What's funny is that everything he said is becoming reality. Keep sleeping America and China will own the 21st Century and it will be the end of the West.
@Dominuce Seriously? the guy is spreading just as much, if not more sensationalist bullshit than Beck.
"Judas Goats of American freedom." I can't fucking stand this moron. I can't stand beck either. I'm just not delusional and ignorant to believe everything any talking head says.
This can never be reversed: too many conformist who fear ridicule if they think for themselves and thus, we are where we are, because of mindless conformity. But the news isn't all bad, think of China a few years ago where everyone dressed alike to emphasize unity. I doubt that I'll be here, I'll leave for a remote Pacific Island that has no political impact. Why stay in a country of fucking radical, late to the bell Christians who enslave themselves as did the Isrealites with the Egyptians.
Walmart and Haliburton don't have an interest in overtly influencing politicians. You're not going to see campaign ads by any corporations, especially not when it is so easy just to bribe whoever wins the election.
This helps lobbying groups like the NRA and the NAACP get their message out. But the real winners here are individuals who wish to pool their smaller amounts of money to overcome financial barriers and be heard.
Olbermann's entire argument hinges on the idea that everybody is stupider than him. I think that is part of his persona. This is why he uses such condescending tone and language.
His argument goes like this:
People are too stupid to listen to more than one point of view and make a considered decision. People are like gerbils, and if they see enough expensive campaign ads they are bound to make decisions against their own interests, therefore McCain-Feingold.
Firstly, thank you for the articulated response. It is too often that I see crap like "f you, you commie", or "screw you, bible thumper.
However, it isn't Keith or his show that I am defending. His style of "journalism" is just as reprehensible and immature as those he positions himself against (Beck, Limbaugh, etc.) In many cases, he completely misses the nail in order to deliver his seemingly righteous revelations.
Yet, in this case, he hits the nail square on the head.
I understand that. However, in your previous post, you stated that, "Walmart and Haliburton don't have an interest in overtly influencing politicians." Upon what information or logic do you base this statement. These companies have always been active within the political arena. The supreme court ruling simply eases the restrictions on this activity.
Look, I'm not one to start screaming wolf, but that's partially because the wolves have been here since before either of us were born.
@KanzaBoom What I said was corporations don't have an interest in OVERTLY influencing politicians. This is because 1) ads payed for by corporations will most likely have the opposite of their intended result. 2) People who disagree with them politically will boycott them; they will garner a negative public image, which will hurt profits. 2) They can already just bribe whoever comes into power anyway.
If the wolf is here already, why are we freaking out now?
The issue with that line of thinking is that the reverse is also true. I'm not claiming that people are generally stupid, but it's difficult for the average person to stay well informed (primarily because of the state of information overload that most suffer). If specialty groups are to be allowed to exert more influence in the political arena (which is a different bone to pick), the corporations shouldn't be allowed to benefit and a side effect.
@KanzaBoom I'm not sure what you mean. Could you expand on that please? What exactly are you afraid of?
I think you, like most people have an irrational prejudice against corporations. This prejudice has come about over the years from leftist fairytales about FDR saving the world from the Great Depression, and how the robber barons pillaged their fortunes in the 1800s. The real way to destroy the power the corporations have over you is to sever their incestuous marriage with the state.
Forget FDR. It may be difficult, but for the sake of objectivity, let's stick with the here and now. What I want when it comes to corporate involvement in the political arena, is more transparency, and better accountability, and those two are mutually inclusive. My example may be a bit of a stretch, but here goes. When an company releases a new product, they have to print certain specifications about that product, regardless of whether it is food, electronics, a car, etc. These....
specifications are standardized for each industry (such as the nutritional facts on a box of cereal). What I would like to have, is a rule that forces corporations to place the exact amount of their corporate political donations right on the home page for the company web site (it is the digital age after all), and to be forced to present this information to the public on an annual basis. Additionally, I want there to be strict limits on how much they donate in the first place. This...
way, the corporation can be held publicly accountable for their actions within the political arena, and the limits may make them think about whether it's worth spending the heavily limited amount of money on a campaign, or stay out of that campaign to avoid a potential public backlash and the loss of business that could come with it.
As for severing the "incestuous" relationship between the corporations and the state, good luck. The government has been the primary driver for the...
development of new technologies. The telecommunications, automotive, and medical industries have all benefited heavily from close involvement with the federal government. You wouldn't have a Youtube account if it hadn't been for DARPA. Despite the fact that would love to have less government involvement in all aspects of American life, I still prefer the modern age over riding a horse to work.
Sorry about the length of this. It's hard for me to stop when I get on a roll,
@KanzaBoom Ok, I think you are extremely naive if you think a bill like Mccain-Feingold or what you describe could stop the corruption that is going on.
Government is not required for technological advances. The Smithsonian institute was trying for heavier than air flight as well. Thank God the Wright brothers beat them to it, because that would be one more thing I would have to hear that wouldn't be around if not for the government...
Are you attempting to push a force fed and regurgitated ideology, or are you prepared to think for yourself? My apologies for the bluntness of this, but I have little time or patience for anyone who is willing to swear to a political allegiance, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc. I may be off the mark here, but the feeling I'm getting from your posts is that you have a limited set of information that has been presented to you by the political establishment, or the media.
@KanzaBoom I have answered all of your questions clearly and concisely. I'm not sure how you could get the impression that I can't think for myself. Throw me a curve ball if you have doubts.
I haven't heard anything novel from you either. That last bit about the government inventing the internet sounded like you were parroting Noam Chomsky verbatim.
I am not looking to impress you, so any perceived lack of novelty is simply a result of perception.
Also, I can invoke Chomsky, or the McCain-Feingold bill, or FDR's memory as well. However, I haven't thus far, and will continue to refrain from doing so. This is because references to academic or polemical material doesn't impress me. I want original thought, regardless of political viewpoint.
Or, how would you prevent corporations from negative influencing the political process?
@KanzaBoom By shrinking the power of politicians to such a tiny level, that corporations have no interest in influencing them. In my perfect world, people make all of their decisions for themselves; people have infinite contractual power over themselves; any two individuals can make any agreement between them, and the government has no power to step in unless there is a use of fraud, coercion, or violence.
How powerful would the political establishment be, and what mechanisms would they have to enforce those powers? I'm not asking in order to pick at the idea, but solely to play devil's advocate
@KanzaBoom Well in terms of power to create new branches of government, and enact laws that take power or decisions away from the individual, the government would be powerless. In terms of pandering to unions, or to corporations, the government would be powerless.
In terms of providing the appropriate courts of law, police, fire protection, and military protection the government would have exactly enough power to prevent people from defrauding, or hurting each other.
Okay, that's the idea I was getting, but just wanted to make sure of that. Here is where I may begin to sound like the whiny, bleeding heart liberal, but this is just coming from life experience. We don't currently have the societal awareness to truly handle this form of hands off, put on your big kids underwear and deal with it kind of approach. Again, I'm not calling the public stupid. However, we are too vicious to other, and we are too used to expecting someone else to.....
organize us in times of need (for example; the destruction of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina). That isn't to say that I disagree with the concept that you are putting forth. Maybe in a generation or two, we will have learned enough humility, humanity, and personal responsibility to operate within the guidelines of that kind of system. I don't doubt that we can't do it, but that's a switch that can't be flipped overnight. (Wow, this getting long winded.)
@KanzaBoom Yeah, I agree with you somewhat. It's not something that can happen overnight. That said, we are still heading in the opposite direction, so it is about time we start making a U-turn. This is something that requires some urgency I think, because the road we are on is a dead end.
Apologies for they delay, but I had a two week cable outage (I love snow).
From one armchair politician to another, never be afraid to change your ideas or beliefs. We are supposed to question everything, especially ourselves. It's clear that I'm least a little to the left of you ideologically, but that doesn't mean that I have to refuse to see your point of view, or the validity of your beliefs.
Remember that, and always apply that type of mindset when discussing these things. Ciao
@KanzaBoom i think that from a philosophical standpoint, your statement here is admirable. we should never be afraid to challenge ourselves and examine and change the way we think as we evolve as thinking beings.
Thank you. Sometimes the best insights come when we are truly digging within ourselves for our philosophical foundations, and them holding them up against the light of logic and reason.
@RichieEastside He brought it up as an example of a nation in absence of net neutrality. And the future he's talking about is not a system of super capitalism, it's a system of corporatocracy.
@RichieEastside yes it is. the economic system isn't relevant to his point. he's saying that if independent news organizations are bought by the corps or destroyed, the internet will not be available as an alternative because the public's access to it can be greatly restricted throughout an entire country. That is what China does - censorship on a massive scale & actual "Internet Police". Search "Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China" on Wikipedia.
Well, there it is, that ruling ought to make the right wingers jump for joy (at least for the time being). Total deregulation in one shot; now Exxon Mobile and Microsoft can get togther and elect our next president...and the next...and so on and so on...might as well toss your voter ID cards now, they'll mean absolutely nothing from here on out, because whether we realize it or not, the Supreme Court just turned us all into corporate shills. God Bless the Corporate State of America.
The most famous norwegian of all time is the greatest traitor in our history as a country. His name; Quisling, persists even today as a noun for traitor. I find it amusing that the only contribution we've made to the english language is something as tortuous as a backstabbing collaborator.
Heh, watch out world, maybe we'll aspire to our contribution.
Where in the constitution does it say corporations have the right to free speech? The US Supreme Court is a joke. A bunch of right wing neo-conservative activist judges who think that our government is of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Thats what happens when you let stupid red-neck tea baggers influence government. Those morons shouldnt even be allowed to vote.
@ParkPlace5677 Like he said, a judge some 200 years ago said that corporation were people therefore, they had all the rights that people had (and of course, that was a big mistake). I don't think it is in the american constitution, so there still is a chance that a law can be imposed.
@charlotte4112 It never ceases to amaze me that the conservatives, republicans and tea baggers all bitch about the right to reproductive choice is a made up right, but they are so silent when it concerns a made up right that they support. What a bunch of hypocrites. I hate the conservatives in this country.
Keith HATES the corporations Hates the money they pour into his pockets so she can set around a parties with is other Hater buddies and discuses how stupid the little people are while they drink there imported wines and eat there gay arugula salads. I've got a idea! Why don't we ask Keith to take vow of poverty and donate his huge corporate derived salary to the People--and while were at it U2 U2 and : Katie&Matt, Mathews, Penn, George C, That fat slob Moore, hell any 1 N Hollywood! Fork It Over
the newspaper the church the schools all have real people in them and all those people have rights, why do the buildings they work in need rights? you make very little sense meadbert.
@zooxanthus People need to understand how threatening Coporations are. Not only will they eventually, if not already (which they do, and have since the 1700's) have every form of Government in their pockets, but they will inevitabely force the people to believe they are the ones that can help save us from problems that they, themselves, funded and created. Olbermann is right. This step was the the first step to the downfall of mankind, and the eventual One World rulership that will not last.
@Ch4oTiK I understand what you're saying. I understood the threat when corporate cowboy Reagan was President. But, society has been raising conformist since then. Children, now the adults of today, were raised in a "planned day" society. First school, then after school piano lessons, then off to socker practice...... no time for exercising one's imagination or just free time, it was complete structure. So, don' t think these "structured people" can understand the impending threat to Liberty.
@carlrammlane Thats the unfortunacy of it. The fact that our lives have become so structured that we passively dismiss the threats. Either people are too blind and/or stupid, or they simply don't want to deal with it. I'm only 24 and I can't relate to anyone my age that I've met because all they care about is expensive clothing, social popularity status, alcohol tolerance and the club life, a life where you almost NEVER meet ANYONE of any form of substance, just useless momentary satisfaction.
@carlrammlane Despite war and violence always being an apparent problem (for no reason other than satisfaction through power, which is bullshit and usually based on a lie AND funded by corporations, which the government knows and allows themselves to be pawns anyway) the normal population was usually caring and more about long term companionship. Now nobody cares about eachother at all unless they can provide the one thing that matters to everyone in life now, immediate satisfaction.
@carlrammlane Keep in mind I'm not Mr. Serious, and I don't go around ranting about this all the time like some obsessed person (although I bring it to people's attention as a reminder sometimes, and am usually shunned because of it which, truthfully, isn't funny), but I can't ignore the deep, instinctual gut feeling I have that the world lacks genuinity and the whole aura is negative or ignorant, and that something is wrong. The fact that people try not to care...worries me.
@carlrammlane 'Cuz even though right now we are not "directly" effected (although we're becoming indirectly effected more and more), my generation will be on their death beds while the world around them crumbles and their children are slaves, and the only feeling that will be gushing into them while they reflect on their lives, which for the most part was useless, is guilt at the fact that we could have done something, and instead ignored it because "we don't want to think about negative stuff".
@carlrammlane Instead people want to blame religion or whatever else their ignorant friends say because they too, heard it from someone (i.e. popular openion, one of the things these clowns at the top of the pyramid count on) instead of looking at every problem and following the breadcrumbs all the way back to where the problem started: Greed, Power and Desire becoming more important than Love, Equality and Necessities, AKA the Human Condition.
@carlrammlane The things I feel man...I mean you can look in any book, videogame, movie or whatever...sci fi or fantasy, and think about how an individual human is ALWAYS outclassed by some alien race, and the ONLY WAY we stick around and survive is because when Humans come together and use Love, Care and Courage as an adhesive, working together as ONE, Humans are a fucking unstoppable force to be reckoned with. So why are Corps trying desperately to divide us, and WHY ARE WE ALLOWING IT???
@carlrammlane Jesus was right in saying that a house divided amongst itself will eventually crumble, because division makes for the weakest foundation. We are building on a foundation of Greed and Wealth over Power, where EVERYTHING is a competition to be better or surpass someone, turning best friends into bitter enemies, and eventually the building will crumble. What happened to the day when the one thing great men and women wanted, was to help others achieve greatness?
@carlrammlane And another thing that worries me is how people care too damn much about semantics. Does anyone realize that we are funding our own slavery? Does anyone realize the utter uselessness of paper money? Life was meant to be simple, where people worked, traded (not bought, or bought from EACHOTHER instead of having things taxxed), were equal, and loved it. Hardships would exist but in the end, each day would be satisfying because something got done, friends were made, etc.
@Ch4oTiK What I mean by semantics is shit like the Bill of Rights, Congressional meetings, things that which, IMO, should not exist in the first place. I understand why people feel they need leadership, because for the most part, 80% of humans can't decide for themselves what's right and wrong and need someone to "parent" them (funny how nowadays most parents suck too...k, not so funny). In my humble opinion, all of the world rulership should step down and let us be equals, let life be simple.
@Ch4oTiK You have insight and wisdom. I know you can't relate to others, not because of you, but them. The simple life you speek of is misinterpreted by them as simple mindedness, so that's what they strive for. You must have parents who speak and behave maturely and finding it in your age group is difficult due to their up bringing. You are dealing with baffoons, so be very aware, that makes them dangerous. Look in other places, you'll find others. What really scares me? Stupid people.
@carlrammlane Actually, I've never met my father and my mom, though wise, had me too young and thus, when I was old enough to (pretty much age 6 and up) I was alone most of the time aside from my buddies because she would work, then attempt to live the party days she missed raising me for 6 years. Not once have I held it against her and though we battled a lot, our relationship is pretty fantastic now.
@carlrammlane But maybe raising myself (aside from roof and clothing and food, though I made my own food...basically she funded my raising of myself, for lack of a better description, lol) for the most part combined with the wisdom I did gain from my mom, but mostly from my grandfather, contributed to how I am now. I consider insight to be a gift, but it's unfortunate that most of the knowledge I gain from it is negative.
@carlrammlane So the one thing I hold on to is hope, because I know what humanity is capable of when we do come together. When it counts. And I do have faith in that. Right now I think the only thing that will bring Humanity together is a worldwide catastrophe capable of forcing us onto equal grounds in order for us to survive. And in truth, with everything that's happening in the world, I both fear and look forward to the fact that a catastrophe of that calibre is well on the way.
@carlrammlane I just hope that afterwards, humanity will pull through and rebuild on the right foundation this time. And I truly believe with my heart that we will, and it's something that I would die for.
@carlrammlane Oh and FYI, my family is extremely young (incase you were wondering about my mom partying when I was 6, as she was a YEAR YOUNGER THAN ME! I can't believe that man). My granparents had my mom at around 17, and my mom had me around 17...so literally, my grandfather (The kind of man that surfed, smoked pot and would talk to the homeless because those that are meek and humble, are also usually wise and caring) still has brown/blonde hair! Lol, so I am pretty fortunate there I think.
@Ch4oTiK Actually rethinking it, my gramps is over 60 so he was older than 17 when he had my mom, but not by much. Definitely barely in his 20's, although he was 17 when his wife had my Aunt who is older than my mom. I got a bit mixed up.
@carlrammlane One thing though...I agree and disagree about my problems relating to people being because of them. It's true that they decided to be the way they are, as did I (I could have easily joined into that lifestyle, I experimented with it for sure, and I probably would have been happier, who knows) but honestly it's hard for me to blame them, given the way society forms people nowadays from birth. More than being aware of them, which I certainly am...I feel sorry for, and hope for them.
@carlrammlane And (sorry for all the posts...Youtube and it's comment limit kills me sometimes lol) I appreciate the compliment man. You have insight and wisdom too. But, if I might make a suggestion...I believe you should also attempt to forgive people for their stupidity and, even though it may worry you as it does me, help them out when possible, y'know? I would like to find others like me, but more than that, I would like to try to help people better themselves, as it betters me to do so.
@carlrammlane And thats how I think the whole world should be. I don't think I am alone when I say, it is far more satisfying knowing I helped someone else than it is to recieve help myself. And if everyone held on to that kind of value, I believe the world would be a place of pulchritude and perfection.
@carlrammlane And to prove this, look at EVERYTHING and really study how things work, from Martial Arts to being a technician, and you will realize that no matter what, it always comes down to one thing: Simplicity. Anything you do you are taught to stop trying too hard because you are making it too complicated, right? Metaphors exist because everything is related, no matter how unrelated it physically seems. So the ultimate metaphor is: Simplicity = perfection, and EVERYONE is capable of it.
If the Bill of Rights did not apply to corporations then the government could seize any property of a corporation without a warrant and they could listen in to all communication that goes through a corporation again without a warrant. They could listen to all phone calls and read all emails.
Universities would not have freedom of speech.
Churches, most of whom are incorporated, would not have freedom of Religion.
What does it mean if the right to assembly only applies to an individual?
Religions as institutions are protected under the law. Churches do NOT have freedom of religion, PEOPLE do. Corporations do NOT speak on the phone or write emails, PEOPLE do. Unlimited campaign contributions is NOT equivalent to free speech. Corporations, like churches and other institutions, are represented by the PEOPLE involved with them.
@SoCalAries "Churches do NOT have freedom of religion."
This pretty much sums it up.
Accoring to the Liberal interpretation of the Constitution congress can not only silence political speech by threatening jail time, but they apparently can ban churches from performing communion on Sunday. This claim is unbelievable and shows everything that is wrong with this line of thought.
If this comes to pass the people at the top of these corporations, which already have the ability to contribute money to their favorite politician and wield significant power, will gain undue influence and consequentially be extremely over-represented.
If Corporations have not free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no Free Speech. Congress could censor what Olberman says on TV, what the New York Times writes and what we are allowed to post on you tube.
This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme court was correct to defend our liberties.
This is about campaign contributions. If this isn't overturned, the average person will have no voice in their own government. Their contributions to their favorite candidates will be moot compared to the corporate contributions. Corporations will pick their candidate and finance their way to victory. Out of all the Senators elected in 2008, 94% spent more money than their opponent. We will not have a representative democracy but fascism.
Corporations don't criticize! The people that operate them do! Corporations BUY politicians. They make a deal with them, assuring that if they help a candidate get elected that they will pass or block legislation concerning the corporation. THIS ISN'T FREE SPEECH IT'S THE OPPOSITE. It will drown out our ability as citizens to do anything but sit back and watch. It won't matter if you like a certain politician and want him to run for office, the corporations will choose for you.
@SoCalAries There is nothing wrong with corporations criticizing politicians who pass laws that hurt them. That is not corrupt at all. It is the opposite. Only totalitarian states claim that criticism of the government is corruption. Corporations cannot Jedi Mind Trick the American people into supporting laws that are bad for us. Obama did not defeat McCain because he had more money. Obama won because he had the better message that we preferred.
Obama spent twice as much as McCain, fyi. YES corporations CAN "jedi mind trick" people into voting however they wish! They own the fucking media! Insurance companies don't want the health bill passed and Fox News threw a fit.
Corporations spending money IS NOT CRITICIZING or speaking out.You say there's nothing wrong with corporations speaking out against candidates or the government. I agree! Nothing wrong with that at all! It's buying elections that I have a problem with!
ONE CORPORATION could flood the entire 2012 campaign election! Think about all of them! It's going to be an ass-kissing, under-the-table auction shitstorm! We're going to have politicians who's only true allegiance lies with fucking Exxon Mobile or Goldman- Sachs! How the fuck is that equatable to free speech? It's going to negate free speech.
What you're saying is complete about "democracy never would have worked" is complete and utter speculation and doesn't reflect the truth either. Middle and lower-class conservatives have been persuaded to vote against their own interests for decades! The conservative media has fed them a steady diet of "we're the true patriots" and "this is the moral party" and an irrational love for "the free market", but in reality the people benefiting from the policies Republicans pass are the top 2%!
@SoCalAries Claiming that people are easily tricked by some ideas and therefore banning them takes us back to a pre-enlightenment mindset. It creates a totalitarian state where the government has absolute control. I believe in the people to decide for themselves. Let all the opinions be aired and let the people choose amongst them. The people will not choose perfectly, but they will do better than some dictatorship or Oligarchy.
That makes sense in principal and I agree with all that. The problem is potential candidates trying to make it through the caucus are simply going to be out-funded by the corporate choice. You will do your best when you vote but your choices will be limited before they even make it to the ballot. The candidates in favor of reform and regulation will be sifted out before people ever had the chance to vote for them. That is not free speech.
@SoCalAries You bring up a good point. Caucuses might not be the best example though. Basically at a caucus, everyone gets a chance to have their say so you can always get your message out to those there. This is how Huckabee defeated the much better funded Romney in Iowa. The bigger problem is underfunded local primaries. A candidate who cannot afford to get his message out will lose to the candidate with enough funding to get his out. I consider a lack of funding the real problem.
Alright, well that is the real issue. If these things were funded publicly there would be no need for campaign fund raising. If anyone who ran had the opportunity to speak equally I would not be screaming foul.
Basically what this is doing is giving the corporate choice a huge advantage over the workers' choice when it comes to the power of their campaign.
Let me elaborate. The conservative agenda is to abolish any form of "socialism" in our society. This includes regulation which protects consumers from the middle and lower-class, safety nets like unemployment, food stamps and emergency rooms used by the middle and lower-class, unions which protect working people like the middle and lower-class, financial aid for students for children of the middle and lower-class, etc. All policies pushed on moral conservatives by the rich fiscal conservatives
One day when I'm sitting in a dirt hole dug into the ground where an artillery shell blasted what used to be a rest stop parking log to pieces, hearing the bullets whiz over my head as the rain begins to fall and turn my defensive position to muck. Just before I come up over the top to cover a buddy's advance on a federal air base that's been bombing my states capitol for openly defying Shell Oil....
@meadbert You're changing the premise.. it was that the GOVERNMENT could censor olberman. NOT msnbc, mnbc could do whatever they like, if they annoy their consumer, they'll pay the price.
I repeat, msnbc doesn't need the right to free speech to protect it from the government, because the PEOPLE working at msnbc HAS that right, and if the government censor msnbc, its the people they would be censoring
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-Thomas Jefferson (compairing corporations to british aristocracy)
This ruling is the first open step towards modern corporatism/fascism. Money buys everything people, wake up...
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"
I remember reading the comments to this SC decision on the FOX News website...nearly half of the conservatives commenting said this was a historic first amendment decision (LMAO) and "leveled the playing field" against labor union contributions to the democrats...
yes, those HUGE AND POWERFUL unions the only 15% of our workforce belongs to...lmao, the right-wing needs to remove its head from their ass.
The GOP base will support anything that further lines their pockets...sickening...
There is a You Tube Video Contest to try and raise people interest in learning more about this ruling. The first prize is $200 dollars. Do a search on You Tube Corporations aren't People. Thanks! I made my very first video!!
All this ruling did was acknowledge the First Amendment in all media. There is no precedent for releasing a movie, book, magazine commentary, or anything else of that nature. It is unconstitutional to muzzle ANYBODY, regardless of their monetary backing. In Michigan, Jon Stryker (the 272nd richest American), threw millions all over the state in the form of Reform Michigan Now and others, without much say from anyone.
This ruling only takes out the guesswork over where money flows through.
I think this nightmare world he is describing has already been here for decades. The supreme court ruling just takes away the lie and leaves the insult uncovered.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
Do you really think that TV, radio, and newspapers can be anymore political, I don't. Fox News, NBC, Bloomberg, Forbes, Fox Business, MSNBC, ABC, Rush Limbaugh, and all the rest. That's my point . . .
News & media were never restricted under the old laws. But none of them are sponsoring campaign spending for candidates either.
However, now FOX News sponsors its own political rallies.
Under the new rules any corporation can run their own attack ads on anyone they want -- or threaten to run them.
Corporations can easily outspend ANY candidate so it gives them the power to EXTORT every politician -- "You either give me what I want or we're going to see you're defeated in the next election."
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
It's the NWO and we can't stop it. Sooner or later people will realize that it is quickly approaching the time of the Ten Kings, (10 nation confederacy), Universal monetary system, more wars, and then the rise of the anti-Christ. Don't let the rightwingers neo-con, faux christians turn you off of the truth. They give Christ a bad name. Think for yourself.
I was under the impression corporations/lobbyists were already buying off/contributing to politicians. There's constantly reports of how a certain politician received obscene amounts of money from a certain group, so what is the significance of this decision if they were already doing it? Am I missing something?
They were. What Keith is talking about is the decision by the Supreme Court to legalize unlimited bribery of politicians. These politicians can't even handle what they were getting before. After this decision, corporations will have total control over every aspect of the government.
@EinsteinPlanck, were there limits prior to the Supreme Court decision? How can anyone(Republican, Democrat, or independent) think this is a good idea?
Congress needs to write a law that says that the ONLY corporations allowed to contribute to OUR political campaigns are those which have NO foreign investors of any sort. (Good luck finding one of those corporations...) The idea could be easily sold as a national security issue (which it surely is).
If we did that, then you could also make the case that trade negotiations are also issues of national security, since we do ratchet trade tariffs and discounts for imports/exports with foreign countries based on a host of criteria. At what point do we draw the line between economic/political/security relationships with foreign nations? Do we want to risk using this bad law as a reason to restart enforcement of domestic protectionisms?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT &T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies
During Clinton's regime some people out in the world thought: "luckily it can't get worse than this.". I thought that...
The you got Bush Jr. Oh My God. Was I wrong!
Obama promised a lot, I had hope for a few days. Turns out he is more of a turncoat than my feelings. Money rules all rules. I thought: that might wake up some US citizens. Mmh.
Now this Sup.court ruling. WOW! Now I realize that Americans WANT to be slaves to "their" dollar. Kill them if you need to, they DON'T CARE! amiwrong??
You forget one simple rule: Starve the people and they won't care, they'll just want to eat.
Granted, we Americans have become too accustomed to our wealth and comforts to want to fight too much, so instead we add hours to our workweeks when we work. We (as a whole) don't know what it is to starve, so we equate not having the new iPad with starvation.
So...we're too hungry. Even if that hunger is wrongly developed. Maybe some true starvation will help...then again, maybe not.
This is a free speech issue and the BHO is heavy into control and censorship of their opponents. when BHO lawyer at the FEC said that the law could ban books and all other media that people could use to influence a election. If all corporations are banned from influencing an election then MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and all other media CORPORATIONS must also be banned.
Keith do you real want to join the the ranks of the other 5M the BHO has put out of work
@cupera1 You are the first conservative to make a valid point in defense of this ruling. The Supreme Court is forcing the Legislature to pass a law that deals with this issue.
@cupera1 The distinction between a book and a television ad is the status of the receiver of the speech. With tv, the speech is injected into the receiver's home without his approval. Not so with the press or even the internet. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would be to restrict political speech to the soapbox and the press and take politics off of tv entirely-even the evening news.
@youcrackpot I am making the point that Ted Olson, at Citizens United, transformed the case from a narrow one about McCain-Feingold to an assault on the law's constitutionality, helping crystallize the issue for the justices. When the justices questioned Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, HBO lawyer at the FEC, he stated repeatedly that Movies, books and electronic media could be banned under Mc-Fine. If they were published or broadcast during the time frame specified in the law.
@ supera1. I understand what you are saying. What I am proposing allows everyone free speech and freedom of the press exactly as the founding father envisioned it. Anyone could print anything in the form of books, newspapers, leaflets, make movies, and spend all the money they want , any time they want. Perfect alignment with the constitution. I just don't want someone's speech FORCED into my living room. NO POLITICS ON TV, PERIOD.
The off switch and the channel changer work just fine for me. Does your tv turn on by its self and tune into the channel and follow you around the house? I would suggest a VCR and fast forward over commercials to filter out soap and political adds
@ cupera Thats exactly what I am saying. We should not be subjected to having to actively avoid anything or have in injected into our homes. To expect people to have to dial away from a channel, estimate when the ad is over, or go through some other means is wrong. Its like a candidate pushes his way through your front door to exercise his right of free speech, and your recommending we just ask him to take a seat in you living room and you go in the kitchen until he leaves.
I could go for a "P" chip that one would need to proactively aquire in order to receive Political programming and ads. If you don't have the chip, it doesn't enter your home.
Conservatives talk so passionately about personal freedom and yet defend having an unwanted intrusion pushed into their homes. Personal freedom does not matter when compomised by conservative judges? OCCASSIONALY your conservative convictions should cause you to disagree with your party's actions.
@cupera. Political ads should not be allowed to be forced in my home on TV. This does not abridge anyone's rights, just as I am not abridging anyone's freedom of speech by not being forced to read their book.
This Supreme Court ruling marks a turning point in US history. It does not take much foresight to be able to determine the effects of unlimited corporate spending on our democracy.
Shame on Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. They will rightly be judged by history the same as those who voted for Dredd Scott (if the history books are not edited by the corporations)
When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, Obama's lawyer, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election timeframe?" And this guy representing the FEC said, yes, the government would ban the book, and the justices shot up, and that turned the case.
US government has always been BOUGHT it is nothing new the ONLY different is that now it is LEGAL! LOOK UP! INFOWARS get the TRUTH not the right or left but the middle!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow! I hope noone actually believes this idiot! He thinks that if he yells about whatever pops into his head people will listen, this man is the dumbest a person i have ever heard, i could find a two year old that knows more about pollitics than this moron.
wildfan89: I think that Olbermann knows more about the Constitution than you do... If you don't think that this decision is a horrid betrayal of the Constitution and our founding documents you obviously have never read them. Left or right - everyone should be pissed - and if you aren't pissed about this decision you're either ignorant or stupid... Please inform yourself and do SOMETHING!
WOW YOU T'INK!~!??! Actually,he's right and you're wrong. So, tell us, what DO you know about politics? Maybe that the word itself comes from the root word for POWER.
Everyone has to understand that he is simply a pundit. He is just as insignificant as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
What I mean by that is they are like this for entertainment and not information. If you want information, watch the PBS Newshour, listen to NPR, or read a newspaper.
@xpriestsxsyrinxx who cares who he is or how important... he isnt the only one saying this. what he says is true. read al gores book 'the wealth of nations' or watch the daily show, or the colbert report, or anything but fox news. corporations own this country, you cant be capitalist and anything else.... you only get to be capitalist.
@xpriestsxsyrinxx PBS has covered this as well. They didn't elaborate on the implications of the ruling, but if you can't put two and two together here then I guess you'll get what you deserve.
What's funny is that everything he said is becoming reality. Keep sleeping America and China will own the 21st Century and it will be the end of the West.
okayplayer82 1 month ago
Damn. This guy's like the Left-wing Glenn Beck.
TenzoGames 2 months ago
@TenzoGames nope because he talk truth not bullshit
Dominuce 2 months ago
@Dominuce Seriously? the guy is spreading just as much, if not more sensationalist bullshit than Beck.
"Judas Goats of American freedom." I can't fucking stand this moron. I can't stand beck either. I'm just not delusional and ignorant to believe everything any talking head says.
TenzoGames 2 months ago
Comment removed
wafcake 1 month ago
This can never be reversed: too many conformist who fear ridicule if they think for themselves and thus, we are where we are, because of mindless conformity. But the news isn't all bad, think of China a few years ago where everyone dressed alike to emphasize unity. I doubt that I'll be here, I'll leave for a remote Pacific Island that has no political impact. Why stay in a country of fucking radical, late to the bell Christians who enslave themselves as did the Isrealites with the Egyptians.
carlrammlane 10 months ago
Pixar was closer than it imagined when it made Wall-E...
jimhigham 1 year ago
Olbermann is a child with a large vocabulary, dressed up like old man.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
Refute his argument, I dare you.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom
Walmart and Haliburton don't have an interest in overtly influencing politicians. You're not going to see campaign ads by any corporations, especially not when it is so easy just to bribe whoever wins the election.
This helps lobbying groups like the NRA and the NAACP get their message out. But the real winners here are individuals who wish to pool their smaller amounts of money to overcome financial barriers and be heard.
obtree 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom
Olbermann's entire argument hinges on the idea that everybody is stupider than him. I think that is part of his persona. This is why he uses such condescending tone and language.
His argument goes like this:
People are too stupid to listen to more than one point of view and make a considered decision. People are like gerbils, and if they see enough expensive campaign ads they are bound to make decisions against their own interests, therefore McCain-Feingold.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
Firstly, thank you for the articulated response. It is too often that I see crap like "f you, you commie", or "screw you, bible thumper.
However, it isn't Keith or his show that I am defending. His style of "journalism" is just as reprehensible and immature as those he positions himself against (Beck, Limbaugh, etc.) In many cases, he completely misses the nail in order to deliver his seemingly righteous revelations.
Yet, in this case, he hits the nail square on the head.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom I disagree.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
I understand that. However, in your previous post, you stated that, "Walmart and Haliburton don't have an interest in overtly influencing politicians." Upon what information or logic do you base this statement. These companies have always been active within the political arena. The supreme court ruling simply eases the restrictions on this activity.
Look, I'm not one to start screaming wolf, but that's partially because the wolves have been here since before either of us were born.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom What I said was corporations don't have an interest in OVERTLY influencing politicians. This is because 1) ads payed for by corporations will most likely have the opposite of their intended result. 2) People who disagree with them politically will boycott them; they will garner a negative public image, which will hurt profits. 2) They can already just bribe whoever comes into power anyway.
If the wolf is here already, why are we freaking out now?
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
The issue with that line of thinking is that the reverse is also true. I'm not claiming that people are generally stupid, but it's difficult for the average person to stay well informed (primarily because of the state of information overload that most suffer). If specialty groups are to be allowed to exert more influence in the political arena (which is a different bone to pick), the corporations shouldn't be allowed to benefit and a side effect.
Plus, I'm simply sick of the wolves.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom I'm not sure what you mean. Could you expand on that please? What exactly are you afraid of?
I think you, like most people have an irrational prejudice against corporations. This prejudice has come about over the years from leftist fairytales about FDR saving the world from the Great Depression, and how the robber barons pillaged their fortunes in the 1800s. The real way to destroy the power the corporations have over you is to sever their incestuous marriage with the state.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
Forget FDR. It may be difficult, but for the sake of objectivity, let's stick with the here and now. What I want when it comes to corporate involvement in the political arena, is more transparency, and better accountability, and those two are mutually inclusive. My example may be a bit of a stretch, but here goes. When an company releases a new product, they have to print certain specifications about that product, regardless of whether it is food, electronics, a car, etc. These....
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@obtree
specifications are standardized for each industry (such as the nutritional facts on a box of cereal). What I would like to have, is a rule that forces corporations to place the exact amount of their corporate political donations right on the home page for the company web site (it is the digital age after all), and to be forced to present this information to the public on an annual basis. Additionally, I want there to be strict limits on how much they donate in the first place. This...
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@obtree
way, the corporation can be held publicly accountable for their actions within the political arena, and the limits may make them think about whether it's worth spending the heavily limited amount of money on a campaign, or stay out of that campaign to avoid a potential public backlash and the loss of business that could come with it.
As for severing the "incestuous" relationship between the corporations and the state, good luck. The government has been the primary driver for the...
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@obtree
development of new technologies. The telecommunications, automotive, and medical industries have all benefited heavily from close involvement with the federal government. You wouldn't have a Youtube account if it hadn't been for DARPA. Despite the fact that would love to have less government involvement in all aspects of American life, I still prefer the modern age over riding a horse to work.
Sorry about the length of this. It's hard for me to stop when I get on a roll,
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom Ok, I think you are extremely naive if you think a bill like Mccain-Feingold or what you describe could stop the corruption that is going on.
Government is not required for technological advances. The Smithsonian institute was trying for heavier than air flight as well. Thank God the Wright brothers beat them to it, because that would be one more thing I would have to hear that wouldn't be around if not for the government...
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
Are you attempting to push a force fed and regurgitated ideology, or are you prepared to think for yourself? My apologies for the bluntness of this, but I have little time or patience for anyone who is willing to swear to a political allegiance, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc. I may be off the mark here, but the feeling I'm getting from your posts is that you have a limited set of information that has been presented to you by the political establishment, or the media.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom I have answered all of your questions clearly and concisely. I'm not sure how you could get the impression that I can't think for myself. Throw me a curve ball if you have doubts.
I haven't heard anything novel from you either. That last bit about the government inventing the internet sounded like you were parroting Noam Chomsky verbatim.
obtree 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom
I am not looking to impress you, so any perceived lack of novelty is simply a result of perception.
Also, I can invoke Chomsky, or the McCain-Feingold bill, or FDR's memory as well. However, I haven't thus far, and will continue to refrain from doing so. This is because references to academic or polemical material doesn't impress me. I want original thought, regardless of political viewpoint.
Or, how would you prevent corporations from negative influencing the political process?
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom
Apologies for the typo.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom By shrinking the power of politicians to such a tiny level, that corporations have no interest in influencing them. In my perfect world, people make all of their decisions for themselves; people have infinite contractual power over themselves; any two individuals can make any agreement between them, and the government has no power to step in unless there is a use of fraud, coercion, or violence.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
How powerful would the political establishment be, and what mechanisms would they have to enforce those powers? I'm not asking in order to pick at the idea, but solely to play devil's advocate
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom Well in terms of power to create new branches of government, and enact laws that take power or decisions away from the individual, the government would be powerless. In terms of pandering to unions, or to corporations, the government would be powerless.
In terms of providing the appropriate courts of law, police, fire protection, and military protection the government would have exactly enough power to prevent people from defrauding, or hurting each other.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
Okay, that's the idea I was getting, but just wanted to make sure of that. Here is where I may begin to sound like the whiny, bleeding heart liberal, but this is just coming from life experience. We don't currently have the societal awareness to truly handle this form of hands off, put on your big kids underwear and deal with it kind of approach. Again, I'm not calling the public stupid. However, we are too vicious to other, and we are too used to expecting someone else to.....
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@obtree
organize us in times of need (for example; the destruction of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina). That isn't to say that I disagree with the concept that you are putting forth. Maybe in a generation or two, we will have learned enough humility, humanity, and personal responsibility to operate within the guidelines of that kind of system. I don't doubt that we can't do it, but that's a switch that can't be flipped overnight. (Wow, this getting long winded.)
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom Yeah, I agree with you somewhat. It's not something that can happen overnight. That said, we are still heading in the opposite direction, so it is about time we start making a U-turn. This is something that requires some urgency I think, because the road we are on is a dead end.
obtree 1 year ago
@obtree
Apologies for they delay, but I had a two week cable outage (I love snow).
From one armchair politician to another, never be afraid to change your ideas or beliefs. We are supposed to question everything, especially ourselves. It's clear that I'm least a little to the left of you ideologically, but that doesn't mean that I have to refuse to see your point of view, or the validity of your beliefs.
Remember that, and always apply that type of mindset when discussing these things. Ciao
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
@KanzaBoom i think that from a philosophical standpoint, your statement here is admirable. we should never be afraid to challenge ourselves and examine and change the way we think as we evolve as thinking beings.
JDev82 1 year ago
@JDev82
Thank you. Sometimes the best insights come when we are truly digging within ourselves for our philosophical foundations, and them holding them up against the light of logic and reason.
KanzaBoom 1 year ago
This guy is a bit of an idiot. He blames Beck for pandering to fear, but WTF is this?
foolioay 1 year ago
non-corporate, independent news agencies like MSNBC?
lsquad1 1 year ago
Plutocracy and plutonomy. Remember these words. They are your future.
IPAndrews 1 year ago
1:52
RicoRichmond 1 year ago
this wind bag has not said a single thing other then blame
turtaleater 1 year ago
China's a pretty bad example if you're trying to mark the ills of a super capitalist system. Just sayin...
RichieEastside 1 year ago
@RichieEastside He brought it up as an example of a nation in absence of net neutrality. And the future he's talking about is not a system of super capitalism, it's a system of corporatocracy.
emob0mb 1 year ago
@emob0mb I don't doubt that at all, I'm just saying that China of all things from a journalistic point of view is probably not the best analogy.
RichieEastside 1 year ago
@RichieEastside yes it is. the economic system isn't relevant to his point. he's saying that if independent news organizations are bought by the corps or destroyed, the internet will not be available as an alternative because the public's access to it can be greatly restricted throughout an entire country. That is what China does - censorship on a massive scale & actual "Internet Police". Search "Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China" on Wikipedia.
sixtonshark 1 year ago
Well, there it is, that ruling ought to make the right wingers jump for joy (at least for the time being). Total deregulation in one shot; now Exxon Mobile and Microsoft can get togther and elect our next president...and the next...and so on and so on...might as well toss your voter ID cards now, they'll mean absolutely nothing from here on out, because whether we realize it or not, the Supreme Court just turned us all into corporate shills. God Bless the Corporate State of America.
jerico641 1 year ago
God bless you Keith
Patternpop 1 year ago
sad if this happens the death of america
1961arnie 1 year ago
The most famous norwegian of all time is the greatest traitor in our history as a country. His name; Quisling, persists even today as a noun for traitor. I find it amusing that the only contribution we've made to the english language is something as tortuous as a backstabbing collaborator.
Heh, watch out world, maybe we'll aspire to our contribution.
iPhap 1 year ago
Most of the politicians have been bought today, thanks to lobby money.
marieatthelake 1 year ago
Where in the constitution does it say corporations have the right to free speech? The US Supreme Court is a joke. A bunch of right wing neo-conservative activist judges who think that our government is of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Thats what happens when you let stupid red-neck tea baggers influence government. Those morons shouldnt even be allowed to vote.
ParkPlace5677 1 year ago
@ParkPlace5677 Like he said, a judge some 200 years ago said that corporation were people therefore, they had all the rights that people had (and of course, that was a big mistake). I don't think it is in the american constitution, so there still is a chance that a law can be imposed.
charlotte4112 1 year ago
@charlotte4112 It never ceases to amaze me that the conservatives, republicans and tea baggers all bitch about the right to reproductive choice is a made up right, but they are so silent when it concerns a made up right that they support. What a bunch of hypocrites. I hate the conservatives in this country.
ParkPlace5677 1 year ago
"The answer to 1984 is 1776."
Devlbaby 1 year ago
boycott everyting
CheeezMaster 1 year ago
Keith HATES the corporations Hates the money they pour into his pockets so she can set around a parties with is other Hater buddies and discuses how stupid the little people are while they drink there imported wines and eat there gay arugula salads. I've got a idea! Why don't we ask Keith to take vow of poverty and donate his huge corporate derived salary to the People--and while were at it U2 U2 and : Katie&Matt, Mathews, Penn, George C, That fat slob Moore, hell any 1 N Hollywood! Fork It Over
univibe23 1 year ago
Game over
MoJoSB 1 year ago
the newspaper the church the schools all have real people in them and all those people have rights, why do the buildings they work in need rights? you make very little sense meadbert.
zooxanthus 1 year ago 4
@zooxanthus People need to understand how threatening Coporations are. Not only will they eventually, if not already (which they do, and have since the 1700's) have every form of Government in their pockets, but they will inevitabely force the people to believe they are the ones that can help save us from problems that they, themselves, funded and created. Olbermann is right. This step was the the first step to the downfall of mankind, and the eventual One World rulership that will not last.
Ch4oTiK 1 year ago
@Ch4oTiK I understand what you're saying. I understood the threat when corporate cowboy Reagan was President. But, society has been raising conformist since then. Children, now the adults of today, were raised in a "planned day" society. First school, then after school piano lessons, then off to socker practice...... no time for exercising one's imagination or just free time, it was complete structure. So, don' t think these "structured people" can understand the impending threat to Liberty.
carlrammlane 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Thats the unfortunacy of it. The fact that our lives have become so structured that we passively dismiss the threats. Either people are too blind and/or stupid, or they simply don't want to deal with it. I'm only 24 and I can't relate to anyone my age that I've met because all they care about is expensive clothing, social popularity status, alcohol tolerance and the club life, a life where you almost NEVER meet ANYONE of any form of substance, just useless momentary satisfaction.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Despite war and violence always being an apparent problem (for no reason other than satisfaction through power, which is bullshit and usually based on a lie AND funded by corporations, which the government knows and allows themselves to be pawns anyway) the normal population was usually caring and more about long term companionship. Now nobody cares about eachother at all unless they can provide the one thing that matters to everyone in life now, immediate satisfaction.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Keep in mind I'm not Mr. Serious, and I don't go around ranting about this all the time like some obsessed person (although I bring it to people's attention as a reminder sometimes, and am usually shunned because of it which, truthfully, isn't funny), but I can't ignore the deep, instinctual gut feeling I have that the world lacks genuinity and the whole aura is negative or ignorant, and that something is wrong. The fact that people try not to care...worries me.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane 'Cuz even though right now we are not "directly" effected (although we're becoming indirectly effected more and more), my generation will be on their death beds while the world around them crumbles and their children are slaves, and the only feeling that will be gushing into them while they reflect on their lives, which for the most part was useless, is guilt at the fact that we could have done something, and instead ignored it because "we don't want to think about negative stuff".
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Instead people want to blame religion or whatever else their ignorant friends say because they too, heard it from someone (i.e. popular openion, one of the things these clowns at the top of the pyramid count on) instead of looking at every problem and following the breadcrumbs all the way back to where the problem started: Greed, Power and Desire becoming more important than Love, Equality and Necessities, AKA the Human Condition.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane The things I feel man...I mean you can look in any book, videogame, movie or whatever...sci fi or fantasy, and think about how an individual human is ALWAYS outclassed by some alien race, and the ONLY WAY we stick around and survive is because when Humans come together and use Love, Care and Courage as an adhesive, working together as ONE, Humans are a fucking unstoppable force to be reckoned with. So why are Corps trying desperately to divide us, and WHY ARE WE ALLOWING IT???
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Jesus was right in saying that a house divided amongst itself will eventually crumble, because division makes for the weakest foundation. We are building on a foundation of Greed and Wealth over Power, where EVERYTHING is a competition to be better or surpass someone, turning best friends into bitter enemies, and eventually the building will crumble. What happened to the day when the one thing great men and women wanted, was to help others achieve greatness?
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane And another thing that worries me is how people care too damn much about semantics. Does anyone realize that we are funding our own slavery? Does anyone realize the utter uselessness of paper money? Life was meant to be simple, where people worked, traded (not bought, or bought from EACHOTHER instead of having things taxxed), were equal, and loved it. Hardships would exist but in the end, each day would be satisfying because something got done, friends were made, etc.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@Ch4oTiK What I mean by semantics is shit like the Bill of Rights, Congressional meetings, things that which, IMO, should not exist in the first place. I understand why people feel they need leadership, because for the most part, 80% of humans can't decide for themselves what's right and wrong and need someone to "parent" them (funny how nowadays most parents suck too...k, not so funny). In my humble opinion, all of the world rulership should step down and let us be equals, let life be simple.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@Ch4oTiK You have insight and wisdom. I know you can't relate to others, not because of you, but them. The simple life you speek of is misinterpreted by them as simple mindedness, so that's what they strive for. You must have parents who speak and behave maturely and finding it in your age group is difficult due to their up bringing. You are dealing with baffoons, so be very aware, that makes them dangerous. Look in other places, you'll find others. What really scares me? Stupid people.
carlrammlane 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Actually, I've never met my father and my mom, though wise, had me too young and thus, when I was old enough to (pretty much age 6 and up) I was alone most of the time aside from my buddies because she would work, then attempt to live the party days she missed raising me for 6 years. Not once have I held it against her and though we battled a lot, our relationship is pretty fantastic now.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane But maybe raising myself (aside from roof and clothing and food, though I made my own food...basically she funded my raising of myself, for lack of a better description, lol) for the most part combined with the wisdom I did gain from my mom, but mostly from my grandfather, contributed to how I am now. I consider insight to be a gift, but it's unfortunate that most of the knowledge I gain from it is negative.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane So the one thing I hold on to is hope, because I know what humanity is capable of when we do come together. When it counts. And I do have faith in that. Right now I think the only thing that will bring Humanity together is a worldwide catastrophe capable of forcing us onto equal grounds in order for us to survive. And in truth, with everything that's happening in the world, I both fear and look forward to the fact that a catastrophe of that calibre is well on the way.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane I just hope that afterwards, humanity will pull through and rebuild on the right foundation this time. And I truly believe with my heart that we will, and it's something that I would die for.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane Oh and FYI, my family is extremely young (incase you were wondering about my mom partying when I was 6, as she was a YEAR YOUNGER THAN ME! I can't believe that man). My granparents had my mom at around 17, and my mom had me around 17...so literally, my grandfather (The kind of man that surfed, smoked pot and would talk to the homeless because those that are meek and humble, are also usually wise and caring) still has brown/blonde hair! Lol, so I am pretty fortunate there I think.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@Ch4oTiK Actually rethinking it, my gramps is over 60 so he was older than 17 when he had my mom, but not by much. Definitely barely in his 20's, although he was 17 when his wife had my Aunt who is older than my mom. I got a bit mixed up.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane One thing though...I agree and disagree about my problems relating to people being because of them. It's true that they decided to be the way they are, as did I (I could have easily joined into that lifestyle, I experimented with it for sure, and I probably would have been happier, who knows) but honestly it's hard for me to blame them, given the way society forms people nowadays from birth. More than being aware of them, which I certainly am...I feel sorry for, and hope for them.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane And (sorry for all the posts...Youtube and it's comment limit kills me sometimes lol) I appreciate the compliment man. You have insight and wisdom too. But, if I might make a suggestion...I believe you should also attempt to forgive people for their stupidity and, even though it may worry you as it does me, help them out when possible, y'know? I would like to find others like me, but more than that, I would like to try to help people better themselves, as it betters me to do so.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane And thats how I think the whole world should be. I don't think I am alone when I say, it is far more satisfying knowing I helped someone else than it is to recieve help myself. And if everyone held on to that kind of value, I believe the world would be a place of pulchritude and perfection.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
@carlrammlane And to prove this, look at EVERYTHING and really study how things work, from Martial Arts to being a technician, and you will realize that no matter what, it always comes down to one thing: Simplicity. Anything you do you are taught to stop trying too hard because you are making it too complicated, right? Metaphors exist because everything is related, no matter how unrelated it physically seems. So the ultimate metaphor is: Simplicity = perfection, and EVERYONE is capable of it.
Ch4oTiK 10 months ago
If the Bill of Rights did not apply to corporations then the government could seize any property of a corporation without a warrant and they could listen in to all communication that goes through a corporation again without a warrant. They could listen to all phone calls and read all emails.
Universities would not have freedom of speech.
Churches, most of whom are incorporated, would not have freedom of Religion.
What does it mean if the right to assembly only applies to an individual?
meadbert 1 year ago
keep parroting dumb idea ..
the corporations don't need to be protected by the constitution .. THE HUMAN OWNER ARE !
moestietabarnak 1 year ago
@meadbert
Religions as institutions are protected under the law. Churches do NOT have freedom of religion, PEOPLE do. Corporations do NOT speak on the phone or write emails, PEOPLE do. Unlimited campaign contributions is NOT equivalent to free speech. Corporations, like churches and other institutions, are represented by the PEOPLE involved with them.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@SoCalAries "Churches do NOT have freedom of religion."
This pretty much sums it up.
Accoring to the Liberal interpretation of the Constitution congress can not only silence political speech by threatening jail time, but they apparently can ban churches from performing communion on Sunday. This claim is unbelievable and shows everything that is wrong with this line of thought.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
Anything taken out of context can be used to prove your own point, but in context it perfectly goes against it. =]
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@meadbert
If this comes to pass the people at the top of these corporations, which already have the ability to contribute money to their favorite politician and wield significant power, will gain undue influence and consequentially be extremely over-represented.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
If Corporations have not free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no Free Speech. Congress could censor what Olberman says on TV, what the New York Times writes and what we are allowed to post on you tube.
This would be incompatible with a free society. The Supreme court was correct to defend our liberties.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert
We don't censor them and we aren't trying to.
This is about campaign contributions. If this isn't overturned, the average person will have no voice in their own government. Their contributions to their favorite candidates will be moot compared to the corporate contributions. Corporations will pick their candidate and finance their way to victory. Out of all the Senators elected in 2008, 94% spent more money than their opponent. We will not have a representative democracy but fascism.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@SoCalAries
Fascism is not caused by giving corporations freedom of speech.
Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were
not CEOs who bribed politicians.
They were corrupt politicians who passed
laws very similar to McCain Feingold that
made it illegal for corporations to criticize
their governments.
meadbert 1 year ago
Corporations don't criticize! The people that operate them do! Corporations BUY politicians. They make a deal with them, assuring that if they help a candidate get elected that they will pass or block legislation concerning the corporation. THIS ISN'T FREE SPEECH IT'S THE OPPOSITE. It will drown out our ability as citizens to do anything but sit back and watch. It won't matter if you like a certain politician and want him to run for office, the corporations will choose for you.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
meadbert 1 year ago
Obama spent twice as much as McCain, fyi. YES corporations CAN "jedi mind trick" people into voting however they wish! They own the fucking media! Insurance companies don't want the health bill passed and Fox News threw a fit.
Corporations spending money IS NOT CRITICIZING or speaking out.You say there's nothing wrong with corporations speaking out against candidates or the government. I agree! Nothing wrong with that at all! It's buying elections that I have a problem with!
SoCalAries 1 year ago
ONE CORPORATION could flood the entire 2012 campaign election! Think about all of them! It's going to be an ass-kissing, under-the-table auction shitstorm! We're going to have politicians who's only true allegiance lies with fucking Exxon Mobile or Goldman- Sachs! How the fuck is that equatable to free speech? It's going to negate free speech.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@SoCalAries
Your lack of faith in Democracy is disheartening.
If people were as gullible as you claim
Democracy would have never worked so
well in the first place. The fact of the matter
is that we are not so easily persuaded to vote
against our own interests and a hearty
endorsement from Exxon and Goldman may
very well hurt a candidate more than it helps
him.
meadbert 1 year ago
What you're saying is complete about "democracy never would have worked" is complete and utter speculation and doesn't reflect the truth either. Middle and lower-class conservatives have been persuaded to vote against their own interests for decades! The conservative media has fed them a steady diet of "we're the true patriots" and "this is the moral party" and an irrational love for "the free market", but in reality the people benefiting from the policies Republicans pass are the top 2%!
SoCalAries 1 year ago
meadbert 1 year ago
That makes sense in principal and I agree with all that. The problem is potential candidates trying to make it through the caucus are simply going to be out-funded by the corporate choice. You will do your best when you vote but your choices will be limited before they even make it to the ballot. The candidates in favor of reform and regulation will be sifted out before people ever had the chance to vote for them. That is not free speech.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
meadbert 1 year ago
Alright, well that is the real issue. If these things were funded publicly there would be no need for campaign fund raising. If anyone who ran had the opportunity to speak equally I would not be screaming foul.
Basically what this is doing is giving the corporate choice a huge advantage over the workers' choice when it comes to the power of their campaign.
SoCalAries 1 year ago
Let me elaborate. The conservative agenda is to abolish any form of "socialism" in our society. This includes regulation which protects consumers from the middle and lower-class, safety nets like unemployment, food stamps and emergency rooms used by the middle and lower-class, unions which protect working people like the middle and lower-class, financial aid for students for children of the middle and lower-class, etc. All policies pushed on moral conservatives by the rich fiscal conservatives
SoCalAries 1 year ago
@meadbert
One day when I'm sitting in a dirt hole dug into the ground where an artillery shell blasted what used to be a rest stop parking log to pieces, hearing the bullets whiz over my head as the rain begins to fall and turn my defensive position to muck. Just before I come up over the top to cover a buddy's advance on a federal air base that's been bombing my states capitol for openly defying Shell Oil....
I'm going to think of your comment. And laugh.
Hope to see you there.
Slipfeed 1 year ago
@meadbert no, the congress could not censor Olberman on msnbc..not because msnbc have the right free speech but because Olberman has that right!
(or, since the supreme court doesn't seem to agree, it should be that way)
moestietabarnak 1 year ago
@moestietabarnak
Our right to Free Speech does not guarentee us speaking time on MSNBC.
MSNBC has no more of an obligation to Olbermann than to me.
McCain/Feingold banned TV stations from showing certain advertisements
that criticized politicians. If they can do that, then can also ban TV stations
from showing opinion shows that criticize politicians.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert You're changing the premise.. it was that the GOVERNMENT could censor olberman. NOT msnbc, mnbc could do whatever they like, if they annoy their consumer, they'll pay the price.
I repeat, msnbc doesn't need the right to free speech to protect it from the government, because the PEOPLE working at msnbc HAS that right, and if the government censor msnbc, its the people they would be censoring
moestietabarnak 1 year ago
@moestietabarnak
Congress already supressed that right when the banned MSNBC from showing Citzen's United's anti-Hillary videa.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert got a link to the law? the bill number ? or you just take propaganda and conspiracy theorist as truth ?
moestietabarnak 1 year ago
@moestietabarnak
The Bill is The Bipartisam Campaign Act of 2002.
The Court Case is Citizen's United vs FEC.
meadbert 1 year ago
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-Thomas Jefferson (compairing corporations to british aristocracy)
This ruling is the first open step towards modern corporatism/fascism. Money buys everything people, wake up...
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"
-Emma Goldman
PeaceofChaos361 1 year ago
I remember reading the comments to this SC decision on the FOX News website...nearly half of the conservatives commenting said this was a historic first amendment decision (LMAO) and "leveled the playing field" against labor union contributions to the democrats...
yes, those HUGE AND POWERFUL unions the only 15% of our workforce belongs to...lmao, the right-wing needs to remove its head from their ass.
The GOP base will support anything that further lines their pockets...sickening...
PeaceofChaos361 1 year ago 4
There is a You Tube Video Contest to try and raise people interest in learning more about this ruling. The first prize is $200 dollars. Do a search on You Tube Corporations aren't People. Thanks! I made my very first video!!
xbluebells 2 years ago
So basically were all fucked ! Revolt !
NateFosterSR 2 years ago
Talk about scare tactics! -- This is the WORST!
RTreptow 2 years ago
These are scare tactics. This is the truth! He is absolutely right!
ramjet73 2 years ago
but he's got a point
ready2roll 1 year ago
Free Speach will soon be illegal in your own home .
truthisaliar2 2 years ago
@truthisaliar2: Free speech? More like free thought! We're screwed.
jezmundberserker 2 years ago
All this ruling did was acknowledge the First Amendment in all media. There is no precedent for releasing a movie, book, magazine commentary, or anything else of that nature. It is unconstitutional to muzzle ANYBODY, regardless of their monetary backing. In Michigan, Jon Stryker (the 272nd richest American), threw millions all over the state in the form of Reform Michigan Now and others, without much say from anyone.
This ruling only takes out the guesswork over where money flows through.
guj19 2 years ago
I think this nightmare world he is describing has already been here for decades. The supreme court ruling just takes away the lie and leaves the insult uncovered.
metalorg 2 years ago 2
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago
Do you really think that TV, radio, and newspapers can be anymore political, I don't. Fox News, NBC, Bloomberg, Forbes, Fox Business, MSNBC, ABC, Rush Limbaugh, and all the rest. That's my point . . .
ZDWmiamicane 2 years ago
News & media were never restricted under the old laws. But none of them are sponsoring campaign spending for candidates either.
However, now FOX News sponsors its own political rallies.
Under the new rules any corporation can run their own attack ads on anyone they want -- or threaten to run them.
Corporations can easily outspend ANY candidate so it gives them the power to EXTORT every politician -- "You either give me what I want or we're going to see you're defeated in the next election."
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because the N.Y. Times or conservative newspapers run an editorial is irrelevant. They DON'T run ATTACK ADS on TV.
Any corporation can now tell legislators they'll be the target of relentless attack ads if they vote AGAINST corporate wishes
Credit card & insurance companies, banks & Wall Street can now dictate to legislators & EXTORT any politician in America. If they object, they're on the HIT LIST. They dont even need to do it, just threaten.
Corporatocracy USA!!!
It's scary!
goog2k 2 years ago 2
Why is this comment marked as spam? Its not like he just made some annoying comment just for the fun of it. He put out his opinion. Not spam worthy.
ITTTheKrimsonKing 2 years ago
Hey thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've marked it as "not spam" now.
FixedNewsChannel 2 years ago
Washington*
atheist4all2see 2 years ago
Come to the LAST STAND! anarchy rally in Washinton, DC Sat. October 23 2010!
atheist4all2see 2 years ago
"Brave New World" anyone?
DiceWarwick 2 years ago
It's the NWO and we can't stop it. Sooner or later people will realize that it is quickly approaching the time of the Ten Kings, (10 nation confederacy), Universal monetary system, more wars, and then the rise of the anti-Christ. Don't let the rightwingers neo-con, faux christians turn you off of the truth. They give Christ a bad name. Think for yourself.
naniroo 2 years ago
I was under the impression corporations/lobbyists were already buying off/contributing to politicians. There's constantly reports of how a certain politician received obscene amounts of money from a certain group, so what is the significance of this decision if they were already doing it? Am I missing something?
TheSkinzilla 2 years ago
They were. What Keith is talking about is the decision by the Supreme Court to legalize unlimited bribery of politicians. These politicians can't even handle what they were getting before. After this decision, corporations will have total control over every aspect of the government.
EinsteinPlanck 2 years ago
They will make absolutely no difference.
AminCad 2 years ago
@EinsteinPlanck, were there limits prior to the Supreme Court decision? How can anyone(Republican, Democrat, or independent) think this is a good idea?
TheSkinzilla 2 years ago
Congress needs to write a law that says that the ONLY corporations allowed to contribute to OUR political campaigns are those which have NO foreign investors of any sort. (Good luck finding one of those corporations...) The idea could be easily sold as a national security issue (which it surely is).
TomBoston191 2 years ago 3
@TomBoston191
If we did that, then you could also make the case that trade negotiations are also issues of national security, since we do ratchet trade tariffs and discounts for imports/exports with foreign countries based on a host of criteria. At what point do we draw the line between economic/political/security relationships with foreign nations? Do we want to risk using this bad law as a reason to restart enforcement of domestic protectionisms?
scbluesman13 1 year ago
Who was that guy that came on after Keith? I have'nt seen him before?
M3di3v4L 2 years ago
@M3di3v4L
I lol'd
kungfujesus 2 years ago
All workers involved in journalism should have a work stoppage for a day. Hollywood, news anchors, reporters, cameramen, everyone.
M3di3v4L 2 years ago
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT &T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies
proverb311031 2 years ago
0bama is next Jimmy Carter.
Qweef Olberwomann is a fool.
the82spartans 2 years ago
During Clinton's regime some people out in the world thought: "luckily it can't get worse than this.". I thought that...
The you got Bush Jr. Oh My God. Was I wrong!
Obama promised a lot, I had hope for a few days. Turns out he is more of a turncoat than my feelings. Money rules all rules. I thought: that might wake up some US citizens. Mmh.
Now this Sup.court ruling. WOW! Now I realize that Americans WANT to be slaves to "their" dollar. Kill them if you need to, they DON'T CARE! amiwrong??
keetlap 2 years ago
@keetlap
You forget one simple rule: Starve the people and they won't care, they'll just want to eat.
Granted, we Americans have become too accustomed to our wealth and comforts to want to fight too much, so instead we add hours to our workweeks when we work. We (as a whole) don't know what it is to starve, so we equate not having the new iPad with starvation.
So...we're too hungry. Even if that hunger is wrongly developed. Maybe some true starvation will help...then again, maybe not.
godozo 2 years ago
This is a free speech issue and the BHO is heavy into control and censorship of their opponents. when BHO lawyer at the FEC said that the law could ban books and all other media that people could use to influence a election. If all corporations are banned from influencing an election then MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and all other media CORPORATIONS must also be banned.
Keith do you real want to join the the ranks of the other 5M the BHO has put out of work
cupera1 2 years ago
@cupera1 You are the first conservative to make a valid point in defense of this ruling. The Supreme Court is forcing the Legislature to pass a law that deals with this issue.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@cupera1 The distinction between a book and a television ad is the status of the receiver of the speech. With tv, the speech is injected into the receiver's home without his approval. Not so with the press or even the internet. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would be to restrict political speech to the soapbox and the press and take politics off of tv entirely-even the evening news.
This IS how the fouding fathers envisioned it.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@youcrackpot I am making the point that Ted Olson, at Citizens United, transformed the case from a narrow one about McCain-Feingold to an assault on the law's constitutionality, helping crystallize the issue for the justices. When the justices questioned Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, HBO lawyer at the FEC, he stated repeatedly that Movies, books and electronic media could be banned under Mc-Fine. If they were published or broadcast during the time frame specified in the law.
cupera1 2 years ago
@ supera1. I understand what you are saying. What I am proposing allows everyone free speech and freedom of the press exactly as the founding father envisioned it. Anyone could print anything in the form of books, newspapers, leaflets, make movies, and spend all the money they want , any time they want. Perfect alignment with the constitution. I just don't want someone's speech FORCED into my living room. NO POLITICS ON TV, PERIOD.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
The off switch and the channel changer work just fine for me. Does your tv turn on by its self and tune into the channel and follow you around the house? I would suggest a VCR and fast forward over commercials to filter out soap and political adds
cupera1 2 years ago
@ cupera Thats exactly what I am saying. We should not be subjected to having to actively avoid anything or have in injected into our homes. To expect people to have to dial away from a channel, estimate when the ad is over, or go through some other means is wrong. Its like a candidate pushes his way through your front door to exercise his right of free speech, and your recommending we just ask him to take a seat in you living room and you go in the kitchen until he leaves.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
I could go for a "P" chip that one would need to proactively aquire in order to receive Political programming and ads. If you don't have the chip, it doesn't enter your home.
Conservatives talk so passionately about personal freedom and yet defend having an unwanted intrusion pushed into their homes. Personal freedom does not matter when compomised by conservative judges? OCCASSIONALY your conservative convictions should cause you to disagree with your party's actions.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
@cupera. Political ads should not be allowed to be forced in my home on TV. This does not abridge anyone's rights, just as I am not abridging anyone's freedom of speech by not being forced to read their book.
youcrackpot 2 years ago
This Supreme Court ruling marks a turning point in US history. It does not take much foresight to be able to determine the effects of unlimited corporate spending on our democracy.
Shame on Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. They will rightly be judged by history the same as those who voted for Dredd Scott (if the history books are not edited by the corporations)
endtheillusion 2 years ago
Dear Justice Roberts,
Could you please show me where in the constitution our founding fathers gave 1st amendment rights to corporations?
Where in the constitution were corporations even mentioned?
Thank you for handing our nation over to the corporations.
endtheillusion 2 years ago
When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, Obama's lawyer, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election timeframe?" And this guy representing the FEC said, yes, the government would ban the book, and the justices shot up, and that turned the case.
cupera1 2 years ago
US government has always been BOUGHT it is nothing new the ONLY different is that now it is LEGAL! LOOK UP! INFOWARS get the TRUTH not the right or left but the middle!
Oceanno69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow! I hope noone actually believes this idiot! He thinks that if he yells about whatever pops into his head people will listen, this man is the dumbest a person i have ever heard, i could find a two year old that knows more about pollitics than this moron.
wildfan89 2 years ago
you're nothing short of a fucking idiot.. he's talking about how your country with this decision is on the fast track to fascism. wake up.
jamspooge86 2 years ago 2
wildfan89: I think that Olbermann knows more about the Constitution than you do... If you don't think that this decision is a horrid betrayal of the Constitution and our founding documents you obviously have never read them. Left or right - everyone should be pissed - and if you aren't pissed about this decision you're either ignorant or stupid... Please inform yourself and do SOMETHING!
rentedhalo 2 years ago 3
WOW YOU T'INK!~!??! Actually,he's right and you're wrong. So, tell us, what DO you know about politics? Maybe that the word itself comes from the root word for POWER.
You're the dim one.
artaloha 2 years ago
He is telling the truth. Democrat or Republican, it won't matter any more after the next cycle of elections. It's a crisis to our democracy.
tumble4m3 2 years ago 9
You've got it right!
artaloha 2 years ago
Everyone has to understand that he is simply a pundit. He is just as insignificant as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
What I mean by that is they are like this for entertainment and not information. If you want information, watch the PBS Newshour, listen to NPR, or read a newspaper.
xpriestsxsyrinxx 2 years ago 2
@xpriestsxsyrinxx who cares who he is or how important... he isnt the only one saying this. what he says is true. read al gores book 'the wealth of nations' or watch the daily show, or the colbert report, or anything but fox news. corporations own this country, you cant be capitalist and anything else.... you only get to be capitalist.
gottoassimilate 2 years ago 4
@xpriestsxsyrinxx PBS has covered this as well. They didn't elaborate on the implications of the ruling, but if you can't put two and two together here then I guess you'll get what you deserve.
CamTheCat 2 years ago