Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think you've got the bullet points. Now try refuting it. Exclamation points and emoticons don't get you an instant victory, douchey.

Well first, I would say your analogy is seriously flawed. You said: For instance they could lobby congress to make food growing illegal because of the carbon footpritnt... But plants EAT carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, so the corporation would have to be lobbying to grow more food in order to reduce the carbon footprint.

Okay, next... I don't understand the point. If corporations are only interested in draining the life blood from society, absorbing all our wealth in the process, what is the End Game for them? I mean, what happens when they have no more 'host countries' and they control all the wealth? What good will all the money be, if no one else has anything?

I wonder, once a corporation absorbs enough power and money, does it need people to operate it anymore? Because, at some point, all the people are going to be peasants just trying to stay alive... not much use as an employee. It must be that once the corporation reaches a certain size, it no longer needs humans! ZOMG!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Well first, I would say your analogy is seriously flawed. You said: For instance they could lobby congress to make food growing illegal because of the carbon footpritnt... But plants EAT carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, so the corporation would have to be lobbying to grow more food in order to reduce the carbon footprint.

Okay, next... I don't understand the point. If corporations are only interested in draining the life blood from society, absorbing all our wealth in the process, what is the End Game for them? I mean, what happens when they have no more 'host countries' and they control all the wealth? What good will all the money be, if no one else has anything?

I wonder, once a corporation absorbs enough power and money, does it need people to operate it anymore? Because, at some point, all the people are going to be peasants just trying to stay alive... not much use as an employee. It must be that once the corporation reaches a certain size, it no longer needs humans! ZOMG!

But as we have seen, the government will clearly commit to anti-science policy like cap and trade when it comes to commoditizing the atmosphere on behalf of General electric.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But as we have seen, the government will clearly commit to anti-science policy like cap and trade when it comes to commoditizing the atmosphere on behalf of General electric.

Ahh... but you've switched evil monsters on us! Now you are talking about THE GOVERNMENT and what THEY will do! And who elects the government, is it GE?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well first, I would say your analogy is seriously flawed. You said: For instance they could lobby congress to make food growing illegal because of the carbon footpritnt... But plants EAT carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, so the corporation would have to be lobbying to grow more food in order to reduce the carbon footprint.

an invalid argument. Lobbying congress to make food growing illegal under environmental statutes is unnecessary when all they need is the commerce clause.

 

[Damocles]

Less worrisome, with zero effectivesness at stopping corporate takeover of our society. I guess the lack of effectiveness is why there is less worry. Good for you damo.

No, the laws created to "deal" with it actually had less accountability. You aren't paying attention because you want so badly to be right.

527s allowed them to hide who gave the money, had no disclosure, and had no limit therefore. Seriously, this decision actually has zero difference other than the SCOTUS telling the Congress how to limit this, by disclosure laws. The "fix" was worse than the disease.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No, the laws created to "deal" with it actually had less accountability. You aren't paying attention because you want so badly to be right.

527s allowed them to hide who gave the money, had no disclosure, and had no limit therefore. Seriously, this decision actually has zero difference other than the SCOTUS telling the Congress how to limit this, by disclosure laws. The "fix" was worse than the disease.

Im not some huge advocate of the old fix, stop strawmanning. Disclosure is not enough either. The new fix blows too, how about them apples.

I just know there will be too much corporate money in our system now, for the people to not be oppressed by corporate influence. stop

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

527s allowed them to hide who gave the money, had no disclosure, and had no limit therefore. Seriously, this decision actually has zero difference other than the SCOTUS telling the Congress how to limit this, by disclosure laws.

Exactly. The solution to this problem all along, has been transparency and disclosure, and I will add, vigorous enforcement of the most strict punishment for any unethical transactions or failure to disclose. THAT does something to address corruption in politics!

To somehow think we can eliminate corruption through regulation, is silly. Especially when we are talking about regulating freedom of speech! It's beyond silly, it's insane!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Im not some huge advocate of the old fix, stop strawmanning. Disclosure is not enough either. The new fix blows too, how about them apples.

