The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Hi America. I'm not one of you but I am getting concerned.

1356760

Posts

  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Under A Rock: AfganistanRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Meissnerd wrote: »
    Hi guys, I'm Canadian, and I know you don't usually listen to us but maybe you should this time! Some crazy things are happening in your country!

    It's been ruled that wiretapping has judicial immunity!

    Corporations are people just as much as your special gal!

    This shit is crazy. You all okay with it?

    nope not really

    but there are a bunch of douchbags that are in charge and they are silly billying it up and will soon be dead of old age and silly billyish gay aids

    Barcardi on
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    barcardi stop insulting people

    Raneados on
  • Dead LegendDead Legend Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Lord Dave wrote: »
    Meissnerd wrote: »
    And yet as terrible as all this shit is, screw it, I'm staying here. It could be a lot worse somewhere else.

    And it's not like Canada is all peaches and cream, unicorn farts and rainbows. At least our executive branch didn't just decide to shut down the entire legislative branch. And while Texas probably should, none of our states have tried to become their own separate country since 1865.

    i agree!

    This really wasn't meant to be a 'weh weh canada rules america drools' thread. I hate our current troubles but no one cares about Canada.

    I just noticed that no one seemed to be talking about these two subjects so I thought I'd bring them up.

    no i meant that i agreed texas should be independent. not sure why you said that, but whatever.

    (i don't really think it would be a good idea i just think it'd be cool)

    did you not learn shit in texas history class

    I spent a few of my primary school years in Texas
    One year we watched a movie dramatizing the battle of the Alamo
    We won

    well i'm not gonna act surprised or anything, but suppose fannin had made it out of goliad to the alamo with his men and his supplies, given how the defenders gave a decent account for themselves, maybe not as awesome as it's made out to be, but just maybe the alamo could've held out and defeated santa ana there.

    but regardless, fannin got wiped out, the alamo got wiped out, the mexican army was held up for a period of time allowing sam houston to get enough people together, and they managed to defeat them at san jacinto in an unconventional manner

    Dead Legend on
    diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    what if england had won the revolutionary war

    you'd all be better off

    ungrateful!

    Raneados on
  • Dead LegendDead Legend Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raneados wrote: »
    what if england had won the revolutionary war

    you'd all be better off

    ungrateful!

    no fuck you i have great teeth

    Dead Legend on
    diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Raneados wrote: »
    what if england had won the revolutionary war

    you'd all be better off

    ungrateful!

    no fuck you i have great teeth

    don't you live in texas

    texas might as well be alabama

    basically the exact same thing

    Raneados on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • JoolanderJoolander Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    i think i might move to canada


    not because better things are happening there, but because i am odd and like cold






    what province, SE++?

    Joolander on
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    newfoundland

    always newfoundland

    Raneados on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • JoolanderJoolander Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    well then its a good thing I am a student

    Joolander on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • PoorochondriacPoorochondriac Ah, man Ah, jeezRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    What if you are a professional-grade badass

    Poorochondriac on
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I just shaved and did my hair

    I am looking so fine today it is ridiculous

    Raneados on
  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    If only Canada were someplace warm.

    I don't know, I generally don't like "Screw it, I'm moving to Canada" pronouncements from a political perspective. It seems so... wimpy. You flee a country when you really have to, not just when it looks like you're in for an icky decade or two.

    celandine on
    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • RaneadosRaneados police apologist you shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    if canada was warmer a lot more people would go

    Raneados on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • PoorochondriacPoorochondriac Ah, man Ah, jeezRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Despite having lived in a bunch of places since I hit 18, I've stayed a registered Colorado voter so as to vote against Marilyn Musgrave at every goddamn opportunity.

    As most folks know, I'm liberal as all get out. But I registered Republican just so I could vote against that scumpile twice a year. So strong is my vitriol for her.

    Poorochondriac on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    god damn it

    corporations are people

    they are groups of people who get together and invest toward the same end

    corporations are not persons, which is the immediate "oh that's horrible" response some dudes are having to this ruling, which is wrong and dumb

    MrMonroe on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    See, I look at it this way

    If corporations are people in the eyes of the law, we ought to be able to convict them of the same crimes and subject them to the same punishments as people

    The exact same crimes and punishments

    So what I'm saying is that if corporations are people you should be able to charge a corporation with murder and seek the death penalty for it

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    again

    the way we are using the term

    people != persons

    persons can be sent to jail

    people can not

    MrMonroe on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    again

    the way we are using the term

    people != persons

    persons can be sent to jail

    people can not
    Why not?

    You can fit a whole lot of people in American jails, we've got plenty of room

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I'm sorry, this is going to be shitty for Democrats, but it's speech.

    1. Lots of advocacy organizations -- the ACLU, NARAL, etc. are legally corporations. You don't have to be for-profit to be a corporation.

    2. Corporations have loopholes by which to fund things anyhow. I'd really rather it be by an ad; that, at least, is more transparent than lobbying. If you try to sway people with ads, there's at least the chance that they won't be persuaded. If you do it behind the scenes, there's no way the public can "resist."

    3. Burdensome regulations on campaigning have a chilling effect even on citizens who aren't in a corporation, because compliance with campaign finance law is so expensive. I don't want to make it harder to get a group of people together for political action.

    4. The issue in question was a documentary. The law suppressed the distribution of a documentary unflattering to a candidate during election season. Doesn't that sound like political speech to you?

    5. If all I cared about was defeating Republicans, I'd suppress all political speech, period. The more political agitation goes on, the worse it is for vulnerable incumbents. So we need to be very careful about the temptation to hamper free speech; when the "speech" takes the form of anti-Hillary bile or Tea Party madness, it engenders a lot less sympathy than "We shall overcome." It's ugly. And it threatens liberal ideals. It's tempting to try to make them all shut up. But we need to suck it up, remember Voltaire, and let them talk.

    celandine on
    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    abolish all private election funding and replace it with a public system
    Seconding this

    Apparently Arizona has a public election funding system that works pretty well

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Teefs are you aware that strains of liberalism, particularly of the populist kind, have a history of springing up all over the country, even in places renowned for their conservatism

    During the Depression, FDR was often pushed left by Governor Huey Long of Louisiana, an unabashed liberal populist

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Lyndon Johnson was from Texas and he brought the United States closer to a social democracy than any president ever has

    Also, George W. Bush is actually from Connecticut

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    this ruling ain't gonna make the campaign game any more misleading

    mostly because not much can
    celandine wrote: »
    I'm sorry, this is going to be shitty for Democrats, but it's speech.

    1. Lots of advocacy organizations -- the ACLU, NARAL, etc. are legally corporations. You don't have to be for-profit to be a corporation.

    2. Corporations have loopholes by which to fund things anyhow. I'd really rather it be by an ad; that, at least, is more transparent than lobbying. If you try to sway people with ads, there's at least the chance that they won't be persuaded. If you do it behind the scenes, there's no way the public can "resist."

    3. Burdensome regulations on campaigning have a chilling effect even on citizens who aren't in a corporation, because compliance with campaign finance law is so expensive. I don't want to make it harder to get a group of people together for political action.

    4. The issue in question was a documentary. The law suppressed the distribution of a documentary unflattering to a candidate during election season. Doesn't that sound like political speech to you?

    5. If all I cared about was defeating Republicans, I'd suppress all political speech, period. The more political agitation goes on, the worse it is for vulnerable incumbents. So we need to be very careful about the temptation to hamper free speech; when the "speech" takes the form of anti-Hillary bile or Tea Party madness, it engenders a lot less sympathy than "We shall overcome." It's ugly. And it threatens liberal ideals. It's tempting to try to make them all shut up. But we need to suck it up, remember Voltaire, and let them talk.

    more of this, please

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • As7As7 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    god damn it

    corporations are people

    they are groups of people who get together and invest toward the same end

    corporations are not persons, which is the immediate "oh that's horrible" response some dudes are having to this ruling, which is wrong and dumb

    Here's the thing though.

    If the PEOPLE that make up a corporation already have freedom of speech as individuals, why should the corporation itself be given that right, particularly when the decision makers in a corporation often don't have to answer to all the people below them for the decisions they make?

    Then there's the whole thing about how this ruling basically legalizes unlimited bribery.

    As7 on
    XBOX Live: Arsenic7
    Secret Satan
  • As7As7 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    To expand on the first half of that statement, giving corporations rights of speech often just translates to giving a CEO the right to speak, with money earned by employees who may disagree, for the thousands of people working underneath him/her without their consent.

    When you consider that the CEO can already say whatever they want with their own money, that's pretty silly.

    Apparently it was brought up in the trial: what if shareholders in the company disagree with the speech being given? Justice Thomas answered that they should remove their stock from the company, but that doesn't seem very useful for people who have pension plans, now, does it?

    As7 on
    XBOX Live: Arsenic7
    Secret Satan
  • HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    As7 wrote: »
    To expand on the first half of that statement, giving corporations rights of speech often just translates to giving a CEO the right to speak, with money earned by employees who may disagree, for the thousands of people working underneath him/her without their consent.

    When you consider that the CEO can already say whatever they want with their own money, that's pretty silly.

    Apparently it was brought up in the trial: what if shareholders in the company disagree with the speech being given? Justice Thomas answered that they should remove their stock from the company, but that doesn't seem very useful for people who have pension plans, now, does it?
    Did he really say that? Jesus Christ.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • As7As7 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Harrier wrote: »
    As7 wrote: »
    To expand on the first half of that statement, giving corporations rights of speech often just translates to giving a CEO the right to speak, with money earned by employees who may disagree, for the thousands of people working underneath him/her without their consent.

    When you consider that the CEO can already say whatever they want with their own money, that's pretty silly.

    Apparently it was brought up in the trial: what if shareholders in the company disagree with the speech being given? Justice Thomas answered that they should remove their stock from the company, but that doesn't seem very useful for people who have pension plans, now, does it?
    Did he really say that? Jesus Christ.

    I'm paraphrasing. So technically no.

    As7 on
    XBOX Live: Arsenic7
    Secret Satan
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    the employees of a corporation are not the people that make up the corporation
    As7 wrote: »
    Then there's the whole thing about how this ruling basically legalizes unlimited bribery.

    what the fuck are you on about?

    MrMonroe on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    And yet as terrible as all this shit is, screw it, I'm staying here. It could be a lot worse somewhere else.

    And it's not like Canada is all peaches and cream, unicorn farts and rainbows. At least our executive branch didn't just decide to shut down the entire legislative branch. And while Texas probably should, none of our states have tried to become their own separate country since 1865.

    That was pretty funny the last time.

    "Le Quebecois weel be our onne countree!"

    "Ok, here's your percentage of the national debt."

    "...Viva Canadá!"

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] new member
    edited January 2010
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    As7 wrote: »
    To expand on the first half of that statement, giving corporations rights of speech often just translates to giving a CEO the right to speak, with money earned by employees who may disagree, for the thousands of people working underneath him/her without their consent.

    When you consider that the CEO can already say whatever they want with their own money, that's pretty silly.

    Apparently it was brought up in the trial: what if shareholders in the company disagree with the speech being given? Justice Thomas answered that they should remove their stock from the company, but that doesn't seem very useful for people who have pension plans, now, does it?

    CEO's are not as all powerful as you think. They still have boards and their shareholders to answer to. If they piss them off they get fired and it happens all the fucking time. That is precisely why so many CEO's get guaranteed payouts in their contracts. It's not exactly the pinnacle of job security.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
Sign In or Register to comment.