The Effect of the court’s decision is exactly the opposite. It is amplifying the power of the extremely powerful.

McCain/Feingold did nothing to weaken the oligarchs who are rich and powerful enough to simply buy media outlets. What it sought to do was protect those oligarchs from competition from other groups who couldn’t afford to buy media outlets, but would be able to scrape up enough to buy advertising.

Those who oppose the Court’s decision seem to be of the view that it’s better to have a few people who are extremely powerful, and the bulk of the populace equally powerless, than to have a continuum where different people have different amounts of power. The same philosophy often extends to other issues as well, manifesting itself e.g. as a belief that it’s better to have a health-care system where only a few people can get better health care than anyone else, while the vast majority of the populace is stuck with the same thing (does anyone really think Obama isn’t going to demand better health care for himself than he makes available to others?)

They are the same Republicans and Democrats who have set up their apparatchiks in their Potemkin paean to democracy the Commission on Presidential Debates, an institution organized and designed for the purpose to ensure no outside voices will be heard.

So yes, John McCain and all the many others of his ilk.

I’m ok with that support. I don’t think it’s going to work out well, but then freedom isn’t guaranteed to work out well.

The Citizens United group are not exactly free speech enthusiasts. Before Citizens United produced that Hillary Clinton movie, they attempted to get ads for a Michael Moore movie censored.

And Klansmen have a right to life and shouldn’t be murdered. Your point?

My neighbor wants to raise my property taxes. Do I have a right to steal from her bank account? Again, what is your point?

I agree! And that would include supporting the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

The Citizens United group are not exactly free speech enthusiasts. Before Citizens United produced that Hillary Clinton movie, they attempted to get ads for a Michael Moore movie censored.

The takeover of the United States govt by oligarchs happened back in the Woodrow Wilson administration.

…As I said, it’s a fucking no-brainer. The guys screaming about Citizens United are the oligarchs.

I hate to post it, but “THIS!” Tarran gets the head shot.

Sorry, crazybob. You must wait 10 minutes before spawning into crazy again. Maybe read some Smedley Butler wiki while you wait.

Yes it is. You and I both know that Citizen’s united is resulting in the takeover of our government by oligarchs. it might be free speech, but it also will, in the long run, end most freedom’s for all but the very few. David Koch is not interested in protecting your freedom, just his money.

The takeover of the United States govt by oligarchs happened back in the Woodrow Wilson administration. Which predates Citizens United. Moreover, the suppression of criticism of politicians is what oligarchs love, and what freedom of the press and speech is supposed to prevent.

In Citizens United, the government sought to censor a movie criticizing a powerful politician. As I said, it’s a fucking no-brainer. The guys screaming about Citizens United are the oligarchs.

Yes it is. You and I both know that Citizen’s united is resulting in the takeover of our government by oligarchs. it might be free speech, but it also will, in the long run, end most freedom’s for all but the very few. David Koch is not interested in protecting your freedom, just his money.

This is history repeating itself. From the end of the roman republic to the formation of the soviet union, freedom falls when the oligarchs co-opt the political system.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott was not an existential threat to the US, Citizen’s United is.

The freedom of the press and freedom of speech is an existential threat to the United States?

Wow!

As I said earlier:

The court decided that you couldn’t have one set of rules for the Tribune corporation and another for a corporation called Citizens United. And given a choice between ordering the New York Times to stop publishing news stories on politics or allowing all companies the same privileges accorded to the Times, they made the no-brainer correct choice.

Timmy Pea (#16): “I read that profile on George Romney and now I have changed my vote from Mitt to Obama. Thanks for that link, clearly the 1964 election will be a huge factor in the 2012 race.“

I was previously convinced that Mitt’s stance on Vietnam was of such great importance, that current events didn’t matter. Now I’ve been shown the light. It’s even older stories that matter most.

And, don’t you filthy republicans mention Wright, Ayers, Davis, or any of that other irrelevant ancient history. You’re racist!

</sarc>

I don’t participate in the Coke vs. Pepsi wars, even if I recognize that one is a little more damaging than the other. I respect your rights too much to give any rotten politician a permission slip to violate your rights.

That is just sad.

Looks like you learned that lesson the hard way, mom.