Thread: Supreme court rules in favor of....

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

The welfare system is built on the basis of equality. I don't think that's a bad thing, but you may. Taxation is not stealing, anyway.

It is when you don't have a voice. Which goes straight to the orginal point of this topic. That because of the ruling people wont have a voice.

Originally Posted by Alric

It is when you don't have a voice. Which goes straight to the orginal point of this topic. That because of the ruling people wont have a voice.

Yeah, I agree with you there.

I'm absolutely disgusted by this ruling, but somehow not surprised in the least either.

It's not like this sort of thing hasn't been going on for ages...what bothers me is that now corporations don't even have to pretend to seem on the up-and-up. They get a free pass to do as they please. And no one even seems upset about it, as far as I can tell.

The Republican arguments I've heard for this nonsense are complete lunacy to boot; "but this will help the labor force hurdyhurr". Absolute cockshit.

Here's the ruling.




Gah. I need to go think about mushrooms and dancing animals for a while now.

The beast shows His true face. Why so mad guerrilla, did you forget the american government is a power cult? Now people will have to admit that our elections are just a ruse, as they have been for as long as I've been alive.

We need to completely revamp the electoral process if we want to continue on as a democratic country. Actually start being would be a more accurate phrase.

I am not so bothered by this. Maybe I should be, but the more people who get targeted by the inquisition the more resistance; maybe this shit can finally stop and we can have a society where law is not based in exploitation of fear.

Last night I had asked a friend of mine when he expected we'd see the world's
first corporate government. If this lasts, it's going to be an interesting turning
point in human history considering the already substantial power that
corporations wield. This new potential influence over the law is going to be
interesting, at the very least.

Buy your guns while you still can, folks.

Oh Capitalism, what have you done.

So I've been thinking about this a lot, and I remembered that I thought there was one possible benefit to all this. At the very very least, hopefully a greater portion of the population will be aware of how much corporations are contributing financially to the political process. Sure, there were ways to find this out before, but no one really seemed all that interested in knowing.

At least if corporations can do what they've already been doing, and do so without fear of the public finding out...well, hopefully people will start to notice, and hopefully that will sink in a little bit. Getting them thinking, for a change.

The thing that irks me the most is the continued correlation of corporations having the same rights as individuals. Really? How does this seem even remotely logical? There are many very obvious reasons why there should be limits placed on corporations that are not placed on individuals. Big business should be kept in check the same way government is supposed to be "checked and balanced" if you ask me.

If only one is, or neither are--for various reasons, i.e. the public just can't be bothered to care--there are way too many inroads for either one or both to become [either overtly or discreetly] the dominant influence on the political process. And in any case that benefits only the dominant. So sad.

I really just can't help getting so fired up about these things; it's not like I can't see them coming...but I just wish that made the eventual blow a little less upsetting.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Oh Capitalism, what have you done.

its not capitalism that caused the crisis, its greedy corporatism that got us here, and idiotic central banks that kept inflating the money supply...capitalism is the solution not the problem, the federal reserve has limited the scope of real capitalism so for the past 97 years under their policies we have been under a quasi capitalism merged with greedy corrupt corporatism and the military industrial complex is one good example of the corporatocracy.

also, the monkey in my sig is almost directly responsible for americas financial crisis. He increased the money supply by 80+ percent, more than the current ben bernanke character puppet of the bankers.

When the international bankers say jump obama says how high, just look at the recent re-nomination of ben bernanke by Obama and his failed central economic planning federal reserve system, a system which is destroying the country.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

This can not last, or else the US will go very Republican very fast, which will cause the US to spiral down hill really really fast.

Why would wealthy corporations care about Republican principles? I thought you said Republicans are all a bunch of backward ass hillbillies. Are you saying rich corporate people with power are Republicans too?

Hey, we might have a much greater degree of capitalism in the near future! Damn, a lot more jobs will be created and the standard of living will go up. That will empower poor people and make them no longer dependent on the Democrats. How sad for the Democratic Party!

In the case of multinational corporations, they don't really answer to anyone. I mean, other then their stockholders; but they're not constricted by one countries policies. The world economy and free market has become a tool to manipulate governments, so multinationals can steal their resources and cheap labour so that we over here in the Americas can pig out at the mall.

The appointed bodies...errr sorry not appointed, this isn't a democracy... to basically carry out these operations are the World Bank and many of it's sister organizations. They'll organize huge loans to these third world countries, under the name of "trying to help these people", but this money never goes to the poor of the country. It goes into infrastructure projects like hydroelectric plants, electric grids, highways, chemical processing plants, railways, airports, etc. Things only the rich of the country and multinational corporations will benefit from. Then these countries are left with mass debts, unable to pay them off because they're resources aren't going towards poverty reduction; it's all being exported to countries like USA etc.

Often when these countries can;t pay off these debts the the World Bank or IMF will offer structural adjustment plans (SAPS). These are basically to cut government subsidies for food, fuel, education, etc, which fucks the poor even more. They're forced to work for 25 cents a day making Nike shoes or Levi Jeans, whatever, you got it.

I can't stop worrying about the environmental implications of this.

I think the OP is a little bit off in his assumptions of what the supreme courts ruiling means for the political process. The ruiling didn't say that corporations can donate infinite amounts of money through campaign contributions, it just made it legal for corporations to spend as much as they want on political advertisements (like tv commercials) or movies. While this will obviously help certian political canidates, it is far from being the end-of-freedom bill that the OP was implying. Not to mention, This was actually a big win for freedom of speech advocates.

It's not the end-of-freedom, you're right.

But I firmly believe there are well-founded reasons for limiting how much any given corporation can spend on political advertising. Big money has been/is/always will be carbuncle in the side of any democracy; this just an open invitation in my opinion.

It's a sad fact, but there are people that pay a good deal of attention to political endorsements made on television. But it's also a sad fact that they are often skewed and/or a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Even more sad is that there are some people who rely on such things to make up their minds for them.

I'm ever the fan of free speech, but this ruling has a lot more complex implications than just that, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by commondreams

"With $85 billion in profits during the 2008 election, Exxon Mobil would have been able to fully fund over 65,000 winning campaigns for U.S. House or outspend every candidate by a factor of 90 to 1."

Can the average person go out and spend even a fraction of what Exxon-Mobil can to speak to those people who only get their information from television? Absolutely not. Does Exxon-Mobil stand to gain a whole heck of a lot for spending that much? Absolutely.

Truly, I'm sorry to sound so negative about this. Forgive me. This kind of thing just puts me in a mood.

:thinks postive thoughts: cuttlefish&blacklicorice.

I have to disagree with Olbermann's lack of faith in the internet. There are some pretty tricky bastards out in Cyberspace who will find ways to circumvent any censorship the government can impose.

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

Gah. I need to go think about mushrooms and dancing animals for a while now.

Republicans are wrong about mushrooms but right about money.

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

I can't stop worrying about the environmental implications of this.

corporations survive by making a profit, and by definition operate at the expense of the environment. they have been making so many decisions on our behalf for so long it's confusing as to why so little is done about it.

you would think patriotism is preventing this from happening and not picking up a gun to enforce your ideals overseas. the supreme court's decisions show how much they are an extension of the 'fox guarding the hen house' trend (as in, this is basically the same as ex-oil tycoons regulating the oil industry).

Fuck, you're all fucked.



Seriously, I don't know what goes through the average American's head sometimes. As for healthcare, that kind of ties in to it. Because it is corporations who run private health care, if you didn't realise that.

Government health care is THE best option we have in a monetary system. It's a proven fact. All the people saying it's not are republican's, or people who have been swayed by what republican's say. I just don't see how you can not see that. If corporations (insurance companies) basically own health care they can do whatever the fuck they want to you. Raise prices, decline treatment etc. etc.

With free health care the government cannot deny you treatment, it's as simple as that. And you only pay for what you need instead of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars which you might never spend which just goes straight to these corporate fucks who will buy the people you elect.

If you move to another country for a while, as a citizen, you will see how much better our health care is and realise you fucked up.

But yeah, basically you guys are fucked. Who wants to make a bet that judge was paid off?

Originally Posted by tommo

If corporations (insurance companies) basically own health care they can do whatever the fuck they want to you. Raise prices, decline treatment etc. etc.

The government does not do this already?

...instead of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars which you might never spend which just goes straight to these corporate fucks who will buy the people you elect.

The government does not do this already?

They can't even run the post office, and you want them running healthcare. Smooth.

Yes, the government does those things in socialized healthcare countries. They pay the bills, so they make the rules. If a life saving medicine is too expensive for the government to feel like paying for it, BANNED! If too many people abuse the system of free goodies, WAIT IN LINE, BITCHES!! WE'LL GET TO YOU WHEN WE GET TO YOU!!!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the government does those things in socialized healthcare countries. They pay the bills, so they make the rules. If a life saving medicine is too expensive for the government to feel like paying for it, BANNED! If too many people abuse the system of free goodies, WAIT IN LINE, BITCHES!! WE'LL GET TO YOU WHEN WE GET TO YOU!!!

There's always going to be lines if there's heaps of people needing treatment. Got nothing to do with who runs health care. Insurance companies aren't gonna set up hospitals and train doctors and nurses.

And no they don't do that already. If a treatment is proven, you get it. Simple as that. Yes the system has flaws, but America's system is WAY more flawed.

Originally Posted by tommo

There's always going to be lines if there's heaps of people needing treatment. Got nothing to do with who runs health care. Insurance companies aren't gonna set up hospitals and train doctors and nurses.

And no they don't do that already. If a treatment is proven, you get it. Simple as that. Yes the system has flaws, but America's system is WAY more flawed.

When stuff is free, people abuse it. Big time. Got a headache, why not go to the doctor? Your son has a toe ache, why not go to the doctor? You want pain pills because they're fun? Go to the doctor! You want to miss work, go to the doctor! You're feeling a little less than euphoric today? Go to the doctor! Why not abuse the system? What's in it for me?

Um, when subjected to fear mongering ad campaigns a la America style people are likely to spend money no matter how much it costs.

Yes, people are scared of everything in this day and age. But America is the worst for this. And you are the people with the worse health insurance.

It's not a flaw of the health care system, it's a flaw of society and a failure to regulate bad information/pharma advertising.

So say that was fixed, no one is virtual hypochondriac anymore, we still have cheaper health care and yours' still sucks.

If "not free" is your definition of "sucks", then sure. But we have the best quality heathcare in the world. That is why celebrities and leaders from all over the world come here for surgery. We also lead the world in medical technological advancement. Capitalism is effective when it comes to quality and advancement.

What I said about abuse applies everywhere. That is why people have to wait in such long lines for life saving care in countries where medicine is socialistic. Imagine being in that nightmare.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If "not free" is your definition of "sucks", then sure. But we have the best quality heathcare in the world. That is why celebrities and leaders from all over the world come here for surgery. We also lead the world in medical technological advancement. Capitalism is effective when it comes to quality and advancement.

What I said about abuse applies everywhere. That is why people have to wait in such long lines for life saving care in countries where medicine is socialistic. Imagine being in that nightmare.

Last I heard that waiting in lines applies everywhere. Especially in America due to lack of gun laws etc.

As for quality, again, nothing to do with the actual system. Researchers just go to America because there's more money spent by government for research etc. For example stem cell research was pushed by an Australian in America. But yeah, nothing to do with the health care system.