Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19815037]Especially when they start getting replaced by presidents who owe their victories to hundreds of millions of corporate dollars.[/QUOTE] People have much more intelligence than you give them credit for.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806215]Yes the Conservative Corporate Interests. Except the people who won this case were fucking AMATEUR FILM MAKERS[/QUOTE] Were they Dutch?

So Seperation of Powers is meaningless I guess.

Obama VS Supreme Court Live at 2pm on Sky Sports. Only £16.95! Thats what I though of when I saw the thread title...

[QUOTE=Lankist;19815075]How many times? Direct Contribution: Illegal. Bribery: Illegal. Perjury: Illegal. Collaboration: Illegal. Sponsorship: Illegal. Non-Transparency: Illegal. Independent Expression of Political Ideologies: Legal. [/QUOTE] Yes, because obviously nobody in any position of power in the country has ever done anything illegal, ever. :rolleyes: After the horrific mess of corruption that was the Bush administration, it should be obvious just how routinely politicians get away with that shit. [editline]02:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19815073]Would you just give up the corporate conspiracy crap? At least for this thread? We're talking about the Supreme Court, now how Obama got elected.[/QUOTE] No, I won't, not until you people figure out what this decision actually means for the future of this country. It's not about free speech, it's about enabling the free purchase of elections. The free speech thing was a thin pretense for the Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court to hand the Republican party a limitless supply of corporate support just in time for the upcoming midterm elections. Activist judging at it's worst.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825768]Yes, because obviously nobody in any position of power in the country has ever done anything illegal, ever. :rolleyes: After the horrific mess of corruption that was the Bush administration, it should be obvious just how routinely politicians get away with that shit.[/QUOTE] The Bush Administration did not flagrantly break laws. They were permitted by incompetent democrats in Congress. Nobody spoke out en mass against USAPATRIOT. Nobody spoke out whenever it violated its Sunset Date. Nobody spoke out whenever the Iraq War was approved by Congress. Had he done something illegal, it was the OPPOSITION'S responsibility to bring him up on that. They didn't. If anyone is to blame it's the fucking pansy-ass democrats who lodged post-facto criticism. And you cannot enforce laws by making more laws. To say that we need this specific law because Presidents break laws is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;19819858]People have much more intelligence than you give them credit for.[/QUOTE] Bush got reelected in '04. No they don't.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825818]Bush got reelected in '04. No they don't.[/QUOTE] People don't directly vote in people into positions, 'representatives' do.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825818]Bush got reelected in '04. No they don't.[/QUOTE] So I suppose you grow and cook your own food, cut your own hair, provide your own power safely, build your own homes, build and fuel your own cars?

[QUOTE=Lankist;19825808]The Bush Administration did not flagrantly break laws. They were permitted by incompetent democrats in Congress. [/QUOTE] Oh bullshit, they broke laws left and right by either keeping it secret from Congress, or bullying them with anti-American terrorist-loving rhetoric until they went along with it. What exactly is legal about firing and appointing attorneys for political reasons, leaking the identities of CIA agents to punish relatives who speak out against the administration, and having the CIA falsify evidence to justify a war that's led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? With the possible exception of Nixon, Bush was the most corrupt administration in history, and none of the top officials have been punished for their actions. It is a blatant example of just how rampant and unchecked corruption is, and now it's going to be fueled by exponentially greater amounts of money.

This should be good. You of all people calling the Proletariat stupid. [editline]02:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825871]Oh bullshit, they broke laws left and right by either keeping it secret from Congress[/QUOTE] Proof, now, you fucking conspiracy nutjob. I'm growing weary of you making these ridiculous claims and pretending I'm supposed to just take your word for it.

[QUOTE=Conscript;19825838]People don't directly vote in people into positions, 'representatives' do.[/QUOTE] That's how he got elected the first time, in '04 he actually won the popular vote. Hence why it's such an example of why I have zero faith in people.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825893]That's how he got elected the first time, in '04 he actually won the popular vote. Hence why it's such an example of why I have zero faith in people.[/QUOTE] Yes the proletariat is stupid because they don't agree with you. Because you know EVERYTHING. You are educated on the issues and you prove ALL OF YOUR CLAIMS right?

