| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
This Clip is 1 of 2 Clips (1 , 2)
Desc:Move over Dred Scott
Category:News & Politics, Horror
Tags:Olbermann, corporations, Democracy, supreme court, campaign contibutions
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video
Favorited 2 Times

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
Mamie Van Doren - The Girl Who Invented Rock n' Roll
Wonder Woman is full of good ideas.
T-Rex Family Waits for School Bus
Eastern Motors featuring Biz Markie
Polygon's 'Dragon's Crown' Review
Orson Welles shills peas.
Human, All Too Human (BBC) - Jean Paul Sartre
Today's Bible Lesson w/ Val Kilmer
It's Already Happening - Gay Rights
Comment count is 37
BorrowedSolution - 2010-01-22
Alex Jones just came.
ztc - 2010-01-22
He sounded like this: "OooooooooAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHGGHHH"

ztc - 2010-01-22
Ha ha seriously though this is so fucked

j lzrd / swift idiot - 2010-01-22
Here I am, DYING ON THE FUCKING INSIDE AT THIS SHIT, and we got dudes makin' jokes over here.

Fuck it. I'm gonna laugh too. Ain't nothin' more to do but cry, right?

j lzrd / swift idiot - 2010-01-22
Srsly tho;

That Keith dude is gonna blow his brains out one day, "completely out of the blue" like Hunter S. Thompson, and a few years later or earlier than Anderson blows his out too.

j lzrd / swift idiot - 2010-01-22
I mean: fuck... fuckin' a.

Smellvin - 2010-01-22
POETV poll: does anyone think that Olbermann is anything less than hyperbolic by comparing this ruling to one that declares that only white men can have rights?
BorrowedSolution - 2010-01-22
Well, it's not a perfect analogy because it's not granting 'persons' (ie. corporations, not individual human beings) any special rights. However, the special rights are going to be granted by money. Lots and lots of it. So in a way, it's just saying "Only persons with deep pockets have rights.".

Xenocide - 2010-01-22
Well, let's see. This ruling basically says that corporations are people, and deserve the same speech rights as I do. Except that they're special magical people who don't have to obey the law, since you can't jail a corporation for killing someone, or robbing someone, or giving someone cancer or generally shitting on the common person in search of profits. The most you can do is fine them, and even that is dicey because they have enough lawyers and enough money to absorb almost any blow the government can deal them.

Essentially, this ruling has made every actual, human American into a second-class citizen. So rather than taking away the rights of some people, it cripples the rights of ALL people. Does that sound sufficient enough to warrant a comparison to you?

j lzrd / swift idiot - 2010-01-22


Randroid - 2010-01-22
Ron Paul on the other hand

THA SUGAH RAIN - 2010-01-22
Yeah Xenocide, corporations never go bankrupt and people who commit fraud never go to jail. Every corporation ever is just some giant infinitely powerful, infinitely wealthy immortal super force that no government can control or conquer.

Witty_Pop_Culture_Reference - 2010-01-22
If your stupidity was contagious I would fear it more than an airborne version of Ebola.

wtf japan - 2010-01-22
Quite right, THA SUGAH. Those who impartially prosecute white collar crime are BOUND to remain in power as a result of this ruling.

Nikon - 2010-01-22
I think I couldn't have picked a better time to leave the States and live/work abroad.
chumbucket - 2010-01-22
this complaint works only if you assume our current vote counting procedures are open to manipulation. If that were actually the case then this really doesn't change much about our voices in government.
BorrowedSolution - 2010-01-22
And that complaint only works if you assume the laws that govern voting are immutable. The first amendment just got put through the meat-grinder, you don't think voting's going to be touched from here on out?

Mad Struggle - 2010-01-22
It's not about rigging the actual votes, but that the corporations can now supply unlimited resources to the candidate of their choice. Making it much, much easier to crush their opponents.

This whole thing has got me feeling like a nutjob. Instead of a fear of having MAH GUNS taken away, I'm worried about /everything./

pastorofmuppets - 2010-01-22
The new voting machines coming out are a joke, both in terms of their ability to be verified, and the constant news of conflicts of interest (Senator Chuck Hagel and Walden O'Dell being the big ones).

chumbucket - 2010-01-22
None of this affects precedence regarding voting rights. Yeah it'll sway "fairness" in campaigning but campaigns can only attempt to sway votes, they don't actually do the voting. We're doomed if we think campaigns make our decisions for us and no one has a mind of their own (re: teabaggers and bagettes).

TheQuakeSoldier - 2010-01-22
So you're saying that it's not a problem if Senator X has to worry about having 0 Million in campaign funding cut if he votes to the displeasure of Corporation Y?

Oh, I see. You just missed the point entirely.

chumbucket - 2010-01-22
Then I guess Democracy jumped the shark when campaign funding meant more votes, not when this judgment was made.

pastorofmuppets - 2010-01-22
You're right. But that's just how it is. Campaigning costs money, like everything else. Obama raised 5m, McCain raised 8m.

Pillager - 2010-01-22
Go Go Plutocracy!!!
wtf japan - 2010-01-22
As long as we get plasmid technology out of this deal, I'll be happy.
SolRo - 2010-01-22
Only if I get to be one of the athiest scientists without ethics who gets to experiment on the masses at his whim.

pastorofmuppets - 2010-01-22
You won't get it. Merck will. The patent will be for 200 years and they'll shelve it so they can come up with a safe(ish) way to put Viagra and Propecia in a single pill.

pastorofmuppets - 2010-01-22
Well, the logical thing to do would be to stop treating corporations as persons. Good goddamn luck with that.

Any bills that large corporations take interest in are already ghostwritten. Congressmen are bought; this doesn't change that. Half of the Republican base would sell this country to Saudi Arabia if it meant they got their gay marriage ban. And it's not just religious issues. All it takes to get the less-educated segments of the citizenry to vote for the Grand Old Deregulation Party is to spin the terrorism color wheel to Election Day Orange.

Obama talks a big game. But what's he doing about ACTA, besides implicitly supporting it? Or the wars (sorry, "freedom struggles"), besides moving the troops in Iraq over to Afghanistan?

What does this change? We already jumped off the cliff, why should I give a fuck about the rate of acceleration? Democracy only works if people aren't lazy, selfish beasts. This America, land of the fat and home of the bored.
Cleaner82 - 2010-01-22
Yeah, I'm not an expert.

On anything.

But isn't the entire idea of a corporation that it's an organization treated by law as a single entity? Isn't this more a matter of degrees than a sweeping change to what a corporation is? People are talking ominously about how corporations are now sort of people, but isn't that what a corporation always has been?

Isn't this apocalyptic vision of politicians that are in the pocket of private interests many years too late?

MrBuddy - 2010-01-22
I never watch comment shows like Beck or Maddow or Hammity or Matthews so I have no idea what they're like. These people are professional trolls and I'm not going to waste my time on them. While watching this clip I kept thinking, do people really take Kieth Olbermann seriously? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'd really like an answer. I don't like the court decision any more than he does but I also have to agree with Hooker. Olbermann sounds like he belongs in a straight jacket.

pastorofmuppets I'm afraid ACTA is worse than you think it is. Not only is the goal to change the Internet world wide and keep it hidden from the public in every nation on Earth but also to have it signed into law in the US under "executive agreement". "Executive agreements are made by the President alone" to quote Wikipedia. Meaning there will be no public debate and no Congressional or the Senate debate. President Obama just signs it into law while no one is looking and yeah he does the power to do so.

phalsebob - 2010-01-22
Well... good luck, America. The Bush Legacy is a gift that just keeps on giving.
Hooker - 2010-01-22
Well, I was shocked and appauled by the Supreme Court's decision, but Olbermann's rampant, flagrant hyperbole is just so grossly stupid and overblown and stupid that some part of me instinctively wanted to take the other side of this. So seriously fuck Olbermann for that. I almost think he's worse than O'Reilly and Hannity and the bunch at this point.
wtf japan - 2010-01-22
He's not worse than O'Reilly, but he does suck. I was really upset about this until I learned how upset Olberman was, then I became uncertain that I should be upset at all.

longwinded - 2010-01-22
it's a good thing you both have your own opinions

pastorofmuppets - 2010-01-22
I was also thought it weird that he compared it to Dred Scott. I mean, Bush v. Gore was pretty screwed up, and then you're at least not pissing all over history.

Or why not just say "this is so evil that I'm surprised Rehnquist didn't have a hand in it"?

pastorofmuppets - 2010-01-22
"I also"

And I wasn't kidding about Bush v. Gore. It's a great example of SCOTUS running to the aid of rich white folks, in this case by removing the power to elect from a state that was having trouble counting the votes in poorer districts. In spite of all of the moaning that Rush does about activist judges, for every landmark case with a progressive outcome, there were probably 10 before it that upheld some shit like criminalizing homosexuality or prevent trade unions from being formed unless the boss ok'd it.

oogaBooga - 2010-01-22
I should be worried, shouldn't I?

Help me decide, almighty internet.
Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement