PDA

View Full Version : we're screwed.



sheriff
21 Jan 2010, 11:56pm
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMTJ--JWJqM

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZeUjSpF5g

the U.S. Supreme Court just handed the keys to America, and probably the world, to the corporations. GG democracy.

Delirium
22 Jan 2010, 12:53am
Where can I get a political prostitute?

Mephisto
22 Jan 2010, 01:17am
this isn't new, just look at the health care debate, companies control the government and has been for quite a while

Heavenly Player
22 Jan 2010, 06:18am
still sad

Drox
22 Jan 2010, 07:40am
same shit, different day lol

sheriff
22 Jan 2010, 12:29pm
same shit, different day lol

not same shit. this is different. WORSE.

because of the Supreme Court descision, there is now no limit on the amount that corporations can contribute to politicans' election campaigns. meaning, who the corporations want in power, stays in power.

SchmoSalt
22 Jan 2010, 12:48pm
I saw your link in the shoutbox last night. At first I thought it was just the usual media tactic of inducing fear into the public. But after I read the article on the BBC, I saw that this has the potential to become pretty nasty.

I don't think that it will rain fire like Olbermann would have you believe, but it does have the potential to be. In the end the people ultimately have the final decision on who gets into office. But with the way most people are (sheep,) it will probably end up on the worse end of things.

That is unless they fix it before it becomes a real problem.

Toxin
22 Jan 2010, 02:40pm
Yeah, I'm gonna wait for Legal or Potshot to post before I post my opinion. And just because one politican has a much higher campaign budget doesn't mean that they will stay in office.

sheriff
22 Jan 2010, 02:43pm
I saw your link in the shoutbox last night. At first I thought it was just the usual media tactic of inducing fear into the public. But after I read the article on the BBC, I saw that this has the potential to become pretty nasty.

I don't think that it will rain fire like Olbermann would have you believe, but it does have the potential to be. In the end the people ultimately have the final decision on who gets into office. But with the way most people are (sheep,) it will probably end up on the worse end of things.

That is unless they fix it before it becomes a real problem.

nice to see someone listens to me in the chatbox (:

and Toxin, why wait? I'd like to hear your opinion too, not just Legalsmash's and Potshots'. everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Delirium
22 Jan 2010, 03:10pm
nice to see someone listens to me in the chatbox (:

and Toxin, why wait? I'd like to hear your opinion too, not just Legalsmash's and Potshots'. everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I don't think you understand.

Legal and Potshot are the law 'round here, we must all conform to their beliefs.

sheriff
22 Jan 2010, 03:17pm
I don't think you understand.

Legal and Potshot are the law 'round here, we must all conform to their beliefs.

yeah, that's what I heard from zealot...

Slavic
22 Jan 2010, 03:23pm
not same shit. this is different. WORSE.

because of the Supreme Court descision, there is now no limit on the amount that corporations can contribute to politicans' election campaigns. meaning, who the corporations want in power, stays in power.

Until the "corporations" rig ballot boxes and manhandle people into voting for their preferred candidate, there is nothing to be concerned about. Politicians take corporate, special interest, etc. campaign funding all the time, this has never changed.

There is no difference between me donating to a candidate then a corporation. We both have interests in the candidate great enough to contribute monetarily.

Ultimately it is the voters who choose who becomes the next president. No matter how retarded and ill informed they are.

@ Toxin: Don't be a tag alone. Man up and voice your opinion, don't ride on some ones coat tail.

Phonicz
22 Jan 2010, 03:25pm
We are not screwed well not yet we are fine. FOR NOW

sheriff
22 Jan 2010, 03:25pm
@ Toxin: Don't be a tag alone. Man up and voice your opinion, don't ride on some ones coat tail.

this

Lordcrazy
22 Jan 2010, 04:43pm
Until the "corporations" rig ballot boxes and manhandle people into voting for their preferred candidate

Hey you ever heard what the Missourians and Kansans did to each other when people started settling in Kansas? Not much difference but now its between big corporations and the independents..

XeNo
22 Jan 2010, 05:33pm
Man up and voice your opinion, don't ride on some ones coat tail.
Does Legal really wear coat tails?

Ganzta
22 Jan 2010, 06:39pm
This was a horrible week for the Democrats: losing Massachusetts, set back on the health care bill, then this. We all know what happens when government and big business go to bed together.

Delirium
22 Jan 2010, 07:21pm
A bad hangover and a back alley abortion?

LegalSmash
22 Jan 2010, 08:53pm
I'll be brief:

Toxin, your admiration is nice, but do voice your own opinion.

Sheriff and Epidemic, its not that my word, or that of polka is law, its that polka is very well versed in these subjects and I am an attorney. I'm not always right, but I can simplify difficult concepts and undermine/eliminate stupid assumptions and statements made by the commercial media and retard radio on the left and right.

This decision is historic because it signals a new Supreme Court "method of interpreting shit" for the first time in nearly a century in a really tumultuous area of the law.

Reality is this: Corporations have freely given money to politicians for years, through various methods, from personal contributions at small levels to corporate donations at the maximum allowed by law, to contributions through PACs. The point is, its not a new concept.

The SCOTUS did not make up new law, but rather affirm an old concept in US law which is "A corporation has the same rights as a person under the US constitution". This concept is neither new, nor is it in any way ground breaking.

The scotus in broad language established that corporations cannot be deprived of making political contributions in a manner that would deprive them of their freedom of speech. This leaves two options for the legislature:

1. Make a new law which circumvents the court's authority to decide this: such as "Corporations shall not have access to individual freedoms as a citizen would.", or "Corporations shall not be able to donate more than X per year to Y candidates".

2. Just admit that what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander and openly admit that candidates on ALL sides of the two sided aisle in our system take LOADS of money from ANY donor, be it corporate or religious, and they constantly sodomize the hopes and rights of their citizenry they were allegedly elected by in order to have enough bling to put out a few more mudslinging "He got AIDs" commercials that attack their opponents. (no multi party system here, no matter how many names Ralph Nader runs under).

I, for one was more upset by the Kays Kloset v. Leegin decision of 2006 which struck down a century old ban on resale price maintenance, because THAT effectively drove prices for goods up in markets where prices would not rise where discounters were allowed to continue their practices.... in plain english: pretending your product is worth what you say it is by suing anyone who sells it for less than MSRP is NOT a way to wish away the economic calamity that came, it was just another finger in the dike that did nothing more than make me pay more for milk and crocs at walmart.

My own two cents regarding this case is this: the court has been politicized since it started: Judges are appointed by a politician, in hopes that the judge will do what the politician wants them to decide... this, kids, is fundamentally BAD for the nation... we don't need the one "free" branch of the government to be rife with bullshit and political haranguing.

I'm more comfortable with an judge like Oliver Wendell Holmes that will say "three generation of imbeciles is enough" regarding mentally handicapped people reproducing than a schyster who feels it necessary to cloth a clearly political decision in the guise of the law.

The Famous Zombie Hunter
23 Jan 2010, 04:45am
not same shit. this is different. WORSE.

No,it's still the same shit,different day.
You just need to adjust your perspective.

Which situation's worse, a man pointing a gun at your head and telling you that you've got 5 seconds to live, or running from the KGB while you're in Moscow because you've been accused of murdering someone important and are KOS?

They're both the same shit because they both involve you being dead at the end of it.
Same thing goes for politics. We can choose between the corporation's, or a tyranical government. Both of them involve us giving up our freedom's to a bunch of greedy bastard's who couldn't give a shit about the common man.

New face, new name, new threat, same end result.
Same shit, different day.

Toxin
23 Jan 2010, 07:21am
Point being, every time you post your own opinion about something it totally makes me look like an idiot, or like your average Joe on the street. Anyways, I'm still sticking to the fact that:

More campaign funds =/= Better chance of election?

Drox
23 Jan 2010, 10:01am
not same shit. this is different. WORSE.

because of the Supreme Court descision, there is now no limit on the amount that corporations can contribute to politicans' election campaigns. meaning, who the corporations want in power, stays in power.

Supreme Court has fucked us before making choices final when they shouldnt, so yes same shit. ;)

Slavic
23 Jan 2010, 11:53am
No,it's still the same shit,different day.
You just need to adjust your perspective.

