This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Some People Have More 'Free-Speech' Than Others

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Who cares about healthcare? Thanks to the SCOTUS decision, Little Suzie Newsykins decided on her Summer job working for Democracy and 'Free-Speech' as there are plenty of jobs there. Free-speech is such a growth industry, "its on track to hit two billion 'speech-units' this campaign". The delightful young lady in this brief cartoon got her dream summer job because corporations are people; money is free-speech; and some people have more free-speech than others.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:52 | 2581907 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Dislike

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:10 | 2581953 BarreraNorman70
BarreraNorman70's picture

Democracy is so 19th century. ? Elections should be 21st century and be put on eBay. Highest corporate bidder win. Simple, quick and easy. Voters don't have to be distracted and educated to choose the best candidate so productivity will be higher.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:15 | 2581959 The They
The They's picture

What if you're in debt? Does having negative "free speech units" mean your speech is suppressed?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:55 | 2582038 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The problem is not that some people have more money to back their candidate for dictator than others do, the problem is the dictatorship itself.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:46 | 2582172 BigJim
BigJim's picture

+1000

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:17 | 2582234 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

-10,0000

No, No, NO.  Dammit, people.  Unlimited campaign contributions are WRONG.  Foreign entities being allowed to contribute to American politicians is WRONG.  This is literally the heart of corruption, the goddamn reason the system is fucked, and you're criticizing the post for pointing it out?  The problem is not that some people have more money to back their candidate... are you kidding me?  That's EXACTLY the problem. The system is broken because politicians are bribed.  That' it.  From Obama down to Sheriff Arpaio.

End Campaign Contributions. Period.  Money = Influence = Favors = Cronyism = FAIL

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:24 | 2582249 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

While I agree with you, I'm not so naive as to think the people buying candidates with campaign donations now won't find some other way to "influence" their candidate of choice.  If they can't donate to a campaign, it will be truckloads of free widgets, free private plane use for a year, free vacations around the world, etc.

The problem is there aren't any ethical people in politics.  This isn't news to anyone, I know. ;)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:31 | 2582350 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

R E W A R D

1 Kilo 999.9 Gold Bar

1 Kilo of 999.9 fine gold

to whomever can locate in the Citizens United v. FEC opinion

any direct quote or indirect allusion to the claim that

"Corporations are people".

This is a serious offer.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

- HINT -

Do not look in these passages, as you will not find it within them:

"The dissent says that  speech  refers to oral communications of human
beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak.
Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a
corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf ofthe human beings who
have formed that associationjust as the spokesman of an unincorporated
association speaks on behalf of itsmembers. The power to publish thoughts,
no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings,  
but the dissent sees noproblem with a corporations enjoying the freedom of
the press." (86, footnote 7)

"Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are
not actually members of it." (88)

"The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to
need no elaboration, except that themajority opinion almost completely
elides it." (162)

"It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs,
no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and
facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 
personhood oftenserves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not
themselves members of We the People by whom and for whomour Constitution
was established." (163)

"But when the speakers in question are not real people..." (171)

(numbers in parenthesis are PDF page number)

First man to identify the exact page and line number within the opinion that effectively states "corporations are people" wins the gold bar.  One prize only.  Not transferable.  Void where prohibited.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:59 | 2582565 wisefool
wisefool's picture

I am not sure if there are sarc tags in this post.  So here goes. Mitt "14%" Romney said corporations are people. He is on the ballot. He has about a 14% chance of being in charge of the IRS in 2012. I have a 0% chance and pay 35%.

No Sarc: Send the gold bar to Peter Schiffs dad who is currently residing in levenworth.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:22 | 2582611 wisefool
wisefool's picture

I got junked? Because I dont have image posting rights? or because I cant use bold?

I will give an ounce of gold to whom can show me the one page in the US taxation code that explains why I should pay somehwere between 20 and 25%.

Here is how a guy would do it without image posting rights, but rights to link to the CFR I just need one page in the tax code. Romney can not win this election with 14% of the vote.

 

ROMNEY: I would like 25 percent, but right now it's at 35, so people better pay what is legally required. But ultimately let's get it down to as low as we possibly can, if it's 20, if it's 25 but paying more than 25 percent, I think, is taking too much out of our pockets.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:43 | 2582648 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Whats up with fight club lately? If you junk, you should atleast respond. I would honestly short the heck out of Mitt Romney on intrade.com but I respect Max Keiser. He said it was a bad idea for both finance and politics.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 02:04 | 2582821 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

I didn't junk you but am responding to note:

  • I don't respect Max Keiser.  Fading that guy in any way possible is probably a good idea.
  • It seems like chumbawamba is pointing out that despite what we often hear in the media that 'corporations are people' wasn't actually what was decided in court.  Shocking, I know that the media decided to run with something not factually correct, and despite what Mitt Romney may have said it still doesn't make it true.
Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:08 | 2582585 Mr. Mandelbrot
Mr. Mandelbrot's picture

We have to start testing judges for amphetamines before, during, and after rulings.  This rambling psychosis takes the cake . . .

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:05 | 2582436 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Why don't the concerned parties just hire fifty million voters to go vote?

That's where this is all going, anyway. 

The only reason we have elections in the USA is to sell air-time.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:23 | 2582479 Dburn
Dburn's picture

Give em time they're working on it. Hey, if you need $150 bucks, call the GOP and they'll send out yard signs. $50 to wear T-shirts but, you actually have to earn it by going to a bullshit corporate rally dressed up to look like a grassroots movement.

 

I'm thinking about selling naming rights for my garage door for this election. I think if they want to buy votes, it's our sworn duty as capitalists to make sure "the price is right".

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:37 | 2582509 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

call the GOP and they'll send out yard signs. $50 to wear T-shirts but, you actually have to earn it by going to a bullshit corporate rally dressed up to look like a grassroots movement.

 

Sounds more like the SEIU. They came out to Arlen Specter's town hall meeting on healthcare in 2009 and admitted that they were paid to attend. Didn't really matter we out numbered them by at least a thousand anyway.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:55 | 2582301 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

The problem is not that some people have more money to back their candidate... are you kidding me?  That's EXACTLY the problem.

 

Government exists in order to funnel wealth to those in power. Government takes from producers and gives to non-producers in exchange for votes but keeps the bulk of what it skims from productive individuals for itself and its cronies. You can tie yourself up in knots trying to find a way to make that system work "fairly" for the "common man" or you can seek solutions that go to the root of the problem.

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:11 | 2582448 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If it is not the lieing sack of shit.....

For those interested, I recommend people pick up the action here  in the ZH blog 2582240

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:49 | 2582516 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Yes, everyone toddle on over and watch Flakmeister refuse to tell me why he defends Dr. Stephen Schneider who says that it is necessary for scientists to lie about climate change in order to be effective.

 

Here's the quote which Flakmeister has defended. Upon hearing Dr. Schneider's words does one feel more or less willing to take his assessment of climate change seriously? Is it reasonable for Dr. Schneider to encourage other scientists to voice frightening exaggerations regarding what is supposedly science?

 

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. -- Dr. Stephen Schneider, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:33 | 2582633 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Quit being a weasel, it only makes you look worse...

You go around proclaiming a conspiracy of lies using edited and ficticious quotes. Who is the one lieing and playing party to a conspiracy?

You cannot debate the science, I doubt you can even understand it. And still you claim that it is lies...That is either Dunning-Kruger or an incredible narcissism fueled hubris....  

You are guilty of everything you claim to be against... Show me that you held people like Pilmer, Spencer and Lindzen, not to mention the political types, to the same level of scrutiny/  You can't and that makes you a hypocrite....

You are no better than a Judas.... except you aren't even being paid....

How does it feel to be useful pawn of oligarchs like the Kochs?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:00 | 2582665 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Why don't you just answer the question?

Why should scientists consider lying about global warming in order to be "effective" as Dr. Stephen Schneider of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested? Does such a suggestion make Dr. Schneider and his colleagues appear to be more or less trustworthy? Isn't Dr. Schneider's call for frightening the populace with exaggerated scenarios antithetical to the spirit of good science?

 

 

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. -- Dr. Stephen Schneider, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.)

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:17 | 2582914 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Tell him to stick this up his ass http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/ as that's clearly that's where his brain resides.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 09:06 | 2583332 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Look what the cat dragged in... another narcissist asshole...

You have already demonstrated your credientials on Peak Oil and AGW, i.e. none, so why don't you go play in the traffic or masterbate to a Rothbard blog....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:46 | 2582533 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

"government exists in order to funnel wealth to those in power."  true and not true.  government through education, scientific research, roads, electrical and water infrastructure, just enforcement of just laws makes the powerless richer and the powerful richer as well.  look at history; we are at a time of greatest income inequality, greatest imperial overreach and greatest legal capitulation to the police state in what is, in fact, peacetime.  it wasn't always thus and it won't always be thus.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:03 | 2582570 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

"This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber,  would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads." -- Thoreau

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:37 | 2582925 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

His point is, if you take away the power of government, it doesn't matter how much money someone has and can use to promote the person he likes. It's government which is always at the source of the problem, not money or people with money.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 06:59 | 2583023 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

I think the problem is the dictatorship and the campaign contributions  Yes, there are evil men with plans to control our country by carrot and stick, but there are also evil men in Washington who go after industries to make sure that industry pays. 

So, I still think the only solution is more power to the people; participatory democracy at the federal level so that we can veto the crappy laws and fire the corrupt politicians.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:18 | 2581960 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Puhlease, criminal offenses undergo an implicit means test.  1% no charges, everyone else enjoy punishment for being "poor" or whatever the flava of the day portends.

Don't be coy, incorporated lawlessness is your god.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:56 | 2582042 Dburn
Dburn's picture

I'll bet eBay already set it up so members of the "club" only could participate. In house auction.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:19 | 2581967 lordbyroniv
lordbyroniv's picture

Agreed.

 

Left wing garbage.

 

No mention of Soros!?!?!?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:37 | 2581994 Convervative Co...
Convervative Connection's picture

Don't you all understand?

When unions, especially public-sector unions funded completely by tax dollars, use compulsory member dues to fund campaign donations, that's "Democracy in action".

When private citizens use their own money and money freely given by other private citizens, that's "Evil incarnate".

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:47 | 2582018 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

That's a good sheep. Didn't notice that the same banks and financial house that got obama elected in 2008 are now supporting Romney.  I don't know about you but as a "private citizen" I paid over 40% in income tax last year, now what did General Electric (a private citizen-according to you and the law) pay again?  Zero.

Thanks for beliving you still have a choice moron.

Ron Paul 2012, I will write him in and sleep well, no wonder the U.S.S.A ia where is is, fucking idiot sheep.

why is the judical arm even deling with this shit?  How about prosecuting the fucking fraud amd restoring the rule of law and contracts?  Stupid fucking sheep.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:12 | 2582081 GernB
GernB's picture

He has a point, that the scales were tipped in favor of public sector unions who can donate to elect the people who they negotiate with. This gives them a one-sided ability to expand the size and power of government. In some states public sector unions are the largest single contributor to candidates who will expand government further to grow the base of people who donate to get them elected.

I'd rather that niether unions nor corporations be allowed to donate to political causes. The people in a union are perfectly capable of exercizing thier free speech rights without having them extracted from them in the form of dues. The owners of corporations are also capable of speaking for thrmselves. Let the people speak, not corporations and not unions.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:50 | 2582161 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

And tell us, what percentage of the entire tax-paying work force is unionized?  You dumb mother fucking sheep.

Unions are all but dead in most states.  Kill them off, fine with me.  Then what will be the excuse?  Also see baldski's response below moron.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 20:47 | 2587766 GernB
GernB's picture

If i want union and corporate money out of politics that makes me sheep. Sorry but you are dillusional if you think supporting a corrupt system makes you the one with a true bead on things. You dont like corporate corruption, but union corruption is just fine by you. Supporting the form of corruption that alligns with your ideology only strengthens the power elite that has you brainwashed.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:52 | 2582550 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

How about prosecuting the fucking fraud amd restoring the rule of law and contracts?

LOL, how about coming back to reality, where we know such things are figments of childrens' imaginations?

Being delusional is no excuse for being abusive.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:48 | 2582178 baldski
baldski's picture

Convervative: You, my friend are full of shit!

As a former "Union Thug", I can tell you, it is against the law to use dues to fund campaigns. Campaigns are funded by voluntary member donations, not dues. Quit spreading wingnut bullshit!

Are stockholders asked to approve corporate campaign donations? Hell no, Why not?

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:28 | 2582258 Unique Snowflake
Unique Snowflake's picture

"Against the law"......aaaahahahaha. Thank for my morning laugh.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:44 | 2582529 MiguelitoRaton
MiguelitoRaton's picture

My wife is in the teacher's union. They fund liberal candidates with "union funds" which all come from members like her and she has NO ability to decline to participate. I don't know what the law says, but those are the facts.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 21:00 | 2587772 GernB
GernB's picture

Sorry but thats a load of crap. Its like saying Social Security is a trust fund so congress cant use the funds. Most people would assume volentary means you must opt into the system, not take steps to opt out. Even so, why is it necessary to have the coercive power of unions behind donations of thier members. Are the members incapable of donating themselves?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:19 | 2582471 Dburn
Dburn's picture

When Corporations are using Shareholders money to influence politics without their permission, you think that's Democracy?

Go back to your Human Resources office  sheep. It's obvious your not cut out for this shit.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:41 | 2582004 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

How is equating money to speech any kind of left/right thing AT ALL?

That's just bullshit.  Bullshit doesn't have a political bias--it's everywhere.

If the exact same video had been created solely to make fun of the massive amount of free-speech controlled by Soros, you'd be a supporter?

Forget the message.  It's all about the messenger. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:50 | 2582026 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Correct, pay no attention to the fact that the money handlers own the legislative and judical branches of government and are freely commiting fraud and dancing on the constitution.  Worry about the left/right false paradigm.  Fucking sheep.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:35 | 2582505 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As far as tactics and their corporate relationships and what have you, there is no difference. It is the nature of the beast.

