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
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18221 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 02:35:05 PM  

sendtodave: Phinn: centralized control of the economy

In a centralized economy, the powerful take all the wealth.

In a free market economy, the wealthy take all the power.


He probably also believes that the former USSR and the National Socialist party were both actually socialist in nature.
 
2014-04-02 02:35:25 PM  

Triple Oak: 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.


Imposing limits that aren't there always is.
 
2014-04-02 02:35:28 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: 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.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2698847

http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf
 
2014-04-02 02:36:27 PM  

Teiritzamna: 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, giving money to politicians so they do what you want is de facto bribery.
 
2014-04-02 02:36:36 PM  

NickelP: 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


Thirded.
 
2014-04-02 02:38:15 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.


Hurrrrrr, I know so much about American history and political science, hurr

Fark off, teatard.
 
2014-04-02 02:38:32 PM  
While I abhor the fact that the wealthy contribute millions to candidates and/or campaigns and have paid lobbyists, at the same time, I also realize that in order to completely wipe out private money from elections, one would have no throw out the First Amendment as well as a few other Amendments that protect our basic freedoms. This ties into the Citizens United case; where if that judgment shall be overturned, expression could then be limited by the federal government. Imagine that precedent. Does anyone feel confident this power would not be abused? One can make a case on corporate abuse (an easy one to make), is government somehow devoid of the same problems?

I think those limits from that provision were utterly futile. The wealthy can find back-end methods of moving their money around regardless. All this means is one has to get off their ass, educate voters and get educated yourself; find non-biased sources of information, etc. - in other words, nothing has changed. I don't see this as a battle of money; I see this as a battle of ideas. Always has, always will.
 
2014-04-02 02:38:35 PM  
Oh hai guys!

Is there a problem here?

So big deal if there's lots of money on politics. The voters are smart enough to vote for their best interests, right?
 
2014-04-02 02:38:42 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: sendtodave: Phinn: centralized control of the economy

In a centralized economy, the powerful take all the wealth.

In a free market economy, the wealthy take all the power.

He probably also believes that the former USSR and the National Socialist party were both actually socialist in nature.


I'd say that neither were.
 
2014-04-02 02:39:32 PM  

Deftoons: The wealthy can find back-end methods of moving their money around regardless.


Eeeeeeeexactly.
 
2014-04-02 02:40:00 PM  

sendtodave: AurizenDarkstar: sendtodave: Phinn: centralized control of the economy

In a centralized economy, the powerful take all the wealth.

In a free market economy, the wealthy take all the power.

He probably also believes that the former USSR and the National Socialist party were both actually socialist in nature.

I'd say that neither were.


But it's right there in the name, herrrr
 
2014-04-02 02:40:22 PM  
I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.
 
2014-04-02 02:41:10 PM  

suebhoney: I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.



And at that point it will be too late...the end.
 
2014-04-02 02:42:04 PM  
Frankly, I'd prefer if they just do away with all caps on both aggregate and dollar amount for individuals.  It's heading that way anyway, and then they can see why we had these laws in the first place.
 
2014-04-02 02:42:25 PM  

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

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."


In otherwords "Mentioning, as you hand the money over, that you expect the receiving politician to support a specific law is wrong, but giving them money under a general agreement that their unspecified support is being bought on an on-going basis is completely ok". It's pretty astounding that Roberts felt the need to put advice on how to commit political corruption without violating the law right in his decision.
 
2014-04-02 02:42:37 PM  

FarkedOver: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2014/03/libertarian-poli c e-department.html

This seems to be where our society is headed.


At least it's much better written than The Fountainhead.
 
2014-04-02 02:42:45 PM  

cchris_39: Triple Oak: 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.

Imposing limits that aren't there always is.


Thinking that the old ways are the best ways forever isn't the right idea either.

Also, taking the Constitution and amendments literally... still... doesn't work when they were written 200+ years ago.
 
2014-04-02 02:43:44 PM  

Kevin72: If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.


Yeah, you're right. They already did that.
 
2014-04-02 02:44:30 PM  
Scalia is  thedevil.

Has he directly quoted 1984 yet?
 
2014-04-02 02:44:38 PM  

DamnYankees: qorkfiend: You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?

People who have extremely oddball economic beliefs, especially about monetary policy, tend to think the GOP and the Dems are the same, since both parties generally subscribe to somewhat mainstream economics.


This.
 
2014-04-02 02:44:44 PM  

suebhoney: I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.


Money spent on advertising doesn't influence voters?

But it's not about influencing the voters, per se.  It's about money influencing the choices that the voters have when they choose their representatives.

Which is pretty damned self evident.

It's about money influencing those representatives as much, if not more, than the will of their constituents.

Which is, also.
 
2014-04-02 02:44:48 PM  

suebhoney: I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.


I think you mean 2012. And it did mean jack shiat, look at where the power is thanks to false advertising and ducking the truth. Swaying smaller-than-concerns-you amounts of votes through lies and bribery still affects and undermines the system.
 
2014-04-02 02:46:09 PM  

SubBass49: suebhoney: I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.


And at that point it will be too late...the end.


I doubt that.

Look, I'm not happy with this ruling and I hate CU as well.  Maybe we should turn the USSC into elected officials instead of ones appointed, would that be better?  I doubt it.

All we can do is vote for candidates that would be agreeable in changing these types of laws and until voter apathy becomes a thing of the past, this is what you're gonna get.
 
2014-04-02 02:46:25 PM  

Two16: [media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 336x231]


Yes it is. Who do you think wrote the constitution? The "Founding Fathers" weren't work-a-day shopkeepers or farmers. They were wealthy and stood to gain much more wealth by driving out the British. They wrote the constitution to protect themselves and others like them. All that 'history' you learned in grade school and high school was just propaganda to indoctrinate you with just enough truth in it to keep it from being outright lies.
Don't worry though, the government will come up with something else for the public to rage about to keep your minds off the fact that you have no voice or power. I bet it will be something like education reform or flag burning. Maybe even Benghazi.
 
2014-04-02 02:46:27 PM  

IRQ12: Scalia is  thedevil.

Has he directly quoted 1984 yet?


I doubt that doughy sack of shiat can read. I think documents are placed in front of him and he simply grunts about freedom and liberty.
 
2014-04-02 02:46:55 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas will all suck cocks in hell. Fark these sacks of anus gravy.


The butthurt in this comment is delectable goodness. Great thread!
 
2014-04-02 02:47:08 PM  

suebhoney: I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.


Come on now. We all know that in the last election cycle all the money raised by Obama and Dems was from bake sales and church groups passing around the collection tray while Romney money was mostly from the Stonecutters and other Illuminati related groups.
 
2014-04-02 02:47:37 PM  
Has anyone read the actual decision? Was Thomas still the only one calling for anonymity?
 
2014-04-02 02:48:22 PM  

suebhoney: All we can do is vote for candidates that would be agreeable in changing these types of laws


If they exist.  And f they keep their promises.

and until voter apathy becomes a thing of the past, this is what you're gonna get.

You're right.  We should rally, and vote, for hope and change.  Because that worked out well last time.
 
2014-04-02 02:48:47 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not quite sure what the conservative position on this is.

1) Rich people ought to have more of an influence on politics than poor people.

2) All people should have an equal influence on politics, but the price to make that happen is too high.

3) People actually do have an equal influence on politics, and these restrictions are therefore unnecessary.

It's supposed to be #2, right?


I floated away from this thread a while ago, but Your post caught my eye. Fundamentally, the previous limitations are pretty silly and likely had little impact on corruption. I'm most concerned with the hidden and private contributions to the super PAC world. I think that open, honest governance requires the disinfecting quality of sunlight and I think that extends to the issue organizations as well.

However, to your question. The Republican party and movement Conservatives support bans on gay marriage as constitutional with which argument:

1. gays can already get married all they want and can therefore enjoy all the privileges today, no action needed. Just find someone of the opposite sex to marry like everyone else.
2. the gog magog declared it necessary
3. Lars Ulrich

So, I'm taking this one:  3) People actually do have an equal influence on politics, and these restrictions are therefore unnecessary.

