If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Congratulations Chamber of Commerce. You are the winner of "Which lobbyist group benefits the most from the SCOTUS?" game   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 96
    More: Sad, chamber of commerces, supreme courts, Chief Justice Warren Burger, CAC, Roberts Court, amicus brief, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

1740 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 9:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-05-13 09:18:19 AM
For the corporations, of the corporations, by the corporations.
 
2013-05-13 09:18:34 AM
Meh...  Our government's been bought.

But, I'm sure corporations have our best interests in mind.  They'd never screw us over.  They're good people who depend upon us for their livelihoods and would really feel bad if they hurt America.
 
2013-05-13 09:22:49 AM

Vodka Zombie: Meh...  Our government's been bought.

But, I'm sure corporations have our best interests in mind.  They'd never screw us over.  They're good people who depend upon us for their livelihoods and would really feel bad if they hurt America.


4.bp.blogspot.com

for the love
 
2013-05-13 09:23:06 AM

DGS: For the corporations, of the corporations, by the corporations.


Since corporations = people, your quote is accurate.

Vodka Zombie: Meh...  Our government's been bought.

But, I'm sure corporations have our best interests in mind.  They'd never screw us over.  They're good people who depend upon us for their livelihoods and would really feel bad if they hurt America.


Corporate persons have rights, but no responsibilities to society, unlike people persons.
 
2013-05-13 09:23:47 AM
DNRTFA, but, fark the scumbags in the CoC.
 
2013-05-13 09:25:15 AM
"The Chamber of Commerce has definitely spearheaded the effort to shape the sort of cases that end up on the Supreme Court's docket," said Tom Donnelly, a lawyer at CAC and co-author of the study. "They're doing this because they know they have a consistent bloc on the court that's likely to vote in their interest."

So which is it?  The CoC is actively shaping the cases that the SCOTUS could take up to maximize their outcome or do they just sit back a smoke a cigar while their lacky SCOTUS rules in whatever way the CoC deems favorable?
 
2013-05-13 09:27:45 AM
It could be that SCOTUS normally deals with interstate commerce cases which normally pits regulation against commerce and the Chamber of Commerce sides with, you guessed it, commerce.

Or it could be the the government is has been bought by corporations and the Bilderbergers and we all jut pawns in a giant game of chess; waiting for the day when our benevolent corporate rulers decide we are no longer useful and should be Death Paneled.
 
2013-05-13 09:30:02 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-13 09:31:04 AM
Maybe their lawyers just write more convincing amicus briefs.
 
2013-05-13 09:32:16 AM

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]


Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.
 
2013-05-13 09:32:47 AM
FTA: When reached for comment, the CoC spokesman refrained from verbal communication and simply grinned and nodded.
 
2013-05-13 09:32:55 AM
The Chamber of Commerce is the biggest shiat show in every community.  They are hell bent on destroying workers rights and they are hell bent on making an already shiatty NLRB even worse.  The only way to combat these assholes is through illegal strikes amongst the working class.

/Some strikes that are illegal (and shouldn't be): Wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes
 
2013-05-13 09:33:31 AM

Nabb1: Maybe their lawyers just write more convincing amicus briefs.


Why would they need too when their corporate masters control the strings of the government. All they need to do is get their CEO to call up the secret junta that controls the country and say "We want this to happen."  But of course they need to keep the illusion of free will, something that corporations have controlled since time began.
 
2013-05-13 09:35:31 AM

monoski: Vodka Zombie: Meh...  Our government's been bought.

But, I'm sure corporations have our best interests in mind.  They'd never screw us over.  They're good people who depend upon us for their livelihoods and would really feel bad if they hurt America.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 656x270]

for the love


The thing about the Love Canal disaster that always kind of annoyed me was that the chemical company told everyone they had been dumping stuff and that it was dangerous as hell and you really shouldn't build on it. The city went ahead and built a school on top of it anyway. The Love Canal story always struck me as a story about the idiocy of local politicians more than the irresponsible business practices.
 
2013-05-13 09:36:46 AM

FarkedOver: The Chamber of Commerce is the biggest shiat show in every community.  They are hell bent on destroying workers rights and they are hell bent on making an already shiatty NLRB even worse.  The only way to combat these assholes is through illegal strikes amongst the working class.

/Some strikes that are illegal (and shouldn't be): Wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes


Gee the one I belong to just gets together for lunch once a month to network and complain about the cost of gas and power.
 
2013-05-13 09:37:17 AM
When a SCOTUS gets stacked by conservatives with the intention of creating a bias giving corporations more rights than individual citizens then you know we have reached the end of democracy and have become a corporate oligarchy.
 
2013-05-13 09:37:36 AM
Exercise your second amendment rights before the corporations take those away too.
 
2013-05-13 09:39:25 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: for the love

The thing about the Love Canal disaster that always kind of annoyed me was that the chemical company told everyone they had been dumping stuff and that it was dangerous as hell and you really shouldn't build on it. The city went ahead and built a school on top of it anyway. The Love Canal story always struck me as a story about the idiocy of local politicians more than the irresponsible business practices.


and the DEP must have ok'd that dumping so it was just one group selling us down the river after another
 
2013-05-13 09:42:34 AM
Maybe I was always deluded, but when I was growing up, my understanding was always that the Chamber of Commerce was a local, grassroots thing.  Every city, town, municipality had their own Chamber of Commerce.  Those still exist, but now the term "Chamber of Commerce" seems to mean "a powerful national lobbying organization for corporations."  Serious question, has it always been that way?
 
2013-05-13 09:42:54 AM

Lost Thought 00: Exercise your second amendment rights before the corporations take those away too.


Oooo...

If you could convince people of that...  well...  it would be absolutely epic.
 
2013-05-13 09:42:56 AM
It's almost like the Love Canal was less a product of corporations and more a product over terrible oversight by government agencies. If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
 
2013-05-13 09:45:31 AM
All caps headlines trifecta completed!
 
2013-05-13 09:45:35 AM

monoski: To The Escape Zeppelin!: for the love

The thing about the Love Canal disaster that always kind of annoyed me was that the chemical company told everyone they had been dumping stuff and that it was dangerous as hell and you really shouldn't build on it. The city went ahead and built a school on top of it anyway. The Love Canal story always struck me as a story about the idiocy of local politicians more than the irresponsible business practices.

and the DEP must have ok'd that dumping so it was just one group selling us down the river after another


There was no DEP in 1953 when the land was sold to the city.  The thing is Hooker Chemical knew the place was a chemical dump, and did not want to sell the land to the city,  the city pretty much said "sell us the land or we will take it through eminent domain" so the company sold it with a liability release and told the city the land was uninhabitable.
 
2013-05-13 09:45:43 AM

FarkedOver: The Chamber of Commerce is the biggest shiat show in every community.  They are hell bent on destroying workers rights and they are hell bent on making an already shiatty NLRB even worse.  The only way to combat these assholes is through illegal strikes amongst the working class.

/Some strikes that are illegal (and shouldn't be): Wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes


Ah, I see I'm already here...
 
2013-05-13 09:46:14 AM

Tom_Slick: FarkedOver: The Chamber of Commerce is the biggest shiat show in every community.  They are hell bent on destroying workers rights and they are hell bent on making an already shiatty NLRB even worse.  The only way to combat these assholes is through illegal strikes amongst the working class.

/Some strikes that are illegal (and shouldn't be): Wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes

Gee the one I belong to just gets together for lunch once a month to network and complain about the cost of gas and power.


We're on to you and your nefarious cabal, buddy.
 
2013-05-13 09:48:14 AM

Kibbler: Maybe I was always deluded, but when I was growing up, my understanding was always that the Chamber of Commerce was a local, grassroots thing.  Every city, town, municipality had their own Chamber of Commerce.  Those still exist, but now the term "Chamber of Commerce" seems to mean "a powerful national lobbying organization for corporations."  Serious question, has it always been that way?


Beats the hell out of me, I belong to a local Chamber.  We use it as a way to support local businesses the only kind of lobbying we do is to buy a billboard every November encouraging people to buy local.
 
2013-05-13 09:49:02 AM

Nabb1: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]

Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.


How else are ignorant people supposed to win an argument if they can't post inaccurate info?
 
2013-05-13 09:52:44 AM

Tom_Slick: Kibbler: Maybe I was always deluded, but when I was growing up, my understanding was always that the Chamber of Commerce was a local, grassroots thing.  Every city, town, municipality had their own Chamber of Commerce.  Those still exist, but now the term "Chamber of Commerce" seems to mean "a powerful national lobbying organization for corporations."  Serious question, has it always been that way?

Beats the hell out of me, I belong to a local Chamber.  We use it as a way to support local businesses the only kind of lobbying we do is to buy a billboard every November encouraging people to buy local.