Same thing goes for politics. We can choose between the corporation's, or a tyranical government. Both of them involve us giving up our freedom's to a bunch of greedy bastard's who couldn't give a shit about the common man.

New face, new name, new threat, same end result.
Same shit, different day.

Seriously? Your going to do the evil corporation argument.

Delirium
23 Jan 2010, 12:49pm
What does getting shot in the face have to do with the political and economical down fall of the American empire?

Even though we have been declining over the last 40 or so years/

LegalSmash
25 Jan 2010, 05:51pm
What does getting shot in the face have to do with the political and economical down fall of the American empire?

Even though we have been declining over the last 40 or so years/

"empire"? Been watching a bit too much Al-Jazeera, I think.

Silentfaith
25 Jan 2010, 06:10pm
"empire"? Been watching a bit too much Al-Jazeera, I think.

lolololol

Delirium
26 Jan 2010, 01:50am
"empire"? Been watching a bit too much Al-Jazeera, I think.

No, I have no clue what you're talking about. All I'm saying is that the end of "America" will be preeetty soon.


(no threats intended, I'm just looking back through history and at whats happening now, and it's looking pretty similar, and well, the old saying is that history repeats itself

trakaill
26 Jan 2010, 11:08am
No, I have no clue what you're talking about. All I'm saying is that the end of "America" will be preeetty soon.


(no threats intended, I'm just looking back through history and at whats happening now, and it's looking pretty similar, and well, the old saying is that history repeats itself

When did america end before??
...I have no clue where your going with this!!

sheriff
26 Jan 2010, 03:35pm
When did america end before??
...I have no clue where your going with this!!

not america

the british empire
the roman empire
etc.

they were all on top, then went downhill
that's how history repeats itself
the world and its nations are like one big game of king of the hill
one nation is on top for a while, then another takes it's place, and so on

Italian Jew
26 Jan 2010, 03:38pm
not america

the british empire
the roman empire
etc.

they were all on top, then went downhill
that's how history repeats itself
the world and its nations are like one big game of king of the hill
one nation is on top for a while, then another takes it's place, and so on



You need to look into it more in depth than you are to accurately present any correlation to what you're talking about. While your ideas may be good enough for general high school educational purposes, it means nothing in real life, and consequently, nothing here.

sheriff
26 Jan 2010, 03:56pm
You need to look into it more in depth than you are to accurately present any correlation to what you're talking about. While your ideas may be good enough for general high school educational purposes, it means nothing in real life, and consequently, nothing here.

http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg

trakaill
26 Jan 2010, 08:24pm
http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg

...that was one of the weakest attempt at saving a stupid post/opinion Ive seen of this forums...
Now GTFO

Italian Jew
26 Jan 2010, 08:31pm
http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg

This is the Politics section, so don't half ass your arguments without sufficient backing.

You can claim anything you want in the Off Topic section.

sheriff
26 Jan 2010, 09:34pm
...that was one of the weakest attempt at saving a stupid post/opinion Ive seen of this forums...
Now GTFO


This is the Politics section, so don't half ass your arguments without sufficient backing.

You can claim anything you want in the Off Topic section.

wow. internet. serious business indeed.

you guys could sit there going on and on about how I'm stupid and my opinion and posts are shit. you could make posts that add nothing to the discussion of the topic of this thread, and only serve to derail it.

or you could be constructive, get back on topic, and explain to me why you disagree with my opinion. your choice.

matt 187
26 Jan 2010, 09:40pm
wow. internet. serious business indeed.

you guys could sit there going on and on about how I'm stupid and my opinion and posts are shit. you could make posts that add nothing to the discussion of the topic of this thread, and only serve to derail it.

or you could be constructive, get back on topic, and explain to me why you disagree with my opinion. your choice.

The Irony

sheriff
26 Jan 2010, 09:41pm
The Irony

wow. really?

Ganzta
26 Jan 2010, 10:04pm
wow. really?

lololololoololololololol

Kennith
26 Jan 2010, 10:17pm
Quit being idiots. If you don't have the IQ quit posting here.\\


@ Sheriff - Although the internet may not be serious business to you, it is certainly here in this section, if you dont' like it gtfo, or do you want me to do it for you.

