i'm more worried about the government enslaving us than corporations... damn liberals...Quote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
Printable View
i'm more worried about the government enslaving us than corporations... damn liberals...Quote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
the government and corporations are one;Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen
corporations have billions of dollars to lobby their opinions to the government and make their voices heard; you have no such voice. So when it comes time to passing bills that are designed to enslave the human race, we won't have much of a say in it
Not to mention that most of the big families in politics are rich business owners already
im more worried about the corporations enslaving the govertnment
actually it's not really the corporations (which are collections of people to be technical) so much as it is individuals that own the corporations and have billions of dollars being allowed to donate to PACs anonymously with no spending limit
big business is substantially weaker than it was at the beginning of the 20th century, if corporations were going to enslave us all they would have done it then. you guys have been watching too much alex jones.
i dont think corporations are goign to enslave anyone like mind control or whatever but come on, it's no conspiracy that the wealthy want to get wealthier and will corrupt the government with money to do so
over 80% of presidential campaign Super PAC money was donated by just 196 people
94% of the time the candidate with the most campaign spending wins
congressmen spend up to 70% of their days soliciting campaign contributions
SCOTUS upheld Citizens United in a decision that allowed for unlimited anonymous campaign donations
these aren't conspiracy theories about bilderberg or secret societies or NWO, it's just facts
money already controls the world idk what u guys are talking about
at the beginning of the 20th century, they didn't have the ability to enslave us, the technology wasn't available yet
We are already living in a police state compared to European countries; in what other civilized country are you going to get tazed for talking back to a cop who pulled you over for speeding?
im more worried about gaben world company enslaving poor tim arbeu and forcing him against his will
enslaved or not, you guys are in charge of the debt that the bankers made, i would be really mad if bankers here ruined a few generations retirement
if the bankers are fucking up the states so much why hasnt some lunatic that lost it all shot one of the bankers yet
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...x70zo1_500.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
it's time for the OWN (one warrior nation, oprah winfrey network, etc.) to rise up against the NWO
ultimate warrior does motivational videos on youtube now, they are fucking sick
That's also the way it's always been. The name 'superpac' may be new but the idea of giving assloads of money to your candidate sure isn't. Why are you talking about this like it's something we should worry about for the future when it's the way things have always been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
That's all kinds of uninformed bullshit right there. Europeans have it way worse than us, for the most part they're not allowed to own guns, their freedom of speech is all but gone, and England has closed circuit camera on every single street corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
You're buying into liberal/OWS bullshit. The housing crisis wasn't caused by greedy evil bankers who have the utter audacity to try and make money, it was caused by a feel-good government program put in place by Clinton that forced them to lend money for housing to people they knew damn well weren't going to be able to pay it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by fjs wins again
it isn't the way things have always been
corporate campaign donations are already WAAAY higher for this 2012 election than they were for the entire 2008 election and it's only August
it's getting worse every election
when I say "the way things have always been" I mean "with the exception of the few years that mccain-feingold was in effect"Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
here let me oversimplify a very complicated topic
It's really not that complicated. Historically the more a government does the more problems it causes, the answer to everything that's wrong with America is to cut programs and eliminate laws.
i think we need to move to a tf2 hats based economy, for the epic win
"hey I know he worked his ass off to earn those hats but it's not fair that he has 40 and I only have 1 they should mnake a law rthat requires him to give me 75% of his hats after all he'll still have plenty it's about time that greedy cocksucker paid his fair share" -the 99%
THANK YOU!!! so i guess there's two things you know and that's shit-mouthing, and the whole picture with politics and economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
btw, that whole "99% vs. 1%" pisses me off. bunch of greedy assholes wanting to force the successful to give away what they EARNED!! fuck the occupy wallstreet fags!!
Citizens United not only overturned mccain-feingold but other laws previously enacted as well, including (later, after SCOTUS upheld it) states' laws, some of which had existed since the turn of the 20th centuryQuote:
Originally Posted by maks
here is a bar graph of people who were gallup polled and what their opinion is on Citizens United
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_Poll_1.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
this is bullshit, they arent even paying their fair share. Warren Buffet famously stated once that he pays less % of his income in taxes than his fucking secretary. But let's keep voting against our own interests in the hope that maybe one day we can be billionaires and scoff at the law and find tax loopholes tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Ramen
and even if RICH PEOPLE HAVWE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEND DEY MONEY ON ELECTION DONATIONS HISTORICALLY it doesn't make it right, especially now when the richest people are richer than they have ever been
since 1990 the middle class average wage has barely kept up with inflation while the top 1% average wage has risen 136%
lol at these people arguing politics
A half a percent of Warren Buffet's income tax is more than his secretary will gross in 10 years, who are you to say that's not enough? seems to me if the government can't balance the budget with the trillions they're bringing in already then they should do what normal people do in that situation and stop spending so fucking much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
whether it's "right" or not is a matter of opinion. what matters is that it would be unconstitutional to stop them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
lol at people who have no concept of what the rest of the world has and has never had really made any money talking about it
Look man all I know is that if someone has the nerve to have more money than me I'm obviously entitled to some of it ok
quality of life for americans has been going down non-stop since the 50s
everything that could be privatized and their stocks manipulated has been
good luck finding new stuff to fuck up
it's only unconstitutional if you consider money a form of "speech"Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
even then, some forms of speech are deemed irresponsible and not allowed, such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Free speech has and has always had limits in place to protect against infringing upon our liberties. Commercial speech is not extended the same rights as other forms of speech and it should be considered that corporate campaign donations in exchange for political favors is pretty blatantly a form of commercial speech no matter what loopholes are being used.
