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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 815
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18201 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 01:08:34 PM

Misch: Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.


Lol, I read that too ! Koch brothers got godwinned by their own boy !
 
2014-04-02 01:08:44 PM

vonmatrices: I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?


The same reason insider trading laws don't apply to them (hint they make the laws)
 
2014-04-02 01:08:44 PM

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.


The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.
 
2014-04-02 01:08:49 PM

Jim_Callahan: If we're going to craft an amendment, my personal vote is that we restrict donations to entities that actually reside within the district of the election they're donating to, e.g. no donating to Texas gubernatorial elections if you live in Massachusetts or your company is incorporated in Delaware.


Not sure how this would work given corporations. You could just create a corporation in every state.

But yes, this is a massive, massive issue. There's a great article I just read about the Koch's getting involved in a local bus line funding case in TN, a state and issue where they have ZERO personal or economic interest. It's entirely about just using their money to create a testing ground, impacting the lives of thousands of people for shiats and giggles.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/why_are_the_kochs_trying_to_stop_a_t ra nsit_project_in_nashville/
 
2014-04-02 01:08:56 PM
They should go ahead and allow direct wire transfers to the candidate's bank account, declare them tax free, and prevent disclosure.
Next up, corporate surgically implanted pacemakers for lawmakers with a remote kill switch if they do not vote the right way.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:25 PM

R.A.Danny: Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not.


What's the difference?
 
2014-04-02 01:09:42 PM
Whelp, the country is toast.

Remember this next time you see a mouthbreather teatard on a hoveround crowing about supporting "freedom," "liberty" and especially "democracy," since those are now strictly historical phenomena in the US. As far as being a "beacon of light in a world of tyranny" and all that cute historical language, well, I don't think everyone realizes that we've actually turned from the good guys into the bad guys. I weep for what our country once was and am glad its founders can't see this.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:48 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, I understand that's the actual law. I'm asking you (or the court) to justify it.


1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?
2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?

Justify your ire.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:50 PM
How did I know it would be 5-4 in favor of "fark you, peon" the moment I saw the fail tag...
 
2014-04-02 01:10:02 PM
images.politico.com

"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design."
 
2014-04-02 01:10:05 PM
This was correctly decided given CU but if we can have a direct contribution limit then it needs to be shrunk to a somewhat smaller amount.  $100 maybe.
 
2014-04-02 01:10:17 PM

R.A.Danny: So my money would be supporting a nazi? Brilliant.


I'm sure that your money already supports a number of things you don't agree with and would prefer not to fund.  You'll get over it.
 
2014-04-02 01:10:43 PM
..all people are created equal (Addendum1) and that some people are created more equal than others (end: Addendum1)
 
2014-04-02 01:10:48 PM

DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.

So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?


That's what the court is for. I'm just saying this is how the system was designed. It's not perfect by any stretch.
 
2014-04-02 01:11:19 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, I understand that's the actual law. I'm asking you (or the court) to justify it.


Well there are a few arguments that i know of:

1) Bribery is directly corrupting and is the clearest and easiest case to determine corruption.  Thus the government wouldn't be over-inclusive in precluding it.  By that i mean that general campaign donations may be corrupting, but they may not be.  and offer a lot of hard line drawing problems: how much is too much, if $5000 is corrupting, why isn't $4,999?  Should the number move with inflation? What about various areas of the country which have cheaper ad buys?  Bribery offers a clean bright line - you give someone any amount of money in exchange for direct political favors, and boom, illegal.  General limits on spending to prevent corruption can sweep up too many legitimate acts of expression that were not corruptive, and theoretically many of the harms you fear can be precluded by other less restrictive means, such as publication of donor lists and the like.

2) Bribery was illegal at the time of the framing and stayed illegal.  Thus the drafters of the first amendment did not view quid pro quo expenditures as being an expressive act protected by the first amendment.

/as usually in these threads, this doesn't mean i agree with these points, but here they are.
 
2014-04-02 01:11:36 PM
Sweet! I'm gonna go buy me a whole bunch of congressmen and then pass whatever laws I want! Suck it, poors!
 
2014-04-02 01:12:02 PM

R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?


Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?


No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.


My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.
 
2014-04-02 01:12:40 PM
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition

TYT is actually getting bills introduced at the State level calling for a constitutional convention for an amendment to get money out of politics.  No way will Congress pass this on their own.  It must come from the States.
 
2014-04-02 01:13:09 PM

rvesco: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Yes, we really need a clear constitutional amendment that limits our rights.  We haven't had one of those since Prohibition.


Yeah, I know this is trolling, but my response is "I'm willing to give this one a try."
 
2014-04-02 01:13:21 PM

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?

Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?

No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.

My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.


Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.
 
2014-04-02 01:13:46 PM
let it flow, for all the good it will do for them. In my opinion, Citizen's United was a total and continuing backfire. It didn't work. All it did was bring more crazies in that aren't electable. Keep it coming idiots. Money can't fix everything.
 
2014-04-02 01:14:10 PM

HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.


Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).
 
2014-04-02 01:14:13 PM

Teiritzamna: 1) Bribery is directly corrupting and is the clearest and easiest case to determine corruption.


Snipping your comment for space reasons.

This is an argument that kind of makes sense, but it takes us a step back to "in what world is a panel of judges, as opposed to a legislature, capable of determining where the line is"? Aren't these people against judicial activism? Isn't the whole point of a legislature to determine these things?

Teiritzamna: 2) Bribery was illegal at the time of the framing and stayed illegal.  Thus the drafters of the first amendment did not view quid pro quo expenditures as being an expressive act protected by the first amendment.


I take it you don't agree with this, so I won't even try to rebut it. It's a terrible argument.
 
2014-04-02 01:14:28 PM

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?

Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?

No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.

My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.


wait for the hobby lobby ruling.  They are going to decide a corporation has a right to religious freedom and can exempt itself from all kinds of shiat.
 
2014-04-02 01:14:57 PM

R.A.Danny: vonmatrices: I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?

Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not. If you have contributed to a campaign and are butthurt because someone else contributed more I really can't help you.


Let me spell out my position:

1) There is no issue with anyone using their own money to set up a soapbox to speak from.  If the Koch brothers or George Soros or whatever wants to buy a TV station and tell the world how great their party and candidates are, go ahead.  Hell, we already have MSNBC and Fox News that act in this manner.

2) But when you give money to a singular candidate, it becomes difficult for that candidate not to pay attention to the needs of that donor.

3) Even if that candidate would have done the same things anyway - any actions that candidate does that favors the donor can possibly be viewed as corrupt - if not by law then at very least by the public.

4) Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?
 
2014-04-02 01:15:14 PM

R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.


All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
 
2014-04-02 01:15:54 PM

vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?


Government employees aren't rulers.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:11 PM

Churchy LaFemme: SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...


No kidding.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:36 PM

Generation_D: Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.

Not being statist assholes, probably not.

The Koch brothers and that fat rich jew in a wheelchair that owns the Venetian sure are though.


"Nanny" Bloomberg and Soros not statists? Your troll-fu is weak.

1/10
 
2014-04-02 01:16:46 PM

sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.


What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:59 PM

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."


That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.
 
2014-04-02 01:17:26 PM
Is this the thread where all the Republican Farkers jerk each other off because their Party was behind a major judicial ruling, but because they are Republican they are too ignorant to realize that it was actually a bad thing?

The RNC: God, guns, wars against brown people and big ass pickup trucks... because we're greedy kochsuckers!
 
2014-04-02 01:17:31 PM

Miss Alexandra: As it stands, we have a Republican/Democrat duopoly.  And with not a dime's worth of difference between them, at least not at the national level, and probably not at the state level.


Strongly disagree.

While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.
 
2014-04-02 01:17:40 PM

sendtodave: We accept that every day.


I 'accept' that people get cancer. That doesn't mean I like it or don't try to support causes fighting against it.
 
2014-04-02 01:17:56 PM

DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.

rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.
 
2014-04-02 01:18:16 PM

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.


So you're tapping out of this conversation?
 
2014-04-02 01:18:25 PM
The "problem" with the Constitution is that it was designed for a responsible and vigilant nation. It recognizes a lot of individual rights that at the time were mostly unheard of. Yes the Magna Carta and other previous documents had a lot of influence on the thinking of the Framers. but never before had a nation been constructed from the ground up with such a framework in place. Intertwined with all that liberty was the danger of it being missused. Bus as Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Well, we haven't been vigilant. Our nation was designed to give the people exactly the government it deserves. A people who pays attention to a candidates  actions, who holds liberty in higher value than temporary free shiat, and wants to be let to live and succeed on their own, not have their hand held like a child gets a government that respects those things. Because that kind of nation would choose a government that does.

But we have a nation that can't be bothered to read anything, much less research what their representatives have done vs. what they say. Combined with the vast majority wanting free shiat from their guy at the expense of the other guy, whether it be a company wanting corporate welfare or a person wanting socialized handouts, we have elected a government that gives us exactly that. Anyone with half a brain could have told us that was a recipe for our own poison. And they did. The Founders told us as much. Churchill reminded everyone that socialism is the gospel of envy, the creed of ignorance which its only inherent value is the equal sharing of misery. Tocqueville told us that a republic can only last until the people realize they can vote themselves free shiat from someone else's pockets. Eisenhower told us to beware the military industrial complex. We have been warned repeatedly that our lack of vigilance in our own government would be our undoing. But instead the entire nation just bought into the idea that if they only just vote for the guy who says they will give their group the most free shiat, everything will be alright. Well, it's not alright. And the fascist nation we live in now is a consequence of our own actions. And actions always have consequences.
 
