The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 44    Average: 3.5/5]
78 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 16165
Rating: 3.5
Category:
Date: 03/19/11 11:30 AM

78 Responses to The Story of Citizens United vs. FEC

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:53 am
    Link: The Story of Citizens United vs. FEC - An exploration of the inordinate power that corporations exercise in our democracy.
  2. Profile photo of chimmeychang
    chimmeychang Male 30-39
    685 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:55 am
    I think corporation should be allowed to donate as much money as they want to election campaigns, but the money should be split evenly among the candidates.Also, ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, should have ALL OF THEIR FINANCES BE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. we forget they work for us, we should really really remind them...
  3. Profile photo of j3tdr1v3r
    j3tdr1v3r Male 30-39
    1 post
    March 19, 2011 at 12:01 pm
    Hey Citizens United... If you don`t like the size and power of a corporation, it`s easy to fix. DON`T BUY THEIR PRODUCT! It`s hilarious how many of you scream and cry and moan at the size of Exxon, their power, and their quarterly profits, yet you pull into the Exxon station for a fill-up and put Exxon oil in your engine every 3000 miles!
    It`s amuzing that your only answer to every problem is to let government grow and control that entity without ever opening your freaking minds to the fact that it`s the government causing the problems!
  4. Profile photo of TGPZarquon
    TGPZarquon Male 30-39
    166 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    On one hand, I agree with everything she says. On the other hand, she annoys the living poo out of me with her chipper "Let`s take our country back!" platitudes. Do you have a concrete, feasible plan? Then let`s hear it, instead of telling Americans like little children something we all know.
  5. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    "Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

    It`s your constitution, not mine.

    The First Amendment to the US constitution doesn`t allow for any law abridging fee speech or press freedom, whether the law affects people or organisations, whatever the nature of the organisation.

    So this video starts with a lie: that it is down to the Supreme Court. The Court simply interpreted the constitution, which is unequivocal.

    The text is also really patronising. It treats people as dumb, being "told who to vote for" by corporations. Note, not by unions, or by agenda-driven, publicity hungry international organisations. Of course this stupid leftie then knows far better than the people of the US what they want; they want what she says they want, but nasty Chevron is forcing them to vote against their own desires.

    This is pure propaganda, lies and spin. Usually leftie crap.
  6. Profile photo of elHadji
    elHadji Male 70 & Over
    1455 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:23 pm
    Nothing will change unless you guys learn how to vote. The fact that merely half your country does so and you still like to call yourself a "democracy" blows my mind.
  7. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:23 pm
    Chimmeychang of course has the answer.

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Elected officials should have great authority but almost total scrutiny. Most have to face the next election, and I believe most in the US are subject to recall.

    This Supreme Court case is in fact positive, it is part of the scrutiny. Elected officials must stick to the constitution. I wish ours would, or our courts cared as much as yours does about our constitution.
  8. Profile photo of PringleMan
    PringleMan Female 13-17
    1356 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    ... alrighty then!
  9. Profile photo of comrade_b
    comrade_b Male 18-29
    295 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    I love how it`s dumbed down for the common american.
  10. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:20 pm
    "The Court simply interpreted the constitution, which is unequivocal."

    Its cute how you think that`s true. What is actually true is that what the Constitution says is what 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices say. Replace one Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice with a Democrat, and suddenly the case comes out differently. Did the meaning of the Constitution change? Well, yeah, it just depends on who you ask.

    But to say the Constitution is "unequivocal" is laughable. Have you ever actually read it?????? Do you know what "unequivocal" means?????
  11. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    What an obnoxious propaganda piece. I hope this isn`t being shown to actual children.
  12. Profile photo of Fizban
    Fizban Male 18-29
    125 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    I feel insulted after watching this. Do they think I`m five years old? I hate how much people cater to the stupid. It only serves to reinforce their stupidity and gives them no incentive to learn something for once.
  13. Profile photo of IceDragon77
    IceDragon77 Male 18-29
    490 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    Democracy? Last I heard we were supposed to be a republic. O.=.o
  14. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    We`re not a democracy, we`re a constitutional republic.
  15. Profile photo of toastertown6
    toastertown6 Male 13-17
    57 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 2:21 pm
    http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=tJEeKez1Jlw
  16. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3362 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 3:16 pm
    @brassbull and Icedragon: You`re both wrong. We are a Democratic republic, and slowly becoming more and more a democracy.

