Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Google's recent activity is worrying. Maybe I should be alarmed by them, but I'm not. Probably because Google is built on a core of innovation instead of copycatting and lawsuits. If Microsoft was a person (and I guess it is, according to the SCOTUS) then I would say it suffers from poor self-esteem. There must be a recognition of that within the company- that they have little innovation to be proud of - and that's what drives their company ethos. Oh and this of course.>> ^Croccydile:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
I'm more worried about Google to be honest. They're starting to control too much information, spreading into every sector. They just launched a social network, will launch their own phone as well as operating system and so on... Not that M$ doesn't suck, but then again most corporations are evil. Yes, Apple too.

Speak of the devil... http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2010/02/remail-acquired-by-google.html
This is only one small company, but that is even beyond Microsoft to not only buy them, but remove the product. At least when Microsoft bought Visio they kept selling it!

Your video, Obama Calls Out SCOTUS in State of the Union Speech, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Said it before - and I'll say it again...
Free speech is never a bad thing. I will never for the life of me understand how people can be so offended by the right of people (which includes companies & groups) to appeal to government. McCain/Fiengold was bad, stupid law and it was overturned with more than just cause because it was unconstitutional. They made a law abridging free speech. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Another thing I don't understand - why do people get so mad at lobbyists for approaching politicians, and yet they never get mad at the politicians for being 'influenced'? Why did we make an unconstitutional law to punish free speech, and yet we have NO law to punish politicians who vote for bad policy?
If it is 'bad' for companies & interest groups to dangle money, then surely it is far worse for the politicians to actually be - you know - INFLUENCED. Money is like water. It is going to find a way into the system. You can't stop it. McCain/Fiengold was not only unconstitutional, it was stupid. You might as well run around trying to stop a monsoon by catching it in your cupped hand. The only proper solution is harsh penalties, monitoring, and regulation of GOVERNMENT officials. I think a law that throws elected officials in jail for accepting money, jobs, gifts, or favors woudl be far more effective than a law banning corporate lobbying efforts. Attack the source - not the symptom.


Ok this guy is working for the man.

Also about politicians accepting money etc. etc. It is generally argued that a john is to be blamed for prostitution. Often the john will be held criminally accountable and the prostitute will be set free maybe with a warning. The argument I think is basically that if we eliminate johns(as they're trying to do with many court-ordered programs to help them deal with their prostitute seeking behaviour) then there won't be any prostitutes.

Personally I think they both should be punished but some would pardon the prostitute because the need to get paid(to feed your kids, clothe yourself, buy a stick of deodorant) is stronger than the need to get laid. I realize my argument here is not incredibly well developed but it doesn't need to be because...

If companies are people as you so clearly claim why are they never held criminally accountable for their actions, i.e. dumping toxic waste into a community causing unknown amounts of cancer and deformed babies.

A company is just fucking not a goddamn person. Companies don't fucking eat. Companies don't fucking require shelter. Companies are not held accountable to ANYONE or ANYTHING other than their profit sheet. Literally.

Business is war and a good company will turn itself a profit like a good general will win a war. Even if that means murdering the elderly, raping the women, and brainwashing the children.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
:eyeroll: So what? You can be a student of law, and even a professor (as leftie blogs like to call him) and still be a total numbnut. Obama's opinion on the constitution is plainly dominated by his bias towards civil rights activism. For example, he laments the Constitution for only having 'negative rights' (limits on government) and NOT saying what government 'should do'. He disdains the constitution as an incomplete, 'unfinished' document waiting for his ammendments/changes/alterations. A COMPETENT professor of constitutional law wouldn't do such a thing. Real ones restrict themselves to studying what the constitution actually says as opposed to wresting the document until it mirrors their personal philosophies.
Not to mention that his grasp of basic FACTS on the issue is in question. Obama said they reversed a 'century of law'. Baloney. SCotUS reversed part (not all) of McCain/Fiengold (2002), not the Tillman Act. Obama said foreign companies will be able to buy influence. Bullcrap. That kind of ad buying was illegal before, and it's still illegal now because the repeal didn't touch it. Obama is probably a hypocrite too because his campaign sure wasn't publicly fincanced, and the source of where he got all that money is under investigation. His campaign coffers were loaded with corporate cash.


Wait, so you think massive corporations like Wal-Mart should be able to donate as much as they want to whoever they want? It seems clear as day to me that this means they will donate hundreds of millions of dollars to whichever politicians has ideals that will make them more profit.

If politician a has a viable plan to build a home for every American and politician b has a plan that will end up increasing Wal-Mart's profits then Wal-Mart will donate hundreds of millions to politician b. Since money = votes, politician b will win.

Is my rudimentary understanding of the situation correct? How is this good for any of us?????

:eyeroll: So what? You can be a student of law, and even a professor (as leftie blogs like to call him) and still be a total numbnut. Obama's opinion on the constitution is plainly dominated by his bias towards civil rights activism. For example, he laments the Constitution for only having 'negative rights' (limits on government) and NOT saying what government 'should do'. He disdains the constitution as an incomplete, 'unfinished' document waiting for his ammendments/changes/alterations. A COMPETENT professor of constitutional law wouldn't do such a thing. Real ones restrict themselves to studying what the constitution actually says as opposed to wresting the document until it mirrors their personal philosophies.

Not to mention that his grasp of basic FACTS on the issue is in question. Obama said they reversed a 'century of law'. Baloney. SCotUS reversed part (not all) of McCain/Fiengold (2002), not the Tillman Act. Obama said foreign companies will be able to buy influence. Bullcrap. That kind of ad buying was illegal before, and it's still illegal now because the repeal didn't touch it. Obama is probably a hypocrite too because his campaign sure wasn't publicly fincanced, and the source of where he got all that money is under investigation. His campaign coffers were loaded with corporate cash.

>> ^marinara:
let me fucking guess, Is the MSM is going to dissect body language for days while Obama's vacuous speech gets a pass?

Actually, our vacuous media will spend lots of time hyperventilating over whether Obama crossed the line with what he said in this clip.

There will also be (surprise, surprise) a huge focus on the effect of the speech on the eternal political horserace. In other words, "how did it play with his liberal base/independents/Republicans who long for bipartisanship", or as Fox News would put it "let me fucking guess, the MSM is going to give Obama's vacuous and vapid speech a pass?"

>> ^blankfist:
Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,


Actually, it's a bit more like calling out the Senate for being a bunch of dysfunctional crybabies, but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Oh snap!
>> ^kceaton1:
You got told flowchart...

>> ^blankfist:
Next on NetRunner's channel: Obama calls out Congress for not bowing down to his greatness,


Cheers for the post. Just out of curiosity how do you like Ben Bernanke? Yeah everyone hates him but he'll stay.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^StealthNuck:
I read that as SCROTUS. I know I'm not the only one.

...and afterwards I'm skeptical it's not a typo.


S.upreme
C.ourt
R.uling
O.f
T.he
U.nited
S.tates

>> ^StealthNuck:
I read that as SCROTUS. I know I'm not the only one.


...and afterwards I'm skeptical it's not a typo.

Your video, Are corporations people? SCOTUS thinks so., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

At times I get the impression that corporations int the business landscape out there are meta-organisms made up of people analogous to cells. Living, evolving, mating and dying. And it seems to me that as individuals noone is really happy with the way things are going, but the entire system has a certain amount of inertia out of the control of any individual. And if enough people would actually say 'enough is enough' and grind the machine to a halt, we'd need a couple of years to reorganize and pick up the pieces.

That being said, I'm seeing the SCOTUS ruling as the concrete beginning of the end of nations as real carriers of power. In 20 years time we'll either have a society on the brink of revolution because people just won't put up with it anymore, or we'll be living in a system of megacorporations instead of nations if they move fast enough before the mass population catches on enough to care.

On the other hand, how bad would that be opposed to today? Ok, private enterprise is 99% of the time short sighted and focuses exclusively on this quarters earnings, damn next year. But instead of impotent politicians hand-fed "donations" along with "suggestions", at least we'd have a clear power structure out in the open.

We're missing a golden opportunity here, people.

SCOTUS says corporations are people too, right? Well, the DSM-IV says that if a person acted in a manner similar to SOP at the average corporation, they would be labeled sociopathic. If they then engaged in behavior that proved to be a threat to themselves or others, they could be involuntarily committed, until such a time that they can 'prove' that they're sane.

And... well... I'd like to see them try.

>> ^alizarin:
This is major major major bad news... but maybe it'll be so bad it'll make people win the end of Corporate personhood that's been around for a few decades.


Yeah, keep asking yourself, what's finally going to put people into action, to effect political change.