considering elections are a matter of public discourse that ought to be fair to rich and poor alike, there ought to be certain laws that prevent anonymous unlimited donations from corrupting that process
How fucked is your logic? Are you really arguing that rich fuckers shouldn't even have to pay the same rate in taxes at the very LEAST as poor people? In what universe is it at all fair or just for a guy that makes 100 million dollars a year to pay 10 million in taxes and can then go out and buy 100 lamborghinis when someone making 40 grand pays 15 of it in taxes and struggles to maintain payments on a single car?Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
if you were arguing for the flat rate tax I might understand, but you are arguing rich people should pay less than the rest of us because they are technically paying more regardless of the relative MASSIVE FUCKING DISPARITY in income
Even if you don't, do you want to set a precedent where the federal government can tell you what to spend your money on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
So sick of this example and all of the violations of our rights that it's used to justify. Yelling 'fire' is illegal because it basically causes a riot and can kill people. Donating money to someone, or swearing on TV, are not comparable so stop comparing them please.Quote:
even then, some forms of speech are deemed irresponsible and not allowed, such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.
Donating money in return for favors is called bribery and has always been illegal. Instead of creating new laws we should try enforcing the ones we already have.Quote:
Free speech has and has always had limits in place to protect against infringing upon our liberties. Commercial speech is not extended the same rights as other forms of speech and it should be considered that corporate campaign donations in exchange for political favors is pretty blatantly a form of commercial speech no matter what loopholes are being used.
money is not a form of speech, end of argument
The Federal government already tells you what to spend your money on, and more importantly (and more relevantly), what NOT to spend your money on. Putting a cap on campaign donations does not prevent free speech, it merely limits the corrupting influence money can have such as when two fucking oil tycoons make up half of your goddamn campaign contributions.Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
Just because this particular form of "speech" doesn't immediately cause people to get trampled in a stampede doesn't mean it's not irresponsible and destructive. I don't think there's anything more destructive on a large scale for the people in this country than allowing corporations to buy our government and enact laws that allow them to continue widening the economic disparity and erasing the middle class.
Bribery is hard to prove without hard evidence, and corruption begets corruption so even with proof, who would be willing to go against the corporate conglomerate that effectively owns our government?
but certain things should be considered rights
and americans for whatever reason don't think health care is a right that a rich country that can very very easily create a national healthcare system should run
there is absolutely no reason why medicine costs even 1 cent in the US
and there is no reason why health care should cost more in the US than it does in fucking third world countries
instead some dumbfuck created the HMO system in the early 60s and then manipulated employee hours so they're not full time so they're not entitled to those benefits
how the fuck does that make sense?
serious political discussion ITT...
usually i would get involved, but (hell has frozen over) i agree with everything maks has been saying...
And your solution to that is to give them more control over your money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Camoron
The KKK, the neonazis, and the westboro baptist church are irresponsible and destructive. they're also constitutionally protected. They have to be, because we're not just giving lip service to free speech like the european and canadian hypocrites, we actually have it.Quote:
Just because this particular form of "speech" doesn't immediately cause people to get trampled in a stampede doesn't mean it's not irresponsible and destructive. I don't think there's anything more destructive on a large scale for the people in this country than allowing corporations to buy our government and enact laws that allow them to continue widening the economic disparity and erasing the middle class.
we'd need honest politicians, which is why it's never going to happen. campaign contributions buy exposure, not votes. The people are still ion control of the electoral process, if they are too dense to look any further than the attack ads on TV then they're getting the government they deserve, and I'm fine with that.Quote:
Bribery is hard to prove without hard evidence, and corruption begets corruption so even with proof, who would be willing to go against the corporate conglomerate that effectively owns our government?
people can win out over corporate lobbying if the level of public disgust is high enough
historically it's only ever been against "evil companies" like meat packing, alcohol, tobacco, guns, etc.
but the amount of economic damage caused by some of these companies is going to bring a shitstorm similar to what we're seeing now against banks
I only hope it happens before the voice of money speaks louder than the voice of the people (which, again, are pretty uniformly opposed to SCOTUS' ruling on Citizens United)