    @volsunga: "Obnoxious propaganda piece"? Do you really deny that corporations have been given way too much power over us as voters? Why don`t you stand up for yourself instead of being some sort of wimpy corporate shill?
  17. Profile photo of Emma254
    Emma254 Female 18-29
    9 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    Video #1

    Video #2

    Video #3
  18. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm
    Socialist propaganda again, Corporations are evil, Profit is immoral, Voters too stupid to know what is good for them, Capitalism is monstrous, etc..

    Our constitution is fine as is. Corporations can not vote, only humans can.
  19. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    chimmeychang: Also, ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, should have ALL OF THEIR FINANCES BE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

    McCain-Feingold law makes all political contributions a matter of public record already. The only problem is when corporations make donations to candidates in the names of their employees and get around the campaign finance limits that way.
  20. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    jtrebowski

    My definition is more specific than yours. I win.
  21. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    meh
  22. Profile photo of phoneybone
    phoneybone Male 18-29
    1744 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 4:50 pm
    this should be filed under "no duh"
  23. Profile photo of PhantomX9
    PhantomX9 Male 13-17
    78 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm
    the impression i got from this video is that americans are people who vote based on the ads they see
  24. Profile photo of Spocom
    Spocom Female 13-17
    709 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    I can see how the smart, politically active people don`t want corporations to send out ads that will influence the dumb majority of America that is bought with ads rather than facts, but technically this isn`t a violation of the first amendment. A corporation isn`t REALLY a machine: it isn`t going to choose someone of its own will to sponsor in a campaign. At least one person working in or for that corporation has to make the decision for corporate dollars to be spent on campaigns. One person who has first amendment rights. The corporation is just a label for all the PEOPLE working in that business, not a separate entity altogether. In my opinion, I`d say that corporations shouldn`t have influence on who they want voted for, but the people in the corporations have rights they deserve to have.
  25. Profile photo of vegascartman
    vegascartman Male 30-39
    735 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    Her first mistake was stating that we are in a democracy, which we aren`t here in the United States. We are a republic, not a democracy. BIIIIIG difference!
  26. Profile photo of danky
    danky Male 18-29
    559 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 6:31 pm
    85% of Americans feel that corporations have too much power yet half of them do something and take it to the polls.
  27. Profile photo of loneagwolf
    loneagwolf Male 30-39
    6 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 6:38 pm
    This is such a load of bull$hit...talk about misleading crap and flat out lies.
  28. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    loneagwolf

    this is actually VERY true. The supreme court DID make the ruling in 2010 that a corp. has the same rights as a PERSON and thus can spend as MUCH AS THEY WANT ON AN ELECTION.

    Now, i know you are most likely a republican, business class and think that busness should be left to do whatever they want but sorry, there are many of us that DONT FEEL THAT WAY.

    I OWN my own successful business and I do not support companies having free speech rights. Nor should anyone that values the people`s voice over a company`s wish to see the laws they want enacted by buying their way into power.
  29. Profile photo of Emma254
    Emma254 Female 18-29
    9 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 7:08 pm
    @jamie76
    I OWN my own successful business and I do not support companies having free speech rights
    I don`t want my right to X therefore no one should have it.

    Nor should anyone that values the people`s voice over a company`s wish to see the laws they want enacted by buying their way into power.
    I don`t value one group of people enforcing their will on another group. So I don`t advocate democracy. It`s anti-minority. Note: When I say minority, I don`t mean race.
  30. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm
    Jamie76

    "The supreme court DID make the ruling in 2010 that a corp. has the same rights as a PERSON"

    The Supreme Court did nothing of the sort. It simply enforced the US Constitution. t did not say anything about the rights of corporation, it restricted the power of congress to that offered by the US Constitution as currently amended.

    If you can`t see that distinction, then your understanding of the English language is too poor to have a reasoned debate.
  31. Profile photo of ElMustache
    ElMustache Male 18-29
    1625 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    Brilliant Video.
  32. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    goaliejerry

    I not only read your Constitution, but quoted it directly in my comment. That you failed to recognise this suggests that you have not read it.

    The first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

    Notice that "people" are specifically mentioned in the peaceable assembly clause and implicitly in the redress of grievance. The freedom of speech and the press clause are unequivocal in the literal meaning, that I do know thank you. They are restriction on congress`s power, with no mention of "people".

    If you still doubt, note that freedom of speech is gathered in a clause with press freedom. The latter must apply to corporations, it must be inferred that the former specifically
  33. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    And no, goaliejerry, your Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says. Your Constitution is what is written. It might be, in fact often is, misinterpreted, even by the Supreme Court (it is impossible to find any justification for Roe vs. Wade anywhere in your Constitution, even for someone who supports a right to access to abortion as I do; except in federal laws the Constitution does not demand any separation of church and state, and even as an atheist I cannot see how anyone with a three-figure IQ could read it that way).

