prole

Oh, good lord.

Wrong 'bout that, Bill. They've been singing his praises here for some time now. What, are you starting the attack ads early? [video:youtube]

Pathetic.

How about "money equals speech"?

I putting my foot down on this Avatar shit, man! I've had it. GAH-DAMM!

I want to state this for the record: I will never, so long as I live, watch this film. Fuckit.

This thread is even more amazing than I'd hoped it would be when it was first posted.

Hey FW, ever heard the phrase, "think globally, act locally"? Yeah, I'm sure if you'd been training your penetrating microscope on the US for the last few decades, you'd find declining living standards, increased surveillance and militarization, steep inequalities, stagnant wages, and rising unemployment, media concentration, and the rest. I know we all appreciate your deep concern for the Venezuelan people but why don't you ever talk about the people in your own community suffering under similar conditions?

Oh please, for fuck's sake.

I'm good.

Yeah, its called Game Theory. It's a pseudo-scientific sham. http://www.rewtube.com/the-trap-episode-1/ No, it's not called Game Theory. There is an enormous body of scientific work in this field out there. You're just not aware of it, so, predictably, and like any good human, you assume it doesn't exist. Wow, either you watched that movie in fast-forward or you're assuming it doesn't exist...

Yeah, its called Game Theory. It's a pseudo-scientific sham. http://www.rewtube.com/the-trap-episode-1/

not so, as their is some actual data that can be collected and analzyed, and experiments run there is certianly plenty of historical evidence to support the general notions that humans like to hurt, steal, kill and corrupt wether that outweighs our occasional capacity to heal, feed and clothe is debatable Unless you live the slums of Tijuana, Baghdad, or Cabrini Green, there's a whole lot more healing, feeding, and clothing, teaching, trading, building, caregiving, etc. that the other things you mentioned. But again, I don't know what neighborhood you live in. Most situations where someone has to rely on "human nature" to advance their argument it's essentially political ideology masquerading as "common sense".

An essential "human nature" is no more verifiable than is your great fuzzy kitty or the spaghetti monster much less identifying it by assigning it some characteristics, like "corrupt" over others, like "caring".

It's been called the worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. Time will tell whether that's accurate or not. Ugh.

It's not about creating a perfect world, it's about recognizing that we create tools to affect greater accountability, transparency, and citizen participation in governance where corruption needs to be kept at a minimum. Throwing up one's hands and abstracting the issue (or any other problem we're facing) to "oh well, it's just human nature, pass me a ding-dong" isn't going to get us anywhere in that conversation.

No, I'm not interested in that kind of essentializing, arguments that rest on "human nature", "core problems", or "original sin". They're metaphysical nonsense better suited to theology than the study of society, much less campaign finance reform.

I think at the "end of the day", the idea that progressives or the ACLU are going to benefit from this decision is a pathetic joke. The implication that the ACLU supports it on the basis of its own efforts is like drowning yourself in the bathtub to save yourself from a greasefire in the kitchen. Guess what, the ACLU's campaign contributions aren't going to amount to a squirt of piss compared to the big boys: welcome to the free market. If limiting the conflict of interest that arises between money and politics means equalizing the restrictions on what Chevron and Granny's Sewing Circle are able to spend? Sorry Granny. Campaign contributions and the corruption of politics and governance that follows is anything but a bandaid issue. At this point, the cost of running a campaign and the ability to whore yourself in order to raise the necessary funds is the primary factor in who is on the slate at all. Our voting choices are limited by this from the get-go. It only gets worse from there. Coming from someone who's rarely pleaded ignorance about anything on this board, I find your newfound agnosticism on something so obviously eathshatteringly important, puzzling. I suspect you know you and the ACLU are full of shit on this one. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm calling you out, sucka!

Why I don't fall all over myself to inject the phrase "labor unions" into every conversation I have about this topic? Well, two reasons: First, I think the disparity between corporate power and the power of organized labor in 21st century America is on the level of orders of magnitude. That the media feels it has to breathlessly assure its listeners and viewers that the new rules(?) apply to labor unions as well as multinational behemoths is absurd on its face. Secondly, unions and corporations are fundamentally different. Unions are at least ostensibly democratic institutions that through internal political processes seek to represent the interests of their members. At any rate, I'm not against restrictions on the amount of money that an individual, a corporation, or a labor union can contribute to a political campaign. When a potential representative has to place themselves on the auction block for the highest bidder or the amount of money a candidate has can win them an election (and it's becoming a practical reality), it doesn't matter where the money comes from; the system is fucked. If you're "on the fence" about this issue in this day and age, in this country, seeing what is plain as day to anyone with eyes then you're the one's got some explaining to do.

I didn't see one from you. You've had three to work on.

By the way, if labor unions, and by extension liberals and Democrats had so much to gain from the ruling, why wasn't it unanimous?

Yeah, I'll be waiting for you to answer either one of those questions...for eternity.

How exactly is placing Shell Oil on the same legal footing as my grandmother or her bridge club the entertainment of rational analysis?