[QUOTE=Lankist;19825878] Proof, now, you fucking conspiracy nutjob.[/QUOTE] [url]www.justfuckinggoogleit.com[/url] [url]http://www.dailykos.net/archives/004211.html[/url] He lied to Congress and the American people that Iraq played a role in 9/11 and had WMDs. Neither were true, as he publicly admitted later. That lie killed hundreds of thousands of people, are you willfully fucking ignorant?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825893]That's how he got elected the first time, in '04 he actually won the popular vote. Hence why it's such an example of why I have zero faith in people.[/QUOTE] Popular vote is only a mere reflection of how well the administration can attract supporters. In the case of 2004, the height of the Iraq war and finding WMD's made a hard-liner such as bush pretty attractive. Basically, you have zero faith in people because they believe something as hyped and as deadly as Iraq having WMD's? I would have believed it too, with how much bad shit I heard about that country

[QUOTE=Conscript;19825924]Popular vote is only a mere reflection of how well the administration can attract supporters. In the case of 2004, the height of the Iraq war and finding WMD's made a hard-liner such as bush pretty attractive.[/QUOTE] Exactly, even in the midst of the scandals that had already come to light (which pale in comparison to the second term), people still voted for the person that stoked their fears and bloodlust the most.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825923][url]www.justfuckinggoogleit.com[/url] [url]http://www.dailykos.net/archives/004211.html[/url] He lied to Congress and the American people that Iraq played a role in 9/11 and had WMDs. Neither were true, as he publicly admitted later. That lie killed hundreds of thousands of people, are you willfully fucking ignorant?[/QUOTE] Daily KOS is not a reputable source of information. I mean PROOF, not news articles you illiterate git. And it is Congress' duty to verify claims. It is THEIR fault for believing him. He broke no laws by being wrong. [editline]02:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825944]Exactly, even in the midst of the scandals that had already come to light (which pale in comparison to the second term), people still voted for the person that stoked their fears and bloodlust the most.[/QUOTE] You need to knock it the fuck off with the condescension and the pretension. You are not smarter than the Proletariat. You are a Layman.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19825958]Daily KOS is not a reputable source of information. I mean PROOF, not news articles you illiterate git. And it is Congress' duty to verify claims. It is THEIR fault for believing him. He broke no laws by being wrong.[/QUOTE] His statements are a matter of public record, it doesn't matter what site they've been copied and pasted into. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/[/url] Also, he wasn't wrong, he had planned to invade Iraq all along, with or without legitimate evidence. That is breaking the fucking law by lying to Congress. Explain to me how exactly they were supposed to prove the CIA was manufacturing evidence for political agendas, especially in the midst of wartime fervor? [editline]02:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;19825958] You need to knock it the fuck off with the condescension and the pretension. You are not smarter than the Proletariat. You are a Layman.[/QUOTE] Nigga please, you have no place criticizing others for being pretentious and condescending.

Lankist why do you use the word 'proletariat'?

