Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Suprisingly, conservatives and liberals agree

This gives me hope that something, other than a constitutional amendment, can be done to counter this.

Nice. And to think, McCain's supposed to be evil.

Give me a corporation or labor union and I'll agree with the ruling. Until then, I oppose.
Ditto for the rest of America on any imaginable subject.

Clearly, the SCOTUS is working for (or is?) the Lizards. Though honestly, when your country does something you don't agree with, it's time to revolt; it's the American way.

People need to pick up their pitchrforks and pickaxes and march on Washington, this will not stand, man.

http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/02/15/this_modern_world/story.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Clearly, the SCOTUS is working for (or is?) the Lizards. Though honestly, when your country does something you don't agree with, it's time to revolt; it's the American way.

People need to pick up their pitchrforks and pickaxes and march on Washington, this will not stand, man.

You got it all wrong. It's the Freemansons and the Greys.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
You got it all wrong. It's the Freemansons and the Greys. Grey is a hurtful, racist term. Don't you watch the X-Files? They prefer to be called Colonists.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Grey is a hurtful, racist term. Don't you watch the X-Files? They prefer to be called Colonists.

Does that have something to do with the anal-probings?

Originally posted by Robtard
Does that have something to do with the anal-probings? leave my dalliances with ex-girlfriends out of this.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/02/15/this_modern_world/story.jpg

This cartoon completely fails specifically because he should have said, "addicting" instead of "addictive" at the end.

No, that part is passable; it fails because it's clearly a pro-homo add disguised as something else.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, that part is passable; it fails because it's clearly a pro-homo add disguised as something else.

hmm


*reads again*



You may be right cause there's only one woman and she is in support of the "corporate" men being the "tops/givers."

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Suprisingly, conservatives and liberals agree

This gives me hope that something, other than a constitutional amendment, can be done to counter this.

The American Public was also decidedly against desegregation.

Public opinion is not fact.

Do not confuse the two.

Originally posted by Ordo
The American Public was also decidedly against desegregation.

Public opinion is not fact.

Do not confuse the two.

Fail.

I'm one of the 20% of people conditionally for this. I think it greatly goes against the first amendment to limit who supports whom. I just think campaigns should be limited to prevent things from going ape shit like a $700+ billion campaign from Obama in 2008. That's toooooo far.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm one of the 20% of people conditionally for this. I think it greatly goes against the first amendment to limit who supports whom. I just think campaigns should be limited to prevent things from going ape shit like a $700+ billion campaign from Obama in 2008. That's toooooo far.

The Constitution also needs to adapt to the times and you're not naive enough to think that corporations will always (with few individual exceptions) be able to attract a politicians favor more-so than private citizens.

I agree on the cash limitation. I think the donation amount should be limited to $5.00 per person, corporation or entity. Also for a cap on maximum amount of money to be used, maybe make if 5-10 million, with all excesses being donated to cancer, HIV, food shelters and like charities.

Originally posted by sesuna
NYC Asian Escorts Outcall can help you when you feel lonely being away from home, or you just looking for a pleasant erotic adventure. You can always book appointments to date with our beautiful young well-educated Asian Escorts Agents. We will arrange you to get acquainted with our beautiful elegant escorts in NYC.
tel : 646-248-2426
w w w.nyasianescortsoutcall.com

WARNING: All the escorts are lady-boys.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm one of the 20% of people conditionally for this. I think it greatly goes against the first amendment to limit who supports whom. I just think campaigns should be limited to prevent things from going ape shit like a $700+ billion campaign from Obama in 2008. That's toooooo far.

Yes but the amount of corruption that is going to be added on now is going to be utterly ridiculous.

Now the corporate American parties will get direct funding from their lackeys, damn you capitalism.

Originally posted by Robtard
WARNING: All the escorts are lady-boys.

Any you'd recommend in particular?

Originally posted by botankus
Any you'd recommend in particular?

Suk Mi.

Originally posted by Robtard
Suk Mi.

Thanks. They told me to meet at this place tonight. See you there.

Look, this will be a lot easier once everyone realizes that capitalism is not an economic system, it's the national religion and the invisible hand is god. Capitalism has nothing to do with fairness or competition. Society works best when a small collection of wealthy landowners control resources via fiefdoms called "limited liability corporations" that gain their power due to being recognized as a special category of people by the SCOTUS court decision and society is heavily stratified based on finances and race with little to no social mobility while maintaining the illusion of liberal democracy and "providing" social services by private corporations who profit by denying those services in what is called "reform" and what was originally thought up in fascist Italy and was called "third way economics".

That's what the founders intended (well, John Adams anyway) and if you don't like it, well, in all likelihood you probably don't have the means to leave so you can just grin, bear it, and become a sacrifice to our god!

that was a painful run on sentence to read...

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
that was a painful run on sentence to read... you just need to acclimate yourself. Go get some Kerouac.

a couple of those words have too many syllables for me to understand

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
a couple of those words have too many syllables for me to understand That's cause you're part of the non-aristocratic rabble, now go work the fields, serf!

