YAY! Back on topic.
https://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6586/ann9al.jpg
It's too bad she's so funny or I would definetly fall in love. ~;)
Printable View
YAY! Back on topic.
https://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6586/ann9al.jpg
It's too bad she's so funny or I would definetly fall in love. ~;)
Dont we need a campfire if we're going share vast right wing conspiracy theories? :rolleyes2:Quote:
Or, maybe the powers that be within the Republican party found GHWB much too independent and intelligent for their liking and decided that using a convenient dolt with the same last name for recognition would really be better. Enter the man I like to call... a sock puppet in a president suit.
Why? It's very possible and probable. The powerful organizations always stick their noses in everything, since i've use of reason, or you think that the USA government is immune to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Dubya was pre-ordained as the GOP Presidential nominee when he ran for Texas governor. It was a done deal in the GOP. The governorship was a grooming process. It isn't that the people selected a leader, one was selected for them by the leadership. Yes, I remember this early on in the governor campaign and even before.
You gotta love Ann Coulter. After a good spanking I bet she makes great pancakes for breakfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
If Coulter is supposed to be a comedy act , does that mean that William Joyce was really hanged because the audience didn't like his jokes ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
i think robin williams explained it better....
Quote:
You know, you look at George W. and you realize some men are born great, some
achieve greatness, and some get it as a graduation gift
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
actually, i saw a poll like that mentioned on CNN, and it was not just for people who watch Fox News. the poll results stated something to the effect that over 80% of Americans believe that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. this merely reflects the reality that most people are stupid. whether they watch Fox News or not has no bearing on this.
as for everyone saying Ann is a satirist, that's a ludcrous comment. she's not a satirist. i'm sure anyone who applies some common sense will be able to come to that conclusion that she really believes everything she says.
What evidence shows that she's a satirist except her statements?
I mean if she's a satirist, then the she's funny because of the responses she create, not by herself. That's quite advance humour.
And why do I think that most people will miss that... War of the Worlds hysteria
She can be a profitéer though (that mean that she have learned that those statements gives her money, no more, no less).
Actually, as someone stated, if she pretend to be a satirist by acting as a stupid die hard right wing racist fanatic biggot (notice the use of so many buzz words), then she's probably a left wing extremist trying to make fun of the conservatives.
I wouldn't, munter. ~:eek:
http://www.bobonit.com/html/ann_coultersmall_scary1.gif
Pinko...liberal..leftists..traitors...grrrrrr
Actually the beginning of the end came during the Civil War when the Union, and thus the Republican party, had to make a marriage of convenience with business to support the war. Concessions were made to business which sowed the seeds of what we have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The nail in the coffin for "We the people" rather than "we the corporations" came in 1886, with a little known Supreme Court decision in the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394). Now notice, those of you who are reading this and who like to use the argument against Roe v. Wade that since the Constitution makes no mention of a right to privacy, then there is no right to privacy, that the Constitution makes no mention of corporations and their rights either. However, as a result of the above decision, corporations were granted a status of personhood thus the protections of the 14th Amendment. They had no such rights prior to this decision and subsequent ones, having only privileges granted by the various states, not legal and binding Contitutional rights.
The best part about the whole court decision above is that the court deliberately did not decide the issue of corporate rights in their decision. The Chief Justice, Morris Remick Waite, used to be a lawyer for the railroads. The court reporter and clerk, used to be a railroad president! so what happened? How did the legal fiction of corporate personhood enter into law? Just before stating the court's decision in the case, Chief Justice Waite announced - not as a part of the courts decision, by the way - that "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does.” Waite then proceeded to deliver the court's decision. A decision which did not in any way address the issue of the 14th Amendment and corporate personhood. And yet, the clerk (the guy who used to be a railroad president) included Waite's non-decision statement in the record of the decision. Thus, corporations were granted personhood and not even by the court. After that, the preface to that decision began to be quoted in numerous other cases as corporations pressed the advantage.
There's a very nice description of the whole fiasco here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/theft.shtml
I knew it was there fault see what happens :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
There is no need to have such a hatred of the favorable business environment in America. If that did not exist, you probably wouldnt have the computer you are visiting this site on.Quote:
By rights, anyone who calls themselves an American should be opposed to this slow corporate takeover of America, but I think politics were the first to fall. Ever since FDR polarized business (and it might have even been earlier than that) with the socialistic, but necesarry, New Deal; the (dare I say it) Fascist-leaning Corporate America has saught to use the Republican Party. Although I daresay either party is the same wolf in different clothes these days.
People who scream about the "evil corporations" are short-sighted to say the least. If it werent for the business community in America, the country would be a shell of what it is today.
But thats ok. Continue to scream on your corporation-made computers, then get in your corporation-made car and drive to starbux to drink your corporation-made coffee with other kindrid spirits. ~D
How much did Enron cost the US (AKA the taxpayers)? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Thought I needed to balance your message. ~;)
~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Yep, even Herbert Hoover who was a wealthy industrialist when he became president felt there were problems. While he believed in capitalism, he said, "The trouble with capitalism is the capitalists, they're too damn greedy." He did do some regulation for the perceived public good, but he preferred non-intervention. His big mistake was in believing volunteerism would overcome the Depression, when unprecedented government intervention was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Those that cheat and exploit should face the wrath of their countrymen.
Less shortsigthed than the corporate leaders of today it would seem. They don't seem to have vision more than about a year forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
That's funny, where was I when they started giving it all away for free? Seems I paid for it. (Except for Starbux, no thanks, never bought a single drop.) My vehicles are Japanese made, better quality engineering--long term vs. short. Had enough of American vehicles when I was younger, wanted something reliable.Quote:
But thats ok. Continue to scream on your corporation-made computers, then get in your corporation-made car and drive to starbux to drink your corporation-made coffee with other kindrid spirits. ~D
I was talking about comics, not clowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Interestingly during the discussions over the what became the Bill of Rights, Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment which would have made the Bill of Rights the first 11, instead of the first 10 amendments. This 11th Amendment would have echoed restrictions already on the books in the states. It would have severly restricted corporations. Corporations would have been prohibited from owning other corporations. They would have been restricted in length, to just a single generation. They would have been specifically prohibited from attempting to influence the political process in any way. The founding fathers were very familiar with unscrupulous corporations. The actions of the British East India Company in influencing British politics and law and its monopolistic control over trade because of that influence led directly to the Boston Tea Party. The founding fathers weren't about to allow the same kind of thing to happen again in the new country they were creating. ~D
The 11th Amendment was defeated. Why? Because those considering it decided that it was redundant, with laws already on the books in all of the fledgling states. Really. That's the exact reason why the amendment was voted down. Within 100 years, every one of those state laws had been removed from the books, usually because of illegal lobbying by the railroads, which was even acknowledged as illegal when it happened! That didn't stop them from doing it. And so, by the time of Civil War, all of those laws were gone and the protections which Jefferson and Madison tried to enshrine in the much harder to change Constitution weren't there.
Funny thing about history, as Jorge Augustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana (George Santayan) observed, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
canada and coulter both suck nuff said
coulter is a clown
canada is full of clowns
The whole idea of corporations being given the status of personhood under the 14th Amendment, after they had already lobbied the anti-corporate laws of the founding fathers into non-existence just rubs me raw.
It gets worse. In the same session, not long after the U.S. Supreme Court gave personhood to corporations in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, thus severely restricting the ability of the federal government to exercise control of corporations, they managed to screw it up further in another case. In Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific RR vs Illinois (118 U.S. 557, 1886) the court decided that states which attempted to regulate businesses involved in interstate commerce violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution which reserves such power to Congress.
So in two railroad cases, decided in the same year, with a Chief Justice who was an ex-railroad attorney and a clerk who was an ex-railroad president, the U.S. Supreme Court managed to severly restrict the power of both the federal and the state governments to regulate corporations and their behavior.
