Re-named/derailed thread: Re-debating Slavery & Citizens United

xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
Thread hijacked.
«1

Comments

  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    I wish you misery in the decision sir;)
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    I suspect a split decision. Nobody will like it. LOL
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    either way i will be drinking tomorrow.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    I wish you misery in the decision sir;)
    Likewise, my good man ;)
  • KriegerKrieger Posts: 337
    ours is a land divided and carved up amongst the highest bidders. let's just see who bought the courts this time.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,958 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Krieger:
    ours is a land divided and carved up amongst the highest bidders. let's just see who bought the courts this time.
    So true, but they're always fair. I mean, look at the "Citizen's United" decision. The Supremes, in their magnanimous equanimity, give the destitute, the working class, and the billionaires and their proxy corporations the exact same legal right to donate unlimited amounts of money to the candidate of their choice. What could be more fair than that? I expect more of the same today.
    :(
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    Well said Amos....well said. And Beat, I expect exactly what youy said, lol.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Amos Umwhat:
    Krieger:
    ours is a land divided and carved up amongst the highest bidders. let's just see who bought the courts this time.
    So true, but they're always fair. I mean, look at the "Citizen's United" decision. The Supremes, in their magnanimous equanimity, give the destitute, the working class, and the billionaires and their proxy corporations the exact same legal right to donate unlimited amounts of money to the candidate of their choice. What could be more fair than that? I expect more of the same today.
    :(
    It shouldn't be any different; your free speech rights don't change just because of the amount of money in your bank account. But let's not go off-topic; the Supreme Court reinforced/reaffirmed Citizens United on Monday, 9-0, so for the next few decades at least, it's the indisputable law of the land At any rate, go read the court's opinion; every argument you or I can make is already in there.

  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    Let's see, hundreds of millions of dollars from a handful of people vs my one vote. I cannot give any more than that, and that's after said people are already picked and pushed by their buyers, I mean partys.
  • Roberto99Roberto99 Posts: 1,077
    any news yet?
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Roberto99:
    any news yet?
    I screwed up the date; it's tomorrow, Thursday
    phobicsquirrel:
    Let's see, hundreds of millions of dollars from a handful of people vs my one vote. I cannot give any more than that, and that's after said people are already picked and pushed by their buyers, I mean partys.
    Pheebs, start a new thread if you really wanna go there; Obama out-spent McCain 3 to 1, mostly due to small $20 donations; the final month Obama outspent McCain 5 to 1, again based on those small donations.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    Tito Jackson wouldve beaten McCain in that election------besides its the congressional and smaller races where this law is most troublesome and able to buy the votes.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    xmacro:
    Roberto99:
    any news yet?
    I screwed up the date; it's tomorrow, Thursday
    phobicsquirrel:
    Let's see, hundreds of millions of dollars from a handful of people vs my one vote. I cannot give any more than that, and that's after said people are already picked and pushed by their buyers, I mean partys.
    Pheebs, start a new thread if you really wanna go there; Obama out-spent McCain 3 to 1, mostly due to small $20 donations; the final month Obama outspent McCain 5 to 1, again based on those small donations.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sourceall.php?cycle=2008

    2008 has nothing to do with this new trend. Whether it's health care or oil money it all has to do with a few people owning us and our elections; especially now since the supreme court ruled, and even more so since their latest move in Montana.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Not getting into it in this thread. New Thread button is up there ^
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,958 ✭✭✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    the Supreme Court reinforced/reaffirmed Citizens United on Monday, 9-0, so for the next few decades at least, it's the indisputable law of the land At any rate, go read the court's opinion; every argument you or I can make is already in there.

    I'm sure that I, as well as many others who earn our living by the sweat of our own brow, will take the same solace found by the average plantation slave after the Supreme Courts Dred Scott decision. I hope that the Citizens United decision finds its rightful place alongside Dred Scott, and sooner rather than later.

    Now, to be fair to Xmacro, I will make no further "off-topic" remarks on this thread.
    .
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Amos Umwhat:
    xmacro:
    the Supreme Court reinforced/reaffirmed Citizens United on Monday, 9-0, so for the next few decades at least, it's the indisputable law of the land At any rate, go read the court's opinion; every argument you or I can make is already in there.

    I'm sure that I, as well as many others who earn our living by the sweat of our own brow, will take the same solace found by the average plantation slave after the Supreme Courts Dred Scott decision. I hope that the Citizens United decision finds its rightful place alongside Dred Scott, and sooner rather than later.
    Slavery = 1st Amendment/free speech donations by companies and unions to political campaigns . . .

    Whatever.

  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,958 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Oppression by the rich and powerful = Oppression by the rich and powerful. A bad, or just plain wrong decision is bad, or just plain wrong. A bad precedent is a bad precendent. Citizens United has little or nothing to do with 1st amendment, since the overall effect of the decision is to quash the free speech of those who can't afford paid airtime. I don't expect you to understand.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Amos Umwhat:
    Oppression by the rich and powerful = Oppression by the rich and powerful. I don't expect you to understand.
    And the rich and powerful don't always introduce themselves.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    For every Soros, there's a Koch.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    Actually 2 Koch's.....kinda of like a double d!ldo, can screw a person in every oraface possible at once. Slavery is a good reference there Amos btw, because of the failures and poor decisions at times by fallible men (and women)---ie the Supreme Court. Im sure there were people then arguing in chat rooms and coffee houses that since slaves were property, why should they have no more rights than a mule.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    The amount of ass.hole opinions, comparing owning another human being to political donations in a free country, is simply beyond compare; I expect a few ****/Holocaust references and comparisons will soon be coming. Thread has been renamed - enjoy the circle jerk.
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,958 ✭✭✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    The amount of ass.hole opinions, comparing owning another human being to political donations in a free country, is simply beyond compare; I expect a few ****/Holocaust references and comparisons will soon be coming. Thread has been renamed - enjoy the circle jerk.
    It's hard to believe you don't get this. The comparison you draw was not the intended one, although an understandable mistake. The comparison made was regarding the fact the Supreme Court is often wrong. There's probably some previous decision regarding health care, or the right of government to assume some power over the populace that may be closer to the current debate, I just used the first unquestionably wrong decision that came to my mind, and am saying that I hope the Supreme Court doesn't place itself (and subsequently us) on the wrong side of history again.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    So there are people disagreeing with Macro, and he doesnt have the usual band of right wing breathren to try and back him up------so we become "a$sholes" as in his last post AND he likens our personal opinions and drawing upon mistakes in history to an event where men stand in a circle and **** each other's ****'s to the point of ****. Sad.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    So there are people disagreeing with Macro, and he doesnt have the usual band of right wing breathren to try and back him up------so we become "a$sholes" as in his last post AND he likens our personal opinions and drawing upon mistakes in history to an event where men stand in a circle and **** each other's ****'s to the point of ****. Sad.
    If you've got something to say to me Vulchor, stick to the same thread, instead of jumping around and hoping I don't reply. If you're too butthurt to do that, then just shut up.

    I'm not continuing this argument because the comparisons are ridiculous - comparing political donations in a free country to the owning another human being is incredibly heated rhetoric, and incredibly inaccurate.

    A conversation can't take place when one side is comparing political donations to the blackest chapter in America's history; it's like saying that Gonzalez v Raich is comparable to the Holocaust and the extermination of 6 million jews. Only an idiot would think they're apt comparisons

  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 4,958 ✭✭✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    So there are people disagreeing with Macro, and he doesnt have the usual band of right wing breathren to try and back him up------so we become "a$sholes" as in his last post AND he likens our personal opinions and drawing upon mistakes in history to an event where men stand in a circle and **** each other's ****'s to the point of ****. Sad.
    I'm not continuing this argument because the comparisons are ridiculous - comparing political donations in a free country to the owning another human being is incredibly heated rhetoric, and incredibly inaccurate.

    A conversation can't take place when one side is comparing political donations to the blackest chapter in America's history; Only an idiot would think they're apt comparisons

    Missed the point again, didn't you? The comparison was not to the two circumstances, merely demonstrating that the Supreme Court makes mistakes. Not that creating unfair advantage for certain politcal points of view was equivalent to slavery. Only an idealogue (or a moron) would derive that from what was said.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as someone else's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Amos Umwhat:
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    So there are people disagreeing with Macro, and he doesnt have the usual band of right wing breathren to try and back him up------so we become "a$sholes" as in his last post AND he likens our personal opinions and drawing upon mistakes in history to an event where men stand in a circle and **** each other's ****'s to the point of ****. Sad.
    I'm not continuing this argument because the comparisons are ridiculous - comparing political donations in a free country to the owning another human being is incredibly heated rhetoric, and incredibly inaccurate.

    A conversation can't take place when one side is comparing political donations to the blackest chapter in America's history; Only an idiot would think they're apt comparisons

    Missed the point again, didn't you? The comparison was not to the two circumstances, merely demonstrating that the Supreme Court makes mistakes. Not that creating unfair advantage for certain politcal points of view was equivalent to slavery. Only an idealogue (or a moron) would derive that from what was said.
    It's just something that annoys the crap out of me - when people compare something they don't like to slavery (eg - corporations = slave masters), or someone they don't like to Hitler (eg - Bush = Hitler). Overheated rhetoric just touches a nerve that sets me off.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    I hope your day improves Macro and am sorry you are in such a foul mood.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    I'm here macro. I know what you are saying. Its' my biggest pet-peave. That in any argument with the far left, the English language is bastardized and mis-used to get their points across. Adjectives thrown in for ridicule, secular use of religious terms, The Hitler, Bush, slavery comparisons, All of these are merely their attempt to lump their opponents into one big baddie (i.e.: old, fat, white guys).
    Here's one for you. How the hell can 3 ugly women and 2 eunuchs decide this for all americans. LOL. They're laughing now, but not a one will mentioned that the fattest, grayest, whitest guy voted with their side. JMO/
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    DNC: 'IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL. ****'...

    DNC DELETED TWEET: 'TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!'

    At least the right has class!
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,803 ✭✭✭
    If you consider lying, cheating, stealing, shipping jobs over seas, being a biggot, gay bashing (while having gay affairs behind the scenes), and stripping rights under the fear of terrorism CLASS....then I would agree with you.

    But on a serious note, religion wise, as long as the right wing (or left wing for that matter) want to base everything on a presumed opinion of some guy that walked on water and lived 2,000 years ago....and his stories are VERY eerily similar to other religions prior to the current Christian movement-------then yes, I do have a hard time taking that seriously. Relying on mysticism and voodoo as opposed to science in reason, as advanced as we are as people, is absurd but even moreso...dangerous.
Sign In or Register to comment.