Thread: Well now we know the Supreme Court is corrupt

Your not going to be able to compete with the corporations that own the media, unless other corporations can compete against the biased monopoly called the media.

Seems to me the Republican Conservative element of SCOTUS voted to allow corporate cash into the campaigns, while the liberal faction of the Court voted against it.

Can't blame Obama for this one.

Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution that corporations have rights? They're just groups of people. Only individuals have rights. What you have here is 9 hack politicians working for the oligarchy.

Thank you Justice Roberts ..

Olberman is not one I listen to but in this case this is interesting..and so true...

Thanks to a recent decision by the Supreme Court, corporations don't have to sneak around any to gain improper influence over the direction of the country.

One weird thing about this Olberman commentary though...

More that half the things he says are coming have already happened.

This Supreme Court just cut out the middleman.

Cutting out the middleman


http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/791.html


Kathyet

THERE IS NO MORE POLITICAL CAPITOL TO SPEND AFTER EACH ELECTION...Every politican elected is sworn into office with a massive deficit in their personal political capitol due to past lies and treason (aka spending political capitol)

Obama received over $2 million from foreign corporations. That was and is still very illegal.

Look, the corporations that own NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox, all have more influence on voters than any other source.

It is not fair for those media corporations, run and operated by Liberal Progressive Democrat voters. They can pretty much place anyone they want, in any political position they want. How many out spoken Conservative individuals, are employed, or part of the MSNBC corporation? I bet we can all answer that correctly. Fox has several outspoken Democrats on their payroll.
Did anyone watch Chris Matshoes, from MSNBC, call the Supreme Court obstructionists?


You cannot restrict anyone, or anything, from 1st amendment rights of free and unobstructed speech.

We all know the President in control, is the one that gets to pick. So, a Democrat President, is going to surely select someone that holds their views of the Constitution. Same for a Republican President.

Corrupt... Naw. The Constitution leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Especially when our language has changed so much in 220 years.

Originally Posted by ccsingleton

Seems to me the Republican Conservative element of SCOTUS voted to allow corporate cash into the campaigns, while the liberal faction of the Court voted against it.

Can't blame Obama for this one.

That is because there is nothing "Liberal" about the democratic party. Running and controlling your life, is not liberal by any means.

If corporations are groups of people and international in scope, how do you keep foreign influence out of the political system and from the coffers of political campaigns?

Originally Posted by roundabout

If corporations are groups of people and international in scope, how do you keep foreign influence out of the political system and from the coffers of political campaigns?

From the beginning of this nation, no one has been able to completely keep foreign influence out of US politics.

Obama had over $2 million in foreign contributions in his run and McCain had over $200,000


It is kinda like illegal trespass into this country. The blind eye syndrome.

This new event will bring light to a problem that has happened for a long time.

This new event will bring light to a problem that has happened for a long time.

As it should. Those in high positions will have to talk, and it better be a good talk, or the wheels might come off the wagon. (the wheels have already been run dry, now there is a "squeaky wheel" syndrome.)