Wow that was well done!

(And one of Lithgow's best performances in years....)

There is an idea of a Mitt Romney; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.

A serial killer running in the GOP? More likely than you think!

That little "CAW!" at the end made me pee a little.

More like a hitman, since he was hired to do it.

Jisaw: That little "CAW!" at the end made me pee a little.

I lost it right then.

...and those that pollute...attempted murderer

Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

Koalaesq: Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

because maybe they'll be rich someday.

yelmrog: Koalaesq: Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

because maybe they'll be rich someday.

And that's pretty much it, isn't it?

Koalaesq: Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

A conservative I talked to about limiting or banning corporate campaign contributions said this about it: "But that would make Congress more liberal!"

So there it is.

Remember that conservatism almost always boils down to emotional identity politics.

Nicely done.

Koalaesq: Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

Corporate personhood isn't really the same thing as "corporations are people", it's a convenient legal packaging of the way liability and decision-making can be delegated for certain types of joint property. You want corporate personhood because otherwise every single member of your credit union has to vote every time the executive officer wants to order a ream of paper for the office copier, and any time someone sues the company all your other personal property is up for seizure by the court even if you only own one share. The separability of certain pools of group assets (corporations) from private holdings is a major benefit and fairly fundamental to the smooth working of a capitalist society.

As for the unlimited political spending, no, nobody wants that except the people who've been delegated control of the entities in question (corporate boards, CEOs, etc). And, frankly, not even all of them. This is why Citizens United came about through judicial activism rather than someone actually passing a law, a law stating what the USSC said would have gotten like one vote tops, and it would have been from someone batshiat crazy like Bachmann, whose lead exactly zero people follow.

Jim_Callahan: This is why Citizens United came about through judicial activism rather than someone actually passing a law, a law stating what the USSC said would have gotten like one vote tops

In the fraction of second it took me to get from here to the word "Bachmann" I'd formed a solid belief that you were going to name Droopy Dog / Palpatine.

Link

It's on Colbert's site

Meh, nevermind, stupid firefox didn't load the video properly on the linked website

Jim_Callahan:
Corporate personhood isn't really the same thing as "corporations are people", it's a convenient legal packaging of the way liability and decision-making can be delegated for certain types of joint property. You want corporate personhood because otherwise every single member of your credit union has to vote every time the executive officer wants to order a ream of paper for the office copier, and any time someone sues the company all your other personal property is up for seizure by the court even if you only own one share. The separability of certain pools of group assets (corporations) from private holdings is a major benefit and fairly fundamental to the smooth working of a capitalist society.

That can all be done, and has, without declaring corporations to have human rights. Such as the right to donate money to politicians (which all of the owners individually still have), or the right to freedom of speech (which all of the owners individually still have).

No Such Agency: Jim_Callahan:
Corporate personhood isn't really the same thing as "corporations are people", it's a convenient legal packaging of the way liability and decision-making can be delegated for certain types of joint property. You want corporate personhood because otherwise every single member of your credit union has to vote every time the executive officer wants to order a ream of paper for the office copier, and any time someone sues the company all your other personal property is up for seizure by the court even if you only own one share. The separability of certain pools of group assets (corporations) from private holdings is a major benefit and fairly fundamental to the smooth working of a capitalist society.

That can all be done, and has, without declaring corporations to have human rights. Such as the right to donate money to politicians (which all of the owners individually still have), or the right to freedom of speech (which all of the owners individually still have).

This. and "we want the rights of individuals without the responsibilities that come with those rights"

Coelacanth: Scientists ask: do republicans become serial killers or do serial killers become republicans? Link (new window)

That was actually pretty funny.

Koalaesq: Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

None. And that wasn't really the point of the commercial, if you think about it. The point was to put Romney in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" corner.

If he actually believes that corporations are people then, yes, the public can claim that he is like a serial killer in the way his past has handled corporations. And the only reason why he said those words in the first place was to please corporations, who mostly have his back and are supporting his campaign. Unfortunately now, with this commercial, Romney has to backtrack on his words or else look lousy in a negative light. But if he does, he runs the risk of looking like flip-flopper and isolating himself away from corporation backers.

Again, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

It's quite clever.

Jim_Callahan: Corporate personhood isn't really the same thing as "corporations are people"

Actually, it is. Corporate personhood is the idea that corporations benefit from all of the same rights as regular citizens. The idea that corporations are fictitious persons is what you're describing.

In any case, like most things, there's a bit of history to how we got here. It started with the railroad wars back in the late 1800s. One municipality didn't like the RR, so they tried to tax it out of the county. The RR sued, and the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment required the municipality to treat everybody- including corporations- the same. Over time, court cases have upheld and expanded on that basic ruling.

t3knomanser: Actually, it is. Corporate personhood is the idea that corporations benefit from all of the same rights as regular citizens. The idea that corporations are fictitious persons is what you're describing.

Also, I should add- I know this because I made the same exact mistake, did some research, and found out I was entirely mistaken.

It's like liberals refuse to learn what corporate personhood actually represents. Take 10 minutes, read some literature, and understand why corporations need some of the abilities an individual has.

This the kinda thing they *should* have been doing in the lead up to 2010, instead of that "why can't we all get along" party on the mall.

GeneralJim: Well played, Subby, well played... Although, what the HELL is logic doing in a political post?

I'm real tempted to order a FARK T-shirt now...

Colbert just trolled the shiat out of George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week.

Bucky Katt:

GeneralJim: Well played, Subby, well played... Although, what the HELL is logic doing in a political post?

does the green font make your post more logical?

No, but it DOES confound my enemies, starts them out with behind on snark scores 1-0. You see, when they call it an AW trick, they are instant losers. Either they are wrong about that, as I claim, or if they are right, they just played into it.

Now yours is an interesting approach. You just IMPLY it, by asking a question. Is that going to count as playing into it, or a near miss. We'll have to go to the rule book....

AW rule book says: You made it all about ME, so you're an insta-loser, too. So sorry. Here's a copy of our home game.

/ Actually, I'm just showing my support for the Persian people against their horrid theological dictatorship.

Jim_Callahan: As for the unlimited political spending, no, nobody wants that except the people who've been delegated control of the entities in question (corporate boards, CEOs, etc). And, frankly, not even all of them. This is why Citizens United came about through judicial activism rather than someone actually passing a law, a law stating what the USSC said would have gotten like one vote tops, and it would have been from someone batshiat crazy like Bachmann, whose lead exactly zero people follow.

We get it - you don't like the outcome. That doesn't make it a decision in which the Judiciary is making up laws. Corporations being treated as citizens in matters of contract law goes back 150 years at the least. The fix for this is simple - for Congress to modify existing laws that led to this decision.

/in other words - their job

MyRandomName: It's like liberals refuse to learn what corporate personhood actually represents. Take 10 minutes, read some literature, and understand why corporations need some of the abilities an individual has.

Even without reading up on the matter I can agree to some. But, not all.

bravian: Jim_Callahan: As for the unlimited political spending, no, nobody wants that except the people who've been delegated control of the entities in question (corporate boards, CEOs, etc). And, frankly, not even all of them. This is why Citizens United came about through judicial activism rather than someone actually passing a law, a law stating what the USSC said would have gotten like one vote tops, and it would have been from someone batshiat crazy like Bachmann, whose lead exactly zero people follow.

We get it - you don't like the outcome. That doesn't make it a decision in which the Judiciary is making up laws. Corporations being treated as citizens in matters of contract law goes back 150 years at the least. The fix for this is simple - for Congress to modify existing laws that led to this decision.

/in other words - their job


The idea that corporations are people under the constitution is case law itself, not some action by congress. It's going to take a constitutional amendment -- not just an act of congress.

I like to think of him as more of a really persuasive Kevorkian.

MyRandomName: It's like liberals refuse to learn what corporate personhood actually represents. Take 10 minutes, read some literature, and understand why corporations need some of the abilities an individual has.

And corporations were struggling to get by until Citizens United passed, right? How did they possibly manage to cope for the past 200+ years without it? They NEEDED that.

You know, there is a strong argument Mitt Romney *is* a sociopath. His story about the dog, the way he constantly tries and fails to act like "regular people" and the uncanny valley effect of his :folksy stories."

I suspect Romney will self destruct in the general. He's just too odd a person, too sociopathic. He'll continue to slip and speak his from his plutocratic, heartless soul about loving to fire, corporations are people, $10,000 bets.
Obama may be a corporate whore, but Romney literally is a the amoral big corporation.

johnnyrocket: I suspect Romney will self destruct in the general.

If he gets the nom, I believe his destruction will be what the GOP have in mind. They are just plain tired of him.

s2s2s2: If he gets the nom, I believe his destruction will be what the GOP have in mind. They are just plain tired of him.

Well, of course. They don't stand a realistic chance in 2012 without having a strong candidate, so it's better to throw a pack of useful idiots and toxic candidates under the bus to clear their stage to regroup for later elections.

Jerseysteve22: Colbert just trolled the shiat out of George Stephanopoulos on ABC This Week.

Not at all. Stephanopolous played the straight man wonderfully.

He introduced his guest as a comedian but did not crack a smile once. Straight man is the hardest role, and he was fantastic.

"You made your point now let me make mine."

Link (new window)

Koalaesq: Why does the average person WANT a corporation to be a person? What kind of benefit do they get by supporting that belief?

Because SOCIALISM you commie-loving freedom-hating un-American douchebag.