The local ones are legit and completely separate from the soulless lobbying group of the same name based in Washington. It's almost as if they have co-opted a name associated with generally okay things in order to mask their destructive, self-serving purpose. Otherwise known as "Compassionate Conservatism".
 
2013-05-13 09:54:46 AM

Kibbler: Maybe I was always deluded, but when I was growing up, my understanding was always that the Chamber of Commerce was a local, grassroots thing.  Every city, town, municipality had their own Chamber of Commerce.  Those still exist, but now the term "Chamber of Commerce" seems to mean "a powerful national lobbying organization for corporations."  Serious question, has it always been that way?


It has been that way for years but the national group has stepped up their advocacy role a bit in the past few years and then then anticorp left found their version of Soros so you hear it even more.
 
2013-05-13 09:55:48 AM

Nabb1: Maybe their lawyers just write more convincing amicus briefs.


It can't be that the govt was doing something wrong. It's like criminal cases... If the guy isn't guilty then why did the cops arrest him? And if a DA doesn't get a conviction every time it means the criminal wins.

We need to balance out victories. That's how justice works!

/some people believe this...
 
2013-05-13 09:58:48 AM

Tom_Slick: Kibbler: Maybe I was always deluded, but when I was growing up, my understanding was always that the Chamber of Commerce was a local, grassroots thing.  Every city, town, municipality had their own Chamber of Commerce.  Those still exist, but now the term "Chamber of Commerce" seems to mean "a powerful national lobbying organization for corporations."  Serious question, has it always been that way?

Beats the hell out of me, I belong to a local Chamber.  We use it as a way to support local businesses the only kind of lobbying we do is to buy a billboard every November encouraging people to buy local.


Their functions are similar.  Imagine your local Chamber on a national scale.

The thing is, the national Chamber of Commerce likes to pass itself off and trick people into thinking that it's an official federal government organization when it is little more than a super PAC, and that lie has helped them quite a lot over the years.  It gives them a facade of legitimacy that they've not earned, and it allows them to push the decidedly right wing ideology of "corporations above all."
 
2013-05-13 10:03:26 AM
Corporations are people, my friend.

So they are just doing what is right for the people of America.
 
2013-05-13 10:11:53 AM
The target of popular scorn and attack du jour is usually the one that benefits from the SCOTUS the most. Right now, that's business. It hasn't always been, and no doubt it will change again at some point in the future.
 
2013-05-13 10:21:04 AM
The key to winning a Supreme Court decision these days is who can deliver an argument that deciding their way will make the rich richer.
 
2013-05-13 10:24:56 AM
My favorite are people who confuse the US Chamber of Commerce (a lobbying group) with the US Department of Commerce (a Cabinet-level federal government agency).
 
2013-05-13 10:27:51 AM
Well done, Freedom Fighters, well done.
 
2013-05-13 10:28:32 AM

Vodka Zombie: Meh...  Our government's been bought.

But, I'm sure corporations have our best interests in mind.  They'd never screw us over.  They're good people who depend upon us for their livelihoods and would really feel bad if they hurt America.



yea, they feel bad just like Psychopaths feel bad.
 
2013-05-13 10:29:09 AM

Tom_Slick: and the DEP must have ok'd that dumping so it was just one group selling us down the river after another

There was no DEP in 1953 when the land was sold to the city. The thing is Hooker Chemical knew the place was a chemical dump, and did not want to sell the land to the city, the city pretty much said "sell us the land or we will take it through eminent domain" so the company sold it with a liability release and told the city the land was uninhabitable.


Thanks for filling in the history. That is inexplicable incompetence.
 
2013-05-13 10:30:39 AM

Linux_Yes: Vodka Zombie: Meh...  Our government's been bought.

But, I'm sure corporations have our best interests in mind.  They'd never screw us over.  They're good people who depend upon us for their livelihoods and would really feel bad if they hurt America.


yea, they feel bad just like Psychopaths feel bad.


Psychopaths feel bad.  They get sick with colds and the flu just like everyone else, my friend.
 
2013-05-13 10:45:53 AM

Headso: Corporations are people, my friend.

So they are just doing what is right for the people of America.


Beat me to it, as I needed the graphic.

s11.postimg.org
 
2013-05-13 10:48:28 AM
The most prominent example was Citizens United v. FEC - the 2010 case in which the Roberts Court erased longstanding precedent in a 5-4 decision that loosened the restrictions on political campaign expenditures by corporations.

Citizens United overturned a 1990 case, not exactly "longstanding precedent."
 
