US Supreme Court legalizes bribery

D

deleted3782

Guest
You are lumping a once a weekday hourly show which she NEVER used as a platform to promote a single candidate to FoxNews-FauxNews-FixedNews 24X7 Republican propaganda network? :rolleyes:

True, but I was thinking of her ratings increasing based on her guests...Obama - or Palin. She sometimes benefits from both sides of the fence. :cool:
 

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I concur..still another symptom of the cooperate oligarchy (aristocracy) we live in ..so how much longer until the next constitutional convention?
 

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
You are lumping a once a weekday hourly show which she NEVER used as a platform to promote a single candidate to FoxNews-FauxNews-FixedNews 24X7 Republican propaganda network? :rolleyes:

Umm, actually she had Obama on her show, and repeatedly stumped for him. There was also a lawsuit (which Oprah won, btw) alleging that her having Obama and not other candidates on her show equated to a campaign donation.

So, your statement is false. Oprah promoted Obama on her show. While the court ruled that it was not equivalent to a financial "campaign donation," she did have him on, and openly supported him in every way, public and private.
 
Last edited:

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,368
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
Pretty much the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted for America. This is actually precisely the type of thing that they were explicitly against because it's very much what England at the time of the Revolution was like.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Anyone else notice that the He/She Holy It, FaceQueen, Starinjestor, and one or two other infamous "I'm always right and you all are always wrong" posters are not joining in on this thread? Hmmmmm . . . .


They and the other ultra-rightwing nuts are laying low because they know the American people as PISSED as all hell at the ruling, and they don't want to call too much attention to the perpetrators of this kind of bullshit.

Maybe VOTERS will remember who they are, come next election.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Could someone please explain how "conservative" judges and politicians can support this decision - a decision that goes way beyond the scope of what the plaintiffs were actually seeking in this case - to overturn a century of legal precedent and established rules of the road? A decision that shatters the very foundation on which our so-called 'democracy' was built? Huh?? Anyone??? Judicial restraint my ass!!!

I've thought this for some time, but the evidence could not be more clear. The word "conservative" is meaningless now, actually it is Orwellian 'Newspeak'. take note, Star et al.

If I never believed in right-wing conspiracy theories before (and I'm not saying I didn't) this one is very hard to look past. Especially when one looks at who loaded those seats on the bench. Makes me wonder if this has maybe been in the works for awhile? Hmmm . . . just wonderin.


Thanks for the No. 7 Bear, Goin back out on the porch now.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Pretty much the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted for America. This is actually precisely the type of thing that they were explicitly against because it's very much what England at the time of the Revolution was like.


It's really going to take another revolution that is if we don't destroy the planet first.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,899
Media
0
Likes
323
Points
208
Gender
Male
correct me if i am wrong, If under this ruling a corporation is considered to have the same rights a person in the political process, why would they have right to give unlimited funds to one candidate? Under the present system the "amount given by one person" is limited. while there are a number off ways around this rule at least it does give at least a nod to some sort of restraint. This whole thing is very strange.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
It's really going to take another revolution that is if we don't destroy the planet first.
I seriously doubt that a second constitutional convention would ever work in the USA. You can't even agree on a simple healthcare plan. As for a "revolution"... well it would be the end of a united country. Not my business actually, but I'd say the documents you have are pretty good; however the people need to awake up to their responsibilities as well. I think an Amendment instituting term limits for congress would be a good start.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
. . . however the people need to awake up to their responsibilities as well. . . .

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath. The 'people' (and I am notably excluding corporations from the defininition) have been too sedated, too divided, too manipulated and bamboozled by the talking-head media, Madison Avenue and other bright shiny objects for far too long. They live with an illusion of choices and actually like drinking the Kool-Aid now, because they don't know the difference anymore. The decision by the Supremes assures that will continue ad infinitum. Who knows, maybe that's all part of the master plan? I wouldn't count on the 'people' to do a damn thing - at least until the bread and circuses run out. Then I'm afraid it will be far too late. Any other ideas?



Y'all should come out on the porch with me. Nice view from up here.
 
Last edited:

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
For decades, the powers-that-be of both parties aimed for a fat, dumb, happy electorate and succeeded for a while. It was the sure way to not rock the political system -- keep the cost of goods artificially low, dumb-down everything and drown people in shit they don't need but can't help buying. That way, people are too stoopit and too preoccupied to question much of anything.

Now, Americans are fat, dumb and pissed off. Not pleasant, but not dangerous... yet. Just sort of grotesque. When (if) they get to be fat, informed and pissed off, it's gonna get ugly.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Well put GF, and thanks for your effort and keen insight.

So forgive me if I sound like an incorrigible pessimist, it truly is not my nature.
But to me this is the most salient point of your post:

. . . (if) . . .
And I think that is being optimistic.


back to the porch y'all. bourbon goes great with bluegrass.