2014-04-02 01:18:31 PM

James!: It's not even a planet anymore.


www.animationconnection.com
 
2014-04-02 01:18:33 PM

DamnYankees: sendtodave: We accept that every day.

I 'accept' that people get cancer. That doesn't mean I like it or don't try to support causes fighting against it.


Still no cure for cancer, power inequality.
 
2014-04-02 01:18:50 PM

sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.

Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).


Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. They can be brought to heel.
 
2014-04-02 01:19:30 PM

DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?


No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."
 
2014-04-02 01:20:08 PM

DeaH: Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.


Well this is the problem with texualism.  But lets try it anyway.

The First Amendment states in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

Hrm.  Well that's rather, short, isn't it?  So now we need to ask some further questions.  Primary of them is "What the heck is 'the freedom of speech'?" Does that mean only the freedom to make noises from your throat?  Well while it is possible, it is unlikely.  Given the war that the revolutionaries fought and the arguments made in the federalist papers, a better way to read "the freedom of speech" is "the freedom to express yourself to others."

"Ok.  Well i still dont see 'money' there!" you may decry.  And you would be right, as far as text goes.  However, the ability to express yourself doesn't really mean too much if it is limited only to the ability to do so with only your body.  Surely it must encompass writing, and distributing those writings, right?  Well if that is the case, you had to use physical objects from the real world to facilitate your expression.  It wouldn't be much of a protective right if the government could stop you from talking, but could easily stop you from printing things, or distributing those writings.

So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.  And there you go.  For the first amendment to mean anything, it must include not only speaking out loud with your voice but also expending money to get your message out there.

the problem is when we then shorten that very complicated understanding to a phrase like "money is speech" which is so divorced of the above nuance that it seems a gross contradiction.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:19 PM

SphericalTime: This is disgusting:

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really?  I think that's exactly what it farking means.



I don't see what the problem is. I fully expect all of the current republican hopefuls to accept my invitation to stop by my house as fast as they did when Sheldon Adelson called.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:23 PM

d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.


I'm okay with corporations being people if we treat them.the same way that the immortals in Gulliver's Travels were treated.

You don't die because of old age? Very well, after a certain age your possessions get split up and you don't get to own anything to prevent you from owning absolutely everything by sheer virtue of age.

Either that or any company that can't pass an IQ test with a score of at least 85 has someone appointed to act with power of attorney on behalf of that corporation. That person would also be responsible the actions of the corporation. In practice (s)he'd be the CEO, but with an actual chance to be prosecuted for mismanagement/law breaking/endangerment.

/Considering that corporations are merely text on a paper none will pass the test
 
2014-04-02 01:20:25 PM

sendtodave: DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.


While this may have always been somewhat true, it's a little offensive that it's now the official law of the land.  Might as well repeal all the voting rights amendments and go back to the system where only the rich, land-owning white males get to tell everyone else what to do.  The rest of us can be indentured servants or slaves.  And we'll love them for it because being born not rich means god doesn't love you as much.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:45 PM

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?

No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."


You haven't said if you agree or disagree, you are just taking a pessimistic view of the Government, which is understandable.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:54 PM
Great so even more political ads to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPmIQLFbZ3Y
 
2014-04-02 01:21:17 PM

Cataholic: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

I've searched the entire opinion for that phrase and cannot seem to find it.  Can anyone point it out to me?


That was just his troll-y way of diverting the argument. I do not agree with the SCOTUS decision, but I think zedster could have been more intellectually honest in couching the discussion. The fact is that the SCOTUS made it possible for certain people influence politics in a very negative way and called it "freedom of expression" which shouldn't surprise us. Just like Harry Reid using the "nucler option" this will benefit and backfire on both sides of the republicrats.
 
2014-04-02 01:21:24 PM

HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.

Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).

Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. They can be brought to heel.


When?  Where?

I watched a show where a couple white guys when to friggen new Guinea to live with a tribe.

The tribe consisted of a male leader, a holy man, men, and women.  In that order.

This is the very basis of society.  Heck, even primates organize themselves into power hierarchies, where the guys on top get all the best stuff.

And I'm not a libertarian.
 
2014-04-02 01:21:43 PM
So the ruling doesn't want to limit contributions because there's no guarantee it's a corruptive influence. Ok, no prob. Naturally, it should then favor going absolute disclosure of dates, amounts, in individual + organization names of where those contributions are coming from.

Right?

Right?

Hello?
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report