View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Rant Room
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Corey Rowland: Typical OK Republican
Skeeve
Someone posted this on Facebook:

atheiststoday.com/images/obamalist.jpg

And some local guy named Corey Rowland replied with:

atheiststoday.com/images/coreyrowland_text.jpg

I asked him if he was trolling or if he actually believed the crap he just typed. Then I went and looked at his profile:

atheiststoday.com/images/coreyrowland_profile.jpg

How small does ones penis have to be to put that kind of picture up as your main profile image for Facebook?

I wonder which is his favorite news channel?

You can find the post here: http://www.facebo...LawtonMoan
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Theory_Execution
Either way they are both wrong.
 
Skeeve
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Obama anymore, and don't even care to fact check either one. Most of them seem to have taken liberty with the facts, meh.

It's just his response was sooooo far-right.

America is in such a sad fucking state. We're only allowed two choices in national elections, especially now that corporations are people too and Repubs and Dems can throw enormous amounts of money into their campaigns. Spending caps need to be put in place to allow for more parties to compete with the good ol boys. (Who seem to be the exact same on the inside)
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Theory_Execution
If corporations and truely people too, then for what used to be criminal negligence could now spell second degree murder... and the death penalty?

But I am guessing the law was changed to only provide all those useful rights, and none of the responsibilities.
 
Kowboy
"Corporations are people too."

Pulleeassse.

Your corporation is allowed to give you the news every night on television. My corporation isn't allowed to show a film about Hillary Clinton 90 days before an election. That ain't the way we do things here with that dang first amendment and all.

Kowboy
 
cheshiredragon
It's the 14th amendment. It should have specified Negros, but instead did not specify any one race or peoples in particular. That is how illegal aliens(Mexicans and the like) get to stay here AND why corporations can say that they are people too.

Whoever thinks the laws in this CUNTry are fucked up, are just plain crazy. /sarcasm
That's right, I said it...
 
Bob of QF
Kowboy wrote:

"Corporations are people too."

Pulleeassse.

Your corporation is allowed to give you the news every night on television. My corporation isn't allowed to show a film about Hillary Clinton 90 days before an election. That ain't the way we do things here with that dang first amendment and all.

Kowboy


Well.... fictional pieces that would affect the outcome of an election typically are not allowed to be presented as fact.... or at least that's the idea at any rate.

Never forget "fair and balanced" means "only fair to our side, and only balanced in that we have more than one supporter of our point of view"

Rofl
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JohnH
Those who do not believe corporations are treated as persons, in a somewhat limited sense, should google corporate personhood. I say limited sense in that they are immune from things like being charged with murder, something many corporations have done directly or indirectly.
 
Bob of QF
JohnH wrote:

Those who do not believe corporations are treated as persons, in a somewhat limited sense, should google corporate personhood. I say limited sense in that they are immune from things like being charged with murder, something many corporations have done directly or indirectly.


And under the current bought-and-paid-for Rethuglicans and Demowmips? Immune from paying taxes too...
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
Hmmm...if corporations are people then isn't ownership of a corporation slavery? Would mismanagement of a corporation be child abuse? When a corporation breaks a law why isn't it put in jail?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
cheshiredragon
The answer to all 3....MONEY! Just think of some of the recent celebrities in the last few decades that were not jailed for their crimes. Michael Jackson, Michael Vick and OJ Simpson are a few that come to mind. These 3 cases it was mostly fame, but same concept applies.
That's right, I said it...
 
JohnH
cheshiredragon, you must not be a sports fan, Michael Vick spent almost 2 years in jail.

It is odd that corporations have limited personhood. Basically they are people when it is to their benefit and not when it is to their benefit.

An interesting side note. One of the decisions that established this was Santa Clara Co. v Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886. Those who grew up in California and pay any attention know that the SP essentially controlled the state legislature at the time. So much so that the corporation is given significant credit for the establishment of the initiative process in 1911.
 
seeker
John - That's pretty much my point, in order to prop up this notion of corporate personhood the whole idea of personhood has to be distorted. The notion of a sociopathic person with multiple personalities being given a vast amount of influence would frighten most sane people but few people recognize that same danger from a corporation.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
seeker:

The answer to corporate speech is more speech, not restricting freedom of speech through campaign donation limits.