2013-05-13 11:01:41 AM

Nabb1: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]

Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.


You mean ex-corporate legal counsel Ruben Bolling?
 
2013-05-13 11:09:02 AM

Mrbogey: Nabb1: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]

Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.

How else are ignorant people supposed to win an argument if they can't post inaccurate info?


Waaah! A comedic metaphor of the very real way in which corporate charters are used to abdicate responsibility of very real crimes wasn't 100% totally accurate and perfectly real!  Waaaah!"

Y'all sure are upset about a comic.
 
2013-05-13 11:10:48 AM

SkinnyHead: The most prominent example was Citizens United v. FEC - the 2010 case in which the Roberts Court erased longstanding precedent in a 5-4 decision that loosened the restrictions on political campaign expenditures by corporations.

Citizens United overturned a 1990 case, not exactly "longstanding precedent."


For his next trick, he'll forget this post and refer to 5 years as "a long time ago."

/It will involve Bush
 
2013-05-13 11:11:44 AM

Nabb1: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]

Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.


It was admittedly making a point in a rather ham-fisted way and skipping a lot of details.  At the same time though, you can also point to numerous examples of criminal activity by corporations that is bought off with civil fines instead of the Dept. of Justice having the balls (or expertise) to press on with criminal charges for the individuals who were personally involved.  Yes, you don't "throw a corporation in jail" but individuals DO go to jail for committing crimes.  And sometimes corporations who employed those individuals may as a result of the regulations under which they operate (banks) might be barred from certain activities as a result of having a felon as an executive officer.
 
2013-05-13 11:14:19 AM

Mrbogey: Nabb1: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]

Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.

How else are ignorant people supposed to win an argument if they can't post inaccurate info?


I should screenshot this exchange for the next time we have a thread about "conservative humor".
 
2013-05-13 11:15:43 AM

Mrbogey: /some people believe this...


Strawmen are people, too!
 
2013-05-13 11:26:02 AM

Whiskey Pete: Nabb1: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x789]

Whoever wrote that cartoon is a complete moron who doesn't understand how corporate law works on an even rudimentary level.

You mean ex-corporate legal counsel Ruben Bolling?


Well, then he should damn well have known better or maybe he's pandering to people who don't know better.  First, as a basic principle, a corporation may be formed only for a lawful purpose, not a criminal enterprise.  Assuming that his corporation is for a lawful enterprise, and not burglary, and that his act of burglary might not be imputed to the corporation, but he is still personally responsible for his own criminal acts, notwithstanding what it may mean for his corporation.  Third, the burglary took place before the formation of the corporation.  Yes, sometimes corporations get off with a slap on the wrist for doing bad things, but that cartoon is deeply flawed on a number of levels.
 
2013-05-13 11:26:37 AM

Tom_Slick: monoski: To The Escape Zeppelin!: for the love

The thing about the Love Canal disaster that always kind of annoyed me was that the chemical company told everyone they had been dumping stuff and that it was dangerous as hell and you really shouldn't build on it. The city went ahead and built a school on top of it anyway. The Love Canal story always struck me as a story about the idiocy of local politicians more than the irresponsible business practices.

and the DEP must have ok'd that dumping so it was just one group selling us down the river after another

There was no DEP in 1953 when the land was sold to the city.  The thing is Hooker Chemical knew the place was a chemical dump, and did not want to sell the land to the city,  the city pretty much said "sell us the land or we will take it through eminent domain" so the company sold it with a liability release and told the city the land was uninhabitable.


No they didn't, they just said they weren't responsible, and that's the big joke.  They poisoned the earth and air and water for years to come, they KNEW what they were doing would kill people, and they didn't care.  They didn't NEED to care, it wasn't their JOB to care, and it was not a "responsible business practice" to care.

Yet the same environmental regulations that keep us from allowing that sort of thing now, the same environmental regulations that keep companies from creating more toxic waste dumps, the same "retarded hippie" mindset that doesn't automatically trust an "environmental consultant" company's claims that industrial waste will be "sealed and safe" forever (just like the Love canal) need to be destroyed and are consistently ruled against by SCOTUS because the USCOC said so.
 
2013-05-13 11:30:53 AM

Vodka Zombie: Lost Thought 00: Exercise your second amendment rights before the corporations take those away too.

Oooo...

If you could convince people of that...  well...  it would be absolutely epic.


Have you tried taking a gun into GE's headquarters? Monsanto's? We've already lost that battle.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report