You would prefer to be exploited and cheated by a local business? You mistake the nature of capitalism with corporations.. which is typical of the blind youthful hatred of the "evil corporations". There are bad people in all levels of life, corporations by nature are not bad.Quote:
Rubbish. Corporations can exist and thrive without exploiting and cheating their own countrymen.
A corporation in itself is nothing more than a business that has grown its costomer base large enough to expand itself.. theres nothing ominous in that.
You really need to do a lot more research into exactly what the business environment in America has done for this country in terms of standard of living, GDP, and all other measures of success. Would you have us living in the 17th century where quality control did not exist? Would you have us living in a communist country where they means of production is owned by the government and the standard of living is terrible?
All the way back to Rome the wealthy business people influenced the government. Thats just the nature of man. If you really feel the need to blame someone for America being the richest nation on earth ( ~:rolleyes: ), then blame yourself first - and then everyone else. We all live, work, and succeed in a corporate world.
If you are so anti-corporation, try not buying anything from corporations, or shut your anti-establishemnt for the hell of being anti-establishment mouth. ~:)
coorperations are not inherntly bad and I love capitalism but what i dont like is being screwed over wether it be the little guy or the big guy Large coorparations have a huge say in american politics and they shouldnt our goverment shouldnt be there for the sake of serving a few men just becuase they can pony out the dough thats one of the main reasons the 2 party system blows as well
P.S Aelnic is like 45 so he isnt youthful he is wise ~D
Most of my info comes from the wonderful book by Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights.
There's a nice article he wrote on TomPaine.com here: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7603
The letters between Madison and Jefferson discussing the Bill of Rights are readily available on the internet. Too many to list here.
One which might be harder to find is an essay by Madison called "Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations Ecclesiastical Endowments" which was not published in his lifetime; but which clearly marks his views on the sources of power which might corrupt the Constitution. He also has a great deal to say about religion and ecclesiastical authority in this essay. ~D
i didnt read any of the responses, but anne coulter's statements were irritating and childish. carlson was a bit more tongue in cheek and mildly amusing
OK, I read or sped through the gist of this. From defining what is a clown vs true comedians, from editorialsts vs extemist ranters (include me in this one from time to time), from satirists vs spin doctors, even the 11th amendment and the coersion of corporate cronyism.
Now, will the real Ann Coulter please stand up:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sea...me=Ann+Coulter
Funny stuff? Satire? Or just bigoted bs? The bimbo is a shrew, a right-wing hack, nothing more.
BTW, I think if one were to tell the creators of SouthPark they were delving out conservative opinions? They might stare back at them in awe for their spin on (of) their "satire". Loved the one on Michael Jackson, and their xmas special of the forest creatures savior. ~D
As for Ann? She just ain't funny, she twists in the wind trying to make the reader forget the point she intended to make. No doubt she finds herself hillarious, a real scream; but, the reality is she is just a very sad person with nothing really to say. She leaves me more confused, than angry. Let alone amused.
Take her spin on Kennedy (first article on the list), and the right to privacy (which she and like minded people propose doesnot exist as law). On the one hand she ridicules Ted for not telling us what he and his attorney spoke of after Chapaquidic (ms), while on the other is defending Bush43 and John Roberts' right to deny the senate the opinions Roberts wrote in cases for the government (Reagan and Bush41). Which, btw, are part of public domain - and were suppose to go to Reagan's or Daddy's librarys. Sorry, a person simply can not have things both ways. Ann, sees no problem in this or any of her ambiguities. She actually believes she has meaning, and that what she is writing has merit. Sorry, imo, she is simply another right-wing biased nut job.
Art Buchwald, was a satirist. Mark Twain, was a satirists (love his "Letters from Earth"), and Jon Stewart is one. As is Bill Maher. Coulter, simply is not.
:book:
Well...
With Coulter I have the option of skipping to another channel. Since I pretty well know exactly what she'll say at the outset as well as the mindless defensive response of the left-winger she's shellacing at that moment this is a pretty good time saver.
Seamus
The creator says so himself.Quote:
BTW, I think if one were to tell the creators of SouthPark they were delving out conservative opinions? They might stare back at them in awe for their spin on (of) their "satire".