Ralph Nader commentary on the corporate Supreme Court Justices

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Our founding fathers wouldn't have dreamed of allowing one tyranny to be traded for another, for the democracy and rights of the people they created to be trashed.

Some of them could be some 'elitist' aristocrats - viewing 'the masses' as unfit to govern much directly, needing representatives.

But things were quite different then; the society was 90% farmers who were indeed in little position to 'govern directly' well. There was no such thing as a big corporation - much less the modern corruption of a 'corporatocracy' with huge corporations with interests at odds to society and power enough to threaten the people's power, with a finance industry massive and able to blackmail the national and even global economy.

Someone quoted John Adams on property rights - but the world he was speaking in was a very different one. He was speaking of very different issues than today's.

You are stupid and ignorant of history.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
It went beyond that to also overturn law in place since the early 20th century.



I didn't discuss election results, I discussed money. Bad reading, even for you.

So as you tell us what you 'chalk it up to', let's hear about your research into the growth of corporate funding as a result of this ruling to the third-party groups.

Oh, ya, you didn't do any, you make up facts.

I read the case syllabus, I didn't see anything about overturning law in place since the 20th century. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Anyways you are avoiding and changing the subject. First of all, Citizens United case only dealt with corporations spending money on campaign ads, not direct money donations to campaigns.

Even ignoring that, just because republicans got twice as much money as the democrats in one election cycle does not mean they got twice as much money as previous elections solely due to corporate support. Maybe republicans got twice as much money just because democrats got half as much money due to lack of support. I don't know the numbers and neither do you, your conclusions are entirely baseless.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I read the case syllabus, I didn't see anything about overturning law in place since the 20th century. I have no idea what you are referring to.

This ruling overturned the Tillman Act passed in 1907. To quote Russ Feingold:

These people who pledged to promise precedent overturned a law signed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907, proposed and backed by Fighting Bob La Follette. And it’s been the law of the land for 100 years that corporations cannot use their treasuries to directly impact elections.

Anyways you are avoiding and changing the subject. First of all, Citizens United case only dealt with corporations spending money on campaign ads, not direct money donations to campaigns.

Correct, I didn't say any differently, and it barely makes any difference.

Even ignoring that, just because republicans got twice as much money as the democrats in one election cycle does not mean they got twice as much money as previous elections solely due to corporate support. Maybe republicans got twice as much money just because democrats got half as much money due to lack of support. I don't know the numbers and neither do you, your conclusions are entirely baseless.

No, actually, I've looked at a lot of the numbers. You're the one posting baseless assertions, and not with many manners, and making false allegations.

Why I'd want to hold your hand repeating things for you the way you post?
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
You're the one posting baseless assertions, and not with many manners, and making false allegations.
[/QUOTE]

So maybe he should take a lesson from you, ignore everyone who disagrees with him, leave the thread, and later insist that it never happened.