Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh well then, too late to fix it now!
Congress Shall Make NO LAW....
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Oh well then, too late to fix it now!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No it's not, fool.
Just admit you love fascism and it gives you a boner, you fascisto - faggot.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
As I pointed out earlier, it is actually YOUR point of view that promotes Fascism. In a Fascist system, the state controls means of production (corporations). Now, if you remove corporations from the political process and only allow the voices of the Statists to be heard, you have a one-sided argument being presented, and have enabled the Statists to control means of production because they control politics.
There is never a more clear example of this, than what has happened the past few years. Because of the 2002 CFR, corporations were shut out of the political process, so we ended up with a Statist Administration, an anti-capitalist leadership in Congress, and almost immediately, they usurped power and control of our largest single means of production, the automotive industry. Next was the financial industry, then the health insurance industry... and the list goes on and on.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
WHo's talking about controlling means of production, ass?
Statist administration? He sucks banker cock if you didn't notice.
Individual contributions provide enough funding for a full politcal discourse.
Corporate money will drown out all other voices, sadly.
Fascism is not state control. It's usually private ownership with heavy state collusion to shut out competition and get big orders with taxpayer money.
Fascism is actually corporate control of the government, not state control, you shit monger.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's what "Fascism" is, dummy!
Nope, hadn't noticed... looks like he's declaring war on them, now that his war on health insurance companies failed.
Yes, we have enough free speech because YOU think so, is that it?
I'm really hoping that to be the case, the anti-capitalist socialist statist elements certainly need competition in the arena of political debate. Instead of being inundated with socialist anti-business propaganda exclusively, we can now have a balanced debate, where the forces of capitalism and commerce can defend themselves and make a case for capitalism.
Ah, you mean like how General Motors is still privately owned, but now has the Feds telling them what to do? Good point!!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No. That's communism. Fool. learn what words mean.
His speeches would convey that, but in policy he's exhibited cocksucking only.
Im just considering the ramifications of the decision and not being reactionary cheerleading fascist like you.
Monopolistic corporations who use the state for their own power also need competition.
yes, that's an instance of it. It's also an instance of it when goldman sachs dictates fed and treasury policy.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, that is a correct and proper definition of Fascism. Communism is when the means of production and everything else is owned and operated by the "community" or the representative of the community, the state.
Well, thankfully Obama is short on actual POLICY... most of them have been stopped at some point down the line. You need to understand, Obama giving them money is no more cocksucking than a Mafia don making a loan is cocksucking.
No, you're really not considering the ramifications, you are having a knee jerk reaction to the rollback of how things were before McCain-Feingold... it will pass!
And they have plenty of it... ACORN, SPLC, ACLU, MoveOn.org.... etc... etc... etc... Your point again???
But that is a result of shutting out corporate free speech in politics! Don't you imagine, if Goldman-Sachs competitors had been able to run ads during the presidential campaign, explaining how Obama was in bed with Goldman-Sachs, it might have made a difference in the outcome? However, since we silenced their political voice, no real noise was made, except by conservative 527 groups, who were discounted as 'extremist right wingers' who were tuned out by the voters. Without corporate America screaming about this, people tended to accept there wasn't a problem, all was well... because they didn't hear the voices of opposition, because we shut them out of the debate!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You're wrong on everything,
from your definition of fascism, to the nature of obama's handouts, to your odd belief that corporations had no power prior to this decision. Given this, I shall leave you to marinate in your own stupidity.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I've already told you, I am never wrong on anything, that is why I am a Living Legend. Pinheads only have to be right once, I have to be right 100% of the time!
It's not an odd belief that McCain-Feingold restricted free speech on corporations since 2002, that's what the SCOTUS case was about! If it were my odd belief, I suspect the SCOTUS would have found no reason to hear the case, it would have had no basis. What's a really odd belief, is that the SCOTUS decision has any negative ramifications that weren't realized prior to 2002, when corporations were not shut out of political speech.
Other than yammering some mindless nonsense about "fascism", you can't really explain your odd belief!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
you're always wrong.
It is odd to believe that now FINALLY AFTER THIS DECISION coporations finally have the right amount of power. Finally. It's been a long hard road for the multinationals, Im sure.
Actually, in Citizens United the SCOTUS overturned prior precedent such that we are actually back to the pre-Watergate era with respect to corporate electioneering activities.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've actually read the entire case, and the opening argument by the Plaintiff cites the 2002 McCain-Feingold reforms as their show cause. The ruling may have overturned previous rulings, but the argument and case was brought as a direct result of McCain-Feingold reforms, it's right there in black and white, in the opening argument.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes... it is... unless you are dixie and think 'spending money to have your voice heard' = FREE SPEECH
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why are you pretending that I have said this "finally" stuff? Let's be clear, this is not the end to some long struggle for corporations to have free speech! Up until 2002 (8 years ago), corporations DID have political free speech. FINALLY we have returned to sanity and restored their right to free speech! Eight years was plenty long enough to deny them their Constitutional rights!
Well, I'm telling you what the Supreme Court did with respect to corporate electioneering activities. It turned the clock back to prior to the reforms that passed in the wake of Watergate. Your assertion that the decision merely returns us to the state quo ante 2002 is incorrect.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The truth of the matter (and it was found to be the case by the SCOTUS), is what you just said... spending money for airtime, production of movies, book publishing, news producing, flier printing, etc... ARE Free Speech, and ARE protected by the 1st Amendment. Most particularly, this is the case in a NATIONAL campaign, and to restrict the ability to do this, is a restriction of free speech.
So you should change that to... unless you are dixie and 5 Supreme Court Justices and the Constitution...
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You seem to be elated that finally the world is fair since corporations can direct unlimited amounts of cash to political propaganda.
Corporations shouldn't have free speech. People should.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Now dixie will say that since people work at corporations that THEY ARE the corporation.
this is his retardation level.
this is his retardation level.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
then you of course want to ban all groups or assocations of people from spending money on political ads...is this right?