Pending SCOTUS case...

[TheEschaton]

So, I heard of this only yesterday (IE, I saw it on Colbert) because ever since law school ended, I've assidously avoided all legal related topics.

I wrote a paper once on Santa Clara RR, and the personhood of corporations. Needless to say, it was not very favorable. Now, the personhood of a corporation might have serious ramifications.

There's a case call Citizens United vs. the FEC which is questioning the restriction of free speech of corporations to put out ads, etc, in political campaigns.

The Court has decided* two things: corporations are legal persons, subject to the protection of the Constitution. This has mainly been applied under the 14th Amendment, but now is being considered under the 1st, in terms of free speech. The court has also decided that money (and how one uses it) is free speech. The main ramifications of the argument thus, is, if corporations are people, and people have free speech, and money is speech, campaign finance laws unconstitutionally restrict free speech.

The implications, to me, are scary. That corporations are afforded legal personhood was scary for me, but now, SCOTUS seems to be seriously considering the overturning of campaign finance laws in the name of free speech, allowing corporations (and, technically, individuals) to donate as much as they want to a given candidate.

Here's an article from Slate on the subject. Feel free to filter out any bias you deem exists: http://www.slate.com/id/2221753/

*By decided, I mean that legal personhood of corporations was assumed in the specific case in off-the-record dicta in Santa Clara, and has been quoted ever since as precedent, even though it has never been legally argued.

[Tsa`ah]

Wouldn't that also make corporations answerable and subject to the same laws?

By that I mean if a pharm company distributed a medication without FDA approval (happens more often than not) and as a result people start developing permanent reactions to the medication (death being one of them) ... couldn't the corporation and even those involved with releasing the med serve prison time and have the profits from said med seized?

[TheEschaton]

The only problem is, you cannot put a corporation in jail. You can jail its officers, but you cannot dissolve the corporation, as that is essentially killing its personhood. So the corporation is never truly accountable, just its officers. Of course, a big enough scandal in the public's eye can lead to bankruptcy, and thus dissolution, but even then, folks like Arthur Andersen just rebrand themselves as a different company, problem solved.

And asset forfeiture is....eh, I suppose it could happen. But it rarely does.

[Atlanteax]

Well, one will have to hope that SCOTUS doesn't open up this can of worms.

Otherwise, in the near future, the CEO of Walmart is the next U.S. President.

[ElvenFury]

Lex Luthor for President!

http://blog.miragestudio7.com/wp-content/uploads2/2008/05/lex_luthor_for_president.jpg

[TheEschaton]

But they precisely opened up the can of worms, on purpose. If you read the article, it talks about how the case was argued already, it was on the docket this past term. If they wanted to rule on the issue narrowly (IE, in only the present case), they could have done so.

Instead, SCOTUS asked for the case to be reargued, in September, and to brief the Court on SOLELY the Constitutional issue (whether corporate money is free speech and thus campaign finance laws an unconstitutional restriction thereof). Apparently, there was a case last year, FEC vs. Davis, where Alito was already chipping away at McCain-Feingold, but he hesitated to call for the whole overturn because the issue wasn't squarely at hand and fully briefed.

It's scary stuff, mang.

[Tsa`ah]

Isn't it possible that ruling a corporation has personhood, but not overturning campaign finance law would essentially restrict corporations to a contribution cap of $108,200 on a two year cycle?

[Mabus]

It's scary stuff, mang.
They also came back from break early specifically to argue it. From the audio (I think I heard it on C-SPAN) they are likely to allow corporations to directly influence the election of candidates and issues.

This will be a broad sea change for this country. I agree with you that it should be looked on with fear.

But it seems we have far more important things for the media to talk about, instead of focusing on a decision that could forever change our system for the worse (in my opinion).

[Belnia]

It's scary how much this reads like the timeline for Shadowrun, regarding big multinational corporations. Soon they'll want extraterritoriality!

[EasternBrand]

Isn't it possible that ruling a corporation has personhood, but not overturning campaign finance law would essentially restrict corporations to a contribution cap of $108,200 on a two year cycle?

Couldn't a corporation create, in theory, an unlimited number of subsidiary holding companies to fund campaigns and circumvent the personal contribution cap?

