics, if they ever did.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:37:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2010, 08:31:14 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:27:44 PM
I'm wondering what corporations are "backing" the teabaggers lately. (lmnuendo?)
FreedomWorks, an organization that specialize in creating legitimate looking grassroots organisations and has previously aligned itself with conservative and libertarian causes, one major health insurance company (forgot the name) and the Koch brothers, who are among the wealthiest men in America and previously bankrolled Bush Jr's political campaigns.
I see. So the one to "legitimize" the crazies, the health insurance I can't explain just yet (hasn't percolated), and the last one seems too obvious to mention.
I believe the insurance company in question also urged their employees to attend teabagger protests and in particular agitate against any moves towards a Canadian or British health care system.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
Ah. An idealist. You should have said.
Ok, seriously, has any of what you people are describing ever happened, above and beyond what happened anyway while 203 was in effect? As far as I can tell it means we might see more corporation names at the end of political ads instead of the names of corporate owned PACs, the only people this changes anything for are those corps too small to form their own PAC.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:43:23 PM
FP, with enought spending, FUCKEM Inc can buy up every commercial spot in the media. Remember, "equal time" was struck down last year. Most people would never be aware of the connection.
Do you agree that sooner or later the effects of many-to-many communication will outweigh the effects of one-to-many traditional broadcast communication?
Because if so, then the above scenario doesn't seem so worrisome, but I have a feeling we might disagree on that premise.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:43:23 PM
Plus, please note all the people who still believe the "Death Panel" lie. It has been repeatedly been shown to be false, but they still believe. "The Facts" no longer matter in politics, if they ever did.
It's easy to complain about those people who believe "Death Panels", it's harder to engage them and change some minds while also being prepared to change your own. Direct trolling doesn't seem to work, but thankfully a lot of these people are within walking distance.
The Death Panel lie is an effect of many-to-many as it is.
Well, at least I can go to bed tonight relieved in knowing that US politics won't be affected in the slightest now that corporations spend as much as they like in support of a candidate.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:47:07 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
Ah. An idealist. You should have said.
Hang on, I'm an idealist because I don't believe that any set of laws, or any form of Governance is going to be sufficient to serve to the best of its abilities, a populace which isn't prepared to get its hands dirty and keep tabs!? :lulz:
All this bickering is of no use.
SCOTUS has decided, so we are about to get more of what we deserve.
FP and Requia should be elated. It's a Brave New World™!
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:47:07 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
Ah. An idealist. You should have said.
Hang on, I'm an idealist because I don't believe that any set of laws, or any form of Governance is going to be sufficient to serve to the best of its abilities, a populace which isn't prepared to get its hands dirty and keep tabs!? :lulz:
How are they supposed to keep tabs if the information they receive is monopolized?
But again, we're about to get all the Democracy™ we can stand. The Free Market™ will fix everything.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:55:57 PM
The Death Panel lie is an effect of many-to-many as it is.
The one-to-many adverts produced by the unions to combat that lie seemingly didn't change many minds.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:03:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:55:57 PM
The Death Panel lie is an effect of many-to-many as it is.
The one-to-many adverts produced by the unions to combat that lie seemingly didn't change many minds.
Not all ads are given equal airtime.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:40:41 PM
QuoteHow do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
The law would require a 'paid for by fuckem' at the end of every ad.
But not everyone knows what Fuckem does or who they stand for, etc. And the caring only cares later.
Frankly I'm disgusted with all of your reactions to this. For our nation's history, corporations have been abused and tossed aside without treating them like the people they are. Listen to yourself, talking like corporations have some kind of consipracy against the common man. You know, that's what some people say about the Jews and, worse, international bankers. The corporate world has a long history of practicing American values at their finest without expectation of reward or accolates. Their hard work, their leadership, their righteousness is that to which we owe our thanks.
And you're all calling them less than human, you're all telling us that their voices don't matter. Well as some of you have already said, in our history the voices of women, black people, homosexuals, and the deeply religious have been silenced. We can look back on that now and know it was wrong to do that, just like in the future we can look back on this thread and see how corporatist and intolerant we're all being.
Even the Supreme Court can recognize that corporations are people. I just wish the people were as forward thinking.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:07:54 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 08:40:41 PM
QuoteHow do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
The law would require a 'paid for by fuckem' at the end of every ad.
But not everyone knows what Fuckem does or who they stand for, etc. And the caring only cares later.
I can't wait to see the ads Phillip Morris plays.
Or Blacktwater (or whatever their name is now).
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
You're speaking of things that don't exist and never will along with Horrible Troofs
TM. Um, so back five squares and roll again or lose your turn.
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 22, 2010, 09:09:50 PM
Frankly I'm disgusted with all of your reactions to this. For our nation's history, corporations have been abused and tossed aside without treating them like the people they are. Listen to yourself, talking like corporations have some kind of consipracy against the common man. You know, that's what some people say about the Jews and, worse, international bankers. The corporate world has a long history of practicing American values at their finest without expectation of reward or accolates. Their hard work, their leadership, their righteousness is that to which we owe our thanks.
And you're all calling them less than human, you're all telling us that their voices don't matter. Well as some of you have already said, in our history the voices of women, black people, homosexuals, and the deeply religious have been silenced. We can look back on that now and know it was wrong to do that, just like in the future we can look back on this thread and see how corporatist and intolerant we're all being.
Even the Supreme Court can recognize that corporations are people. I just wish the people were as forward thinking.
:lulz:
My hat's off to you, Dear Sir.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:10:09 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
You're speaking of things that don't exist and never will along with Horrible TroofsTM. Um, so back five squares and roll again or lose your turn.
Because eternal vigilance is more and more likely as people have to work more and more to get by, and schools receive less and less funding.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Keith Olbermann had a pretty good rant as his special comment last night. I never watch his show, but I saw this linked on a news site I watch. Anyway, its pretty good, I guess, for being on tv or whatever, he says some pretty good stuff. Kinda sounds a little like roger.
heres the link, the vids are on the bottom.
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/olbermanns-special-comment-freedom-speech-destroyed/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:01:51 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:47:07 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
Ah. An idealist. You should have said.
Hang on, I'm an idealist because I don't believe that any set of laws, or any form of Governance is going to be sufficient to serve to the best of its abilities, a populace which isn't prepared to get its hands dirty and keep tabs!? :lulz:
How are they supposed to keep tabs if the information they receive is monopolized?