Originally posted by Robtard
The Constitution also needs to adapt to the times and you're not naive enough to think that corporations will always (with few individual exceptions) be able to attract a politicians favor more-so than private citizens.

The first amendment has been, VERY liberally, interpreted with the elastic clause.

You can protest, naked, but you can't walk around naked. Odd.

Before this SC decision, you could not donate funds as a corporation, but you could as an individual. That doesn't require any sort of elastic clause to determine that it is a suppression of speech. Original intent, with the first amendment, was primarily designed for those people that get their shit effed up for speaking out against the government, supporting a candidate in anyway shape or form, etc. The suppression of the rights of corporations to support a candidate would violate that, on a fundamental level. Sure, it should be limited as everyone SHOULD get a fair voice. Ol' Bill, who is poor, but farms a large portion of land, should get a voice large enough to not be 100% drowned out by, say, Michael Price (Stock Broker).

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree on the cash limitation. I think the donation amount should be limited to $5.00 per person, corporation or entity. Also for a cap on maximum amount of money to be used, maybe make if 5-10 million, with all excesses being donated to cancer, HIV, food shelters and like charities.

Indeed. Give people heir freedom of "speech", but make it fair.

I think that donations should be kept quiet so we don't know how much is donated, then all that extra money has to be used for charity. $700+ million is just way too much.

Just a hypothetical, but does this along with the way politics in general have been slanting the last thirty years give anyone the impression that the US power structure may be involved in a slow autogenocide?

For those who don't know, autogenocide was a term adopted after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown. It means a situation in which a government becomes involved in the planned, systematic extermination of its own people.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Just a hypothetical, but does this along with the way politics in general have been slanting the last thirty years give anyone the impression that the US power structure may be involved in a slow autogenocide?

For those who don't know, autogenocide was a term adopted after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown. It means a situation in which a government becomes involved in the planned, systematic extermination of its own people.

facepalm

Well if you think about it, autogenocide is the conclusive conservative approach to taking care of economic depression. You do nothing, cut back on social programs and public safety and fortify yourself until the poor die out leaving just enough jobs for whoever's left. The SCOTUS decision is simply a legal sanction of disenfranchising the undesirable.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Just a hypothetical, but does this along with the way politics in general have been slanting the last thirty years give anyone the impression that the US power structure may be involved in a slow autogenocide?

For those who don't know, autogenocide was a term adopted after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown. It means a situation in which a government becomes involved in the planned, systematic extermination of its own people.
I get that feeling with healthcare sometimes.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I get that feeling with healthcare sometimes. And food, drug, and product safety, and jobs, etc.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well if you think about it, autogenocide is the conclusive conservative approach to taking care of economic depression. You do nothing, cut back on social programs and public safety and fortify yourself until the poor die out leaving just enough jobs for whoever's left. The SCOTUS decision is simply a legal sanction of disenfranchising the undesirable.

Read a snippet about how the US government intentionally poisoned alcohol supplies and killed thousands of people during prohibition. So maybe, maybe.

Could also have something to do with the American Stonehenge thing and precise control of the world's population.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well if you think about it, autogenocide is the conclusive conservative approach to taking care of economic depression. You do nothing, cut back on social programs and public safety and fortify yourself until the poor die out leaving just enough jobs for whoever's left. The SCOTUS decision is simply a legal sanction of disenfranchising the undesirable.
That is exactly how it works. If you want to come, I'm going poor hunting in a little bit with some of my friends. Just need a rifle.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
You got it all wrong. It's the Freemansons and the Greys. free charles manson?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And food, drug, and product safety, and jobs, etc.
Nah. Food safety wise... I mean just compare it to before there were food and drug regulations.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well if you think about it, autogenocide is the conclusive conservative approach to taking care of economic depression. You do nothing, cut back on social programs and public safety and fortify yourself until the poor die out leaving just enough jobs for whoever's left. The SCOTUS decision is simply a legal sanction of disenfranchising the undesirable.

So now it's going from autogenocide to some sort of weird version of eugenics?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Nah. Food safety wise... I mean just compare it to before there were food and drug regulations. We're back to The Jungle. 70-80% of all chickens are contaminated with antibiotic resistant salmonella and other dangerous bacteria and there are some reports coming out of beef contaminated with tuberculosis being sold as well.

Also, Autogenocide is the extermination of any integrated population within a society by the government without necessarily explicitly defining or excluding them as an "other" so to speak, not necessarily getting rid of ALL the population. It's not eugenics because it's not based directly on genes but rather on economic status.

It can also be the systematic lack of action in a crisis. For example, if there was famine/food shortage and the government responded by cutting farm subsidies, lowering food standards, eliminating food stamps, and increasing food exports or if the government responded to a catastrophic viral outbreak by cutting funding to the CDC and FEMA while easing restrictions on air and water quality.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's not eugenics because it's not based directly on genes but rather on economic status.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/economic-eugenics/


Economic eugenics is hardly a new idea, btw.