My Photo

« Some Advice and Help | Main | Odd, That »

January 22, 2010



it would seem, as we watch what happens in washington, that those of us out here have a completely different idea of what should be than those inside the beltway. what seems remiss to us is most likely exactly what they were determined to do.


I'm fascinated by the reasoning of the decision.

A corporation is now a "person" with the right to free speech.

Puts a whole new spin on the concept of person.

I wonder if corporations could be declared "enemy combatants".


corporations have long had the rights of individuals. this, in part, has allowed them to become so powerful. this latest ruling isn't the first to give corporations undue power and it won't be the last as long as those who make the rules keep things the way they are.

not only should corporations be capable of being enemy combatants, they should also be able to be charged with murder and all sorts of evil crimes.


now here's a twist. ceos asking congress to stop asking their companies for campaign funds!

david beasley

Think about it:
As individuals Haliburton and Blackwater might run for Presidency and Vice- 2012.


Interesting that a court reporter in 1886 decided that corporations were people; when the Court didn't didn't discuss that in the case. This case is used to show precendent.


that's an interesting tidbit, kate. thank you. maybe that's where i and others have the mistaken impression that it was already decided thusly.

ha. david. didn't we already have that pair (or at least exxon) in the white house?


One positive unintended consequence of this: it will be more transparent where money is coming from. Rather than somehow funneling money to candidates in other ways and thru shady means, the source of the money will be very obvious.

And we'll know which politicians were willing to take funds from which corporations. And both sides are equally as guilty.


we should be grateful that now we'll actually know where the money is coming from instead of just having an idea of where it came from? it's already obvious whose side these corporate whores, i mean, elected representatives are on.

read an article that most of the money in campaigns goes into television advertising. cut out that expense and the cost of campaigns goes way down. so why does the airwaves, that actually "belong" to the people, cost so much? and why aren't networks forced to air ads or programming or debates for free as a public service? those who makes the rules don't force this on the corporate interests that own them.

supreme court ruling aside, the last year has demonstrated more than vividly that corporate dollars already speak louder than any other voice in washington.

Philip Koplin

Note that Justice Thomas wanted to eliminate transparency ( And it's time to stop referring to this Court as "conservative" and acknowledge that it's the judicial arm of the Republican party.

david beasley

American Justice is the same as American Christianity.

Chemical Ali = Shock and Awe W. and Cheney and the American populace under the strong Repulicans and weak Dems + but no charges.

Iraq War Facts, Statistics at January 6, 2010 - Iraq War ... Quick-reading statistics about the Iraq War, summarized from data by various ... Casualties are reported at 50000 to over 100000, but may be much higher. ...

Ali Hassan al-Majid, who was known throughout Iraq as
Chemical Ali for his role in the 1988 campaign that killed as
many as 180,000 Kurds, was executed on Monday.


indeed these turkeys are an arm of the repub party, philip.

daddy bush was complicit in the death of those kurds. no punishment for him. and there'll be a state funeral when he kicks off.

i'm about finished with the douglass book on the jkf murder. gotta tell ya, it's the most chilling book on the subject i have read since david lifton's, best evidence.


I really don't see why we think this is going to help transparency, and the door it opens for foreign influence....sheesh!


and even if it does help with transparency why is that helpful in a system that's already warped toward power/wealth (corporations)? the door has already been open to foreign influence, whether "legal" or not.

david beasley

Machiavelli's take on transparency:
"...a prince should seem to be merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and should even be so in reality; but he should have his mind so trained that, when occasion requires it, he may know how to change to the opposite. And it must be understood that a prince, and especially one who has recently acquired his state, cannot perform all those things whch cause men to be esteemed as good; he being often obliged, for the sake of maintaining his state, to act contrary to humanity, charity, and religion.
A prince then should be very careful never to allow anything to escape his lips that does not abound in the above named five qualities, so that to see and to hear him he may seem all charity, integrity, and humanity, all rightness, and all piety."

david beasley

O! Not on topic but thought I'd inform y'all of my new (or is it) status as unemployed and though not on welfare needy in Republican Evangelical South Carolina.
"Jan. 25: Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, R-S.C., is under fire for making a comparison between "feeding stray animals" and doling out government assistance."
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."


well, david. better round yourself up and get yourself to the pound. and be sure to be all charity, integrity, humanity, rightness and piety. something that bauer thinks he is.

david beasley

Ever heard of a dog or person who got pregnant from a government biscuit?


not directly but the implication is if a dog or person is well-fed it's too each then for them to be active (in any form). it would seem to me that if people had good jobs and could keep them they could take care of themselves and their families and no public funds would be necessary. and since when was unemployment a handout? people pay for unemployment out of their paychecks as do their employers. not giving it when needed would make the govt like insurance companies....take it but give none to little back! grrrrr.....


that would be EASY not each in the first line.
sorry for that....wouldn't want to be unclear.

The comments to this entry are closed.