But again, we're about to get all the Democracy™ we can stand. The Free Market™ will fix everything.
How is the information going to be monopolized? Specifically I'm talking about individual people talking to other individual people as being more effective than broadcasting adverts. Yes - at one extreme a corporation could (and they currently do) pay people to go door to door -- but assuming that the freedom of speech also applies to the ability to call out and document such manipulative behaviour, then something can be done about it.
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for that
TM.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
How is the information going to be monopolized? Specifically I'm talking about individual people talking to other individual people as being more effective than broadcasting adverts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
DUUUDE.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
DUUUDE.
He had me going for a minute, there. :lulz:
Brilliant parody.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:12:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:10:09 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 08:44:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
How do you know they know? I mean FUCKEM could've obfuscated, paid media off, etc.
How often are there coverups done in our own towns and we don't know about it till we're bleeding out the anus?
You don't know that they know. Eternal vigilance and all that. I don't have much sympathy for people getting screwed over by corporations if they sit back and expect a perfect self-correcting democratic system to be handed to them upon a silver platter.
If enough people don't continue to keep tabs on those who pull the strings of power, then everybody will get screwed. I can't think of any time when this hasn't, or will not be true.
You're speaking of things that don't exist and never will along with Horrible TroofsTM. Um, so back five squares and roll again or lose your turn.
Because eternal vigilance is more and more likely as people have to work more and more to get by, and schools receive less and less funding.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Yeah, the organization I work with has a paid fucking lobbyist and works for TEACHERS, PARENTS and STUDENTS for FREE, and our Eternal Vigilance has gotten school funding a constant spiked ram up its ass, for the better part of a decade.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for thatTM.
This part is especially brilliant humor. Why even vote at all? We'll just buy the brands that support the politicians we like, and call it a day.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for thatTM.
This part is especially brilliant humor. Why even vote at all? We'll just buy the brands that support the politicians we like, and call it a day.
:lulz:
We'll call it: Operation Vote Wiff Yer Dollar, HOLLA!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
How is the information going to be monopolized? Specifically I'm talking about individual people talking to other individual people as being more effective than broadcasting adverts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
If it isn't yet, and if we don't make it so, then I don't see any hope.
But that
is my major premise -- if you don't accept it then I don't expect the rest of my argument to fall into place.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
How is the information going to be monopolized? Specifically I'm talking about individual people talking to other individual people as being more effective than broadcasting adverts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
If it isn't yet, and if we don't make it so, then I don't see any hope.
But that is my major premise -- if you don't accept it then I don't expect the rest of my argument to fall into place.
Give me back my fucking drugs, FP.
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
Corporations exist to limit the liability of the actions of humans. With less liability comes less responsibility and therefore FUCKING less FREEDOMS.
If you personally can't be held responsible then you shouldn't have all the same freedoms of someone who can personally be held responsible. Its this kind if FUCKWIT thinking that led Nike to lie and say "Oh we don't use sweatshops" AND then claim that they weren't "lying" they were just using their Freedom of Speech.
It is bullshit. 100% unadulterated poop from the ass of a male bovine.
Jump in if you want, but its gonna get your clothes all messy.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
How is the information going to be monopolized? Specifically I'm talking about individual people talking to other individual people as being more effective than broadcasting adverts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
If it isn't yet, and if we don't make it so, then I don't see any hope.
But that is my major premise -- if you don't accept it then I don't expect the rest of my argument to fall into place.
Talking to individuals CAN be more effective, FP, but what you are saying is that there's a way, positively and absolutely, to make that happen.
HOW do you propose that to be so? Esp when even while they send their OWN individuals, they're still buying their politicians and making what they want happen in the interim anyway?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
DING.
The only corporate rights called off is the freedom of the press.
That's it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for thatTM.
This part is especially brilliant humor. Why even vote at all? We'll just buy the brands that support the politicians we like, and call it a day.
:lulz:
And it updates your facebook profile with ethic-points
(R). Moving forward corporations have to become more issue-neutral or they will suffer more consequences than ever before.
They only screw us over because we pay them to, and as such there is a handsome profit in it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
Corporations exist to limit the liability of the actions of humans. With less liability comes less responsibility and therefore FUCKING less FREEDOMS.
If you personally can't be held responsible then you shouldn't have all the same freedoms of someone who can personally be held responsible. Its this kind if FUCKWIT thinking that led Nike to lie and say "Oh we don't use sweatshops" AND then claim that they weren't "lying" they were just using their Freedom of Speech.
It is bullshit. 100% unadulterated poop from the ass of a male bovine.
Jump in if you want, but its gonna get your clothes all messy.
I shouldn't be, I think I'm high on caffeine, but I'm :lulz: after this and Rog's latest post above.
I think I'm just punchy.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:23:39 PM
And it updates your facebook profile with ethic-points(R). Moving forward corporations have to become more issue-neutral or they will suffer more consequences than ever before.
That implies that they have ever suffered consequences.
I mean, besides having Oscar De La Rocha say mean things about them.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for thatTM.
This part is especially brilliant humor. Why even vote at all? We'll just buy the brands that support the politicians we like, and call it a day.
:lulz:
And it updates your facebook profile with ethic-points(R). Moving forward corporations have to become more issue-neutral or they will suffer more consequences than ever before.
They only screw us over because we pay them to, and as such there is a handsome profit in it.
What planet do you live on?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:26:24 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for thatTM.
This part is especially brilliant humor. Why even vote at all? We'll just buy the brands that support the politicians we like, and call it a day.
:lulz:
And it updates your facebook profile with ethic-points(R). Moving forward corporations have to become more issue-neutral or they will suffer more consequences than ever before.
They only screw us over because we pay them to, and as such there is a handsome profit in it.
What planet do you live on?
Planet Limbaugh, apparently.
Those poor old corporations only dump cyanide in Lake Erie because we ask them to.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
Fact - we cast votes every time we go shopping, with every dollar we spend. Until enough people routinely use this to correct the behaviour of corporations, then we'll be screwed.
Imagine a device which takes your shopping list and substitutes brand items based upon issues you support and the positions corporations take on those issues -- there's an app for thatTM.
This part is especially brilliant humor. Why even vote at all? We'll just buy the brands that support the politicians we like, and call it a day.
:lulz:
And it updates your facebook profile with ethic-points(R). Moving forward corporations have to become more issue-neutral or they will suffer more consequences than ever before.
They only screw us over because we pay them to, and as such there is a handsome profit in it.
Nah, they screw us over because they CAN, and they pay THEMSELVES to do so.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:10:44 PM
Quote from: The Omnipotent Grinner on January 22, 2010, 09:09:50 PM
Frankly I'm disgusted with all of your reactions to this. For our nation's history, corporations have been abused and tossed aside without treating them like the people they are. Listen to yourself, talking like corporations have some kind of consipracy against the common man. You know, that's what some people say about the Jews and, worse, international bankers. The corporate world has a long history of practicing American values at their finest without expectation of reward or accolates. Their hard work, their leadership, their righteousness is that to which we owe our thanks.
And you're all calling them less than human, you're all telling us that their voices don't matter. Well as some of you have already said, in our history the voices of women, black people, homosexuals, and the deeply religious have been silenced. We can look back on that now and know it was wrong to do that, just like in the future we can look back on this thread and see how corporatist and intolerant we're all being.
Even the Supreme Court can recognize that corporations are people. I just wish the people were as forward thinking.
:lulz:
My hat's off to you, Dear Sir.
:thanks:
ATTENTION FICTIONPUSS:
THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.
(providing you, too, aren't a corporation as well)
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:29:21 PM
ATTENTION FICTIONPUSS:
THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.
(providing you, too, aren't a corporation as well)
Stop hating America™.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:32:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:29:21 PM
ATTENTION FICTIONPUSS:
THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.
(providing you, too, aren't a corporation as well)
Stop hating America™.
Yeah, but I gotta be me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
Corporations exist to limit the liability of the actions of humans. With less liability comes less responsibility and therefore FUCKING less FREEDOMS.
If you personally can't be held responsible then you shouldn't have all the same freedoms of someone who can personally be held responsible. Its this kind if FUCKWIT thinking that led Nike to lie and say "Oh we don't use sweatshops" AND then claim that they weren't "lying" they were just using their Freedom of Speech.
It would remain the most effective recourse, to stop buying Nike products and to burn down the estates of the people at Nike who are responsible. A populace not prepared to make this happen will continue to get shat on.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:29:21 PM
ATTENTION FICTIONPUSS:
THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.
(providing you, too, aren't a corporation as well)
I don't think I was defending corporations.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:34:27 PM
I don't think I was defending corporations.
:lulz:
You killed James Brown, FP.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:27:24 PM
Planet Limbaugh, apparently.
Aww, that was a low-blow :cry:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:27:24 PM
Those poor old corporations only dump cyanide in Lake Erie because we ask them to.
No, the bastards get away with it because we allow them to.
Rich Boy sellin' crack dope niggas
wanna jack shit tight no slack just bought
a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S ON DA BITCH!!)
just bought a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S
ON DAT BITCH!!)just bought a Congressman
(THROW SOME D'S ON DAT BITCH!!)
/
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/90055877.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A5F807C25CF5864FE234B536DA70EB9E42AD6A84690E283590)
Rich Boy sellin crack dope niggas wanna jack
shit tight no slack just bought a
Congressman took it to da Chop Shop got da damn
top dropped two colored flipped flopped
candy red lolipop deres some hoes in da 'lot
still got my glock hott
new money motha fucka don't you see da tail
light don't you see da big chain don't
you da big rims wonda who dey hatin' on lately
baby its him Candy paint, gator skin
seats call me Dun Dee,up in yo 'hood im da fucka
dat you wanna be niggas wish
dey could feel da wood in my H3 ridin' wit no tint
so motha-mothas no its me....
/
(http://www.illinoischannel.org/Senator%20Dick%20Durbin.jpg)
chorus:Rich Boy sellin' crack dope niggas wanna jack
shit tight no slack just bought
a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S ON DA BITCH!!)
just bought a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S
ON DAT BITCH!!)just bought a Congressman
(THROW SOME D'S ON DAT BITCH!!)
/
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/90055877.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A5F807C25CF5864FE234B536DA70EB9E42AD6A84690E283590)
nigga i neva slip and ya see i neva fall,
alot of hoes give me dey numba but see i neva
call O.G style look at a nigga ball,baby
afta we hit da club imma hit dem draws yea
imma brek you off and baby that should
be all every bitch should have a picture of my
dick on dey wall Polow be the shit zone 4
be the click yea dis fa my dawgs
yea gangsters, hustlas,wankstas,bustas
(Wait a minute muthaficka)
/
(http://www.wppl.org/wphistory/PaulaHawkins/SenatorPaulaHawkins.jpg)
Rich Boy sellin' crack dope niggas
wanna jack shit tight no slack just bought
a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S ON DA BITCH!!)
just bought a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S
ON DAT BITCH!!)just bought a Congressman
(THROW SOME D'S ON DAT BITCH!!)
/
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/90055877.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A5F807C25CF5864FE234B536DA70EB9E42AD6A84690E283590)
Hit the block on some new 10 million dolla deals.
Kinda strange how i feel,
toucha gator on my wheel Got peanut butter icecream
petterpan seats just gotta
fresh cut now we lookin for them freaks.
Take her back yella bitch make her dropp
dem dem draws show her howwa nigga ball,
middle finga to da law so fuck dem
niggas tell em' what dey wanna do?
Hatin on a nigga cus my next skate 22's. when
i pull up imma park right at da front pour lean
in my cup got purp in my blunt.
imma real pimp bitch im not playin' like a trick
just bought a new 'Lac bout to put dem
thangs on dat bitch!!!!!
/
(http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/senator%20ted%20stevens-jj-001.jpg)
Rich Boy sellin' crack dope niggas
wanna jack shit tight no slack just bought
a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S ON DA BITCH!!)
just bought a Congressman(THROW SOME D'S
ON DAT BITCH!!)just bought a Congressman
(THROW SOME D'S ON DAT BITCH!!)
/
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/90055877.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A5F807C25CF5864FE234B536DA70EB9E42AD6A84690E283590)
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:36:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:27:24 PM
Planet Limbaugh, apparently.
Aww, that was a low-blow :cry:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:27:24 PM
Those poor old corporations only dump cyanide in Lake Erie because we ask them to.
No, the bastards get away with it because we allow them to.
And now we're going to allow them to do lots more! :banana:
Also, Payne is a GOD.
:mittens:
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:34:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.
That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.
Quote
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
Corporations exist to limit the liability of the actions of humans. With less liability comes less responsibility and therefore FUCKING less FREEDOMS.
If you personally can't be held responsible then you shouldn't have all the same freedoms of someone who can personally be held responsible. Its this kind if FUCKWIT thinking that led Nike to lie and say "Oh we don't use sweatshops" AND then claim that they weren't "lying" they were just using their Freedom of Speech.
It would remain the most effective recourse, to stop buying Nike products and to burn down the estates of the people at Nike who are responsible. A populace not prepared to make this happen will continue to get shat on.
Sure, and I think that anarchy would be far better than democracy in some fantasy world where humans behaved like self-regulated, responsible individuals with some modicum of self-control, altruism and an understanding of how some short term decisions affect long term goals.
Sadly, we live in a nation where we not only buy Nike shoes, we pay insane sums of money for Nike shoes and sometimes people kill each other for Nike shoes.
Now, if you're arguing that 2/3rds of Americans deserve it because they wear short skirts, low cut tops, have a tramp stamp and a cardboard sign that says "Will suck your dick for another episode of 'American Idol'"
Well, then ok I agree.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:39:50 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:34:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.
That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.
Quote
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
Corporations exist to limit the liability of the actions of humans. With less liability comes less responsibility and therefore FUCKING less FREEDOMS.
If you personally can't be held responsible then you shouldn't have all the same freedoms of someone who can personally be held responsible. Its this kind if FUCKWIT thinking that led Nike to lie and say "Oh we don't use sweatshops" AND then claim that they weren't "lying" they were just using their Freedom of Speech.
It would remain the most effective recourse, to stop buying Nike products and to burn down the estates of the people at Nike who are responsible. A populace not prepared to make this happen will continue to get shat on.
Sure, and I think that anarchy would be far better than democracy in some fantasy world where humans behaved like self-regulated, responsible individuals with some modicum of self-control, altruism and an understanding of how some short term decisions affect long term goals.
Sadly, we live in a nation where we not only buy Nike shoes, we pay insane sums of money for Nike shoes and sometimes people kill each other for Nike shoes.
Now, if you're arguing that 2/3rds of Americans deserve it because they wear short skirts, low cut tops, have a tramp stamp and a cardboard sign that says "Will suck your dick for another episode of 'American Idol'"
Well, then ok I agree.
I'm kinda looking forward to the next few years.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:39:50 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:34:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.
That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.
Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS. Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is. I have the freedom to cherry-pick.
To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other. But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm. Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:51:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:39:50 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:34:27 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:21:55 PM
FP, I think you're missing the MAIN FUCKING POINT
A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN BEING AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A CITIZEN.
That would be a big capitalised point to miss, but I don't think I was advocating that a corporation should be considered a citizen.
That's the logic being used by SCOTUS.
Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS. Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is. I have the freedom to cherry-pick.
To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other. But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm. Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.
Yeah. Until a corporation decides to throw wads of cash at politicians who will regulate the dogsnot out of the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:38:01 PM
Also, Payne is a GOD.
(http://goingconcern.com/two%20thumbs%20up.jpeg)
If this were a situation where Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from their own funds... that is Freedom of Speech and I would agree with you 100%.
When Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from the corporate coffers of their company that will benefit from them smearing a political candidate, then its no longer Free Speech, its corporate manipulation.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:12:24 PM
Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.
The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings. If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it. But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.
That's what I'm pissed about.
Wait.. I thought that conservatives hated activist judges.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 08:23:57 PM
By the way, anytime you want to judge what you should be "happy" about in government, take a look at what Fox News is celebrating. You don't want to be toasting with them, just saying.
The Religious Right is cheering this on too, which scares the fuck out of me.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/citizens-united-win-regular-guy
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 22, 2010, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:12:24 PM
Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.
The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings. If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it. But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.
That's what I'm pissed about.
Wait.. I thought that conservatives hated activist judges.
Yeah, they really should have stayed more true to their mora-
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 22, 2010, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2010, 08:12:24 PM
Requia, please understand that this decison goes far beyond the DVD which started this whole thing.
The SC used that as an excuse to reverse an entire pile of previous laws and rulings. If they said, "sure, it's ok for a company to release a character assasination of a political figure a week before elections" and left it at that, I'd probably be ok with it. But they decided to dismantle most of the framework behind campaign finance reform.
That's what I'm pissed about.
Wait.. I thought that conservatives hated activist judges.
I told you fuckers this decade would be even funnier than the last one. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:53:48 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:51:20 PM
Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS. Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is. I have the freedom to cherry-pick.
To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other. But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm. Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.
Yeah. Until a corporation decides to throw wads of cash at politicians who will regulate the dogsnot out of the internet.
That would be problematic. But they've tried before and they'll try again. At least in the short-term they have everything to gain, and little to lose by trying.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:57:14 PM
If this were a situation where Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from their own funds... that is Freedom of Speech and I would agree with you 100%.
When Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from the corporate coffers of their company that will benefit from them smearing a political candidate, then its no longer Free Speech, its corporate manipulation.
I am undecided on the second point, but even if I did agree completely, I don't know of a satisfactory way to precisely determine the flow of money in a very short time-frame, given that reality is never as clear-cut, and there isn't time to perform a complete investigation. If a bank gives some banker a stupidly large multi-million dollar bonus this year, and that banker makes a film for the 2012 elections - how can you say absolutely whether that was or wasn't part of some backroom deal?
Oh fuck, the Glibertarians are dancing in the streets about this too:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/it-turns-out-the-first-amendme
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2010, 09:53:48 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 09:51:20 PM
Ah, I think you're confusing SCOTUS with a person, or me with SCOTUS. Unlike it, I am not bound by the constitution or other precedent when determining what I think the best course of action is. I have the freedom to cherry-pick.
To clarify - I'm not comfortable with any form of governance being able to determine whether "Hillary - the movie" or "Fahrenheit 911" should be allowed to air, or pick one over the other. But using the given reality, where their decisions do effect what I can or can not see or publish.. I would much prefer they box themselves into a corner where they can do least harm. Using my (apparently quite unique) logic, overall I'm happier that freedom of online speech seems to be given more protection, as I see that as more beneficial than the potential danger arising from the narrow chunk of law they overturned.
Yeah. Until a corporation decides to throw wads of cash at politicians who will regulate the dogsnot out of the internet.
That would be problematic. But they've tried before and they'll try again. At least in the short-term they have everything to gain, and little to lose by trying.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 09:57:14 PM
If this were a situation where Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from their own funds... that is Freedom of Speech and I would agree with you 100%.