However, on social issues, ironically, true freedom, there is a clear difference and let us not kid ourselves...But I agree in that you could purge 80% of the bastards in each party that are cut out of the same sociopathic cloth...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:46 | 2582015 ACP
ACP's picture

Very left-leaning, yes. But every once in a while a codpiece has to be thrown out there...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:02 | 2581910 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Anarchy, bitchez.

 

(edit)

 

Anarcho-Capitalism, bitchez.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:56 | 2581919 cjhoward71
cjhoward71's picture

Stupid video by a libtard subversive

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:37 | 2581990 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

TERRORISSTTTT AARRRHRGGHGHH

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:58 | 2581923 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Dio was right all along... we are all just minions slaving away for the wizard to build his tower. Some day we may go home. Not now, but one day we will see a real rainbow rising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7JsMEsCFZs

p.s. the video was slightly unbearable.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:44 | 2582277 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

all Dio videos are pure truth and holy

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:58 | 2581928 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Federal Reserve Speech Units, bitchez.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:02 | 2581930 OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture

"Its a big club and you aint in it.

You and I are not in the big club.

Forget the politicians, they're there to give you the feeling that you are free.

You're not. They own you.

The real owners know the truth. Thats why its known as the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."

~ George Carlin

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:00 | 2581932 JebusKhrist
JebusKhrist's picture

That video is tarded brah

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:00 | 2581933 Kastorsky
Kastorsky's picture

http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/zkp4/15.htm

 

Social Styling

Creating anxiety and fear, inducing states of high suggestibility and controlling relationships to assure loyalty and obedience are standard management techniques of the social body. Desensitization through language abuse, propaganda and junk-information, as well as the elimination of individual ideas through repetition of chants and phrases or the inducement of dependence by introducing sports, games or TV shows with obscure rules, are part of a large set of social styling methods.

Pumping up disorientation, susceptibility to emotional arousal is increased by depriving the nervous system through special diets of junk-food, prolonging mental and physical activity and withholding rest and sleep. False intimacy is created through emotionalism and the need to belong is exploited while suppressing resistance through peer pressure. Affirmation of lifestyle by denouncing other values and beliefs combined with encouraging blind acceptance and rejection of logic is achieved through complex incomprehensible doctrine.

Strategies of influence include removing individuality by demanding conformity to dress codes and accomplishing automatic acceptance of beliefs by discouraging questions. Loss of ability to evaluate logically is achieved by preventing privacy and destroying the ability to evaluate information, personal reactions, and body functions in relation to passage of time. The destruction of individuality is advanced through confession of personal weaknesses while creating a false sense of identity by pointing to the shortcomings of others.

Other methods include composing child-like obedience by orchestrating child-like behavior and disinhibition, while inducing regression and disorientation by soliciting agreement to seemingly simple rules which regulate lifestyle. Promoting acceptance of authority by promising advancement and power while maintaining confusion by alternately rewarding and punishing similar actions. Encouraging bunkering in and dumbing down through induced loss of reality by separation from communal life and rational references, while the spectacle is designed to give the illusion of sociability, public interaction, and of choice.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:06 | 2581948 OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture

Incomprehensible?

As in ~ bullshit baffles brains?

Plain old 'conditioning.'

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:48 | 2582021 Nick Jihad
Nick Jihad's picture

Creating anxiety and fear, inducing states of high suggestibility and controlling relationships to assure loyalty and obedience are standard management techniques of the social body.

People in the news business have always said "if it bleeds, it leads". People get news that induces "anxiety and fear" because that is the news that they _want_ to watch. The MSM supplies these "threat or menace?" stories, because that's what brings viewers, and thus ad revenue. It's human nature, not some conspiracy.

Thus I dispose of the first sentence of your screed. I won't bother with the rest.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:02 | 2581938 dbTX
dbTX's picture

Things never change.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:02 | 2581939 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Send in the Googledrones.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:03 | 2581943 pcrs
pcrs's picture

socialist robbery and plunder propaganda

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:25 | 2581974 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Right, no way this is actually happening.  "fascist robbery".  Fixed it for you.  Still think think you have a choice huh?  That's a good sheep.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:39 | 2581997 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Rothschild robbey, Follow the money they make it all of it.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:50 | 2582005 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

There are a few more in the club.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 03:11 | 2582863 pcrs
pcrs's picture

Fascism is indeed a problem, no I do not think I have a choice, but this cartonist is certainly not going to point it out, he is all on board with the central planners

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:04 | 2581946 JR
JR's picture

Nowadays, political correctness restricts free speech.

It’s ironic that America’s first Jewish Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Norton Schwartz , is out giving patriotic “Independence” Day speeches today to America’s service men and women, honoring the Founders and those military people who have defended the nation in that the very freedoms they established and fought for, such as religious freedom and free speech, are being cancelled by the very same man.

Any time someone suggests that Jewish officials have a bias in the performance of their duties, that’s immediately tagged anti-Semitic.  But what kind of reaction is expected from performances such as the following by Gen. Schwartz, who, incidentally, is also the first Air Force Chief of Staff not to have a background as a fighter or bomber pilot:

“Sixty-six members of Congress have penned a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking him to address what they say is an ‘alarming pattern of attacks on faith in the Air Force.’ According to the Air Force Times, says The New American, “the congressmen blame Air Force Chief of Staff Norman Schwartz (a member of the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations) for cultivating the attack on religious expression, which they say includes removing Latin references to God in an Air Force unit logo, deleting Christian references from a missile training course, taking Bibles off an Air Force accommodations checklist, and prohibiting commanders from informing Air Force service members about Chaplain Corps programs.”

Why? Norton fears, in his own words, that “the potential result (of the use of Bible references) is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order and discipline.”

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:37 | 2581992 Bob
Bob's picture

Damn this sounds serious.  Godlessness among the stormtroops of the Empire just doesn't seem right. 

Will they kill as well without Him?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:44 | 2582011 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Where's the "politically correct" part come into it?

Just sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect if you're going to let Jews become high-ranking officers.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:50 | 2582027 Dburn
Dburn's picture

It's amazing how people take the bits of news that support their views and just disregard any facts that may upset their skewed view of the world. The fact is that Jewish Air Force Cadets in the US Air Force Academy and Air Force Enlisted  were and are being subjected to forceful proselytizing by the ideological far right Christians who believe it is their duty to convert everyone to their religion.

This type of behavior has no place in the military. Apparently it was concentrated in the Air Force. So Jews that wanted to serve their country were forcefully served up loads of shit  over  why their choice of religion was not acceptable.  Not only is this unacceptable for anyone, it's downright scary that the Christian right has targeted the military for conversions. Religion has started more wars and killed more people than anything else in the last few thousand years. If the Evangelicals had there way , an all Christian army in the US could literally embark on the modern version of the Crusades.

Given the shakiness of the world's economies , the last thing we need to add to this volatile mix is an Air Force that has the capability of turning cities into rubble aching for a fight , even within their own military , based on  religious views that are so rigid, that anyone who beleives anything else is automatically classified as the enemy. The similarities to Sharia law and the right wing Evangelical views are almost point for point the same.

Religion is a private matter. There is no place for in today's military just as there has been no place for it in the last 236 years. Forceful Prostelying is no different than the religious police the Taliban uses. Get a clue there. 66 Members of congress out of 535? 66 Panderers looking for support from the religious far right does not make their letters useful as anything more than toilet paper for a Dog.

Free Speech in the military is an illusion anyway. You have no constitutional basis for a free speech argument for Military personnel actively and forcefully trying to convert others to their religion. None. 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:50 | 2582180 JR
JR's picture

Subjected to forceful proselytizing?

How about serving your country and being subjected to the loss of your culture, the censorship of your faith to the substitution in your daily life of the religion of atheism for your own religion - whether you are an elementary school student or a soldier?

From the county courthouses to the elementary schools to the graduation ceremonies to government employment, the opponents of one religion, in this case Christianity, have made it their campaign to eliminate the beliefs of America’s Founding Fathers from Americans' lives.

Next, no statement of faith will be allowed unless it is inside a locked church. And, then of course, not at all. In short, government-the-Schwarz-way wants you to die, not for God and country, but for the owners of the Federal Reserve System. And while you’re at it, keep your mouth shut!

Nor am I aware of Jewish members of the U.S. military being censored for expressing their faith or non-faith. This clearly is a free speech issue and there is nothing in military law prohibiting these exercises. And we both know that Schwartz's actions go beyond his authority.

It boils down to this: These complaints are meant to eviscerate all that Americans have stood for, lived for,  fought for, and died for. And for that soldier dying on the battlefield, is a commander prohibited from leading a prayer or calling on God unless he is a chaplain?  The direction you are taking us is a direction we will not go!

BTW, it is somewhat an exercise in courage and independence that these 66 congressmen would stand on an issue of this kind in light of the incredible hold that AIPAC and the Zionists exercise over the Congress. I can’t forget the 57 applauses and standing ovations for Benjamin Netanyhu by a joint session of Congress, a rare occasion in itself, for his operative genocide of the Palestinian people. Frankly, the number 66 is an incredibly high number under the circumstances.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:15 | 2582457 Dburn
Dburn's picture

Save the BS free speech crap .  Your wrapping up the turds of Bigotry in the constitution.

