As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Corporate America, Or, Everything you believe has been sold to you

191011121315»

Posts

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Well guys,

    http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

    A corporation is running for a Congress seat.

    *Ahem*

    Told you so.

    We'll see if this craziness gets further than a statement. One will have to assume a legal ruling is necessary.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yeah, I'm going to be very worried if they don't get slapped down and told "No."

    Raiden333 on
    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Rust wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Well guys,

    http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

    A corporation is running for a Congress seat.

    it's a troll run

    should be hilarious

    They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.

    Robman on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Well guys,

    http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

    A corporation is running for a Congress seat.

    it's a troll run

    should be hilarious

    They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.

    A corporate person can still get in a bit of the action by trying to absentee vote in the 2010 elections.

    Couscous on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Well guys,

    http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

    A corporation is running for a Congress seat.

    it's a troll run

    should be hilarious

    They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
    I feel like a broken record here, but 1) their site claims that the ruling allows unlimited donations to election campaigns, which is completely incorrect, and 2) it tries to make it all about the dramatic attention-grabbing notion of corporate personhood, which is not in the ruling at all.

    Nothing in this case should logically have prompted them to do this. This case did not make any change at all to the notion of corporate personhood. Though as a misleading, uneducated stunt; sure.

    Yar on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Rust wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Well guys,

    http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

    A corporation is running for a Congress seat.

    it's a troll run

    should be hilarious

    They're a PR firm. They are now the envy of the entire PR world, because anyone who tries to copy this stunt will come off as a johnny-come-lately. They're also performing a valuable service to the American public by pointing out how fundamentally idiotic the ruling was.
    I feel like a borken record here, but 1) their site claims that the ruling allows unlimited donations to election campaigns, which is completely incorrect, and 2) it tries to make it all about the dramatic attention-grabbing notion of corporate personhood, which is not in the ruling at all.

    It's a PR stunt. That much is clear.

    if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    It's a PR stunt. That much is clear.

    if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.
    My problem is that it only furthers misinformation about what the Court recently heard and ruled on. As did BHO with his nonsense about "overturning 100 years of law" or whatever he said.

    Yar on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    It's a PR stunt. That much is clear.

    if they go through with it, it may allow a ruling, which would give a better idea of what the SC ruling means going forward.
    My problem is that it only furthers misinformation about what the Court recently heard and ruled on. As did BHO with his nonsense about "overturning 100 years of law" or whatever he said.

    Well, we'll see what it leads to. You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.

    I fear a slippery slope, but that's all contingent on what subsequent courts decide. I hope this eventually goes to trial, if only because it'll give us a better idea of what will come.

    You know my position, and I know yours. It's all in the theoretical at the moment.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
    No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.

    As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.

    Yar on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
    No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.

    As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.

    It would be p. funny if the courts opened the door for Ahnold to run for Pres. with the decision though.

    Robman on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
    No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.

    As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.

    It would be p. funny if the courts opened the door for Ahnold to run for Pres. with the decision though.

    Only if he becomes Arnold Incorporated.

    Hachface on
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    If they misinterpreted the ruling, then there's nothing to fear from this stunt then right?

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited January 2010
    I think the point they were trying to prove with this is "we are a really good PR firm, look at all the cheap publicity we got. perhaps you would like to hire a really good PR firm with innovative ideas"

    It's no deeper than that. It's a showreel.

    Tube on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    If they misinterpreted the ruling, then there's nothing to fear from this stunt then right?
    Only that they will continue to spread misinformation, as I said.

    Yar on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    You have to admit that it was rather departed from previous precedent.
    No, it overturned a ruling that originally overturned another ruling.

    As a stunt, I don't think it will go too far. I'm sure that the requirements to run will include something like "a natural-born or naturalized citizen of the U.S." which the coporation will be unable to show proof of.

    Yeah, it's not like the majority opinion said that they were disregarding previous rulings because they weren't unanimous or anything.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Yeah, it's not like the majority opinion said that they were disregarding previous rulings because they weren't unanimous or anything.
    I think there is a burden here on you to better explain what you are trying to say and how it relates to the discussion.

    Yar on
Sign In or Register to comment.