Corporate Greed Will Now Run the US

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Corporate Greed Will Now Run the US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:42 pm

Well the only part of voting left intact is the formality of going to the polls, everything has been stripped away. The sheeple will be led by the corporations, educated by those in charge, and will vote accordingly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34983042/ns ... swer_desk/

Any elected official who dares go up against the corporations will be met the all the financial weapons the corporations have at their disposal to dispose of them. No person can withstand a multi-million dollar smear campaign. If a corporation wanted Mother Teresa to look like the second coming of the anti-Christ all they need to is spend enough money to accomplish said task.

Even McCain called the Supreme Sellout Court naive. Do you really need to ask why? And the Sellout Boys did this all on their own. The case they would have reviewed wasn't at this level, and they came to a decision with unprecedented speed. Can anyone explain why? This was front page news in the NYT along with a scathing editorial.

Well America, get used to it, because thanks to the republicans this is your new flag:
Image The 5-4 decision was split right down party lines.

And if you wondering what the big deal is:Image
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:26 pm

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
T. Jefferson.

tehfire
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:57 am
Location: US

Post by tehfire » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:57 pm

Not making any normative claims, just some points about the decision.

The decision was not very clean-cut. It wasn't exactly a 5-4 decision. The official wording is as follows:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SO-TOMAYOR, JJ., joined as to Part IV. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opin-ion, in which ALITO, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined in part. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part,in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

So as always with anything with the Supreme Court other than a landmark decision, there was a decision, to which everybody agreed in parts to and disagreed in parts to. Will be reading the Syllabus and skimming the opinion to see if anything sticks out...

DanceMan
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada

Post by DanceMan » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:18 pm

Government in Canada and the US could be called corporatism, but plutocracy, not democracy, would be fairly accurate.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:11 am

DanceMan wrote:Government in Canada and the US could be called corporatism, but plutocracy, not democracy, would be fairly accurate.
Perhaps plutarchy would be more accurate?
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:10 am

I too think this is an atrocious ruling -- probably as bad or worse (for our democracy) than Plessy vs Ferguson or the Dred Scott vs Sanford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy

And I think the the dissenters will be heralded as being correct -- hopefully sooner rather than later. The claims by Roberts and others that they are against activism is laughable; if it wasn't so serious.

Money is NOT speech -- giving money to a political cause (or to anything) is an ACTION, a DEED. Writing, speech and voting are all speech. We need publicly financed campaigns, and we need to remove as much dependency on money (to get re/elected) as we can. TV and radio broadcast time should be FREE -- we the people OWN the airwaves, so why should we have to pay for their use for the very core functioning of our government?

Corporations are NOT people -- the people in the corporation already have their individual right for free speech. If corporations are people -- can a CEO who causes a corporation to go bankrupt be charged with murder? If a corporation causes the death of a person; can the corporation be charged with murder?

This goes hand in hand with the conservatives dismantling much of the government:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/profile.html
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:15 am

:idea:
corps can only have rights if everyone employed by the corp is locked up for the murder conviction.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:15 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Corporations are NOT people
They are now.

Image
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:18 am

aristide1 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Corporations are NOT people
They are now.
now they're even better than people, they get all of the rights but none of the responsibility. :cry:

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:53 am

Even more.

You rob a person you go to jail.

They rob lots of people the government pays them.

Such a deal.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:06 pm

aristide1 wrote:
They rob lots of people WE pay them.
fixed. :lol:

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 pm

Agreed. Along the same lines, there is no such thing as corporate taxes. The people pay them. Same reason there is no such thing as corporate fines either. But since I am just a serf I will never know this feeling:

Image
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:37 pm

Maybe folks will realize its time to go back to barter and trade.

Plissken
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:22 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Plissken » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:41 pm

God bless the USA and the Constitution!
It amazes me how people don't comprehend the phrase "Congress shall make no law..."
A corporation is an association of individuals, and while a corporation has no right to vote, the association of individuals have a right to freedom of speech as much as a single individual.
For those that can't comprehend "money = speech", it doesn't cost anything to shout from your rooftop but see how far that gets you. Welcome to the real world, and it was the same 200 years ago.
McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, period, and rights have been restored. We have a process for amending the Constitution if you so desire, so go get the votes if you don't like it.
[color=green][size=75]Antec P180B | Corsair HX520 | Gigabyte DS3L | E8400 @ 3.6 GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 2GB Ballistix DDR2-800 | EVGA 8800GTS | 2x Samsung HD501LJ[/size][/color]

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:15 am

Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Plissken
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:22 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Plissken » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:59 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Here's an à propos rant:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktiv ... rewed.html
Interesting rant, and I suppose convincing to those who lack critical thinking skills.
However, you are changing the subject. What does McCain-Feingold have to do with health care reform? Oh, I get it... all of societies ills are created by the eeeevil corporations! :twisted:
BTW, isn't voting for your own self-interests greedy?
[color=green][size=75]Antec P180B | Corsair HX520 | Gigabyte DS3L | E8400 @ 3.6 GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 2GB Ballistix DDR2-800 | EVGA 8800GTS | 2x Samsung HD501LJ[/size][/color]

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:41 am

Plissken wrote:A corporation is an association of individuals, and while a corporation has no right to vote, the association of individuals have a right to freedom of speech as much as a single individual.
Each person in the corporation already had that right, what they gained from the decision was mob rule.

