Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

18210 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (47 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 02:06:00 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: and the downfall of this great nation continues.


When, precisely, was this nation great?
 
2014-04-02 02:06:44 PM  

umad: Stone Meadow: The only advice I can offer those cheering this decision is to be careful what you ask for, because sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to hold a nearly unassailable demographic majority, and then they will, as sure as the sun rises, use this decision to permanently bury the GOP. Karma's a biatch, baby.

Then they will take their majority as a mandate to go after guns, which will put the GOP right back in power. If Democrats really wanted an unassailable majority, they would stop shooting themselves in the foot.


Guns are a wedge issue/rallying cry for democrats the same way abortion and welfare are for republicans. They really don't give a shiat about them. You hear about proposed legislation coming from representatives of metropolitan areas, but blue dog and swing flyover states are too critical to democrats for holding power in the house and senate, so yeah, it's just lip service.
 
2014-04-02 02:07:36 PM  

sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.

That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.
 
2014-04-02 02:07:51 PM  

Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.


Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.
 
2014-04-02 02:09:54 PM  

Pharmdawg: Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.


Nope, that happened.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:00 PM  

ReverendJynxed: So reword it to receiving limits. Put the limits on what the candidates receive instead of the folks donating. Let the overflow go to the public coffers


That is brilliant.  Seriously.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:34 PM  

Pharmdawg: Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.


No that happened earlier this week.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:58 PM  

sendtodave: badaboom: TV's Vinnie: Can we PLEASE start calling for the murder of the rich, pretty please?

I'm not kidding. Kill them before they kill you!

How do comments like this not get a Farker banninated?

Fark first amendment rights.


Vinnie, while normally treading on the line of serious/joking, made a good point. Kill them before they kill you. Survival of the fittest, except having money might not necessarily make you the most fit. I don't see a problem with it, and besides it's not like the 1% reads comments on Fark.
 
2014-04-02 02:12:27 PM  

Gunboat: ReverendJynxed: So reword it to receiving limits. Put the limits on what the candidates receive instead of the folks donating. Let the overflow go to the public coffers

That is brilliant.  Seriously.


This is the best solution I have heard
 
2014-04-02 02:12:33 PM  
It never fails to amuse me how farking stupid people are. There has never been a time in the entire history of the U.S.A. when the government wasn't run by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy. Unless you are fantastically wealthy you have no power or voice in this country, and the only time you even have the illusion of any kind of power is in election years when they pretend to listen to you dumbshiats.
No be a good little serf and bend over and grab your ankles because somebody has to pay for this stupid shiat and it isn't going to be the rich.
 
2014-04-02 02:13:15 PM  
Some Farmers are highly exasperated with this prudent decision.
 
2014-04-02 02:13:43 PM  
If you voted for Dubya give yourself a pat on the back!
 
2014-04-02 02:13:45 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: So when is FARK going to just consolidate the Business and the Politics tabs?


Wouldn't that make it too obvious for the average person? I mean we don't want to give them any ideals do we?
 
2014-04-02 02:14:27 PM  

sendtodave: cannotsuggestaname: and the downfall of this great nation continues.

When, precisely, was this nation great?


Oh come on, it's still great! There may be other countries I'd want to live in, but not for political or economic reasons. Just social and climate reasons.

This decision has implications for the political and economic conditions in this country, however, so I can sympathize with the "downfall" sentiment. But it doesn't automatically disqualify this country's overall greatness, IMO.
 
2014-04-02 02:15:22 PM  

Voiceofreason01: goddammit motherfarker


They pretty much just handed the entire country over to the Republican Party, didn't they?
 
2014-04-02 02:15:25 PM  
I keep reading the first amendment and don't see any dollar limits.

What constitution were the four pinheads who voted against this reading?
 
2014-04-02 02:15:27 PM  

Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.


I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.
 
2014-04-02 02:16:19 PM  
The conservative majority on SCOTUS is as activist as they come.
 
2014-04-02 02:16:23 PM  

Road Rash: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: 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.

So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.

... and the sooner we get the Democrats out of power, the better ... right?


Who appointed the people who voted for this horror? Let's start with them.
 
2014-04-02 02:17:16 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.

As far as I recall, all nine justices in Buckley held that the expenditure of money was generally protected under the first amendment.  Whether the government could regulate that under the many tangled exceptions/tests of first amendment jurisprudence was the question.