I just know there will be too much corporate money in our system now, for the people to not be oppressed by corporate influence. stop

There will probably be close to the same amount of actual money. This ruling doesn't change any of that. Corporations were simply funneling money into 527's and channeling their influence anyway. And if you outlaw 527's, they will find another way to channel their influence. And if they want to be corrupt in their dealings, they will ignore the laws and be corrupt! You can't prevent this!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There will probably be close to the same amount of actual money. This ruling doesn't change any of that. Corporations were simply funneling money into 527's and channeling their influence anyway. And if you outlaw 527's, they will find another way to channel their influence. And if they want to be corrupt in their dealings, they will ignore the laws and be corrupt! You can't prevent this!

We can try. Don't be such a quitter.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We can try. Don't be such a quitter.

Why try doing something impossible to do? We can't change human nature, no matter what we do. Instead of demonizing corporations, why not hold elected officials accountable? Instead of regulating free speech, why not allow all of it with the understanding we just need to know who the speaker is?

I'm not a quitter, I just have a different approach than you. I'm not trying to pick up mercury or connect two magnets at opposite ends... that's your approach, and it is futile. My approach is promising and optimistic, so it's better than yours. Sorry!

 

[Damocles]

Im not some huge advocate of the old fix, stop strawmanning. Disclosure is not enough either. The new fix blows too, how about them apples.

I just know there will be too much corporate money in our system now, for the people to not be oppressed by corporate influence. stop

Then your only recourse is to change the 1st Amendment. Disclosure is what we have, this is a risk we took on by guaranteeing this right so freely. Congress can make no law that abridges it, it is directly what is said.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Then your only recourse is to change the 1st Amendment. Disclosure is what we have, this is a risk we took on by guaranteeing this right so freely. Congress can make no law that abridges it, it is directly what is said.

No. We can make and exception just like we did with bailing out bankers, and defrauding gm shareholders. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

No free speech for corporations with a speck of foreign ownership.


It's time that we can break the rules of behalf of people, not just bankers and ceos.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. We can make and exception just like we did with bailing out bankers, and defrauding gm shareholders. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

No free speech for corporations with a speck of foreign ownership.


It's time that we can break the rules of behalf of people, not just bankers and ceos.

I think we can forge bipartisan legislation to do this, and at the same time, address the application of Constitutional rights to anyone who isn't a citizen of the United States. If we are going to discount them from the political process, and the right of free speech, why should we be giving them the right to a trial by jury in a US Courtroom? We can't pick and choose which constitutional rights to give to which foreigners.

Some pinhead get on the phone to Eric Holder!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, Dixie....you don't read what you don't like, yet you talk as if you know what's going on.....no wonder you're such a typical willfully ignorant neocon parrot.

You don't even have the guts to read this:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/...e_7292002.html

Yet when dummies like you get screwed, you swear it's not the people who you blindly back. So keep repeating long disproved neocon talking points.

Sorry, but the First Amendment is not a neocon talking point. This is about Freedom of Speech, and it doesn't matter to me who's speech is in play... whether it is Citizens United doing a movie about Hillary, or Michael Moore doing a movie about Bush! I am strictly bipartisan when it comes to freedom of speech, particularly political speech. It's unfortunate you are NOT!

Waving the Constitution to cover your willful stupidity won't cut it here, bunky. YOU DIDN'T READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE LINK...so repeating your bilge is just another neocon bullhorn.

Here's something else for you to ignore and/or lie about:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp

 

[NOVA]

Waving the Constitution to cover your willful stupidity won't cut it here, bunky. YOU DIDN'T READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE LINK...so repeating your bilge is just another neocon bullhorn.

Here's something else for you to ignore and/or lie about:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp

You're a freekin' joke sonny....
The forbes article was worth reading and the Times was interesting...

so fuckin' what....do their opinions carry any more weight than dozens of other media opinions....hardly sonny....you'd think they were the written word of Jesus Christ by the way you carry on....