Image
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

Plissken
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:22 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Plissken » Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:33 am

aristide1 wrote:Each person in the corporation already had that right, what they gained from the decision was mob rule.
Let's not get carried away - mob rule implies violence. We're discussing expression.
The ability of a group to express a common opinion is simply the sum of their members' abilities. There is no multiplying factor - in fact, it could be said that the larger the group the less efficient they become.
Let's say aristide1, Neil, xan_user, and a few other friends decided to band together and form a political coalition. Then they decide, as a group, to buy a newspaper advertisement to promote some issue. The first amendment gives them that right, be it 61 days, 59 days, or 1 day before an election. This is what our founders intended - freedom. Any law that restricts this freedom because you are a member of a like-thinking group, or because of some arbitrary number of days before an election, is unconstitutional.
[color=green][size=75]Antec P180B | Corsair HX520 | Gigabyte DS3L | E8400 @ 3.6 GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 2GB Ballistix DDR2-800 | EVGA 8800GTS | 2x Samsung HD501LJ[/size][/color]

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:26 am

It does not compute. Corporations set prices and salaries. Your group example does not. Plain and simple. As before if a corporation wants to spend enough money to destroy a person they can. Your group example can't.

If the founding fathers wanted corporations to be equal there would be no need to start with "We the people..."

You underestimate the power of large amounts of money. It can destroy or distort better than physical violence. Only you know if that oversight was intentional or not. Why resort to such tactics?

To suggest that corporations don't have the resources to extract revenge within the limits of the law is ridiculous, if they are so inclinced. Average people and groups do not.

These days you don't even have to be arrested, let alone convicted, just the suggestion that Obama is a Muslim still persists. You don't need to kill someone for your lobbyist to succeed, do you?

Think Rupert Murdoch could do the same amount of propaganda without all his corporations? Please, let's stick to reality here, we don't live in a supreme court vacuum bubble environment.
This is what our founders intended - freedom
Another distortion would be calling anarchy freedom.
Last edited by aristide1 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:35 am

as an individual I am locked up for raping pillaging, stealing, murder... and never really get my vote counted
as a corporation the same actions result in huge profits and the company's stock doing well on wall street....and they can buy all the votes they want. (then layoff the workforce before any retirement gets paid out)

Is that what our founding father had in mind?

Business is just a religious cult and should be completely denied any influence on all forms of government and all its management and stock holders held culpable for any and all corpo criminal actions.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:00 pm

Plissken wrote:God bless the USA and the Constitution!
You got that completely wrong -- God has got nothing to do with the Constitution; except to stay out of it.

You cannot buy lunch with "speech". Money is not speech. Unless you think that rich people are more equal than poor people.

Rights must apply to all people equally -- that's the test for any good law. The Constitution (on the whole) is good law, wouldn't you say? So, if you can show me where it says in the Constitution it says that money = speech, then please do!

Buying access to politicians sure ain't "speech". Money doesn't belong in politics. We need to make political advertising by the candidates free of charge. We (the people) own the airwaves, and the lease we sell to broadcasters should include this.

We also need public financing of all campaigns. What money that still needs to be raised should come from small, individual contributions. No big money should be allowed, at all -- period. This allows one of the main tenets of the Constitution to actually happen: anyone, rich or poor or middle class can run for any political office, and the elections should be about the issues -- and NOT about how much money you can raise by promising to help the people that already have most of the money!
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:11 pm

Neil, while you aren't dealing with rich people here you are dealing with rich people wanna-bes. They think if they protect rich people, and behave like rich people, they will be miscontrued as rich people.

This is why sites like Trip's all propaganda tax site are such jokes. The problem is the believers make fools of all of us.

Given how well people distort what others have said I'm coming to the conclusion verbal comminucations is the crudest most inaccurate means of communication going.

Snake also decided not to address that there are no such things as corporate taxes, and that they are simply passed along to us. I wonder why.

Even John McCain called the supreme court's decision naive. Hey Snake, why did a freedom loving republican do that? Please explain.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Justice O'Connor Criticizes Campaign Finance Ruling

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:18 pm

Yes, and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is not pleased with it either -- especially where they have elections for judges...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =122993740

She's a Republican, too IIRC.

We all want good government, right? This ruling makes good government virtually impossible. Unless the ruling is overturned, we're all screwed.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:25 pm

This is where I disagree with Neil. With this ruling we are more screwed. Without it we are less screwed. They will win, no matter what.
Rat race is over. Rats won.
Unknown.
We all want good government, right?
No some just want more profits. Name a corporation that wants good government, yeah right.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

Plissken
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:22 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Plissken » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:04 pm

Campaign contributions are absolutely a mode of speech. Your contribution is an expression of your ideas and a method to get them heard. It's no different than hiring an author. The only limit is your willingness to spend more for the purpose.

All political campaigns should be free? Who is going to put gas in the car, rent the auditorium, buy the plane tickets, and print the signs? The taxpayers? Yeah, that will work out well when 200 million people decide to run for public office. Sheesh.

Campaigns cost money, and your contribution to a candidate is equivalent to his/her speech on your behalf. These are facts that have existed long before the Constitution was even written, and no supreme court justice has disagreed with them. The issue at hand (striking down part of B.C.R.A.) is that Congress cannot enact any law that restricts what you can say by limiting how much you can say or when you can say it. These restrictions wouldn't end political corruption because the government has virtually unlimited power to punish (or reward) persons or groups, and the groups include corporations, unions, non-profits, or any other like-minded group. If you love freedom you should be rejoicing. Removing the restrictions gives remedy to the persons or groups the government would (and will) unduly punish.
[color=green][size=75]Antec P180B | Corsair HX520 | Gigabyte DS3L | E8400 @ 3.6 GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 2GB Ballistix DDR2-800 | EVGA 8800GTS | 2x Samsung HD501LJ[/size][/color]

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:14 pm

That's an awful lot of words just to say you can't address my points.
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.

Plissken
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:22 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Plissken » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:48 pm

aristide1 wrote:That's an awful lot of words just to say you can't address my points.
That's because none of your "points" have anything to do with B.C.R.A. Start a separate thread on prices and salaries, Rupert Murdoch, Obama is a Muslim, propaganda tax sites, verbal communication, or corporate taxes, then form a cohesive argument. Then, maybe I'll respond. I like to break up the monotony of this echo chamber. 8)

Wait, you did have one point on the subject:
aristide1 wrote:Even John McCain called the supreme court's decision naive. Hey Snake, why did a freedom loving republican do that? Please explain.
That's because McCain is a senile, spineless, scum-sucking a******, who doesn't give two s**** about the US Constitution. Happy now? :D
[color=green][size=75]Antec P180B | Corsair HX520 | Gigabyte DS3L | E8400 @ 3.6 GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 2GB Ballistix DDR2-800 | EVGA 8800GTS | 2x Samsung HD501LJ[/size][/color]

frenchie
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: CT

Post by frenchie » Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:43 am

Here is France, each and every candidate who meets some prerequisites (I don't have a list, but it includes having a certain number of town mayors signing a petition), gets some money, some amount of radio/TV airtime, some amount of "official" billboard space. All that is the SAME for every candidate (airtime is timed for all the candidates, whether they're ads, debates, interviews...).
Also, the cost of the political campaign is reimbursed up to a certain amount if the candidate gets more than 5% of the votes in the first turn of the election.
It's true we have a lot of political parties, and it's also true that we have 2 main ones (namely the UMP, to the right, and the PS, to the left). But I still think it's a good way to promote diversity, allowing smaller parties with bright ideas to get them out to the people. Most of the time, those ideas will get absorbed by a bigger party who will use it for its own good.
Of course, it's not perfect but I think it's MUCH more fair (I know, this is not correct to say that... :) ) than what the supreme court just decided.
It's a shame I think ; to me it says : If you have money, no matter what your ideas are, you're allowed to spread your BS. If you have good ideas but no money, forget it, you're a looser. I guess that's what free speach is.
Main/gamming : Antec Solo|X-650|Asus P5Q-E|Intel Q9550@3.4GHz|HR-01 Plus 120mm Nexus @6V|Corsair 2x2Go XMS2 DHX cas 4 @4-4-4-12|Exhaust Nexus 120mm @9V|Intel X25M G2 160Gb|Samsung 1TB in SQD|2xGigabyte GTS450 OC (@900/1900/3800)|GPU fan 120mm Nexus @6V
HTPC/folder/Storage : Silverstone|E5300 with Samurai-Z|2Go RAM|GTX460@800|2x1To WD EARS|Intel X25M G2 80Go

Fold with SPCR

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:11 am

I didn't say the whole campaign should be free -- just the access to the airwaves, which is the single largest cost in a campaign. Sheesh -- please read what I wrote.

A basic test of any law, especially rights afforded to us in the Constitution -- is that they have to apply equally to all people in all circumstances. Free speech is: writing, speaking, and voting; pure and simple.

Paying lots of money to have your voice be "louder" than other people is not part of the protection of free speech in our Constitution.

Making a contribution to a political cause or candidate or party is an action that some people can do, and others cannot. As such, it must be allowed -- but it also must be limited to a reasonable level. The influence of money in the political arena must be limited, so that the rich cannot have undue influence on the political process.

This is just the foundational protection of our Constitution, that's all. :roll:
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:28 am

Our founders idea of free speech is a completely different concept than the pay speech the Murdoch's of the world rely on to control 'their' fortunes.
Last edited by xan_user on Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply