Politics '10: Keeping up with the Xornses.

[SnowFire]

Taishyr, they certainly can be.  Plenty, plenty of corporations have been put out of business by the government either directly or indirectly.

Anyway I don't have a problem with corporate personhood.  A corporation is a lot of people acting together, just like the Sierra Club or a union, so sure.  That said, *individual* rights can be curtailed in the context of ensuring halfway sane elections anyway, so obviously "corporate speech" can be too.  I'm not even sure an anti-corporate personhood amendment would even re-allow campaign finance for sure; fine, corporations aren't people and don't have First Amendment rights, but they could still do something like put a lobbyist on payroll, give them a gigantic amount of money, and then let the *lobbyist* go to court to protest his own free speech.  The splitting of hairs here just doesn't seem worth it.  Best to, if an amendment is proposed, be directly about allowing a certain amount of campaign finance regulation.

[superaielman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/us/politics/18bush.html

The first real public appearance of W since retiring from the spotlight.

[metroid composite]

Anyway I don't have a problem with corporate personhood.  A corporation is a lot of people acting together, just like the Sierra Club or a union, so sure.

No, actually, it's not.  For the most part, companies are not Co-ops.  I know very few people in my company who feel my CEO is a shining light of morality.  Nobody seems to think he cares about the art of what we make.  I've even heard rumors that he's a scientologist, but that seems a bit far out there.

The voice of a corporation is not the voice of everyone in the company.  When my CEO says "spiderman games have sucked in the past 5 years", he does not speak for me.

I'm happy to work for him, because he's good at making money, which means I have a stable job, but I don't want him taking over the government.

[Cmdr_King]

Ah, but he doesn't have to speak for the people employed by the company.  He has to speak for the owners.  Who, of course, have no real interest in the overall state of the company or its industry, so long as it's making them money right now.  Afterall, if things look bad in 4 or 5 years, they can sell to some other sucker well before then.

Much as it's needed, I really doubt anything to curtail corporate influence in government is in the cards... largely because they have as much as they need right now.

[Dhyerwolf]

The only positive is that I think corporations to a large degree probably could have gotten around that barrier anyways.

[metroid composite]

The only positive is that I think corporations to a large degree probably could have gotten around that barrier anyways.

Not...really.  I mean, one of the things pointed out is that Exxon Mobil, if it had spent 2% of its profits, would completely outspend both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign.  If corporations could get around that barrier, I'd expect a whole lot more campaign spending than that.  The laws were fairly effective in this case, and if, say, Exxon Mobil had tried to sneak a large sum in, such a large sum would not go unnoticed, and would therefore be caught (causing scandals for the politicians involved).

[Dhyerwolf]

Oh, I meant pay executives extra and strongly encourage them to donate a large amount of that extra to politicians. Not completely effective thanks to taxes, but it was still there. Still hate this ruling though.

[NotMiki]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/report-acorn-foe-arrested-by-f.html?hpid=topnews

rot in jail, buddy.

it's not mentioned in the article, but lest you feel too bad for this intrepid exposer of The Truth, it's important to note that the ACORN videos he produced had heavily edited audio, and it's far from certain that the responses given were to the questions they purportedly asked.
The guy has released what he claims is the real audio version of his questions to the ACORN folks, but not along with audio of the ACORN reps, because of pending litigation.  Somehow I find him less than credible.

[Grefter]

In the New Orleans incident, Flanagan and Basel were each dressed in blue denim pants, blue work shirts, light green fluorescent vests, tool belts, and construction-style hard hats when they entered the Hale Boggs Federal Building on Poydras Street in New Orleans, according to the FBI affidavit. The pair said they were telephone repairmen

These people really have no respect for anyone's intelligence do they?  Seriously?  What the fuck guys.  That sounds more like a disguise for trying to sneak into a gay bar as a member of the Village People than a Telephone repairman.  Sure it matches up with the disguise from Wayne's World (??!?!?! What kind of source is that??) where he is working as a linesman but even if that was not stupid, a linesman doesn't go on to your premises to fix your fucking handset, that is a completely different skillset you need to lay some damned cable.

[NotMiki]

These people really have no respect for anyone's intelligence do they?

Why would they?  they got congress to pass a bill injuring ACORN based on their probably-fabricated audio.

[Grefter]

They didn't have that to back them up on the first one though which was equally retarded.

Edit - And trickign congress is one thing.  Tricking the people that work in the buildings is something else.