Deleting references to God in a weapons Manual is a violation of the Constitution?

Who is writing this cut and paste shit?

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:49 | 2582286 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

They can go fight for Israel and we can stop helping them..  how about that?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:11 | 2582430 Dburn
Dburn's picture

What's this "they " shit?  Do you tell Catholics they should go to Italy? I can go through all of the major religions using your bigoted bs and thin the herd right away. The problem is, I don't know  where Bigots should go. Oh yeah, they got a special hell just for you assholes.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:19 | 2582335 gwar5
gwar5's picture

I call bullshit.

 

The USAF academy in Colorado just created a Wiccan worship site last year. It's a circle of rocks. I kid you not. As a veteran, and commissioned officer of the USAF, I can assure you that no Wiccans were ever hurt or proseletyzed during my tenure. Military Chaplains may belong to a faith but are trained to be neutral to all faiths.

Atheism is the marxist/statist religion, and it is not voluntary. All other faiths are being erased from the public square in favor of the statist religion. There are >900 atheist "churches" in the USA. Google it up. It's time we count Atheism as another belief system, among many.

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:59 | 2582415 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Atheism's not a religion, although there are plenty of religions that don't assert the existence of the theist god.  No one is being forcibly "converted" to atheism, nor is it possible in any way, because there's no way to compel someone to BELIEVE something.

Aside from the fact that you really don't understand what the word means and you're a liar, what exactly is your point?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:08 | 2582444 Dburn
Dburn's picture

I wouldn't have expected anything less than complete and total denial

 When were you in the academy anyway?

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:57 | 2582562 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"So Jews that wanted to serve their country" enlist in the IDF, and cut out the middleman known as the USA.

Fixed it for you.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:02 | 2582055 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

deleting Christian references from a missile training course

 

Huh?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:20 | 2582107 Bob
Bob's picture

+1

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 02:11 | 2582825 Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

Now we see why some people feel compelled to come in here and bag on others' religions.  It's much easier to blame others' beliefs than face the inherent irony of their own.

JR seems like an intellectual and a gentleman.  But if he can't give us that line quoted above without an LOL or a smiley face then, I can only read his posts and take them with a grain of salt.  

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 07:51 | 2583099 Bob
Bob's picture

Indeed, JR is among the top of the class, imo.  But it would stand to reason that he wouldn't be perfect by anyone's standards. 

His post did begin by citing political correctness as a problem and most of us agree with that one, I think.  I know I do. 

Of course, everyone's posts should be taken with a grain of salt and judged individually on their own merits.  I think the ZH community is extraordinarily good at doing this on the whole, the clear republican sentiments that came through in comments to this cartoon notwithstanding.

If you don't get yourself in a fight every now and then, you're just a tourist at Fight Club. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:16 | 2581961 l1b3rty
l1b3rty's picture

It's nice to learn about the population via Free Speech.

 

Silver Vigilante.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:20 | 2581962 Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

Obama spent nearly one billion dollars on his first campaign.

Now his supporters are upset that his opponents are about to spend a lot of money against him.

Given the fact that academia, the MSM, the banks, the unions, all pour money and free college credits and free PR and free OWS thugery into his campaign, it's sad that he can't just stand up and fight like a man when his opponents say mean things about the way he runs the country.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:29 | 2581980 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

You forgot about the banks and financial houses that supported Obama in 2008 who are now backing Romney.  Thanks for showing everyone why Americans keep getting fucked.  Still think you have a choice?  That's a good sheep.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:46 | 2582014 Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

I also forgot Hollywood.

Can't wait to that exciting Obama Kills Bin Laden movie coming out right before the election.

And yes, Wall Street should be more grateful to President Obama for not putting any of the principle looters in jail.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:51 | 2582029 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Want to restore CONfidence, start by hanging John Corzine in Times Square.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:59 | 2582568 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

The real issue: no one would know who he is or care much either. Because they're "f***ing sheep" for a reason.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:44 | 2582009 Bob
Bob's picture

True enough, although OWS has never supported Obama in any way (in effect disavowing him), but the dimocrats sure have their panties in a bunch about the spending competition. 

Then there are those who aren't tools of the two "party" political-corporate circle jerk that have a problem with the influence of all the cash per se

Like the cartoon's writers.

It was perfectly clear. 

Thanks for showing us what the other side of the partisan political divide is screeching about, though. 

Damn, you musta hated that cartoon. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:19 | 2581965 world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

they print it out of nothing, so it is free to them, but we pay for it

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:18 | 2581966 bigmikeO
bigmikeO's picture

This video is liberal bullshit.

What about the liberal media that gives out BILLIONS of free air time every week to liberal causes?

What about public unions who forcibly take money from workers and plow it into liberal causes?

What about PBS and NPR who take our tax dollars to generate their liberal spin on the news?

Fuck you, Little Suzie Newsykins. Or should I call you Nancy Pelosi?

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:40 | 2582000 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

While the video may have had a liberal bias, it shows the dems doing the same thing.  Still think you have a choice?  LMFAO!!!  Notice how the banks and financial houses that got obama elected in 2008 are now all supporting Romney?

Thanks for pointing out why America is fucked, another "big'ol"  fatass sheep that still thinks he has a choice, too fucking funny.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:37 | 2582151 Donutwarrior
Donutwarrior's picture

You know there would be a lot less spent on Politics if it had less influence over everything.  No one would waste a dime on Politicians iif they didn't have any real power.  Or limited their intrusions into areas we all are pretty much in agreement over.  As long as we keep demanding they "DO" things corporations and individuals will plow their money into the control over the "DOING".  As well they should.  This video simply demands that the control be in the hands of one side, the side that supports lots of leftist DOING.  We will never be rid of our overlords as long as we demand they act like overlords. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:21 | 2581968 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

what next the DNC will use Comedy Central to endorse their agenda ... Can't wait for the Saul Alinsky re-education camps.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:21 | 2581969 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

I'm tired of this fucking argument. Hey dumbass, don't attack free speech! If you don't think that corporations deserve individual rights then do something about that. Don't further undermine our freedoms because you don't agree with this judicial precedent. You should shut the fuck up about the ruling and begin your campaign for a constitutional amendment.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:45 | 2582012 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

So....you interpret that cartoon to be opposing free speech, huh?

Wowsers.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:52 | 2582031 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

It's obviously a reference to the McCain-Feingold law that the SCOTUS struck down in 2010.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:15 | 2582090 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You're in the ballpark, but it was really just to show the absurdity of equating "free speech" with billion dollar ad-campaigns funded by large corporations.

I wonder if you can show an ad for fire in a crowded theater...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:30 | 2581982 arkady
arkady's picture

Many of the astute commentators identified this propaganda as what it is, but the imagery was the kind of anti-capitalist stuff I used to see back in the Soviet Union.  This is straight from Ministry of Truth, why is this being given air time on ZH?  

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:49 | 2582020 Bob
Bob's picture

What, the Ruskies thought something was wrong with buying and selling elections?

I thought they were ignorant . . . WTF?

Or is it that you think capitalism requires buying and selling elections?

I'm missing your point here. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:53 | 2582298 arkady
arkady's picture

I can see that you are missing the point, I am not really talking about elections per se, I am talking about the imagery.  Painting the Koch brothers as these sinister rich white guys scheming to take over the world while enslaving the working class is precisely how America was portrayed in the Soviet Union.  I am sure you know the Ruskies were big on bashing capitalism and calling our famiy traitors when we announced our departure to the evil capitalist pit known as the United States. 

To see this imagery here again is scary and reminiscent of the very thing we ran from.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:25 | 2582596 Bob
Bob's picture

Yes, I guess it would suck in a big way to find there was actually some truth back there, such as it was. 

Don't worry, you won't get sent back just for opening your eyes to the unpleasant realities.  Unless you're not yet a citizen and start sounding off in the wrong way around the wrong people, of course. 

If it's all too much, just do what we do: Don't think about it.  Reality really doesn't pay here. 

It's now one of the world's most open secrets that US elections and politicians are bought and sold.  But the average citizen doesn't think (or at least talk) much about it. 

Hmmm, just curious . . . did the commies have anything to say about that?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:02 | 2582311 gwar5
gwar5's picture

It's just a test, so we can call bullshit on it, my brother.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:01 | 2582051 midgetrannyporn
midgetrannyporn's picture

The gains in free speech in the usa have been huge since the advent of the internet. No complaints there.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:02 | 2582053 G. Marx
G. Marx's picture

A video for those incapable of objective and critical thining. The problems is not dollars spent or whose spending them, The problem is how congress has over the past century, bestowed upon itself vast powers to control the economy and the creation of money. this in turn means if you don't want to be screwed, you bribe congress. This system didn't arrise by accident.

 

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” ? P.J. O'Rourke

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:21 | 2582110 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Well, they actually delegated away their authority to create money.  And it's the executive branch that "controls" the economy most directly by shuffling the checks around. 

The good news is, if the problem is not dollars spent or by who, there's no basis for complaint.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:48 | 2582176 wonderatitall
wonderatitall's picture

BESIDES WE KNOW BUSH DID IT. AND OBAMA HAS MORE SPEECH THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY. BUT HE DID WHAT ANY DEMOCRAT DID  WITH IT...SOLD IT

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:08 | 2582220 JR
JR's picture

For 98 years we have lived with a privately owned central bank, The Federal Reserve, with sole power to issue and control the money supply – in secret - with the last 41 years absent any restraint on money creation.