How did the vote for Citizen's and today's abomination fall out?
 
2014-04-02 02:17:45 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]



I think you're missing the point as to why this SCOTUS decision (and citizens united) are terrible.
 
2014-04-02 02:17:54 PM  

DamnYankees: This is true, but lets also keep in mind there are limits to it. You can't go around handing heroin to children as a way of advocating laxer drug laws, for example. This is not an absolute right.


Oh of course, but i fell into colloquial shorthand rather than having to haul out lawyerly phrases like: "The first amendment protects expression as long as (1) that expression does not fall afoul of one of the traditional exceptions to first amendment protection (obscenity, fraud, etc.); (2) the government has not established a reasonable time place and manner restriction alllowing that expression but curbing it for reasonable purposes (see, e.g., laws prohibiting loud music at 2 a.m.) or (3) the government hasn't shown a compelling interest and indicated that the restriction in question is the least restrictive means of securing that interest."  I can talk like that if you want, but i am begging you please dont make me (as i can now think of many exceptions to the exceptions i just listed and i dont want to go all fractal law here).

DamnYankees: I don't think I buy the latter. If I hand money to a campaign and it sits in a drawer, that's not an expressive act.


Wait, do you mean former (i.e. the giving of money to further expression)?  because if you do, it is not entirely relevant to the principle that the money isn't spent  (although as far as i know there are FEC rules on unspent contributions that address this very problem), it was intended to fund expression and thus a court will give it the benefit of the doubt.

DamnYankees: You just made a leap though. "Funding other expressive acts" is not a political expression; at least, you haven't established it as such. We actually know that in the real world this is expressly NOT true; think of the amount of people who fund both sides of a race simply so the eventual winner will know that you're in the donor group. Same thing for "signs of affiliation". That might be an act of expression, or it might not. When I get a Costco card, that's a sign of affiliation, but its not speech.

This is not political expression. It's commerce. It's paying for access.


The courts however have long disagreed with you on this point.  Donations as a sign of political affiliation are considered strongly protected.  I see your dissatisfaction with that, but i think that is just going to be one of those things where the general principle is unconvincing to you.

also thanks for thowing good game in this (and other) threads
 
2014-04-02 02:17:57 PM  

AbiNormal: It never fails to amuse me how farking stupid people are. There has never been a time in the entire history of the U.S.A. when the government wasn't run by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy. Unless you are fantastically wealthy you have no power or voice in this country, and the only time you even have the illusion of any kind of power is in election years when they pretend to listen to you dumbshiats.
No be a good little serf and bend over and grab your ankles because somebody has to pay for this stupid shiat and it isn't going to be the rich.


This.
 
2014-04-02 02:18:06 PM  
Republicans are back, baby!
 
2014-04-02 02:19:49 PM  

Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.


You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.
 
2014-04-02 02:20:02 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: Except this is not about printing. It is not about broadcasting. It is about giving politicians unlimited amounts of money. So, not at all the same. And there is a compelling interest to prevent just such a thing for the preservation of a representative democracy and republic.

Which is why the individual caps remain in place, because the Court has already found (and no one but Thomas, who is unsane, is questioning) that precluding direct unlimited donations is a compelling government intrest.


So, how does that work in conjunction with today's decision? (I am not being snotty. I really do want to know.)
 
2014-04-02 02:20:51 PM  

cchris_39: I keep reading the first amendment and don't see any dollar limits.

What constitution were the four pinheads who voted against this reading?


I keep reading the second amendment and don't see any background check limits.

Playing this game is a slippery slope.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:05 PM  

ygdrazel: chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]

The list now covers 1989 through 2014.  It appears you didn't bother to read or comprehend the disclaimer and explanation from the Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets about their "heavy hitters" (Highlights and [] below are mine...) :  https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

"This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" - groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years. While contributions to outside groups like super PACs do not factor into an organization's designation as a "heavy hitter" (a listing of about 150 groups), those numbers are included for the roster below.

For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs - enough to put him at No. 2 on this list [ygd: in one year even though the list covers 25 years of contributions...]. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control. Neither Adelson nor Bloomberg - or the organizations they report as their employers - qualifies as a "heavy hitter" under our current definition. It's also important to note that we aren't including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority - because these groups hide their donors; see a list of top donors that we've ...


to continue with chapman's deceit... the paragraph you lifted is directly ABOVE the list he provided. he has to either completely ignore "words" for pretty graphic, or he full and well saw it and just didn't care... used it anyway. lie by omission. and this really is the icing on the cake.

also, i wonder how all of them "patriot" fellers feel about this? they are always on the left for the spying, surveillance, and police state of things (though that's really a two party thing these days)... how do they feel about SCOTUS saying that big money is protected and blessed to control the top?
 
2014-04-02 02:21:19 PM  

DeaH: How did the vote for Citizen's and today's abomination fall out?


Well look to the dissents in each.  It is not necessary to find that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expression is not protected to come to a different outcome (none of the dissenters agreed with your premise).  Instead, its the majority's exceedingly thin definition of corruption (vis-a-vis an argument that the government has a compelling interest in preventing it) that is at issue.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:29 PM  

Stone Meadow: DamnYankees: It is amazing that in the same week you have GOP Presidential candidates all traveling to Las Vegas to bow and kiss the ring of a mega-donor in a rather sickening display of groveling, the USSC can make this decision. Pretty insane.

To go a little off the beaten path, I always wonder what Jabba's wife thinks as he undresses to climb into bed at night?

[unitedrepublic.org image 360x260]


I'm guessing they have separate rooms.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:35 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: sendtodave: cannotsuggestaname: and the downfall of this great nation continues.

When, precisely, was this nation great?

Oh come on, it's still great! There may be other countries I'd want to live in, but not for political or economic reasons. Just social and climate reasons.

This decision has implications for the political and economic conditions in this country, however, so I can sympathize with the "downfall" sentiment. But it doesn't automatically disqualify this country's overall greatness, IMO.


Fair enough, we are a pretty kick ass third world country.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:37 PM  
This is a downward slope people, it's been obvious to everybody paying attention and hasn't had their head stuffed up their own ass watching reality television.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:40 PM  
well, as long as the Koch's don't find some way to live for eternity, maybe my great grandkids can make the country a better place
 
2014-04-02 02:22:41 PM  

R.A.Danny: FedExPope: FTA: "If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition."

Except flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades don't offend me at all. The rape and pillaging of our legislative system and democracy as a concept does offend me greatly, however. How can these things be equated?

They are both protected speech. This was already covered.


I'm arguing with the logic of saying "well, this stuff offends people and it's protected, so this other stuff should be too." I don't agree that the offensive nature of all of those things is exactly the same. I'm offended that people can spend ungodly amounts of money to influence elections not because I simply don't like what it is they are trying to say, but because it fundamentally undermines what the election is ostensibly meant to accomplish. Lumping flag burning and Nazi protests with "money = free speech" fails to understand how someone could be against those things for different reasons or be against one thing and not the other. Someone who is against unlimited campaign contributions is not trying to limit somebody's speech even though by definition you would say they were. There is an underlying concern that is the primary reason.
 
2014-04-02 02:22:48 PM  

Serious Black: Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.

You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.


That was the Progressive Era.  It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.
 
2014-04-02 02:23:04 PM  

SlothB77: Republicans are back, baby!


I didn't get to read the decision yet. Did it put limits only on Democratic contributions or are they under the same rules? Your post implies that Republican contributors are now at an advantage?
 
2014-04-02 02:23:05 PM  

Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?
People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.

That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.


I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.
 
2014-04-02 02:23:24 PM  
In sports, if the ump makes a bad call in favor of one team, he'll do a make up call where he makes a bad call in favor of the other team to equal it out.

I think that is what Roberts is doing here in response to his decision with regards to the ACA.
 
2014-04-02 02:23:24 PM  

scotchlandia: 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.


Here was the source I got it from I assumed being in quotes it was from the decision, it appears that is not the case
 
2014-04-02 02:23:55 PM  

DeaH: So, how does that work in conjunction with today's decision? (I am not being snotty. I really do want to know.)


Today's decision found that the individual caps are valid under Buckley, as unlimited donations to an individual is too likely to engender quid pro quo bribery.  Thus there are the same old money caps for donating to a person or a committee.  What the decision knocked down were (to somewhat summarize) the limits on how many people/committees you could contribute to.  Thus a single entity can contribute to any race it wants, but the caps on how much they can spend per race are intact.
 
2014-04-02 02:24:47 PM  

Phinn: That was the Progressive Era. It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.


This may be the most Onion headline like post i have seen on fark.

Wow.
 
2014-04-02 02:25:41 PM  

Phinn: Serious Black: Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.