Only a clown like you rants about someones opinion like it was the last word on an issue because you might agree with it.......we don't really don't care what left wing reporters of the Times have to say....
try thinking for yourself....stop wasting our time with lw bs...

 

[Taichiliberal]

You're a freekin' joke sonny....
The forbes article was worth reading and the Times was interesting...

so fuckin' what....do their opinions carry any more weight than dozens of other media opinions....hardly sonny....you'd think they were the written word of Jesus Christ by the way you carry on....

Only a clown like you rants about someones opinion like it was the last word on an issue because you might agree with it.......we don't really don't care what left wing reporters of the Times have to say....
try thinking for yourself....stop wasting our time with lw bs...

Typical blowhard response by willfully ignorant neocon parrots....don't dare discuss the FACTS contained in the articles, just blow a lot of smoke and mis-lable everything that contradicts their propaganda and beliefs as "opinion". Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

Fucking intellectually bankrupt cowards! You don't even realize how much you are endorsing corporatism to the extent of total subversion of the democratic political process as we know it. You wail on about liberals and unions and liberal media....then you willfully bend over for the corporations that make you pay for their mistakes, and then use your money to overpower any public opinions during a political campaign.

Keep talking BS, you dupe. Be the good little soldier that never questions authority. And then scream the frustration they script for you when the wind whistles up your shorts. "Bravo" indeed.

 

[NOVA]

Typical blowhard response by willfully ignorant neocon parrots....don't dare discuss the FACTS contained in the articles, just blow a lot of smoke and mis-lable everything that contradicts their propaganda and beliefs as "opinion". Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

Fucking intellectually bankrupt cowards! You don't even realize how much you are endorsing corporatism to the extent of total subversion of the democratic political process as we know it. You wail on about liberals and unions and liberal media....then you willfully bend over for the corporations that make you pay for their mistakes, and then use your money to overpower any public opinions during a political campaign.

Keep talking BS, you dupe. Be the good little soldier that never questions authority. And then scream the frustration they script for you when the wind whistles up your shorts. "Bravo" indeed.

discuss the FACTS contained in the articles?

So give us a "fact" to discuss...I've got a minute...

 

[Taichiliberal]

discuss the FACTS contained in the articles?

So give us a "fact" to discuss...I've got a minute...

GO BACK, ACCESS THE LINKS, AND READ THEM CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, because I'm fucking tired of doing homework for dumb toots like you. You know so god damned much, then YOU tell me what's wrong, because to date you keep railing on about the 1st amendment and such...so let's see what you REALLY know about this case.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Were fucking owned

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

GO BACK, ACCESS THE LINKS, AND READ THEM CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, because I'm fucking tired of doing homework for dumb toots like you. You know so god damned much, then YOU tell me what's wrong, because to date you keep railing on about the 1st amendment and such...so let's see what you REALLY know about this case.

You know what we're tired of? You're pathetic and lame pandering Liberal ass telling us to read some liberal bilge that is meaningless in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. YOU fucking go "read up", you goofy bitch! And try to get it through your thick skull, it doesn't fucking matter what YOU think!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
GO BACK, ACCESS THE LINKS, AND READ THEM CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, because I'm fucking tired of doing homework for dumb toots like you. You know so god damned much, then YOU tell me what's wrong, because to date you keep railing on about the 1st amendment and such...so let's see what you REALLY know about this case.

You know what we're tired of? You're pathetic and lame pandering Liberal ass telling us to read some liberal bilge that is meaningless in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. YOU fucking go "read up", you goofy bitch! And try to get it through your thick skull, it doesn't fucking matter what YOU think!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Wipe the spittle off your screen, mastermind. This is what I told your lapdog Bravo. Let's see if you have the guts or the brains to deal with the points and information provided, because you're not fooling anyone into believing that you read the entire decision linked here....since I've so easily put the kibosh on the absurd statements you've made thus far.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Were fucking owned