Also, although I haven't really been following the case too heavily, it seems that the real issue is one of campaign finance laws in general (per TheE's OP). Even a narrow holding, saying that corporations aren't subject to corporate finance caps, could foreseeably place the constitutionality of all campaign finance laws in jeopardy.

[Drew]

I've never agreed that people should be limited in campaign finance donations. If they find that corporations can donate any amount soon people will be allowed to as well. This does have broad implications, but the overall positive effects of removing restraints on speech is important.

[TheEschaton]

Isn't it possible that ruling a corporation has personhood, but not overturning campaign finance law would essentially restrict corporations to a contribution cap of $108,200 on a two year cycle?

Maybe it would be possible in a theoretical universe, but to say a corporation has personhood but doesn't have certain rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights creates a "second class citizenry." While SCOTUS didn't care when those second class citizens were blacks and women, I'm relatively confident that no court will ever create a secondary class of citizens these days.

One of the problems here, of course, is saying money is free speech. In one facet, it is, but SCOTUS has assiduously ignored that money is also currency, and literally buys things. Most importantly, power, whether it be through ad campaigns or direct mailings, or robo-calls or lobbyists or backroom deals. I can't buy an ad with fancy words.

And Drew, you're fucking stupid crazy. How is unlimited corporate influence in government a better thing? How is it not a plutocracy instead of a democracy? Obviously the limits on individuals would have to be removed, but I'm pretty certain that corporations can outspend individuals in the 100 to 1 type ratio.

-TheE-

[4a6c1]

What about something that is both a corporation and a person? I think anything Oprah does should be regulated.

[Rocktar]

The CEO of Walmart runs a large country already with less regulation and hassle, why would he want to be President? He also makes a lot more money.

I saw a thing about this years ago and the proposed solution was interesting to me. How about you let anyone donate any amount to any politician they wanted, however, you do this. Disallow any contribution 48-72 hours before the opening of polls. Allow the politician to decline and return any donation up to 2 hours after the cut off for donations. Require that the politician provide detailed and accurate records of who donated how much and when they donated as well as what donations were declined and returned available to the public and news media exactly 4 hours after donations were cut off. This is easily doable via the Internet and press release to new media outlets. Make it a massive felony to mis-report, to evade or hide reporting, to make subsidiaries to contribute and so on. Also disallow any contribution that is anonymous. This would include any and all contributions to campaigns, PACS that support the candidate directly, charities in the name of the candidate and in general any and all financial support the politician receives.

This would allow the people to know exactly who donated how much to whom and who and what was declined. Now, we know that if Joe/Jane Politician decided to take $1 million dollars from RJ Rynolds, they would likely vote in things to support smoking and so on. However, they would likely be much much less likely to be able to be bought by other contributors. In addition, it would also free up the massive amount of campaign fund raising they would have to do and maybe we could force them to focus on doing the business of the people for a change.

It seemed to be one of the most reasonable and more likely schema of reform that we could introduce.

[Gelston]

Yes, but then you have RJ Reynolds giving a million dollars to all the politicians.

[Parkbandit]

I've never agreed that people should be limited in campaign finance donations. If they find that corporations can donate any amount soon people will be allowed to as well. This does have broad implications, but the overall positive effects of removing restraints on speech is important.

Really? I don't know.. I've always had an issue with how campaign funds are run in this country.. basically the person with the most money generally wins the elections.

[Keller]

Really? I don't know.. I've always had an issue with how campaign funds are run in this country.. basically the person with the most money generally wins the elections.

I'd rephrase to say the the people with the most money run in national elections.

But I generally agree.

[TheEschaton]

Rocktar, the problem would be with the idea that the public is going to be vigilant about who is donating to whom, instead of voting for the person who has the most ad time and thus the most time to get in their face about whatever their particular issue is.

-Thee-

[Rocktar]

The real problem is that the public at large is pretty much clueless and has their head up their ass about anything regarding politics. They don't know, don't care and surely don't want to find out that they are wrong.

[Daniel]

I've never agreed that people should be limited in campaign finance donations. If they find that corporations can donate any amount soon people will be allowed to as well. This does have broad implications, but the overall positive effects of removing restraints on speech is important.

I'm glad you like corruption.

[Keller]

They don't know, don't care and surely don't want to find out that they are wrong.

It is annoyingly funny how ironic this is.

It's like -- did you mean to show up on these forums to spout, and subsequently get called out for, bullshit, JUST so you could say things lik "the problem with politics is that people don't know anything and don't want to find out they are wrong" to make me roar with laughter?

If so, maybe you ARE a genius afterall.

[Nieninque]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif ACORN = Family Values (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=999516#post999516) 09-18-2009 08:51 PM Wait. Do you even live here?
I've never lived in an oppressive regime (apart from the milk snatcher's) but I know they aren't lovely places to live.

I also know you are a stupid cunt.

GTFO

[Kembal]

They also came back from break early specifically to argue it. From the audio (I think I heard it on C-SPAN) they are likely to allow corporations to directly influence the election of candidates and issues.

This will be a broad sea change for this country. I agree with you that it should be looked on with fear.

But it seems we have far more important things for the media to talk about, instead of focusing on a decision that could forever change our system for the worse (in my opinion).

Why, it's like all these media outlets are owned by giant corporations...hmm.

The ironic part is, this case revolves around a movie that attacked a person who was not any party's nominee in the general election. The government should've tried to figure out a way to lose this on a narrow basis in District Court.

[Mabus]

The real problem is that the public at large is pretty much clueless and has their head up their ass about anything regarding politics. They don't know, don't care and surely don't want to find out that they are wrong.
Damn, that is spot on correct.

But in a country where civics is not taught in any depth, where you are taught that the material wealth you obtain is who you are, and where most have to work almost 1/3 of their life just to pay bills, the apathy and under-education is understandable (but still unacceptable).

But I agree with you, Rocktar.

I guess "Even a blind leopard catches a bird once in a while.".

;)

[Latrinsorm]

But in a country where civics is not taught in any depth, where you are taught that the material wealth you obtain is who you are, and where most have to work almost 1/3 of their life just to pay bills, the apathy and under-education is understandable (but still unacceptable).Luckily the Catholic Church teaches the exact opposite: render unto Caeser, sell all your worldly goods, leave your parents to rot! If only we could stop pretending to tolerate all the wrong religions, we could really get the country back on track.

[Rocktar]

It is annoyingly funny how ironic this is.

It's like -- did you mean to show up on these forums to spout, and subsequently get called out for, bullshit, JUST so you could say things lik "the problem with politics is that people don't know anything and don't want to find out they are wrong" to make me roar with laughter?

If so, maybe you ARE a genius afterall.

Actually, I was talking about you, Tsa'ah and theE, but hey, I didn't want to name names. I come here for some debate, occasionally, but in general because you three, oh, and Daniel makes 4, are so laughably idiotic in your leftist positions that I get a good belly laugh out of it. Laughter is, after all, good medicine. Now, do run along and stalk someone else.

[Mabus]

Luckily the Catholic Church teaches the exact opposite: render unto Caeser, sell all your worldly goods, leave your parents to rot!
First, I really do not know how this fits in the thread.

Secondly, I believe only a few sects of Catholicism actually believe in poverty (Franciscans, Sisters of St. Joseph, and a few others).

The history of the Roman Catholic Church is pretty clear on money not being rendered to Caesar, nor seeking poverty as its own virtue by the church.


If only we could stop pretending to tolerate all the wrong religions, we could really get the country back on track.
As a non-believer, and happy skeptic, I don't believe in UFO's from outer space, Bigfoot or religions.

I believe I have posted before that I always seem to have to choose from two (or more) individuals that believe (a)virgins give birth and also (b)worship a zombie that rose after a day and a half (but the day in a half is suddenly 3 days, because it must fit the fantasy/mythic stories that came before it).

I find it hard to take these people serious, but that is all I am offered in every election.

Even if/when these candidates do not believe in these crazy stories they must lie and say that they do, or face not being elected by the majority that does believe these things.

Don't get me wrong. If some people want to believe the dust bunny under their couch is the "almighty creator" and that they must work hard, not kill people and be good to others so that it will not join the rest of the world into its dusty goodness, so be it. Cheaper then prozac and psychoanalysis for them. I just find it frustrating when I am forced to pick one of them to vote for to run this country.