Jager
26 Jan 2010, 10:18pm
Unfortunately the fall of the "empires" you have listed was for more then just a socio-judicial issue. britian was stretched farther then it could really handle, and its navy while vast, simply could not keep up with its empire, its subjects wanted their own freedoms and generally Britain was agreeable. The roman empire fell because the western half of said empire was about as poorly managed as it could possibly be. and it still managed to hang on as a functioning society for almost 200 years before the Huns gauls etc became more powerful then the badly equipped badly trained and mostly not professional soldier armies of rome. Rome fell because people stopped giving a shit, and they sat on their damn laurels too long.


America is generally in a different boat. If america was to "fall apart" a large portion of the worlds 6.6+ billion people would die of starvation. while the world would likely fall into a massive war for food, arable land, and control of resources.

We as a nation and canada feed anywhere from 40-60% of the world population, so that alone will continue to keep us near the top of the food chain as far as politics and power. Until either the world stops eating, or the world finds alternatives to US subsidies and our foreign aid programs, the world will keep on keeping America at the top.

The courts said you as a free citizen have the right to speak your mind within reasonable limits, and as long as you get certain permits, you can even be very unreasonable (ever see a KKK rally? they are legally using the rights to congegate with a permit and free speech) the government has altered the rules a bit to contain hate speech, which tends to incite violence, by making the speech maker liable for inciting said violence, but still.

now a corporation who wishes to exercise the same right they have as free citizens could not. Now they could back channel it, or use one of a myriad ways to put their money where their mouth is, but all this really did was take what was disguised behind PAC's and back rooms and made it obvious.

Even if a corporation makes a video bashing a candidate, they still have to say that they the corporation were responsible with a this was paid for by XYZ corporation.

half of the fears about this are vastly exaggerated, if anything the corporate usage of this will be directly against labor unions and other interest groups that are traditionally anti corporation and will be using this to help their candidates just as much.

due to those things the sheer balancing act of making a political advertisement or video could decrease marketshares of companies, or make unions look bad, so they likely will play a bit nicer now that they have to show who is behind this stuff more transparently.

so I will be able to make a better informed decision with where i put my vote, and my money now knowing that xyz corp or abc union is for/against this person. voting with a wallet is as powerful as voting in a booth. and if i dont like a groups stance against or for a candidate i can stop shopping there, rather then finding out later or never at all.

Drox
26 Jan 2010, 10:22pm
not america

the british empire
the roman empire
etc.

they were all on top, then went downhill
that's how history repeats itself
the world and its nations are like one big game of king of the hill
one nation is on top for a while, then another takes it's place, and so on

"The term empire derives from the Latin imperium. Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy."

A American Empire would be considered being ruled by an Oligarchy? In other words Elite few people, if that was so we wouldnt have a govern system in which all people must follow. Yes we have people who get to the top with money, but some actually work to get there. Which every American (almost every) can do if they work for it and want to follow that path.

Could it be when you say empire you mean corporation wise? If so, then there are plenty of "empires" then that are in the free global market that didnt come from the US. So Im unclear on what you mean by Empire since we have conquered no one, and fully took over their land for ourselves (Unless you mean freeing people from a horrible dictator and giving them freedom to choose their government officials as conquering them).

I'll agree with your, what Im assuming is Super Power reference. Saying America is declining as the sole super power of the world (After the fall of Soviet Russia to present day). In no way should we consider ourselves like the Romans who made their empire by conquering others to expand it in the name of Rome (In other words, selling the people they conquered into slavery then making the places they took over into Roman ran cities)

Really, your statement is true as far as theory goes, but thats all it will be till it actually happens. Most would say seeing America as a empire is kinda false, but like I have said it depends on what you mean.

Italian Jew
26 Jan 2010, 11:08pm
wow. internet. serious business indeed.

you guys could sit there going on and on about how I'm stupid and my opinion and posts are shit. you could make posts that add nothing to the discussion of the topic of this thread, and only serve to derail it.

or you could be constructive, get back on topic, and explain to me why you disagree with my opinion. your choice.