When Bob, Joe and Frank decided to make "Hillary: The Movie" from the corporate coffers of their company that will benefit from them smearing a political candidate, then its no longer Free Speech, its corporate manipulation.
I am undecided on the second point, but even if I did agree completely, I don't know of a satisfactory way to precisely determine the flow of money in a very short time-frame, given that reality is never as clear-cut, and there isn't time to perform a complete investigation. If a bank gives some banker a stupidly large multi-million dollar bonus this year, and that banker makes a film for the 2012 elections - how can you say absolutely whether that was or wasn't part of some backroom deal?
You can't.
I'm not saying that you can keep this from happening... but there's a big difference between saying that the horse might be able to kick out the back wall of his stall and just leaving the barn doors wide open. The Courts just opened the barn doors.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 10:24:35 PM
I'm not saying that you can keep this from happening... but there's a big difference between saying that the horse might be able to kick out the back wall of his stall and just leaving the barn doors wide open. The Courts just opened the barn doors.
Okay - so you don't grant freedom of speech to corporations and instead craft a DMCA type law, where citizen enforcers can "flag" content as being from a paid shill of George Soros' corporation or Nike.. so the content gets removed "pending review" on a case-by-case basis. Except, like the DMCA as it currently plays out on YouTube, actually fighting it takes time and/or money. By which time the election is over anyway - the people with the most money still win and the people with none are effectively censored.
Isn't it simpler to deal with the negative consequences of allowing individuals within corporations collectively expressing their freedom of speech?
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:29:21 PM
THE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.
That's different from how the government treated citizens already?
Always assumed I was just another asset to the State.
Quote from: Jenne on January 22, 2010, 09:29:21 PMTHE CORPORATION IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, IT JUST COUNTS YOU AS A NUMBER. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO THEM AS A PERSON. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ANYTHING BUT A MONEY SUCKING LEECH, NO MATTER WHAT, AND YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE IF YOU GO UP AGAINST THEM.
THIS.
everybody, please to note: MONEY SUCKING LEECH is not a MONKEY but
worseno matter how retarded monkeys can be.
not our species and get this,
above us in the food chain.if you ever wondered it's about time some "natural" predator enters the scene and starts eating humans, look no further. it's the corporations, it's the Machine.
what did you think?
you can't really prey on humans with tooth and claw anymore. and hell, humans probably don't really taste good anymore either, with all that smoking and eating chemicals going on.
so instead they prey on our ideas, opinions and spirit.
and the weird trick they are playing on us, is that They seem to be Made of Us. and this boggles our minds to no end, because we can't be our own enemy can we?
usually it's always one group that is eating, killing, conquering, enslaving or domesticating the other group. and this is a good thing for the one group and a bad thing for the other.
so if we end up domesticating and enslaving ourselves, is this good or bad? that is hella confusing.
at least, it seems to be, until you see how the other group is made up of the one group, but they are not the same Thing. what we call Machine is enslaving the Free Man. and that is why we are Discordia, to remain unfertile soil for the Machine.
My opinion is that 000 wins an internets.
I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit. Let's not pretend we have complete immunity to its charms.
It is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid. Its best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective. Expanding upon that - I'm not sure we can defeat it, or focus much energy on defeating it in the short-term.
Quote from: FP on January 23, 2010, 01:35:46 AM
I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit. Let's not pretend we have complete immunity to its charms.
true.
QuoteIt is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.
stupid? what does that even mean in this context?
is an ant eater stupid when it destroys the intricate patterns in an ant hill?
it's not human. stop antropomorhpizing it.
QuoteIts best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.
dumb in what sense?
Didn't know if I should put this here or in the Alan Grayson appreciation thread:
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/grayson/
QuoteResponding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision."
"If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced.
"You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."
Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law."
"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."
Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government."
The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are available on the congressman's Web site (http://grayson.house.gov/2010/01/grayson-save-our-democracy.shtml).
:lulz: I love that Glorious Bastard!
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
QuoteIt is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.
stupid? what does that even mean in this context?
is an ant eater stupid when it destroys the intricate patterns in an ant hill?
it's not human. stop antropomorhpizing it.
QuoteIts best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.
dumb in what sense?
This is the model I use to consider the machine. I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".
When the machine acts in a way likely to make humans extinct or to limit our progress, it is also being dumb - in the sense that it is maximising short term goals at the expense of the medium-long term. It's a parasite which tries to kill the host.
Although, I think it's perhaps cleaner to discuss this in terms of pure memetics instead of borrowing other metaphors.
Quote from: FP on January 23, 2010, 03:44:18 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
QuoteIt is dangerous, and it is above us in the food chain, but it is also stupid.
stupid? what does that even mean in this context?
is an ant eater stupid when it destroys the intricate patterns in an ant hill?
it's not human. stop antropomorhpizing it.
QuoteIts best defense/attack seems to be hiring or otherwise persuading intelligent minds to further some short-term/dumb objective.
dumb in what sense?
This is the model I use to consider the machine. I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".
When the machine acts in a way likely to make humans extinct or to limit our progress, it is also being dumb - in the sense that it is maximising short term goals at the expense of the medium-long term. It's a parasite which tries to kill the host.
Although, I think it's perhaps cleaner to discuss this in terms of pure memetics instead of borrowing other metaphors.
You are underestimating how hard it is to make a species extinct.
(hm maybe Regret said it more succinct than I did)
not everything is memetics. and in this case it is not a very fitting metaphor. we're talking about a littlebit more than just memes here.
> I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
what do you mean? are you saying you're not anthropomorphising it, or that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
i really disagree with the latter. at least, whether you can interact with it, maybe, but not in any sense or manner that is similarly meaningful to both humans and the machine at the same time.
> The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant
> hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".
yes, but that's not what I was trying to say, at all. I meant the intricate patterns and pathways and pheromones that make up the anthill have no meaning for the ant eater, it's just food.
now from the ants' point of view this may be dumb behaviour, and the smart ants may indeed come up with excuses that it is indeed dumb because the ant eater is destroying its food source, but the reality is that it isn't. there are enough ant hills out there for the ant eater, and it just really really sucks for the ants that get eaten.
i think it's the same for the machine, it may need humans to exist, and that may really really suck for those humans, but it won't destroy humanity. as someone else (Felix?) said, we should be so lucky if humanity goes out with a bang. because it probably won't. if it goes it, it will go with a wheeze, giving the machine enough time to adapt, unless we really fall back to prehistoric times. but we probably won't. dark ages living conditions maybe, but not everywhere, not for the elite.
even though I still think "dumb" does not apply on this level. the machine (or machines) is not that "dumb" to destroy its soil. we should be so lucky.