Now we may face corporations spending billions to buy the elections of the crazy and/or the liars.

Now I am going to need a drink. Thanks for getting me started!
:gulp:

[Mabus]

Actually, I was talking about you, Tsa'ah and theE, but hey, I didn't want to name names. I come here for some debate, occasionally, but in general because you three, oh, and Daniel makes 4, are so laughably idiotic in your leftist positions that I get a good belly laugh out of it. Laughter is, after all, good medicine. Now, do run along and stalk someone else.
Daniel can actually give a reasoned, well-thought out position when he puts his mind to it. I have agreed and disagreed with him over a period of years. It almost pains me to see him post quips and one-liners, when I know what he is capable of doing.

The poster called "theE" in your post can also discuss things well. I may disagree with them on several points, but then there are areas like this thread (discussing the pending SCOTUS decision) where I find myself in agreement with them.

As to the other two in your post; absolutely worthless for discussions (in my opinion). They are more likely to discuss their genitalia then to have an honest debate of an issue. I put them both on ignore a while ago and have had a much better forum experience ever since.

Some are more able to discuss items without resorting to attacks then others. Some post nonsense, gibberish or complete attempts at distraction.

You get used to it.

[Daniel]

First, I really do not know how this fits in the thread.



I'm assuming that this is in reference to the oft made crack that Christianity and Capitalism are at the heart of this nation.

Which is in despite of the fact that Jesus Christ fed the poor, healed the sick and preached that we should take care of each other which is the antithesis of some of the arguments made for capitalism and against socialism.

Maybe.

[Daniel]

Daniel can actually give a reasoned, well-thought out position when he puts his mind to it. I have agreed and disagreed with him over a period of years. It almost pains me to see him post quips and one-liners, when I know what he is capable of doing.




That almost sounded like a compliment.

OP: I'd only agree with this decision if that meant we could then charge corporate officers with reckless endangermeant for doing stupid shit with people's money.

[CrystalTears]

As to the other two in your post; absolutely worthless for discussions (in my opinion). They are more likely to discuss their genitalia then to have an honest debate of an issue. I put them both on ignore a while ago and have had a much better forum experience ever since.
You just have issues with Keller because he calls you out on certain issues and you don't like it. The other guy is the main one who resorts to insults immediately because he doesn't know how to argue any other way. Keller (in my opinion) is also one of those who tends to walk down the center and agrees/disagrees with points on both sides. I think you're reading way too much into his posts to think that they are all barbs when they're just valid criticisms.

[Latrinsorm]

Now I am going to need a drink. Thanks for getting me started!:2beers:
I'm assuming that this is in reference to the oft made crack that Christianity and Capitalism are at the heart of this nation.I was being a wiseacre, but your explanation sounds much cleverer, so let's go with it. :yes:

[Tisket]

The other guy is the main one who resorts to insults immediately because he doesn't know how to argue any other way.

Tsa'ah?

See, I DO pay attention!

[TheEschaton]

Rocktar, you named two lawyers, an Iraq vet/foreign affairs policy guy, and whatever the hell Tsa'ah is. ;)

And lol if you think KELLER is a leftist.

[Daniel]

Rocktar, you named two lawyers, an Iraq vet/foreign affairs policy guy, and whatever the hell Tsa'ah is. ;)

And lol if you think KELLER is a leftist.

Hippies! All of them I tell you!!!

[CrystalTears]

See, I DO pay attention!
I don't state He Who Shall Not Be Named because then I have to hear his blatherings, and I'm just not in the mood. Way to summon it! :tongue:

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, I was talking about you, Tsa'ah and theE, but hey, I didn't want to name names. I come here for some debate, occasionally, but in general because you three, oh, and Daniel makes 4, are so laughably idiotic in your leftist positions that I get a good belly laugh out of it. Laughter is, after all, good medicine. Now, do run along and stalk someone else.

I've lost track of how many times you've named me ... let alone everyone else ... and have the audacity to claim people are stalking you.

I'm going to pull a PB for a second just to show you what I see every time you post ....

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/151.jpg


As to the other two in your post; absolutely worthless for discussions (in my opinion). They are more likely to discuss their genitalia then to have an honest debate of an issue. I put them both on ignore a while ago and have had a much better forum experience ever since.

LOL ... it cracks me up that you're such a pussy.


The other guy is the main one who resorts to insults immediately because he doesn't know how to argue any other way.

Actually ... and I can't believe I've been nothing but civil toward you in the last few posts, I'm a tit for tat kind of guy. I generally just insult, or begin with insults, to those who have a history of it (such as yourself) or those that decide to go down that road.


Rocktar, you named two lawyers, an Iraq vet/foreign affairs policy guy, and whatever the hell Tsa'ah is. ;)

Business(s) owner/self employed.


I don't state He Who Shall Not Be Named because then I have to hear his blatherings, and I'm just not in the mood. Way to summon it! :tongue:

Cute nickname ... care if I return the favor?

[Rocktar]

I've lost track of how many times you've named me ... let alone everyone else ... and have the audacity to claim people are stalking you.


NO dipshit, I claim "A" person as my stalker because for whatever reason, a while back, Keller went around and posted after ever post I made. I figured he was bored and decided to stalk me for fun. That is fine, but damn, what a miserable life he must have if the highlight of it is stalking ME on the this forum.

For someone so full of moral, ethical and intellectual superiority, you should get it right.

Fail.

[Parkbandit]

I've lost track of how many times you've named me ... let alone everyone else ... and have the audacity to claim people are stalking you.


Could you possibly be a bigger hypocrite?

I found your inhaler:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Tsaahsinhaler.jpg

[Keller]

Actually, I was talking about you, Tsa'ah and theE, but hey, I didn't want to name names. I come here for some debate, occasionally, but in general because you three, oh, and Daniel makes 4, are so laughably idiotic in your leftist positions that I get a good belly laugh out of it. Laughter is, after all, good medicine. Now, do run along and stalk someone else.

From my perspective, you come here to:

(i) repost information you've gathered from e-mails your Uncle Ted forwarded as the gospel truth, and

(ii) call anyone who dares disagree with your "facts" a leftist commie who knows nothing about nothing.

[Tsa`ah]

Could you possibly be a bigger hypocrite?

I found your inhaler:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Tsaahsinhaler.jpg

Lol ... hot the hypocrite/jpeg attack!

Dude, when I name you in every third post that doesn't have to do with a slam on you and your retard logic ... you'll have something to talk about.

It's no wonder you have Rocktar as a sidekick.

[Keller]

It's no wonder you have Rocktar as a sidekick.

Low blow.

Deduct a point from Tsa'ah's scorecard.

[Parkbandit]

Lol ... hot the hypocrite/jpeg attack!

Dude, when I name you in every third post that doesn't have to do with a slam on you and your retard logic ... you'll have something to talk about.

It's no wonder you have Rocktar as a sidekick.


Here's an idea Shit4Brains.. maybe you should take a break from my leg and not mention me in every 3rd post you make? See where that hypocrisy comes to play again? Probably not.. since you are dealing with a head full of mushy diarrhea.

And I could never take away your pal.. you two are like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Like Peas and Carrots.

[Keller]

And I could never take away your pal.. you two are like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Like Peas and Carrots.

Low blow! Off-setting penalties

Boys, let's keep this clean.

[Tsa`ah]

Here's an idea Shit4Brains.. maybe you should take a break from my leg and not mention me in every 3rd post you make? See where that hypocrisy comes to play again? Probably not.. since you are dealing with a head full of mushy diarrhea.

And I could never take away your pal.. you two are like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Like Peas and Carrots.

Actually ... I've been responding to your posts that quote me. I think you're confused about what constitutes leg humping.

[Parkbandit]

Actually ... I've been responding to your posts that quote me. I think you're confused about what constitutes leg humping.

I simply used your own post as a reference.. that you refer to me in every 3 posts. I'm just assuming that this would amount to what you claim people do to you.

Since you are the expert in the art of humping a leg.. maybe you should explain?

Or better yet.. grab your inhaler and swallow it sideways?

[Tsa`ah]

Your lack of creativity, though disturbing, leads to a predictability that shames most mass transit services ... and provides endless amusement.

[Keller]

a predictability that shames most mass transit services

You should work-shop that insult.

I see potential, but in its current form it's like nails on a chaulkboard.

[TheEschaton]

I concur, you want most mass transit to be predictable. For the insult to really zing, you need to simultaneously insult the mass transit and the insultee.

[Keller]

I concur, you want most mass transit to be predictable. For the insult to really zing, you need to simultaneously insult the mass transit and the insultee.

I think the insult does inslult both at the same time.

He is saying that PB is more predictable than mass transit. So mass transit is ashamed because they are less than 100% predictable. And PB should be ashamed because he is more predictable than mass transit.

I just think that the wording was pretty bad.

It is the same reason I could never be a stand-up comedian.

Piss poor delivery.

[g++]

I simply used your own post as a reference.. that you refer to me in every 3 posts.

Well in tsa's defense every 5th post in this folder is from you.

[Parkbandit]

Well in tsa's defense every 5th post in this folder is from you.

Not sure what your point was.. other than you are really, REALLY bad at math.

[Keller]

Not sure what your point was.. other than you are really, REALLY bad at math.

Maybe he should have said a vast majority of the posts in this folder are from you.

[CrystalTears]

Well in tsa's defense every 5th post in this folder is from you.
More like every 10, since PB has only posted 5 times in the (so far) 51 post thread.

[g++]

Well in the acorn thread below hes at 55/289 ....19% about 1/5. He just hasnt got a chance to get in an argument with anyone in this thread yet. Give it time.

[Parkbandit]

Well in the acorn thread below hes at 55/289 ....19% about 1/5. He just hasnt got a chance to get in an argument with anyone in this thread yet. Give it time.

OMG and in the One person, One Vote.. I posted 0 times!

Here's the thing kid... the less you post stupid comments in, the fewer times I'll point out your stupidity.

In short, stop being a douchenozzle.

[g++]

...wait what? Could you explain that again

[Parkbandit]

Maybe he should have said a vast majority of the posts in this folder are from you.

He would be just as wrong by saying that I posted an overwelming portion of the posts.

[Parkbandit]

...wait what? Could you explain that again

I could.. but the likelihood that you would understand anything not written in bright color crayons is pretty slim.

Here.. have a big cookie instead:

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2009/06/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg

[g++]

Up to 13.3% and he hasnt even started name calling yet, I think this has the potential to be another 1 in 5 thread.

[Parkbandit]

Up to 13.3% and he hasnt even started name calling yet, I think this has the potential to be another 1 in 5 thread.

You missed this part:



Here's the thing kid... the less you post stupid comments in, the fewer times I'll point out your stupidity.


This would be one of 4 posts in this thread where you've been stupid. All the other posts beyond the 4 I mentioned though, you've been spot on in your analysis of the pending SCOTUS case though and your opinion on it.

[Xanator]

I could.. but the likelihood that you would understand anything not written in bright color crayons is pretty slim.

Here.. have a big cookie instead:

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2009/06/chocolate_chip_cookie.jpg

Do want.

[g++]

This would be one of 4 posts in this thread where you've been stupid. All the other posts beyond the 4 I mentioned though, you've been spot on in your analysis of the pending SCOTUS case though and your opinion on it.

All you did was troll Tsa. You have not made any contribution to this thread either you just made more posts. I did read the thread and look into it a bit...I didnt feel the need to comment on it. I realize this might be a hard concept for you.

14.2%

[Parkbandit]

All you did was troll Tsa. You have not made any contribution to this thread either you just made more posts. I did read the thread and look into it a bit...I didnt feel the need to comment on it. I realize this might be a hard concept for you.

14.2%

Well, you haven't been right once in this or pretty much any thread I can remember.. I guess you are going for consistency.


Really? I don't know.. I've always had an issue with how campaign funds are run in this country.. basically the person with the most money generally wins the elections.

0% for content.. but 100% for fail.

You go kid.

[g++]

Campaign contributions effect elections? Wow Isaac in the house.

15.3 and still trolling.

[Parkbandit]

Campaign contributions effect elections? Wow Isaac in the house.

15.3 and still trolling.

Wait... who's trolling who here?

Dude, grab a mirror if you want to see a life sized retarded troll.

Here.. let me show you your first post in this thread.


Well in tsa's defense every 5th post in this folder is from you.

It continued trolling on and on and on. Let it go kid... let it go.

[g++]

LOL 16.2

[Parkbandit]

LOL 16.2


...wait what? Could you explain that again

.

[g++]

Well in the acorn thread below hes at 55/289 ....19% about 1/5. He just hasnt got a chance to get in an argument with anyone in this thread yet. Give it time.

17.6, 2 more to go to hit the quota.

[Xanator]

This complicates things.

[Rocktar]

From my perspective, you come here to:

(i) repost information you've gathered from e-mails your Uncle Ted forwarded as the gospel truth, and

(ii) call anyone who dares disagree with your "facts" a leftist commie who knows nothing about nothing.

You can see anything from where your head is? Damn, you have x-ray vision or something cause I am pretty sure that with it being up your ass like that, it is pretty dark in there. You are obviously under the false impression that anyone of substance cares.

[EasternBrand]

This case just came out. It appears that it has overruled many of the limitations on corporate spending on campaigns, and has voided part of McCain-Feingold.

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

[Atlanteax]

This case just came out. It appears that it has overruled many of the limitations on corporate spending on campaigns, and has voided part of McCain-Feingold.

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

Lame =(

[Kithus]

This is not going to end well for the American people.

[Cephalopod]

Yuck.

[Parkbandit]

I'm siding with the crazy hippies on this one... I think this is a bad decision.

I doubt we will see much evidence of this during the next election cycle.. but in 2012, it will become crystal clear why this is bad.

[Cephalopod]

I'm siding with the crazy hippies on this one... I think this is a bad decision.

I doubt we will see much evidence of this during the next election cycle.. but in 2012, it will become crystal clear why this is bad.

Sarah Palin, brought to you by Doritos and GlaxoSmithKline.

[Parkbandit]

Sarah Palin, brought to you by Doritos and GlaxoSmithKline.

I was thinking more along the lines of Obama, brought to you by the UAW, ACORN, SEIU, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc...

[Keller]

I'm siding with the crazy hippies on this one... I think this is a bad decision.

I doubt we will see much evidence of this during the next election cycle.. but in 2012, it will become crystal clear why this is bad.

I would need to read the decision before I said whether it was good or bad. I think the outcome of the decision may be disasterous for our republic, but whether or not it was founded upon the law I cannot say until I've actually looked at the opinion.

The good thing that might come out of this:

My group's biggest client is the largest private company in America. The two primary shareholders are VERY politically active and support libertarian candidates.

They could, without sweating it, drop 500M into the lap of a promising libertarian presidential candidate. Maybe then we'd get a viable third party.

[AnticorRifling]

If they want to drop 500m in my lap I'm down for "stuff"

[Parkbandit]

I would need to read the decision before I said whether it was good or bad. I think the outcome of the decision may be disasterous for our republic, but whether or not it was founded upon the law I cannot say until I've actually looked at the opinion.

The good thing that might come out of this:

My group's biggest client is the largest private company in America. The two primary shareholders are VERY politically active and support libertarian candidates.

They could, without sweating it, drop 500M into the lap of a promising libertarian presidential candidate. Maybe then we'd get a viable third party.

For every rich libertarian activist out there, there are hundreds of the same activists for the Democrats and the Republicans.

The only real winners with this decision is the TV, Radio and Billboards.. every 2 years.

[ClydeR]

...but whether or not it was founded upon the law...

Well that depends on what you mean by "law" doesn't it?

[TheEschaton]

I don't see how this can be good for elections at all, and we have George Soros on our side.

[Atlanteax]

There were quite a few political cartoons on this... this one was my favorite... with the emphasis that the 1st amendment was for voting citizens instead of big business.

http://cagle.com/working/100125/garner.gif

[TheEschaton]

The Court painted itself into a corner when it decided corporations were legal persons, oh so long ago.

[Warriorbird]

Yay we're doomed!

[Cephalopod]

Pretty soon we'll be feeding GM through a tube.