 
Last edited:

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
America's problems are all political. The resources are there, however the will, so far, is not. As rare as they are, Constitutional Amendments requiring a balanced budget (except in emergencies), publicly funded political campaigns, a flat 20% tax, limiting defense spending to 3% of GDP, guaranteed national standards, but private health care, and not giving citizen's rights to corporations would change the mood of the country overnight. It's a TALL order, but far less messy than a revolution.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
America's problems are all political. The resources are there, however the will, so far, is not. As rare as they are, Constitutional Amendments requiring a balanced budget (except in emergencies), publicly funded political campaigns, a flat 20% tax, limiting defense spending to 3% of GDP, guaranteed national standards, but private health care, and not giving citizen's rights to corporations would change the mood of the country overnight. It's a TALL order, but far less messy than a revolution.
"publicly funded political campaigns"?

Are you kidding me? Are you hallucinating??

Dude, wake up to reality. Sensible as that may be, and sympathetic as I may be to your other positions, do you not get what just happened? None, I repeat, None of that is going to happen now - least of all, and most particularly, "publicly funded political campaigns". In case you missed the memo, any hope, however dim, of ever having "publicly funded political campaigns" was just delivered a death blow. How can you not get that? Jeezus H Christ!

Forget this noble agenda. Congress can't even pass some sad little fig leaf version of a Healthcare bill, that is little more than a pander to the middle class and a belated (now very belated) Christmas present to drug and insurance companies. It should go down in flames, it's a f'n joke. Maybe that would get the attention of 'the people'. And if Congress manages to pass anything at all, it will be gutted soon enough, just like campaign finance reform was, with or without a Republican majority.

And there will be a Republican majority soon enough in the House, very possibly by the mid-terms, and that's much, much more likely now. Hell, I know of at least two Bluedog wrench-in-the-works Dems here in my own state, one in my own district, who are not running for reelection because, guess what, they're too liberal for the electorate. And these guys are actually somewhat right of middle, and have been there forever.

And in case you haven't noticed, the Dems don't exactly have control of the Senate either, not even with their little toothless threat /smoke screen they call a filibuster-proof majority which by the way, they just lost. Hey, the Repubs didn't have one, and they still managed to ram every cotton-pickin thing down our throats they wanted, laughing all the way to the campaign chest.

Unless wonder boy Obama kicks his ass back into campaign mode and actually calls out those damn teabaggers, the 5 Supremes, and other assorted right wingnut cases, as he said he was gonna - until he stops avoiding the bully pulpit like it was an Alabama outhouse on the Fourth of July - and until he stirs up some excitement in the formerly enthusiastic, now increasingly disenchanted, disillusioned, depressed and dispondent voters who swept him into office in the first place - unless all this happens, and fast, I'm sorry to say it, I think we are all doomed.

As another poster noted, "we are at a tipping point". I agree, but I think it is an understatement of the gravity of this situation. Unless the President, his party and other progressives learn to get in line, and fast, take control of the debate and the bullhorn, and prove to American people that they're working on their behalf, I'm afraid the game is over, my friends. But just like waiting for "the people" to wake up, as has been repeatedly suggested in previous posts, I ain't holdin my breath.

Way too much momentum has been lost already. Whether it can be built again seems like a gargantuan task; the forces of opposition are well armed and don't fight fair. Enough pussy-footin around, I say to the Prez, the Dems and the Progs. Enough trying to stay on the high road and reach for common ground and compromise with these so-called "conservatives" who are firmly committed to stopping every one of your initiatives and making you look like incompetent fools in the process. Which, quite frankly, you are. Worse, you're pussies. There, I said it. And these are my people.

Time to 'call people out' as Obama promised, time to kick ass and take names, I say, and no time to waste. And it's got to come from the top. If he doesn't get some fire in his belly and get bad-ass serious about these things, rally the troops and hit one out of the park during his State of the Union address, well then, I hate to sound like a broken record, we are all doomed. [Wed. Jan 27 for those who feel like tuning in. You'll be happy to know the Whitehouse changed it to avoid a conflict with "Lost" over on the ABC (I think the 'C' stands for Corporation) network.] I know I'll be watching with breathless anticipation. But if it's anything like his last speech before Congress, I hear there's a dandy little drinking game you can play. Do a shot everytime he says 'state of the Union'. Hey, fun times!

Am I off the chart here? Does anybody else get how serious this moment is? What a "disaster" it is for our democracy, as Chaz Schumer and countless others have said? Does the President get it? Or has he drunk the Kool-Aid too?

If you think I was being all hyperbolic in my first post in this thread, well yeah, it's a bit colorful - hey, that's how I roll - but I meant every damn word of it. We are in deep doo-doo, my friends. So I asked you before, I'll ask you again, what the hell do we do now?

And let's just take armed resistance off the table right now, as appealing as that fantasy may be to some of you. You know what kind of weapons they have. Then again, you really don't, you haven't seen the really good stuff. You will all be hunted down and vaporized in two seconds flat. Trust me.

So don't expect 'the people' to wake up. What are you and I gonna do? Hell, we're supposedly the smart ones in the class. Any of y'all got an ideas? Cause "I'm all ears", like I told Hootie. Or should we all just keep "pissing and moaning" as he rightly accused of us doing, but ironically as he was pissing some of the biggest puddles.

Whatchall think? Got any idees? Cause I admit, I don't have a clue.



I'll be out on the porch with Jack practicing up for that drinking game.

 
Last edited: