Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

That's about what I got out of it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Maybe he's trying to become more...civilized? :zombie:

 

[Pessimism]

It's sad when you have the leader of a sect that is pretty much known for blowing shit up criticizing the US on VALID POINTS. Then again, I will never ever put faith in any government organization that isn't run by the intelligent majority. The fact of the matter is that even after WWII there was a substantial fucking over, especially in the creation of the U.N. by the US and other major powers in ratifying laws - specifically that of genocide, that would even hold anyone accountable for breaking them. The UN was a great idea that was terminally fucked from the get-go because leading nations didn't want to be incriminated under the new statutes or have to admit to previous government run atrocities (like genocide) under the new definitions and bylaws

When governments allow themselves to admit they were wrong in the past and step up for their actions, then structural healing may begin.

Chomsky point was good for a laugh.

All in all I give it two stars out of five.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The US government isn't consistently run by one spokesperson though, so it's hard for him to admit "we were wrong" when a lot of the time it isn't "his" fault.

 

[Matt]

I'm willing to pay higher fees to my private protection agency, Tannahelp, so that they can punish women who get abortions.

lol

 

[Matt]

The courts made the right decision from a constitutional standpoint, but it is still a fucking ridiculous thing to have happen and honestly there needs to be a constitutional amendment to fix this situation because I do not want political offices being purchased.

No, they did not. Corporations are not sentient beings and therefore should not be given the same rights. The 5 (Republican) Justices who voted for this clearly do not have the best interests of the country in mind.

Also, Justice Alito should be removed from office. He lied under oath when he said he would not make "radical decisions"

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, they did not. Corporations are not sentient beings and therefore should not be given the same rights. The 5 (Republican) Justices who voted for this clearly do not have the best interests of the country in mind.

Also, Justice Alito should be removed from office. He lied under oath when he said he would not make "radical decisions"

You apparently have no idea what the Constitution says, so let me help you out with that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Matt]

How exactly does that apply to a corporation? Also limiting corporations from spending freely on campaigns does not limit freedom of speech or anything mentioned in the constitution.

Corporations are not people.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well for one thing, the Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom for people to speak", and for another, a corporation is just a group of people anyway, so what the fuck does it matter?

Also limiting corporations from spending freely on campaigns does not limit freedom of speech or anything mentioned in the constitution.

If a corporation that was able to fund a particular campaign ad at one point is no longer able to because of a law limiting how much they can fund campaign ads, I think it can be pretty easily argued that this is "abridging the freedom of speech".

 

[Mort Divine]

Honestly I DO NOT like this ruling and do not believe the constitution should protect corporations (as i think treating them as individuals is absolutely and absurdly ridiculous), but as it stands the 9th and 10th amendments are the ones that I believe support their case best until an amendment can be made.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

An amendment is almost certainly not going to happen. The best chance, I think, is a law that provides for public funding of campaigns so that candidates not affiliated with the two Corporatist parties can run competitively. Not likely, but far more so than an amendment.

 

[Pessimism]

I'm here to add fuel to whatever fire I can:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Found here

 

[The Ozzman]

For an amendment to pass, you need 2/3rds majority in Congress and 75% of the states to ratify. That won't happen ever for something like this.

 

[Srontgorrth]

How exactly does that apply to a corporation? Also limiting corporations from spending freely on campaigns does not limit freedom of speech or anything mentioned in the constitution.

Corporations are not people.

Actually, a corporation is created, in a sense, to be its own "person."

Here's a definition: A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Either way, I do not support the Courts decision, and the only way to reverse it would be an amendment, though that probably would not happen.

No, they did not. Corporations are not sentient beings and therefore should not be given the same rights. The 5 (Republican) Justices who voted for this clearly do not have the best interests of the country in mind.

Why do you think the Supreme Court is elected for life? Because it was thought that they would be able to exert thoughtful positions that are not those of the population. Again, I don't think the decision is good, but the Supreme Court Justices were NOT created with the frame of mind that they would be representing the citizens of the US.

Honestly I DO NOT like this ruling and do not believe the constitution should protect corporations (as i think treating them as individuals is absolutely and absurdly ridiculous), but as it stands the 9th and 10th amendments are the ones that I believe support their case best until an amendment can be made.

What the Supreme Court did has nothing to do with the constitution, it related to judicial review, which they basically gave to themselves. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

[Matt]

For an amendment to pass, you need 2/3rds majority in Congress and 75% of the states to ratify. That won't happen ever for something like this.

Why?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Tbh the Supreme Court is a pretty awesome concept. Obviously they don't always do the right thing, but they seem less corrupt overall than the other branches of government, probably because they're outside the whole racket of campaigns and elections.

 

[Matt]

It's not outside the realm of possibility that certain sc members are corrupt.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Obama seeks record $708B defense budget for 2011

CHANGE

 

[Dak]

But he won the Peace Prize.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

lolzers