Quote from: Regret on January 23, 2010, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: FP on January 23, 2010, 03:44:18 AM
This is the model I use to consider the machine. I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".
When the machine acts in a way likely to make humans extinct or to limit our progress, it is also being dumb - in the sense that it is maximising short term goals at the expense of the medium-long term. It's a parasite which tries to kill the host.
Although, I think it's perhaps cleaner to discuss this in terms of pure memetics instead of borrowing other metaphors.
You are underestimating how hard it is to make a species extinct.
I see it as a symbiotic relationship - when we thrive, as does our reliance on the machine, and so does it thrive.
When we're at the level of warfare of throwing rocks at each other and are even more primitive than we are today, there is not much of a machine to speak of. It may be the case that at a certain level of progress beyond what we currently have, we outwit/domesticate the machine and are able to steer our destiny with extra finesse.. but I have no idea really just hope.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
(hm maybe Regret said it more succinct than I did)
not everything is memetics. and in this case it is not a very fitting metaphor. we're talking about a littlebit more than just memes here.
Well yes, if you don't perceive the machine as a form of intelligence, then memes are a useless lens through which to view our interactions with it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
> I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
what do you mean? are you saying you're not anthropomorphising it, or that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
Both.
I am not anthropomorphising a chimpanzee who learns sign language, any more than I am a squirrel who has enough intelligence to successfully complete a fairly advanced obstacle course which involves pulling the right levers and pressing the right buttons at the right time in order to win some nuts.
Or at least, if I am, then I must be very confused.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
i really disagree with the latter. at least, whether you can interact with it, maybe, but not in any sense or manner that is similarly meaningful to both humans and the machine at the same time.
In that you can't walk up to it and share a conversation?
The closest you can come to that is to have a conversation with one of its recognised agents - a lawyer or doctor or career politician, etc. But it is likely just a one-sided conversation as unless that agent holds massive authority and you are exceptionally persuasive, then it will just be relaying information to you rather than absorbing anything meaningful into and via its own structure.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
> The ant eater is not stupid for eating ants, but if it were to destroy its food supply entirely by destroying all the ant
> hills, that would be the mark of a "dumb creature".
yes, but that's not what I was trying to say, at all. I meant the intricate patterns and pathways and pheromones that make up the anthill have no meaning for the ant eater, it's just food.
In the same way, if you give someone a promotion, then the intricate patterns and pathways and information exchanges of the machine are destroyed which were created around that person being placed in that previous position.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
now from the ants' point of view this may be dumb behaviour, and the smart ants may indeed come up with excuses that it is indeed dumb because the ant eater is destroying its food source, but the reality is that it isn't. there are enough ant hills out there for the ant eater, and it just really really sucks for the ants that get eaten.
i think it's the same for the machine, it may need humans to exist, and that may really really suck for those humans, but it won't destroy humanity. as someone else (Felix?) said, we should be so lucky if humanity goes out with a bang. because it probably won't. if it goes it, it will go with a wheeze, giving the machine enough time to adapt, unless we really fall back to prehistoric times. but we probably won't. dark ages living conditions maybe, but not everywhere, not for the elite.
The machine doesn't appear to have much in the way of foresight or self-preservation. It has developed structures in which humans are given scant motivation to look much beyond the short-term, but it is the human-intelligences pushing against this who are advocating for medium to long-term issues such as environmental protection and limiting poverty, disease, aid to people in far away nations and an end to most of the predictable causes of warfare and strife, etc.
Interestingly it tends to be the religious right who embody the machine with godliness - e.g. The Family who take as an additional tenet that anyone whom the machine has placed in a position of authority was placed there by God, and as such, their position should not be questioned. Unless it's Obama/the antichrist, I guess. But it's not surprising they seek to serve the machine by endorsing/loving its short-term side-effects, and fighting tooth and nail the medium to long-term goals which would preclude them.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
even though I still think "dumb" does not apply on this level. the machine (or machines) is not that "dumb" to destroy its soil. we should be so lucky.
I like using "dumb" to describe following short-term goals at the expense, or simple lack of consideration of the long-term. It was around this point that I stopped fearing the machine as a conspiratorial device -- it's not out to destroy those who seek to change it beyond the short term, because it is too short-sighted. But I'm more interested in discussing the mechanics than the linguistics so I'll happily substitute in alternate terminology if you prefer.
Quote from: FP on January 23, 2010, 01:35:46 AM
I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit.
You're burrowing in.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
Quote from: FP on January 23, 2010, 01:35:46 AM
I think the machine traps us all from time to time, but I would hope that Discordians have a slightly better chance of recognising this and climbing out of the pit.
You're burrowing in.
Meaning that not only have I been trapped, but that I'm moving in the opposite direction of the exit? How so? :?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
(hm maybe Regret said it more succinct than I did)
not everything is memetics. and in this case it is not a very fitting metaphor. we're talking about a littlebit more than just memes here.
Well yes, if you don't perceive the machine as a form of intelligence, then memes are a useless lens through which to view our interactions with it.
[/quote]
it's about as intelligent as a forest is intelligent. that is, it may have some very complex characteristics and behaviours, even some things that you might consider "smart" or "dumb" if you look at it from exactly the right angle, but on the whole if you're trying to deal with a forest by appealing to its "intelligence", you're not really being very useful. especially if you tend to completely gloss over ecology or biology.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 23, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
> I don't think I am anthropomorphising it to suggest that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
what do you mean? are you saying you're not anthropomorphising it, or that it has a form of intelligence which can be interacted with.
Both.
I am not anthropomorphising a chimpanzee who learns sign language, any more than I am a squirrel who has enough intelligence to successfully complete a fairly advanced obstacle course which involves pulling the right levers and pressing the right buttons at the right time in order to win some nuts.
Or at least, if I am, then I must be very confused.[/quote]
you might be very confused.
chimps never learned sign language. the experiment was flawed exactly
because the researchers were anthropomorphizing the chimp too much. the only guy on the team who was deaf and spoke sign language as a first language kept hearing from the others that he was not writing down enough "obvious examples of language use". because the chimp had not learned language. it was just randomly emitting symbols that it had learned would get him a result. that's not language, but semiotics. it sometimes got it right by accident, but mostly it was producing "sentences" such as "banana banana banana want eat me me banana eat want", just throwing the symbols out there until the researchers got sufficiently excited and gave him a banana. sort of a bruteforce approach, but it got him the banana.
it's not that much more intelligent than what the squirrel does. well it is, because the squirrel couldnt do it, but not that much :)
also I'm still convinced that the machine is much more alien than a squirrel. you know, it HAS to be, as a survival stategy! if it would be transparent or fathomable, humans would soon enough start to second-guess it.
sorry i dont have time to write more now.