    This video tries to say this is one such case, which is a lie.

    Does it really take a Englishman to teach you about your own Constitution?
  34. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    The Supreme Court did nothing of the sort. It simply enforced the US Constitution.
    ----------
    You`re wrong. To spew it as fact makes you seem incredibly retarded.
  35. Profile photo of Kanchan
    Kanchan Male 13-17
    76 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:10 pm
    Well USA, you`re drated.
  36. Profile photo of Blitzkreig10
    Blitzkreig10 Male 13-17
    2 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:30 pm
    Ok, here is my opinion on this video. Essentially what this video is implying is that the corporations were the sole reason why these politicians are put into the positions they are. However, that is not the case. Corporations simply paid for the ads you see on television, hear on the radio, etc. It is still the people who voted them in as corporations can not vote. So in the end it is the voter`s responsibility to get educated on the facts and find out what politicians have to say on certain issues. You cannot blame corporations for voters making ill-advised decisions and for politicians who give in to corporate power.
  37. Profile photo of beerock
    beerock Male 18-29
    19 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    Lol this is a liberal cartoon. Conservative ideal calls for "hands-off" economy.
  38. Profile photo of Emma254
    Emma254 Female 18-29
    9 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 8:46 pm
    @madest
    You`re wrong. To spew it as fact makes you seem incredibly retarded.


    In actuality what has been stated applies more directly to you than to randomxnp. I`m sure you can come up with something better other than "You`re wrong" and logical fallacies such as ad hominem.
  39. Profile photo of screwzlooose
    screwzlooose Male 30-39
    385 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    so,the bill of rights is granted to the "we the people", according to the preamble.... so, if a corporation is now a person, does that mean a corporation can be arrested, or deported,or even given the death penalty if found guilty of crimes?
  40. Profile photo of screwzlooose
    screwzlooose Male 30-39
    385 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:11 pm
    jrtebowski: no , we`re a capitalist republic with elected lawmakers.
  41. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5195 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:20 pm
    >>I love how it`s dumbed down for the common american.

    So incredibly dumbed down and patronizing I can`t even sit through it. Somebody explain to Annie Leonard that she`s addressing voters, not kindergarten.
  42. Profile photo of obhwfgirl
    obhwfgirl Female 18-29
    582 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:33 pm
    1) The USA is a republic, not a democracy.

    2) The moment that our government decided that corporations were people, we were drated. Corporations represent the jobs of people, the goods of people, the ideals of people, and they are composed of people, but they are not people.
  43. Profile photo of Oldfrt
    Oldfrt Male 50-59
    750 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    @Blitzkreig10 - You hit the nail on the head. Also, I`m surprised no one has mentioned the sly little twist in their proposed amendment: specifying restricting rights for FOR-PROFIT corporations. This means that Unions, PAC`s and other very large organizations can still spend millions (as they do now). So once again, another liberal is saying we should forcibly silence their opposition while giving "their guys" carte blanc.

    This is why liberalism will ultimately fail. They think the general public is stupid. We all know the general public isn`t stupid, they are lazy and would rather not deal with the shrill little liberal whiners.
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 9:59 pm
    screwzlooose: The supreme court did not say that corporations are equal to people. "Freedom of the press" means that any company, group of people, can publish their opinion on any subject, not just politics.

    Corporations can not vote, only the shareholders of a company are protected from prosecution (provided they are not involved in making day-to-day business decisions). The executives that run corporations can, and have been, prosecuted for crimes under the law.

    And if people were really concerned about `corporations` campaign finance contributions, They should`ve looked into the enormous amounts Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Time Warner, and Microsoft gave to Obama.

    Goldman Sachs $994,795
    Microsoft Corp $833,617
    Google Inc $803,436
    Citigroup Inc $701,290
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
    Time Warner $590,084
    UBS AG $543,219
    IBM Corp $528,822
  45. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 10:10 pm
    Why are they blaming the 2010 Supreme Court decision on advertising on corporations for candidates. This poo has been going on since the formation of America. It`s just more publicized now instead of behind closed doors.
  46. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    And here`s WHAT`S WRONG in this video.

    Lee Doren has ripped the "logic" and "facts" presented in many of A.Leonard`s videos. Of course it takes longer to explain WHY she`s wrong than it does for her to spout nonsense and distortions, eh? In short: she`s a liberal elitist with a hidden agenda.
  47. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:18 pm
    From the video: corporations spent 300 million dollars on campaigns.
    Reality: UNIONS spent 400 million in 2008.
    SO: who`s `buying politicians` in the USA?

