|BorrowedSolution - 2010-01-22 |
Alex Jones just came.
He sounded like this: "OooooooooAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHGGHHH"
j lzrd / swift idiot
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.
|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?
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.".
j lzrd / swift idiot
LETS ASK THE BLACK PEOPLE.
BLACK PEOPLE TO THE WHITE COURTESY PHONE PLEASE. WE'RE LOOKING AT YOU.
THA SUGAH RAIN
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.
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.
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?
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./
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).
Then I guess Democracy jumped the shark when campaign funding meant more votes, not when this judgment was made.
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm not an expert.
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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|