You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.

That was the Progressive Era.  It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.


Dude, whatever drugs you're on, I want some of those, because they must be Goddamn awesome as fark.
 
2014-04-02 02:26:25 PM  

Teiritzamna: The courts however have long disagreed with you on this point.  Donations as a sign of political affiliation are considered strongly protected.  I see your dissatisfaction with that, but i think that is just going to be one of those things where the general principle is unconvincing to you.


I thought we were in this thread to discuss political idea and whether the court had it right. If we just want to talk about what the court has actually said, then I don't know what any of us are doing here. All our posts should just say "(Reading.)"
 
2014-04-02 02:27:12 PM  

Phinn: Serious Black: Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.

You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.

That was the Progressive Era.  It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.


Yeah, you're right.   We really need to bring back slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, and take away the right to vote (and many other fought for rights) for women and minorities.  How dare this nation try to move forward into the future, when it's so much easier to fall back into the past?  You're right, we should be a truly fascist, authoritarian nation.
 
2014-04-02 02:28:03 PM  

Teiritzamna: Phinn: That was the Progressive Era. It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.

This may be the most Onion headline like post i have seen on fark.

Wow.


You're easily impressed.  And fooled by labels.

Maybe I'll start a new movement and call it the "Everything Is Awesome" movement, and we'll constantly talk about how awesome we're making things, but instead of making things awesome, we'll just steal from the little guy and benefit our friends.

People like you will applaud and support us, because our awesomeness is right there in the name.
 
2014-04-02 02:28:43 PM  

DamnYankees: I thought we were in this thread to discuss political idea and whether the court had it right. If we just want to talk about what the court has actually said, then I don't know what any of us are doing here. All our posts should just say "(Reading.)"


Fair enough - I was merely indicating that I dont know what else to say on that point as you clearly disagree with it and its a fairly fundamental point, by which I mean you either agree with it or you dont.  The majority of courts do agree with it, but that doesn't mean they are right, merely suggests that the idea isn't unreasonable.
 
2014-04-02 02:29:01 PM  
Yeah, "campaign contributions." If you're foolish enough to believe even half that money doesn't mysteriously disappear somewhere, then you're foolish enough to believe money doesn't create corruption like "Honorable" Justice Roberts.

Sorry, but this is a national security threat more than anything else. There's literally nothing stopping multinational Billionaires from buying any politicians they want now. Sure, you have to call it "campaign spending" but since all politicians are always campaigning and now have enough money to freespeech the people responsible for overseeing whether or not they're spending it on their campaign, it's all a bit moot, now isn't it?

The Justice here just said that basically money is more important than anything else. The acquisition of wealth is now your ticket to actual representation. Woe to those who can't freespeech their way out of all the problems, just like Mexico!

Sounds like Bribery on the wide-scale just became legal folks. If a cop doesn't accept your freespeech you can now sue him for arresting you. That wad of cash you handed him was the same thing as you singing a song about Jesus, or asking for your lawyer. You can't discriminate against people for expressing their beliefs with huge sums of money.
 
2014-04-02 02:30:13 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: That was the Progressive Era. It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.

Yeah, you're right. We really need to bring back slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, and take away the right to vote (and many other fought for rights) for women and minorities. How dare this nation try to move forward into the future, when it's so much easier to fall back into the past? You're right, we should be a truly fascist, authoritarian nation.


Or better yet, we'll kick it Old School Progressivism and bring back Prohibition, eugenics, and ramp up the centralized control of the economy.

That'll make everything better.
 
2014-04-02 02:31:55 PM  
Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas will all suck cocks in hell. Fark these sacks of anus gravy.
 
2014-04-02 02:32:38 PM  

Phinn: AurizenDarkstar: That was the Progressive Era. It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.

Yeah, you're right. We really need to bring back slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, and take away the right to vote (and many other fought for rights) for women and minorities. How dare this nation try to move forward into the future, when it's so much easier to fall back into the past? You're right, we should be a truly fascist, authoritarian nation.

Or better yet, we'll kick it Old School Progressivism and bring back Prohibition, eugenics, and ramp up the centralized control of the economy.

That'll make everything better.


You know how I know you don't understand what Progressivism really is?   And what makes you think that something like eugenics and Prohibition are progressive?  Oh, you believe that the Nazis were really progressives?  That's cute.  Wrong, but cute.
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report