    I`m surprised no one has mentioned the sly little twist in their proposed amendment: specifying restricting rights for FOR-PROFIT corporations.

    Nice catch there @Oldfrt! She wants he precious unions to be free to spend, but not those who disagree with her! Also, the company that made this video is a corporation too, kinda ironic, eh?

    Go watch Lee Doren`s video!

  48. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:27 pm
    What a f***ing stupid c*nt she is.
  49. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:33 pm
    Problem #1 with the US govt. is that it only has 2 parties and people`s views aren`t being represented, regardless of "corporate influence".

    she`s a liberal elitist with a hidden agenda.

    And what could be her agenda exactly? Any ideas?
  50. Profile photo of Emma254
    Emma254 Female 18-29
    9 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:33 pm
    @5Cats
    That video has already been posted twice.
    Video #4
  51. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:40 pm
    Lee doren`s video is full of holes. Sometimes his logic works, but here he is building his house of cards on the idea that people will be able to vote for a candidate that will do what they want regardless of corporate interference. Smart people can see through BS advertising, but most people aren`t smart.

    But, as I said before, this is irrelevant if you have just 2 parties to begin with. If the choice is evil or more evil, your vote won`t affect much anyway.
  52. Profile photo of MauserTM
    MauserTM Male 18-29
    1222 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:43 pm
    First thing i noticed is that its produced by a studio, isnt that a corporation?
  53. Profile photo of Emma254
    Emma254 Female 18-29
    9 posts
    March 19, 2011 at 11:48 pm
    @LazyMe484
    The "fact" that we have a two party system and the "fact" that people are stupid is an argument FOR the Supreme Court`s ruling. See video #4. The politicians will now have more competition because of this.
  54. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 4:12 am
    this is a liberal cartoon. Conservative ideal calls for "hands-off" economy.
    ----------------
    So what you`re trying to say is that corporations should have individual rights because it`s good for the economy for them to be able to do anything they want so long as they use their profits to fund the campaigns of the politicians that`ll change the rules in the corporations favor? Just like our forefathers wanted...
  55. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 4:20 am
    screwzlooose

    You use classic left-wing dishonesty, cutting off your quote. The preamble starts "We the people" but what about them? They "...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". The people are those establishing the Constitution, not those to whom it applies.

    Secondly that clause of the first amendment clearly limits congress. It does not mention the "people". It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Congress made a law. Congress therefore broke the constitution, and the law was unconstitutional.

    In addition to your flawed logic in the wording of the clause, under your logic only people would have a right to freedom of the press. If that clause does not apply to corporations then it is pretty useless.

    obhwfgirl

    On what basis do you claim that your government decided corporations are people? I have seen no suggestion off that.
  56. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 4:24 am
    madest

    Learn English. Read the constitution. Note that no-one has given corporations individual rights. The Supreme Court upheld a Constitutional limit on the power of Congress, a clear and unequivocal one. That is all. Then stop the hysterics and personal attacks. They make you look an idiot.
  57. Profile photo of alpensepp
    alpensepp Male 70 & Over
    1364 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:10 am
    i thought it was about a football club. kind of disapointed now.
  58. Profile photo of Dessic
    Dessic Male 30-39
    8 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:21 am
    Groups of people driven by profit shouldn`t be given a collective voice, but other groups of people should be. That`s democracy?
  59. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:34 am
    We Americans love being lectured about the constitution by Europeans and Canadians. It`s high comedy.
  60. Profile photo of Dessic
    Dessic Male 30-39
    8 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 6:47 am
    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

    Yeah, that totally means Congress can pass some laws restricting speech based on who or what the source of the speech is. Yeah...
  61. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 8:03 am
    We Americans love being lectured about the constitution by Europeans and Canadians. It`s high comedy.
    Well @madest, YOU sure don`t know diddely-squat about it! BURN! lolz!
    This video completely ignores the actual issue: the Feds made a law that says Corp A CAN talk politics before an election, but Corp B CANNOT. This is the same as saying "blacks can vote, but not whites" (for an extreme example) and is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Duh!
    But Annie doesn`t even address this! All she does is rant about how evil corporations are destroying the world.

    @Lazyme he agenda is to have the government (leftist of course) control the whole world. Corporations are seen (in her deranged world view) as compeditors to Big Government and, therefor, are evil.
    Voters are evil too, unless they vote for the lefties - see the Wisconson protestors? They claim to "fight for democracy" by shutting down a duely elected goverment! Oh the irony!
  62. Profile photo of Mirage6
    Mirage6 Male 18-29
    25 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 8:28 am
    Oh nooooooo.....evil profits. It should just be illegal to make money. That would make everything better.
  63. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 9:04 am
    "From the video: corporations spent 300 million dollars on campaigns.
    Reality: UNIONS spent 400 million in 2008. "

    Do you know you`re a dirty deceptive liar or was that accidental?

    From the video: MIDTERM.
    Your second stat: Presidential.

    Also from the video if you pay attention: The $300 is more than the last 20 years combined for a midterm.

    Ergo, the opposite of what you`re suggesting is true, is the actual truth.

    I`ll assume for now you simply made a mistake.
  64. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 9:29 am
    Crakr:
    "And if people were really concerned about `corporations` campaign finance contributions, They should`ve looked into..."

    Oh, what a scientific methodology. You`re totally right, they should`ve looked into (and only into) that candidate you personally didn`t support....

    Lets take a more reasonable look at this. What should people look at if they really care? I`m going to say: The total amount given by corporations to either party, compared to individual donors.

    I`ll start you off, here`s wall street`s contributions:



    P.S. I`m happy to limit *all* campaign contributions, irrespective of who it benefits. You gonna say the same or are you gonna wait till you see if it benefits Reps/Dems?
  65. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
    Does a corporation pay taxes?

    What is a corporation? I have a friend that owns all the shares in a carpet cleaning business and it is a corporation. He and his wife are the only employees.
  66. Profile photo of jonfandal
    jonfandal Male 18-29
    2 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 1:22 pm
    Story of Cit. United vs fec, the critique

    This.
  67. Profile photo of HumboldtPie
    HumboldtPie Male 18-29
    311 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm
    counter: church and state
  68. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Good video rebuttal jonfandal, thanks for posting it.
  69. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:04 pm
    We Americans love being lectured about the constitution by Europeans and Canadians. It`s high comedy.

    Ad Hominem.

    But oh sure I love being lectured about the constitution by a guy from the United Arab Emirates (especially when knows what the hell he`s talking about). It`s high comedy.
  70. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm
    From the critique:

    "Rent-seeking corporations are actually pushing for regulations adding barriers to entry into the marketplace."

    I agree with Mr. Doren that is the case in Texas.

    "...so it`s bad when Microsoft makes money off a product that enhances the lives of everyone that uses it?"

    Okay her assertion was a stretch but not completely invalid.
    Companies have promoted anti-psychotics for a while and while they are good at treating the condition, they`ve caused some rather unpleasant side effects such as Lethargy, Hypotension, Various Dystonias.

    Then there was t
  71. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    ...cont

    ...the Chantix debacle

    CT Scans make a LOT more money for doctors than MRIs, yet are incredibly more dangerous (because they`re practically (and aptly named) "super X-rays").
  72. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:47 pm
    There was also a time in America where meat packers could label their products what ever the hell they wanted even if it WAS deceptive.

    So while it may be good for GDP it does not necessarily mean it`s good for life expectancy/longevity.
  73. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 20, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    Hell I use Google and they just asked me to give them my telephone number in case I forgot my (brace yourself)...




    ...password.


    Hell Facebook asks you to give MORE personal information for MORE LEVELS of security. Ironic much?
  74. Profile photo of todayistodie
    todayistodie Male 18-29
    80 posts
    March 21, 2011 at 12:16 am
    this was a whole lot of obvious for anyone whoever took an american government class.
  75. Profile photo of TieDyePlatap
    TieDyePlatap Male 18-29
    75 posts
    March 21, 2011 at 12:58 am
    Really Dude? You`re saying being tired, having low blood pressure and a dystonic reaction(That can generally be cured with benydryl) is worse than wanting to kill yourself? Holy poo Man.
  76. Profile photo of TieDyePlatap
    TieDyePlatap Male 18-29
    75 posts
    March 21, 2011 at 1:02 am
    By the way your source is about 12 years outdated you stupid drat.
  77. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm
    You`re saying being tired, having low blood pressure and a dystonic reaction(That can generally be cured with benydryl) is worse than wanting to kill yourself?

    No I`m not saying that at all. If anything I`d like a medication that treats my condition and gives me none of those. Also, the age of the article does not make it any less relevant jackass.
  78. Profile photo of 8jdb28jdb2
    8jdb28jdb2 Male 30-39
    83 posts
    March 24, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    Profit needs to be hard capped. There is no justification for the amount of money these corporations make. America is now fascist.

Leave a Reply