You weren't backing up your opinion with anything. That's what the problem was. Simply stating "they were all on top" and "history repeats itself" doesn't amount to much because you were glazing over the topic. I can simply state that we are all going to die one day because living organisms eventually die. This is a pointless thing to discuss because it is obvious and doesn't bring any significant argument or discussion to the table. You could go into further detail besides the obvious line or two you can get from a tacky history class poster (which is what was mentioned earlier and avoided by you).

Seeing as how you aren't playing ball like you're supposed to....

The Roman Empire was in a vastly different situation as was Great Britain at their respective time periods (as briefly explained by Jager). There is a higher degree of international political maneuvering and involvement by the US not to mention completely different goals/necessities to achieve. There are different circumstances all across the board, so don't be miffed when I (and others) think that your correlation of "being on top" has anything to do with what is going to happen.

Just about every country on the planet is connected to others and depends upon others to sustain an increasing population and way of life. The fact is that if the US were to crash down as you so believe, the ENTIRE world would suffer in some way as it is one of the larger international hubs on the planet in terms of trade, economy, warfare, etc. If the US is to degrade dramatically, it is going to take nothing short of a devastating war or nuclear holocaust (if people survive) to cripple the way things are currently run.

If the US is going to lose power slowly, it is going to be in flux with China and/or India for the title as #1 superpower. Even if we fall behind, we won't be behind so much to the point where the US is no longer a strong nation that cannot keep up with foreign politics and trade. Our current technology permits even a degrading nation to participate and even control the fate of much of the world. Rome stopped caring about what made the Empire great (thanks to sloppy dictatorships and religious upheaval). Great Britain couldn't contend over the entire empire as whatever advantage it had could not be upheld at all places whenever it was needed.

The US isn't out conquering foreign lands and staying in them permanently. All that is happening is a spread of ideals and influence, not gains in land mass or sovereign power plays. The US has spent a better part of a century bailing countries out of shit storms, so our influence is felt worldwide. If there is a problem with the US, there tends to be a problem with much of the world. Since we have made so many "friends", I'd say there is a healthy understanding between the US and the world.

It was too easy to rule back hundreds and thousands of years ago. Less was at stake and lose-lose situations were not far reaching (US/Allies vs. China/Allies in WWIII doesn't bode well for the world). There is no power vacuum to be filled when the US goes as there likely won't be a planet left. No power vacuum, no rise to power from some nation, no new empire, and no new fall of said empire. It's just too much of a glazed over argument to say what you posted. It doesn't work for well established nations that have much political say in the world.

I will concede that it may have more relevance to developing nations in Africa as there is little to win besides land and power. One government over another in many African countries doesn't affect the world stage beyond involving the real powers (which is one caveat to it). In terms of the US, it is a no-no.


Now, if you have anymore of your over generalized poster slogans, please deposit them in the Off Topic section.

sheriff
26 Jan 2010, 11:20pm
@ Sheriff - Although the internet may not be serious business to you, it is certainly here in this section, if you dont' like it gtfo, or do you want me to do it for you.

http://memegenerator.net/Thumbnails/934/208x228_Courage-Wolf-DO-IT-FAGGOT.jpg

:ban:

kthxbai.

trakaill
26 Jan 2010, 11:36pm
http://memegenerator.net/Thumbnails/934/208x228_Courage-Wolf-DO-IT-FAGGOT.jpg

:ban:

kthxbai.

:lol: cloud is part of the nice people here no reason to be a huge ass, he was just giving you a wise word .. bye

Psyche
27 Jan 2010, 06:12am
Toxin, your admiration is nice, but do voice your own opinion.



http://memegenerator.net/Thumbnails/934/208x228_Courage-Wolf-DO-IT-FAGGOT.jpg

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU VOICE YOUR OPINION. No but seriously, he was acting stupid.

Shadowex3
27 Jan 2010, 09:44pm
http://memegenerator.net/Thumbnails/934/208x228_Courage-Wolf-DO-IT-FAGGOT.jpg

:ban:

kthxbai.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/356/realmario.jpg