But remember, they can't afford to hire anybody, bless their hearts!

FTFA: All told, the group, Restore Our Future, raised about $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011.

o_0

They're rich assholes, with a chance to elect one of their own. Who really thought they'd behave differently?

I don't understand why certain groups aren't making a bigger deal about the vast amount of cash on hand companies currently have, and trying to bust the myth that capital directly and inevitably leads to more jobs.

The RIchest Man in Babylon: FTFA: All told, the group, Restore Our Future, raised about $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011.

o_0

One has to wonder, what sort of Future they are trying to Restore. One in which a handful of people sucked all the wealth out of the American economy and doomed the nation?

I'm trying to remember the name of that asshole justice that got all butthurt at Obama's SOTU speech a couple years ago when he said this kinda shiat would happen. Who was the dickweed?

All told, the group, Restore Our Future, raised about $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011.

Those 200 donors averaged $90,000 in contributions. For comparison, the median income for Americans in 2010 was $26,000, or nearly 3.5 times lower than those donors threw at Mitt Romney. If you ever wondered why Washington helps those who already have enough money to help themselves, this is exactly why.

God wants Barak Hezbollah Obama OUT of the White House.

/they don't call it the WHITE House for nothin'.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm trying to remember the name of that asshole justice that got all butthurt at Obama's SOTU speech a couple years ago when he said this kinda shiat would happen. Who was the dickweed?

Alito.

Wendy's Chili: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm trying to remember the name of that asshole justice that got all butthurt at Obama's SOTU speech a couple years ago when he said this kinda shiat would happen. Who was the dickweed?

Alito.

Right. That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself.

I'll let his colleague Antonin Scalia speak on his behalf...



/it's good to be the king justice

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Wendy's Chili: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm trying to remember the name of that asshole justice that got all butthurt at Obama's SOTU speech a couple years ago when he said this kinda shiat would happen. Who was the dickweed?

Alito.

Right. That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

There's an argument that he did what the court is there to do interpret the laws as currently written. He is a partisan dick for sure, but at least a couple of those who sided with him on the decision did so for the reason that they are not supposed to create law, only interpret. To them, it was viewed as a challenge to congress, and by extension the people who (in theory) place those representatives to correct this oversight in the legal code.

Imagine shining a light and seeing that the floor is infested with cockroaches. They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it. (Similar to those who are angry at Colbert for making a mockery of the PAC systems)

Bottom line these people are looking for tax breaks that specifically target them and we all should know that republicans have never actually reduced the size of government when they held power so this basically means that they are donating to the guy that will force middle class and poor people to sacrifice more for this country while the very wealthy continue to walk on our throats. Pretty much why if you are a middle class republican you are a farking retard.

Oh, and Scalia, Alito, and Thomas can all self-immolate.... just in case I seem like a cheerleader.

EyeballKid: But remember, they can't afford to hire anybody, bless their hearts!

To be fair, the problem is that they're seeking the best ROI for their money. Creating a new job will only provide maybe 5-10% back on the money they pour into their company. In comparison, lobbying Congress for preferential tax benefits can give them a ROI of well above 20000%.

Homer Nixon: I don't understand why certain groups aren't making a bigger deal about the vast amount of cash on hand companies currently have, and trying to bust the myth that capital directly and inevitably leads to more jobs.

The last group who tried were branded hippies and got tear gassed.

Sucker bet.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Imagine shining a light and seeing that the floor is infested with cockroaches. They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it.

Allright, that's completely fair, and I know when I need to be talked down.

But it seems to me while they were turning on the light, they installed an auto-feeding system for the roaches, gave them gas masks and guns, and bought them all copies of The Prince and The Art of War. It's going to be damn near impossible to exterminate the roaches when they're so well-armed and coordinated.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it.

They ruled that money doesn't have a corrupting influence on politics, ignoring human nature, history, and common sense. The "exterminators" passed laws that this court struck down. They know goddamned well it's not going to be revisited.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Oh, and Scalia, Alito, and Thomas can all self-immolate.... just in case I seem like a cheerleader.

Not at all. I can tell the difference between reasoned analysis and partisan dickbaggery.

Can we agree that donors to failing campaigns should not be granted any tax exemption whatsoever, given that if you thought Michelle Bachman/Tim Pawlenty/Rick Santorum/et al would be the next president, you've shown you have no business handling amounts of money larger than $72.36 (arbitrary number, just sayin')?

Party before country.

mmm, all this superPAC nonsense and FartFace Dingo Boingo still killed them in fundraising.

...this is bad news for Boingo, i'm sure.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Imagine shining a light and seeing that the floor is infested with cockroaches. They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it.

Allright, that's completely fair, and I know when I need to be talked down.

But it seems to me while they were turning on the light, they installed an auto-feeding system for the roaches, gave them gas masks and guns, and bought them all copies of The Prince and The Art of War. It's going to be damn near impossible to exterminate the roaches when they're so well-armed and coordinated.

Without a doubt, and I know the stakes are much different. It's not like we can just burn the house down and start over. I don't know how, in our current society we overcome this, it's a fascinating problem. The populist movements of the past 3-4 years hold some hope. If they rallied around a 3rd party candidate more effectively and could unify on this topic, which seems to strike a chord amongst them all... maybe it could change the tone and bring in exterminators.

Buddy Roemer and Elizabeth Warren are the only people I know of on a national scale that are championing this point of view, but it would take a miracle to get Buddy where he needs to be just to become competitive, and Warren couldn't do it on her own. I don't think everyone in congress would have to go, just enough to push the opinions of the corporatist to the ropes. From there, public opinion should be able to carry the opinion change needed for those concerned with staying in office.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Wendy's Chili: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm trying to remember the name of that asshole justice that got all butthurt at Obama's SOTU speech a couple years ago when he said this kinda shiat would happen. Who was the dickweed?

Alito.

Right. That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

There's an argument that he did what the court is there to do interpret the laws as currently written. He is a partisan dick for sure, but at least a couple of those who sided with him on the decision did so for the reason that they are not supposed to create law, only interpret. To them, it was viewed as a challenge to congress, and by extension the people who (in theory) place those representatives to correct this oversight in the legal code.

Imagine shining a light and seeing that the floor is infested with cockroaches. They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it. (Similar to those who are angry at Colbert for making a mockery of the PAC systems)

There's a problem with this line of thinking, especially about Citizens United v. FEC and its predecessor case Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court has said that Congress has the power to regulate speech when that speech has a corrupting influence. However, the decisions in these two cases said that limiting campaign expenditures and donations does not lead to corruption, so they are deserving of unlimited protection. I'll agree that almost every member of Congress doesn't engage in bribery with quid pro quo donations from benefactors. That doesn't mean that their actions aren't being corrupted though. When faced with a choice to return one call out of a hundred, any Congressmen would call back the one person who donated money to their campaign rather than the other ninety-nine who didn't. They're completely dependent on their money to run their election campaign. Instead of listening to the American people like the Constitution intended, they're now listening to the people who donate money to their campaigns. That is corruption defined. Just because it's not evil or menacing doesn't make it not corruption.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: To them, it was viewed as a challenge to congress, and by extension the people who (in theory) place those representatives to correct this oversight in the legal code.

"America, we challenge you to get money out of politics through your elected representatives. To make it interesting, we're allowing those who want to keep money in politics to give unlimited amounts of money to those very same elected representatives. Have fun."

hurdboy: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

Why? He concurred with Justice Kennedy's opinion. The bobbleheads at TPM still haven't read the decision in Citizens United. Neither have the Occupiersfleabaggers.

Alito is a moran. Obama got the left's judicial derp balance with Kagan.

So you have no problem with "activist" judges just so long as they make rulings you support.

hurdboy: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

Why? He concurred with Justice Kennedy's opinion. The bobbleheads at TPM still haven't read the decision in Citizens United. Neither have the Occupiersfleabaggers.

Alito is a moran. Obama got the left's judicial derp balance with Kagan.

I don't give a fark if Kennedy agreed. Is this one of those "a guy commonly perceived as leftist agreed therefore the opinion is beyond reproach to anyone with liberal sentiments" things?
Cos if that's how you're rolling you're way off.
Alito can self-immolate because he sat there on national TV basically denying reality. Everybody knew what would happen, he said it wouldn't, he was wrong, he's a dick, and he can burn. If it'll make you feel better I'll throw Kennedy on that bonfire while I'm at it.

As for that ridiculous little Kagan remark, I have one word for you: Really?

I mean seriously, really? Cmon man. Really?

HotWingConspiracy: Leo Bloom's Freakout: They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it.

They ruled that money doesn't have a corrupting influence on politics, ignoring human nature, history, and common sense. The "exterminators" passed laws that this court struck down. They know goddamned well it's not going to be revisited.

I may have to re-read it, because as I recall it was more about differentiating the influence of money from the influence of speech. Misleading speech (what this money is typically going towards) is also corruptive, but is clearly protected. So to them, there was no clear way currently allowed to differentiate those influences, citing items like the news media as examples. A big news corporation can use it's money and influence to push an agenda (see Fox News), but since the message it what is being looked at, it is protected. The companies however had to do a little dance to try and achieve the same results to possibly counter those influences or to have a similar voice.

Not saying it's right, but it's not as simple as you put. There's gotta be a mechanism to fix it, but it's gotta overcome these hurdles.

Serious Black: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Wendy's Chili: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm trying to remember the name of that asshole justice that got all butthurt at Obama's SOTU speech a couple years ago when he said this kinda shiat would happen. Who was the dickweed?

Alito.

Right. That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

There's an argument that he did what the court is there to do interpret the laws as currently written. He is a partisan dick for sure, but at least a couple of those who sided with him on the decision did so for the reason that they are not supposed to create law, only interpret. To them, it was viewed as a challenge to congress, and by extension the people who (in theory) place those representatives to correct this oversight in the legal code.

Imagine shining a light and seeing that the floor is infested with cockroaches. They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it. (Similar to those who are angry at Colbert for making a mockery of the PAC systems)

There's a problem with this line of thinking, especially about Citizens United v. FEC and its predecessor case Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court has said that Congress has the power to regulate speech when that speech has a corrupting influence. However, the decisions in these two cases said that limiting campaign expenditures and donations does not lead to corruption, so they are deserving of unlimited protection. I'll agree that almost every member of Congress doesn't engage in bribery with quid pro quo donations from benefactors. That doesn't mean that their actions aren't being corrupted though. When faced with a choice to return one call out of a hundred, any Congressmen would call back the one person who donated money to their campaign rather than the other ninety-nine who didn't. They're completely d ...

Hmm, I think I may have been on the wrong note completely then. I am big enough to admit if I misunderstood something.

Your other points about how money corrupts, even when less overtly than we may be seeing right now, are fully valid.

Public financing ftw?

Crunch61: Party before country.

Two legs bad! 4 legs good!
Two legs bad! 4 legs good!
Two legs bad! 4 legs good!
Two legs bad! 4 legs good!

Homer Nixon: I don't understand why certain groups aren't making a bigger deal about the vast amount of cash on hand companies currently have, and trying to bust the myth that capital directly and inevitably leads to more jobs.

Which groups? You mean progressives and social activists? Because they talk about this all the time. They just tend to be are marginalized by the corporate news networks.

hurdboy: the President's misinterpretation of it...

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections,"

Which part did he get wrong again?

DeltaPunch: Leo Bloom's Freakout: They just turned on the light, what we have to do now is hire some exterminators to clear out the infestation instead of blaming the courts for exposing it.

So... what? Get congress to pass a bill making it illegal? How can we expect those that benefit the most from the cockroach infestation to be the ones to fix it?

Here's the deal. I know personally, I could vote for something that makes sense for the country as a whole and long-term even if it might impact my immediate benefits were I put in the position these folks are in. Knowing that, and knowing I am not exactly the most unique person on this planet, then there's gotta be a plurality of people who could do the same. We have to get them into office.

Also there are the "I am so rich I don't NEED the kickbacks" crowd who would be willing to support that type of movement for sight of the higher principle. I really do believe that there is some type of nobility to people but it is very easily corrupted, and when no one else is sticking up for it, it's hard to be the lone voice.

Those who understand what representative public service is supposed to be would be able to do right. Country before party/self.

Wendy's Chili: Which part did he get wrong again?

If anything the current election cycle has proven him correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Must be an overseas job... because the people they work for are not hiring us back here. hey if you can defeat Obama for only $5 a day, why would you hire those expensive americans.. Its business...don;t regulate us

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: hurdboy: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That sonnuvabiatch really needs to explain himself. And then retire. Or self-immolate. I'm good either way.

Why? He concurred with Justice Kennedy's opinion. The bobbleheads at TPM still haven't read the decision in Citizens United. Neither have the Occupiersfleabaggers.

Alito is a moran. Obama got the left's judicial derp balance with Kagan.

I don't give a fark if Kennedy agreed. Is this one of those "a guy commonly perceived as leftist agreed therefore the opinion is beyond reproach to anyone with liberal sentiments" things?
Cos if that's how you're rolling you're way off.
Alito can self-immolate because he sat there on national TV basically denying reality. Everybody knew what would happen, he said it wouldn't, he was wrong, he's a dick, and he can burn. If it'll make you feel better I'll throw Kennedy on that bonfire while I'm at it.

As for that ridiculous little Kagan remark, I have one word for you: Really?

I mean seriously, really? Cmon man. Really?

hurdboy makes a good point. Clarence Thomas's wife makes money spearheading a health care reform repeal movement yet he refuses to recuse himself from any health care repeal hearings, the Bush appointees are obviously in favor of "democracy to the highest bidder" (oh, if only we could have had the judicial acumen of Harriet Miers!), and the justices who coronated Dubya obviously are crooked.

On the other side, Elena Kagan plays softball.

So, see? BOTH sides are bad!

hurdboy: Wendy's Chili: Which part did he get wrong again?

It wasn't concerning direct contributions.

He didn't say anything about direct contributions. Try again.

hurdboy: So, the police union wants a certain ballot initiative supported? Sorry, no you can't have a newspaper ad. Not yours. And if the paper sells you one, you're all going to jail.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Citizens United crossed the line because they were targeting a specific candidate in an election. Groups were allowed to support or oppose policies, but were limited in attacking candidates during a certain window of time before the election.

hurdboy: Strike that, reverse it. Kennedy, who is pretty darned moderate, wrote the opinion. Alito concurred. (And disagreed visibly with the President's misinterpretation of it...)

I don't know what else to tell you, man. Kennedy was dead wrong. Alito was dead wrong. Sitting there and acting like Obama's interpretation of what The Citizens United decision would do was incorrect was dead wrong. I'm sorry if I'm not satisfying your desire that I be a hypocrite. fark 'em both, it was a bad decision.

Helen of Troy was the face that launched a thousand boats...

Barack Obama is the race that launched a thousand dopes.

the chairman of New Balance gave Restore Our Future $500k.

as a loyal New Balance customer, i'm less than thrilled.