You have just as much speech as the next guy. Go find some money to talk with.
 
2014-04-02 02:49:03 PM  

Triple Oak: suebhoney: I can't believe Fark is surprised by this move.

The 2014 election showed that all the money poured into it by the 1% of the 1% didn't mean jack shiat.

Until it's absolutely proven that the money influences the voters, the USSC won't change their minds.

I think you mean 2012. And it did mean jack shiat, look at where the power is thanks to false advertising and ducking the truth. Swaying smaller-than-concerns-you amounts of votes through lies and bribery still affects and undermines the system.


Thank you, yes I mean 212.

Correct voter apathy, get the young out to vote in mid-term elections, get involved so you can show people how bad this stuff is, but no offense, sitting around biatching about it on an internet forum, isn't going to change anything, is it?

I know this is a shiatty law, I know CU is a shiatty law, but now we're stuck with it for the time being.

All I can say is get out the vote, every election up and through dogcatcher until there are people involved in the gov't who also hate this shiat.
 
2014-04-02 02:49:26 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

Forget it, man. No one is listening.


Dude, you're a sore loser even when you're winning.
 
2014-04-02 02:50:18 PM  
at least they're consistent
 
2014-04-02 02:50:37 PM  

ciberido: FarkedOver: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2014/03/libertarian-poli c e-department.html

This seems to be where our society is headed.

At least it's much better written than The Fountainhead.


As are most Sharpie written screeds found on the stalls of interstate rest areas. More relevant and applicable to real life too.
 
2014-04-02 02:52:06 PM  

AbiNormal: Don't worry though, the government will come up with something else for the public to rage about to keep your minds off the fact that you have no voice or power.


The real question is "does everyone need voice or power?"

Because that's never been the case.  Ever.  Anywhere.

It's a pleasant fiction, I guess.

It was amusing, there was an interview with some Afgan youths.  "Do you think these upcoming elections will be free and fair?"

"Well, no...  But they exist!  And we aren't getting shot!  So that's a bonus."
 
2014-04-02 02:52:34 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: IRQ12: Scalia is  thedevil.

Has he directly quoted 1984 yet?

I doubt that doughy sack of shiat can read. I think documents are placed in front of him and he simply grunts about freedom and liberty.


 That's Thomas and Alito.  Scalia is the exception to hanlons razor.
 
2014-04-02 02:52:51 PM  
Look everyone, stop dumping on me for stating the truth of the matter.

I didn't vote for any president that put the conservatives on this court.

All I can do is VOTE.

And for those saying "advertising convince people blah blah blah", I also have no control over America the Stupid.

I can however try to influence and change opinions of those around me and who I know and get involved with candidates that will seat more liberal judges on the court.  I do this already.

Unfortunately, the bulk of america doesn't give a flying fark about politics until they're getting screwed at home.  I can't control that either.

I'm sorry for myself and those on this board who hate this ruling and the CU ruling.  It's disgusting in my eyes, but if everyone is going to be all "OMG WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING" well then, america gets what it deserves and right now, that rule is biting those of us who voted against it, in the ass.
 
2014-04-02 02:53:48 PM  

Triple Oak: 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.


Plus, it is hardly the worst thing posted to Fark, let alone the worst thing to get posted today.
 
2014-04-02 02:54:26 PM  

JungleBoogie: The problem is, giving money to politicians so they do what you want is de facto bribery.


Exactly, and if one has evidence of that, it is not only precluded by the FEC, its also a crime.  The trick is the line between quid pro quo bribery and "I donated $5k to X.  X is now favorable to my positions" is not only fuzzy, but where first amendment protections begin.
 
2014-04-02 02:54:36 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: If you voted for Dubya give yourself a pat on the back!


with a shiv
 
2014-04-02 02:54:38 PM  

suebhoney: America the Stupid


Who should have as much political power as you, right?
 
2014-04-02 02:56:27 PM  
It's a good thing advertising doesn't affect anyone's opinion, or we'd be pretty screwed.

I mean, endless money using behavioral trackers and social media, neuromarketing, focus groups, and applied sociology could be dangerous if it did.
 
2014-04-02 02:56:45 PM  

dr_blasto: Triple Oak: 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.

Plus, it is hardly the worst thing posted to Fark, let alone the worst thing to get posted today.


Ya know, I just realized that looks like I'm saying "fark first amendment rights!" when really I was talking about Fark's first amendment rights (to say shiat).

Eh.
 
2014-04-02 02:57:14 PM  
I saw just allow votes to be bought directly. At least it will force the rich to spread their money around in order to buy their influence instead of the "one stop shop" of campaign contributions.

We so deserve what is coming for sitting on our asses and doing nothing.
 
2014-04-02 02:57:14 PM  

Stone Meadow: 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?


Maybe, "Just remember, the pillow cases were $1,500 each, I put new $35,000 drapes up on those windows because it's Spring, and I get to redecorate completely the other, other, other Island House next week.  And owning your own jets beats the hell out of coach." ?  I'd maybe try to make a point about not judging someone on their looks, but his looks aren't the ugly part.

Regardless.

Ya' gotta give a little to get a little, right?  So, here's my take... first I'll stipulate to three disgusting, arguable points:

Stipulation One:  The wealthy have more money than I ever will, and thus *deserve* more power / influence.
Stipulation Two:  They earned that money.
Stipulation Three:  People/moneyed interests should be able to influence elections in which they cannot vote.  (This one is particularly hard to swallow, and maybe the easiest problem to fix first, e.g. Mormon Hate Money in CA elections, etc, but let's do it for the thought experiment.)

That said, I'll give a little:  No limits.  At all.  Donate to whomever you want, however much you want.  Really.

However, now I get a little:  All donations are made through a central clearing house, that publishes an always-up-to-date listing of who is donating to whom/what, and who is accepting those donations.  *And* all political entities' books (politicians, PACs, lobbying groups, whatever) are at *least* as public as those of for-cause non-profits... better yet, if you're a public official, your constituents can get a copy of your financial database(s) from your website, whenever they feel like it.  And if we allow out-of-electoral-area donations, *anyone* can.

Fair?

/ I'd settle for NASCAR outfits for all politicians, but I'm a dreamer
// while the D side is obviously no great deal, anyone who thinks D = R is either delusional, willfully misleading, or sack-of-hammers stupid
 
2014-04-02 02:59:12 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It's a good thing advertising doesn't affect anyone's opinion, or we'd be pretty screwed.

I mean, endless money using behavioral trackers and social media, neuromarketing, focus groups, and applied sociology could be dangerous if it did.


The modern priests class, still telling you what you want.
 
2014-04-02 02:59:21 PM  

Teiritzamna: JungleBoogie: The problem is, giving money to politicians so they do what you want is de facto bribery.

Exactly, and if one has evidence of that, it is not only precluded by the FEC, its also a crime.  The trick is the line between quid pro quo bribery and "I donated $5k to X.  X is now favorable to my positions" is not only fuzzy, but where first amendment protections begin.


Aren't the laws governing lobbying the government pretty much legalized bribery?  It's money being given to a politician (or a group of politicians) so that they will do something that the lobby wants them to do (whether it be new tax law, laws governing how employees are treated, etc.).  It's just written in such a way that it's not legally considered bribery.
 
2014-04-02 02:59:38 PM  

pjbreeze: Why don't the just legalize bribery?


That sounds like something the unjust would do.  ;-)
 
2014-04-02 03:00:32 PM  

Prophet of Loss: We so deserve what is coming for sitting on our asses and doing nothing.


You are right.

We should be out gathering money for campaign funds to get someone to change this!
 
2014-04-02 03:02:41 PM  

sendtodave: Prophet of Loss: We so deserve what is coming for sitting on our asses and doing nothing.

You are right.

We should be out gathering money for campaign funds to get someone to change this!


People around the world have recently demonstrated the right way to handle a government gone off the rails.

We can't because the chest pains keep us Hoveround bound.
 
Displayed 50 of 814 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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