[QUOTE=Conscript;19826037]Lankist why do you use the word 'proletariat'?[/QUOTE] Because it's awesome.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19826011]His statements are a matter of public record, it doesn't matter what site they've been copied and pasted into. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/[/url][/quote] Wrong =/= Lie That is a news article about a claim some nobody made in a book, NOT legitimate and tangible proof. [quote]Also, he wasn't wrong, he had planned to invade Iraq all along, with or without legitimate evidence. That is breaking the fucking law by lying to Congress. Explain to me how exactly they were supposed to prove the CIA was manufacturing evidence for political agendas, especially in the midst of wartime fervor?[/quote] Prove it. [quote]Nigga please, you have no place criticizing others for being pretentious and condescending.[/QUOTE] I am NOT pretentious and condescending. I have absolute faith in the intelligence of others. When I call people idiots it is because I entered the discussion assuming they were at the same level of intelligence that I was. I do not think you are a moron, I think you are a disappointment. [editline]02:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;19826037]Lankist why do you use the word 'proletariat'?[/QUOTE] Because it is a term communists and socialists use when they speak of how much they TRUST the will of the people.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19826058]Wrong =/= Lie Prove it.[/quote] Go back and read. Former Bush cabinet officials have stated that attacking Iraq was planned from the day after 9/11. They did not decide to attack after "discovering" evidence that Saddam was linked to 9/11, they "discovered" the evidence after they had already decided to attack, and it later proved to be total bullshit. [quote]I am NOT pretentious and condescending. I have absolute faith in the intelligence of others. When I call people idiots it is because I entered the discussion assuming they were at the same level of intelligence that I was. I do not think you are a moron, I think you are a disappointment. [/QUOTE] I don't have any real faith in the proletariat, over the last eight years they/we (I am a member of the proletariat) have proven they we are are swayed far more easily by fear tactics, warmongering, and appeals to emotion than by logical arguments and facts. Fox's ratings are huge, yet the lie and slander on a daily basis. Bush won the popular election by running ads like this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU4t9O_yFsY[/media] Instead of seeing through the bullshit as the Iraq invasion exploded into a civil war months after declaring "Mission Accomplished", the majority of people allowed themselves to be swayed by fear tactics and lies. Hence, I have no faith that they will ignore a torrent of corporate-sponsored attack ads and listen to the actual candidates, who will become the dimmest voices in the clamor of election season.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19826200]Go back and read. Former Bush cabinet officials have stated that attacking Iraq was planned from the day after 9/11. They did not decide to attack after "discovering" evidence that Saddam was linked to 9/11, they "discovered" the evidence after they had already decided to attack, and it later proved to be total bullshit. [/quote] Not proof, claim. Find that claim's proof. [quote]I don't have any real faith in the proletariat, (Shit I didn't read)[/QUOTE] Then I reiterate, do you grow and cook your own food, build your own houses and cars, provide your own power and electricity, run your own ISP, manage your own roadway networks? Do you fucking realize how often your very life depends on the competence and intellect of a member of the Proletariat?

[QUOTE=Lankist;19826058] Because it is a term communists and socialists use when they speak of how much they TRUST the will of the people.[/QUOTE] communists use it to describe a class of people who have no choice but to sell their labor to live. what does trust have to do with it

[QUOTE=Conscript;19826316]communists use it to describe a class of people who have no choice but to sell their labor to live. what does trust have to do with it[/QUOTE] Uhh Marx defined Communism as the Proletariat Revolution, in which the Proletariat would rise and create the ultimate form of government after the creation of mass infrastructure in Capitalism and superabundance of goods in Socialism. The Proletariat in this equation are the people who will bring about his version of utopia after being used and abused and spit upon for centuries. That sounds like trust to me. It also sounds hypocritical for a communist/socialist to call the average man stupid, given that is what theoretically INCITES the revolution.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19826231]Not proof, claim. Find that claim's proof.[/quote] What do you want? A signed statement from Bush saying he lied? CIA documents with "lol, we made it up" at the bottom? When your standards for evidence are rediculous, you're never wrong, eh? [quote]Then I reiterate, do you grow and cook your own food, build your own houses and cars, provide your own power and electricity, run your own ISP, manage your own roadway networks? Do you fucking realize how often your very life depends on the competence and intellect of a member of the Proletariat?[/QUOTE] And? Yes, they can do all those things, but that doesn't mean they won't behave like sheep when someone tells them what they want to hear.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19825768]Yes, because obviously nobody in any position of power in the country has ever done anything illegal, ever. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Hey, here's an idea, why don't we just have NO LAWS! I mean, people will just break them anyway, so what's the point?

[QUOTE=Lankist;19826398]Uhh Marx defined Communism as the Proletariat Revolution, in which the Proletariat would rise and create the ultimate form of government after the creation of mass infrastructure in Capitalism and superabundance of goods in Socialism. The Proletariat in this equation are the people who will bring about his version of utopia after being used and abused and spit upon for centuries. That sounds like trust to me. It also sounds hypocritical for a communist/socialist to call the average man stupid, given that is what theoretically INCITES the revolution.[/QUOTE] Communists 'trust' the proletariat to create socialism about as much as scientists 'trust' the theory of gravity will apply when a planet is created. The argument is that socialism is created because the proletariat is the ruling class, and shapes society in its own interests (i.e. society is geared towards empowering labor, not capital). There is no trust to it, if there is a proletarian revolution that is what it will turn into. The communists aren't saying 'hey, workers, we have faith in you to do x and y'

But according to what's his face the Proletariat ALREADY shapes society, though he thinks they are stupid and they are doing it wrong.

I missed the part where he said the first bit, but as I explained to him before, they're not stupid because they fell for a ruse that Bush rode on again for his second term. So yes you're right in that he's being condescending.