[Dunefar]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/report-acorn-foe-arrested-by-f.html?hpid=topnews

Not get into the bitch-fit of the current ACORN scandal, but y'think you could avoid committing felonies while doing exposes? Nice move, hope you and Dad can afford a good lawyer or ten.

[Veryslightlymad]

Fun fun week in politics.

Surprised no one wanted to talk about the State of the Union Address, or perhaps the recent QnA session the president had with the congressional GOP.

My take is, Obama had some really, REALLY ballsy, eye-popping statements in both and seems to be trying to actually use some political muscle, which, before now, he hasn't really attempted. Whether or not he'll actually back any of his rhetoric up remains to be seen, but he had some of the most aggressive, damning comments I've seen in my short life from a sitting president. Comments directed strictly at the GOP, at Senate Democrats, and even the Supreme Court, which is pretty heavy stuff.

As for WHAT was said:
I'm inclined to agree with him on many counts, despite myself. The sitting GOP is basically a bunch of chucklefucks who are exactly the kind of people who won't trade with you in Monopoly and play for like, 5 hours when a game should reasonably be finished in 45 minutes.

Also, a Democrat actually called for an increase in Nuclear Power, and that made my heart flutter with joy.


There have been a lot of damning comments about the president, and really, I'm not sure how much of that is understandably his fault. It seems to me that if he's too left for you, you're crazy like my dad, because he's a pretty absurdly centrist president, and if he's too RIGHT for you, you're ALSO crazy, because really, a huge part of why things don't get done is directly the fault of the Senate being filled with the trolling assclown GOP and the senate Democrats being a disorganized blob of cowardice. (I picture Wade from USAcres if he were a high-ranking political official.)

[Dhyerwolf]

It seems to me that if he's too left for you, you're crazy like my dad, because he's a pretty absurdly centrist president, and if he's too RIGHT for you, you're ALSO crazy, because really, a huge part of why things don't get done is directly the fault of the Senate being filled with the trolling assclown GOP and the senate Democrats being a disorganized blob of cowardice. (I picture Wade from USAcres if he were a high-ranking political official.)

So either he is perfect or you are crazy!

[Veryslightlymad]

No. Far from it.

But he's either "Not extreme" or you, yourself are an extremist.

[SnowFire]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

How to know when tax-cutting has gone too far: government cannot provide BASIC SERVICES and is auctioning off the police chopper and turning off streelights.  Ah, Colorado Springs, where the voters have to approve tax increases and then never ever ever give approval.

[NotMiki]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php?ref=fpblg

Senator Shelby has a temper tantrum/performs a stickup.  This should be interesting.

[Veryslightlymad]

......................................
What an ASSHOLE.

[superaielman]

This may be the first time I've read TPM and NRonline and gotten the exact same response. I hope he gets strung up for this.

[NotMiki]

Well, the minority leader hasn't said anything about it yet.  I assume that's because he's trying to walk Shelby back from the cliff, not preparing to double down on his gambit.  Interesting times, oh yes.

[Dhyerwolf]

Is there some special position he holds that allows him to apparentally unilaterally do this?

On a lighter note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRY7wBuCcBY&feature=related

Wait until 2:20 for hilarity! Could have also gone in IotD, because Fiorina was an idiot for actually paying for this!

[NotMiki]

Is there some special position he holds that allows him to apparentally unilaterally do this?

Senator.  Yes, the senate is that fucked up.

Read on if you really want to know the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold

[metroid composite]

Senator.  Yes, the senate is that fucked up.

I've said it before in this topic and I'll say it again: I support abolishing the US Senate.

[Shale]

And then where would you put them? These people are far too dangerous to be released into the general population!

[Taitoro]

We have zoos that could take the poor specimens.

Keep the two sides far apart, though, or there'll likely be shitflinging.

-----------

On a side note, been tracking the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill - something that'd allow the state to execute a person that was LGBT... at least, in the earlier drafts; mixed reporting has come into play now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajROCFqLP2Lo <-- Commentary on how the bill's changed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/13/death-penalty-uganda-homosexuals <-- Apparently it's not changed so much, tho?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hyRSa3Mg98X6wRxMVGjCCAFKCNEw <-- Uganda rep responds angrily to Obama/Clinton/legislative condemnation of said bill.

Oh, and what seems to have started the craze, at least in part? Three Americans! Frabjuous day!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes