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!
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.
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.
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 KandyWe'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.
Nah. Food safety wise... I mean just compare it to before there were food and drug regulations.
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.
Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
With no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home…
The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight
Gonna Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill the poor…Tonight
Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate’s gone, feel free again
Oh life’s a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it’s okay
So let’s get dressed and dance away the night
While they…Kill Kill Kill Kill / Kill the poor…Tonight