I don't think I have any choice but to concede to your superior line of argument.
Quote from: FP on January 23, 2010, 08:43:44 PM
I don't think I have any choice but to concede to your superior line of argument.
Conceding that you're wrong? On the Internet? You have balls of steel.
So now The Government of China Incorporatedtm can funnel money through it's subsidiaries, to influence our elections?
Depends on how the FEC reacts to this, the ruling says that blocking foreign companies is OK, so the FEC has the option of continuing to enforce it for them.
More interesting is how you determine a US vs a non US company. There are some that are theoretically in the US but have offshored (or gone north or south of the borders) so heavily that they really shouldn't count as US based. GM comes to mind here.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 24, 2010, 09:14:36 PM
Depends on how the FEC reacts to this, the ruling says that blocking foreign companies is OK, so the FEC has the option of continuing to enforce it for them.
More interesting is how you determine a US vs a non US company. There are some that are theoretically in the US but have offshored (or gone north or south of the borders) so heavily that they really shouldn't count as US based. GM comes to mind here.
Who cares which corporations own us now? One's the same as another.
I'm confused, if the corporations are going to own us without this law, why did they let it pass in the first place?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 25, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I'm confused, if the corporations are going to own us without this law, why did they let it pass in the first place?
Two words: Russ Feingold.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2010, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 25, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I'm confused, if the corporations are going to own us without this law, why did they let it pass in the first place?
Two words: Russ Feingold.
and John McCain... for all his faults he chose the right side on this topic.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 25, 2010, 07:55:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2010, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 25, 2010, 07:33:15 PM
I'm confused, if the corporations are going to own us without this law, why did they let it pass in the first place?
Two words: Russ Feingold.
and John McCain... for all his faults he chose the right side on this topic.
Yeah, that was before he became a toothless old whore.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky on January 22, 2010, 06:25:34 PM
Quote from: FP on January 22, 2010, 06:23:16 PM
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.
I'm curious. Who's today's Elvis?
My vote would be for Michael Jackson.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 08:08:18 PM
When America began, it was freedom for White Male Landowners. Then, kicking and screaming they let White Females in, then a little minority here, then one there... and we're still fighting over 'who' should be covered by 'freedom for all'.
Actually black males received the vote before women of any race in the US.
Oh fucklol. I've been reading about this shit. Somewhere there's a corporate exec who's quietly pissing all over Tom Payne's grave.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on January 25, 2010, 09:32:01 PM
Oh fucklol. I've been reading about this shit. Somewhere there's a corporate exec who's quietly pissing all over Tom Payne's grave.
That'd be in New Rochelle, New York. Standing next to five other corporate executives loudly pissing all over it.
If I ever see "the 1st Amendment brought to you by Nike" or some shit like that, I'm going to burn those fuckers down.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on January 26, 2010, 03:19:04 AM
If I ever see "the 1st Amendment brought to you by Nike" or some shit like that, I'm going to burn those fuckers down.
Do please burn them down now.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 25, 2010, 09:25:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 08:08:18 PM
When America began, it was freedom for White Male Landowners. Then, kicking and screaming they let White Females in, then a little minority here, then one there... and we're still fighting over 'who' should be covered by 'freedom for all'.
Actually black males received the vote before women of any race in the US.
Nope, women had the right to vote from the word go in New Jersey (this was removed later). For that matter *anybody* blacks, white, Chinese, men, women, whatever, could vote in new jersey at the time, 'property owner' included *all* property, not just land.
I've never actually seen anything that would require landowning in the early franchise laws (though the poor were often excluded via high poll taxes). If anybody knows of a state that did require it I'd love to hear about it though.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 26, 2010, 05:47:42 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 25, 2010, 09:25:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2010, 08:08:18 PM
When America began, it was freedom for White Male Landowners. Then, kicking and screaming they let White Females in, then a little minority here, then one there... and we're still fighting over 'who' should be covered by 'freedom for all'.
Actually black males received the vote before women of any race in the US.
Nope, women had the right to vote from the word go in New Jersey (this was removed later). For that matter *anybody* blacks, white, Chinese, men, women, whatever, could vote in new jersey at the time, 'property owner' included *all* property, not just land.
I've never actually seen anything that would require landowning in the early franchise laws (though the poor were often excluded via high poll taxes). If anybody knows of a state that did require it I'd love to hear about it though.
North Carolina was the last State to remove the 'landowner' requirement, that was in 1856.
In fact this topic is one of the things that keeps old President Jackson around as a 'great President'...
When the country started, Jews, Catholics and other Horrible People were not allowed to vote, only good Protestants. A number of State Constitutions had a line about believing in God and Jesus etc as a requirement to vote. It was Andrew Jackson that pushed for equality (in that ALL White men should be allowed to vote... which is kinda like equality, except not...) and lead to the rise of the Democratic party and the sad belief that they are for "the People".
And the poor were fucked by a polling tax until the mid-60's. Native Americans didn't get to vote until the early 20's after Women (1920) and African Americans (1870).
The reason for this law is based on the way English voting worked... you had to be a land owner or titled in order to vote, so the colonies adapted it. At the time, keep in mind, that relatively few people could read or write or behave in a logical fashion (at least in the perception of the educated). There was a strong belief that if you weren't 'invested' in the country, then you shouldn't have a say in the election... after all, you might be stupid and believe some politician when he lies to you.
John Adams:
Quote
Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.
After almost 9 decades of 'most' people having the right to vote... well... Maybe they weren't so dumb... maybe there are a large number of people that are not qualified to vote. Obviously their criteria were flawed based on prejudice and flaws in knowledge at the time. But, er, the past decade seems to indicate that a large number of Americans are witless fools waiting, willing and wanting to be manipulated, lied to and scorned by their elected representative.
I had to do a quick Google cause I couldn't remember actual examples, but I found a few:
Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40.
Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2.
Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.
Those are three examples of a very common law, excluding New Jersey and on other colony that I can't remember off hand.
:lol:
John Adams had ideas about democracy that were...unmodern.
He also hated free speech.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 28, 2010, 04:03:47 PM
:lol:
John Adams had ideas about democracy that were...unmodern.
He also hated free speech.
Yeah, 'democracy' was not a good term in the late 1700's. It was considered much like anarchy is today... a completely unworkable model that would lead to madness and the destruction of everything good. "OMGZ we can't let the plebs vote, for god's sake they'll just sell their vote to the highest bidder because they're too dumb to know what's best for them! Or worse yet, vote in some illiterate buffoon that will dress up in a flight suit and crow about winning a war that is just starting!"
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 28, 2010, 04:26:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 28, 2010, 04:03:47 PM
:lol:
John Adams had ideas about democracy that were...unmodern.
He also hated free speech.
Yeah, 'democracy' was not a good term in the late 1700's. It was considered much like anarchy is today... a completely unworkable model that would lead to madness and the destruction of everything good. "OMGZ we can't let the plebs vote, for god's sake they'll just sell their vote to the highest bidder because they're too dumb to know what's best for them! Or worse yet, vote in some illiterate buffoon that will dress up in a flight suit and crow about winning a war that is just starting!"
Meh. Things improved, and you have to start somewhere.
Some glibertarians still repeat those arguments today, about how all democracy has led to is people voting in the person who will transfer most wealth from the national treasury (and wealth producers) to the stupid, slavish masses, which will cause the country to collapse. Which of course has happened tons of times, historically, srsly.
I wonder if those same people are feeling really kinda stupid right now?
Quote from: Cain on January 28, 2010, 04:29:45 PM
Some glibertarians still repeat those arguments today, about how all democracy has led to is people voting in the person who will transfer most wealth from the national treasury (and wealth producers) to the stupid, slavish masses, which will cause the country to collapse. Which of course has happened tons of times, historically, srsly.
I wonder if those same people are feeling really kinda stupid right now?
No, I think they feel vindicated. They're religious about it, Cain, and no amount of evidence will convince them.
True. See the hilarious comments on MW about corporations not using coercion, for another example of glibertarian artefacts of faith being refused by reality (I'm going to bump that in a few days and mention United Fruit...and again a few days later to mention Operation Ajax. And every other example of corps breaking open a new market by deposing a government that I can think of). Still, such people are fun to poke with sticks.
Quote from: Cain on January 28, 2010, 04:49:20 PM
True. See the hilarious comments on MW about corporations not using coercion, for another example of glibertarian artefacts of faith being refused by reality (I'm going to bump that in a few days and mention United Fruit...and again a few days later to mention Operation Ajax. And every other example of corps breaking open a new market by deposing a government that I can think of). Still, such people are fun to poke with sticks.
Yeah, I saw that. Lais is brain damaged, and Memnoch is the very model of the Randite drone. Morbidly obese, couldn't finish his term in the military (but knows everything about it), lives in his mother-in-law's basement, and spends every free moment preaching about "self-reliance".
Well, Lais is a birther who quotes World Net Daily and Free Republic as valid sources, so even if he didn't have brain damage before, he still has it now. And yeah, I remember snorting coffee when I saw a pic of Memnoch. He may have been in the military once, but nowadays he's only a member of the 101st Chairborne.
Do they really believe corporations pay all that campaign money to political parties just so they can oppress them? Do they really think reducing legislation aimed at limiting their influence, no matter how effectively, can be gotten rid of and then the market will just mysteriously rebalance itself in favour of the individual, regardless of the massive inequalities that have built up over generations, if not centuries, through corporate wealth (in the UK for example, the very first industrialists were...minor noblemen, and their main investors were the landed gentry, who of course stole land from the peasantry through superior military force and then rewrote the laws so that it had always been theirs, and the peasants were tenants)? Are they, in fact, aware of any economic history beyond Economics In A Single Lesson?
Gah, glibertarians do my nut in. This totally artificial divide between one portion of the ruling class (who do the actual robbing) and the other (who hold a gun on you while the robbery is underway) is nothing more than poor apologetics. And we're going to see a lot more of it in the near future, since professional ass-kissing just became even more allowable.
Quote from: Cain on January 28, 2010, 05:04:08 PM
Well, Lais is a birther who quotes World Net Daily and Free Republic as valid sources, so even if he didn't have brain damage before, he still has it now. And yeah, I remember snorting coffee when I saw a pic of Memnoch. He may have been in the military once, but nowadays he's only a member of the 101st Chairborne.
Actually, it's Mem that's the freeper. Lais uses ever-more bizarre sources to back up his giddyness. For example, he quotes The Daily Mail and expects people to take it seriously. Nowdays, when he posts, it's usually followed by posts saying things like, "For fuck's sake, Lais", and "Good Grief", etc. Pisses him off to no end.
The Daily Mail can be OK, so long as the story has nothing to do with:
science
Health
immigrants
Muslims
Anyone to the left of Maggie Thatcher
New Labour
the BBC
Health and safety regs
facts
reality
I'm sure Lais posted a freeper link at least once, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out Mem lurks there. If not in fact posts. That place is like the welcome room of Stormfront, which is the vilest cesspool on the internet, bar none.
Quote from: Cain on January 28, 2010, 05:12:09 PM
The Daily Mail can be OK, so long as the story has nothing to do with:
science
Health
immigrants
Muslims
Anyone to the left of Maggie Thatcher
New Labour
the BBC
Health and safety regs
facts
reality
I'm sure Lais posted a freeper link at least once, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out Mem lurks there. If not in fact posts. That place is like the welcome room of Stormfront, which is the vilest cesspool on the internet, bar none.
Yeah, he's a regular member there...don't recall the handle he uses.
Well hell, if you let all the white guys vote, eventually the smudgy people will want to vote, and the Catholics... it would be MADNESS!!!
:argh!:
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm Is this your source? It seems to match, its also from pre revolution laws.
North Carolina removed landowning requirements in its 1776 state constitution. Er, assuming it had one before that. Voting there required that you be a landowner that lived in the place you voted, *or* that you had lived there for a year.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 03:53:16 AM
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy) Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.
POAST OF THE MILLENIUM.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 30, 2018, 02:16:47 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 22, 2010, 03:53:16 AM
I'm actually gonna have to agree with the conservative judges on this one (Note to self, you just agreed with Scalia, get a lobotomy) Free speech is free speech, if we allow restriction corporations this way, then that opens the door to restrict corporate use of other media as well.
POAST OF THE MILLENIUM.
Fucking christ on a crouton.