Billionaire Amway boss Dick DeVos self-financed a race for Michigan governor and got his ass handed to him, despite outspending his opponent 4-1. You must demonstrate causation between higher campaign contributions and higher rates of victory in elections. You have not.
 
seeker
Actually kowboy I don't have to demonstrate anything. We can see out all play out in the Republican primary where Gingrich is being propped up by a single wealthy donor. Gingrich won't win the nomination but by the time Romney does win it the damage will have been done, Romney won't be able to win the general election.

The real comedy is that no one in the entire Republican field, with the exception of Romney, is even a viable candidate without their super rich doners. That's the real cost of this 'Citizen's United' nonsense. There is so much noise from these idiots that it keeps people from focusing on real issues.

Your big mistake is in thinking that you can only measure the cost of this corporate nonsense in terms of wins and losses.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Kowboy
seeker wrote:



Your big mistake is in thinking that you can only measure the cost of this corporate nonsense in terms of wins and losses.


seeker:

If corporate money doesn't effect wins and losses, then please explain the problem with Citizens United.
 
seeker
Simple - You essentially have corporate money propping up candidates who really don't have very large followings. You end up presenting poor ideas that most experts reject as equivalent to real mainstream ideas.

That strategy ends up preying on the uninformed electorate, which makes up the vast majority of voters. Let's face it, most people don't really follow politics outside of a hot button issue or two. They don't really know how harmful Friedman's economic have been worldwide or that they've caused economic collapse in every country where they've been tried (and a move to socialism ironically enough).

A good example is Barry Goldwater. When he ran, with the same ideas the modern Republican party espouses, he couldn't get any traction because his ideas were rightly recognized as being really bad for the country. With no big money to prop him up people were able to see very clearly just why those ideas were bad ones.

Since then there has been a lot of money poured in to making 'Trickle Down Economics' seem like an equivalent alternative to the economic model that actually brought our country to prominence in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. This only happens because the electorate has lost its ability to critically evaluate political claims.

The real effect is to flood people with misinformation, confusing voters who are no longer critical thinkers. Guys like Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, etc run, not to win the nomination but to push politics farther to the right by appearing to have followings they don't really have. They seem legitimate to the casual observer, most of the electorate, because they are being propped up by big money, often from a single wealthy doner, as is the case with Gingrich.

Instead of seeing the guys with bad ideas go down in flames people are presented with a notion that all ideas are equivalent. This is all designed to make poor choices, like voting Republican, more likely.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
catman
I don't agree that Goldwater's ideas were the same as today's Republicans. For one thing, he and his wife disagreed about about abortion: he was against it and she was for it, but he regarded it as a personal choice. I don't think any Republican Presidential candidate today would allow his wife to difffer with thim on such a (regrettably) hot-button topic. Also, LBJ's Democrats criticized him for being a hawk concerning VietNam, but they didn't keep them from escalating the war again and again.

I read his autobiograhy and found it quite impressive. IMO, he was the last true conservative.
 
seeker
catman - I agree that Goldwater was someone more moderate than most Republicans but that just illustrates my point. Republicans have been using this strategy to push a very extremist view. Goldwater was an extremist and the fact that we are seeing him now as 'moderate' is a the problem.

A big part of his platform was getting rid of Medicare and Social Security. That was the main reason LBJ labelled him a 'nut'.


kowboy - Something to think about - What guarantee do you have that Iran or the Taliban aren't behind a Super-Pac? One of the truly disturbing things about the Citizen's United decision is that it opens the door for foreign based organizations to influence politicians in the US legislature.
Edited by seeker on 02/02/2012 16:15
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
catman
Medicare and Social Security? Yikes. I probably didn't care about that in 1964 when I was 18, but I do now! If I can find his autobiography which I still have somewhere, I'll see whether he mentioned that or not.

I hate the Super-PACS. The Supreme Court made a very poor decision there.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Republican Crowd Boos Soldier During GOP Debate U.S. Politics 3 09/23/2011 22:45
Unleashing Republican Insanity U.S. Politics 6 02/20/2011 17:19
Republican unveils bill to repeal U.S. Politics 11 03/25/2010 12:26
Republican aide mistakenly sends racist email to wrong people U.S. Politics 8 06/27/2009 12:47
Yet another Republican caught in sex scandal U.S. Politics 5 06/27/2009 02:49