What is this Federal Reserve creature? As G. Edward Griffin would say: “The Federal Reserve System is not federal and there are no reserves. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Banks are not even banks.”

And as Ron Paul has said: “If those in power don’t have the stomach to bring the Fed out into full daylight, the American people deserve at least the right to conduct their economic transactions in the medium of exchange of their choosing.”

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:21 | 2582109 PaperBear
PaperBear's picture

Free-speech units is the new money.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:21 | 2582244 DaveA
DaveA's picture

What do the New York Times, TIME magazine, Newsweek, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Mother Jones all have in common? Besides being liberal media outlets, they're all corporations! If the Supreme Court agreed with the Mark Fiore, there would be no free speech for corporations. The next time the Rethuglicans took power, they could censor the news media. Are liberals really that blind?

You say that speech is protected, but money isn't speech? Speech costs money if you want anyone outside the room to hear it. Would the media dare criticize Karl Rove if he had the power to freeze their bank accounts?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:02 | 2582271 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Supreme Court was correct that you can't restrict 'speech', and that includes some idiot donating $100 million to influence a political campaign.

We all know that TV ads influence elections, and are expensive.  But the problem isn't that some rich guy tries to influence political opinion.  The problem is idiots who believe what they hear on their TV set; who can't be bothered to critically examine what they think.  Until we get that fixed, no amount of nanny state controlling what we hear on TV is going to fix things.

Witness the incredible sway FoxNews, and ClearChannel (owned by Romney/Bain Capital, and employing Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al) have.  There are a host of morons who listen to these guys, and parrot their talking points.

Luckily, it does sound like the general electorate is waking up, and realizing that they need to think for themselves. Obama is increasing slim leads in 8 of the 10 'battleground' states.  RawMoney is slipping more and more, as the mist rolls off and he comes into sharp focus: one of the most incompetent and arrogant 'in-your-face' corporate tools in living memory.  The more frantic Rush and Glenn get about him, the more the voter is saying "you know what, you're full of shit".

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:32 | 2582360 Heroic Couplet
Heroic Couplet's picture

Pulpcutter sed:Witness the incredible sway FoxNews, and ClearChannel (owned by Romney/Bain Capital, and employing Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al) have.  There are a host of morons who listen to these guys, and parrot their talking points.

Oh, absolutely, yes. They don't have the brains to think of anything on their own. One wingnut said, "and i have to accept [medicare, medicaid, social security, you-name-it] and I said "You have complete control over your own checking account. Write a check in that same dollar amount to the Republican National Committee. Let me know if they cash your check. I bet they will." The eyes glazed and the drool ran.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:32 | 2582361 Heroic Couplet
Heroic Couplet's picture

Pulpcutter sed:Witness the incredible sway FoxNews, and ClearChannel (owned by Romney/Bain Capital, and employing Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al) have.  There are a host of morons who listen to these guys, and parrot their talking points.

Oh, absolutely, yes. They don't have the brains to think of anything on their own. One wingnut said, "and i have to accept [medicare, medicaid, social security, you-name-it] and I said "You have complete control over your own checking account. Write a check in that same dollar amount to the Republican National Committee. Let me know if they cash your check. I bet they will." The eyes glazed and the drool ran.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:58 | 2582304 gwar5
gwar5's picture

I say let it rip, baby.  

 

The MSM is a 6 member cabal that spews out billions worth of messaging propaganda for their 6 Wall Street institutional owners 24/7 for the statists at no cost. I trust the oil and coal companies way more than the banksters at this point, and that is saying something. 

Justice Thomas correctly pointed out that the CU ruling overturned the Jim Crow era ban against Corporate free speech which the democrat racist/statist former slaveowners instituted so that corporations would not "pander" to blacks and make them "uppity".

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:16 | 2582330 msjimmied
msjimmied's picture

All that talk about the left and the right, we still get caught up in false choices after so much time dissecting this carcass. Let the MF burn, burn till it's unrecognizable. We need a fire in this choking forest if we are ever going to see green shoots again. Don't get caught up the vortex of noise, all this video is doing is highlighting another stinking aspect of the maggot ridden corpse. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 01:16 | 2582780 Peter K
Peter K's picture

"...corporations are people; money is free-speech; and some people have more free-speech than others."

Na, public sector unions are people, money is free-speach that the taxpayers provide it to the unions via elected politicians, who in turn get bankrolled by the public sector unions, so that they can provide the free speach, I mean free money, back to the unions, so that some people (read public sector unions) can have more tax payer funded free speach than others.

Yea, that's the ticket. :)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!