View Single Post
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 23rd 10, 03:50 PM posted to alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.letterman,rec.radio.shortwave
Joe Irvin Joe Irvin is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2010
Posts: 13
Default Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment


"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...
bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've [the Supreme Court] done - they have handed
the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America. Extrapolate from that what you will.
Extrapolate what I will?

OK, the end of America as we know it. A BIG win for the Corporatocracy.


Joe Irvin wrote:

Your assumption is that all corporations are either evil or do not have
the interests of people they serve. As long as there is a disclaimer of
where the money comes from there is no problem unless you think Americans
are to dumb to figure things out.


To my way of thinking, getting the best politicians money can buy is
still wrong, a fine print disclaimer notwithstanding.


Money whether its from individuals or corporations/business, is necessary
for people to get elected to office. Saying that it is somehow wrong for
corporations to give money if there is a disclaimer, IMO shows a distrust
for the people.

Want to know why you should worry about the Corporatocracy? Read
"Hoodwinked" by John Perkins, also the author of "Confessions of an
Economic Hit Man".


Is there assumption that corporations are evil/bad?


If you read the first half of the book quoted above, you wouldn't be
asking that question. We can continue this debate when you actually read
it.


Why don't you give the theme of the book. The 1st amendment most
fundamental purpose is to protect political free speech. This decision
seems to be a step in that direction. If they could only strike down
McCain-Feigold.