I have one thing to say in response…

January 23rd, 2010

…to President Obama’s rabid reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision that corporate political speech could not be restricted:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, buy viagra cure or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, viagra or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Entry Filed under: Politics

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. yoSAMite  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Way to practical there Elliot.

  • 2. Debunked  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Last I checked, corporations are not exactly alive. Last I checked, corporations do not have the ability to vote. At least not yet. Maybe that’s next on the agenda. There are people running those corporations who are protected by freedom of speech, already.

    All this does is opens up the flood gates for the multi-billions of dollars that are in the name of the corporation to be spent in politics.

    Remember how fervently Republicans bitched about how Obama spent so much money on the 2008 election? How they bitched and moaned that he “bought” the election?

    Well, prepare for future elections to point and laugh at the candidate with a “measly” $500 million. We’re talking about multi-billion dollar elections for both major parties now.

    All this ruling has done is further helped entrench American politics into a two-party system and further prolonged the life of the corporatocracy that drives both Republicans and Democrats alike.

    So, why don’t we all gather round and praise the wisdom of this ruling which will add further power to the wealthy in controlling the lives of everybody else. Because I’m quite certain that’s exactly what the founding fathers wanted with the first amendment.

  • 3. Dan  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    “There are people running those corporations ”
    Umm, Debunked, you just debunked your entire arguement.

  • 4. Debunked  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    I would imagine you understand the difference between those people using their own personal funds and being allowed to use nearly limitless amounts of corporate funds.

    Or, then again, maybe not.

  • 5. BobG  |  January 24th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    “All this does is opens up the flood gates for the multi-billions of dollars that are in the name of the corporation to be spent in politics.”

    And this is new? Corporations already fund ads; they just do it covertly. What about the media? They got to run all sorts of ads in the form of “editorializing”, and used the first amendment as an excuse. They get to decide which candidate will get coverage, and claim it is freedom of speech. Why are they any better than a business that is attacked by a candidate, but is unable to give a rebuttal?

  • 6. Dan  |  January 25th, 2010 at 4:01 am

    Obviously, debunked, you don’t understand business, corporations and private industry. When you actually learn a thing or two about those things, maybe you can bring a realistic arguement.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.