And the Left imitates the Right even more:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/olbermanns-special-comment-freedom-speech-destroyed/

Evidently the Left is capable of being as much a bunch of slimy douchebags as the right can be.

And evidently Keith Olbermann believes American slavery must not be such a big deal after all, as this:

"Finally tonight, as promised, a special comment on the Supreme Court`s ruling today in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

Is evidently equal to this:

"But good news tonight, Roger B. Taney is off the hook. Today, the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott v. Sanford, declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate beings spend their money on political advertising are unconstitutional."

"In short, the First Amendment, free speech for persons, which went into effect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections. None."

Evidently Progressivism completely lacks billionaires to support it such as Sean Penn, Al Gore, or Tom Cruise. Evidently there is no such thing as a rich progressive. And evidently also slavery is so trivial a matter that rich people loaning money to their favorite candidates is somehow equal to one of the longest-running civilizational ills of all time that treats human beings as effectively walking, talking farm equipment. If Olbermann makes a stink about what the Right says about the Nazis and Healthcare next time, his credibility has been shot. It's not fair, but it's not like the Progressives don't have an abundance of affluent supporters of their own.

And Mr. Olbermann, you are not a free agent, you work for a company owned by General Electric. You can only talk like this if you're self-employed. It's like watching Bizarroland Glenn Beck here with the trivialization of social atrocities, the comparison of minor realities to full-blown authoritarianism (like the death panels, evidently the Man gonna shut up the Man), suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is worthy of the utmost contempt as an infidel dog of Shai'tan, and hysteria.

Er......I'll let Nelson say the laconic version of this:

Comments

[merig00.livejournal.com]

And the most ridiculous thing about all this stink is that corporations still cannot contribute, all they can do is pay for the ads.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And pay they will; I predict the next Presidential election year's total advertising budget to make the budget for Avatar look like chump change. And the cool part is, they can say whatever they want since they don't have to live up to any standards or worry about libel or slander. They'll be able to say in 2012 "Obama fucks monkeys in the Rose Garden!" and later on they can publish in a newspaper that no one reads "well not really, but who cares? it's all hyperbole anyway."

[merig00.livejournal.com]

and now PACs can't do that?

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

"Obama fucks monkeys in the Rose Garden!"

I knew it!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As opposed to 2008 when Obama, who eschewed his promise to use public funding was literally awash with funds, where McCain was hobbled by comparison? Cry me a river, both sides will be able to use money to their benefit.

[weswilson]

out of general funds... am I incorrect on that?

At this point in time, individuals who always had a voice with their money are now just able to use that voice by leveraging a dubiously complicit commercial organization rather than a dedicated political one. I don't see this decision doing anything other than allowing majority stockholders to exploit the minority to advance their personal political aims.

If all they changed was which structure could pay for campaign ads, then why was it such a big deal to overturn one hundred years of previous precedent and law?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

i think we know of enough cases when a candidate outspends his opponents in several times and still loses.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Who cares about sports?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Keith Olberman is being a hyperbolic douchenozzle?

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Also, this!!!

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Amazingly well said post! I tried to make this same arguement on another group. I wish you had posted your's earlier so I could have plegerized it.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

You really don't "get" progressivism, do you?

Sean Penn and Al Gore (George Clooney et al) could all liquidate themselves and give it all to the DNC and it still wouldn't begin to equal the amount of money Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Raytheon, etcetera ad infinitum give to Republican causes every year. Not even a tiny, tiny percentage. Adding up the income of all Republican contributors and all Democratic contributors would cause the scale to tip so badly that a singularity would form on the Republican side and suck the planet into its gravity well.

Furthermore, real progressives think Hollywood progressives are fucking selfcentered idiots who live in a useless fantasy realm of their own making. Also? Tom Cruise is not a "progressive," he's an insane moron. He doesn't give to progressive causes, he gives to the Church of Scientology.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

The only problem is that Lockheed Martin in 2010 already raised and pretty much spent 1,549,005 on political campaigns. And guess what they gave almost equal with a tilt toward democrats (59% to Democrats, 41% to Republicans)

Stop pumping this bs about republicans being evil corporate shills and look at the numbers http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php

If most corporations give relatively 50-50 with a small tilt left or right, it is unions who contribute usually over 90% to the left.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

George Soros and Bill Gates are both Democrat supports. I think their combined wealth trumps all Republican contributors combined, ever.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, I hardly think the GOP is some defender of the poor and the downtrodden. But it's not like the Left really lacks for affluent rich supporters either, which is what Olbermann ignored in his fantasy of being Dietrich Bonhoeffer. And I avoided mentioning George Soros in the OP, but he is also a contributor and Soros is hardly poor by any sense of the term.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Re: Contributions from Lockheed

Oof.. don't you hate it when a good rant is ruined by the facts?

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I'm no Olbermann fan but I have to leap to his defense in the face of some very shoddy reasoning here. His claiming that the *implications* of this decision are more dire than Dred Scott does not at all, not even close, tie KO to the position "American slavery must not be such a big deal after all". It's perfectly consistent to believe, for example, that slavery is the most terrible thing that America has ever done and even ever could do and still believe that this decision is worse than Dred Scott. After all, this decision is a fundamental regarding democratic process and the system we have in place to redress and prevent terrible ills.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Um....actually, if the ideology was flipped and the same thing was said, it *would* be considered minimizing slavery. Race-Fail is only Race-Fail if it comes from the Right Wing.

Dred Scott was also a decision which was a very *bad* decision. It meant human beings were property through the entire United States. The two are not remotely comparable. But since the Progressives love Chomsky, an admitted genocide apologist who has never once been called on it...ever...well....yeah. I guess someone can be a flaming Stalinist and the Progressives would give them a pass.

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

So the voice of rich progressives is being heard, and the voice of rich conservatives is being heard?

Great, I guess everyone is being heard, right?

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

*sigh* You of all people should know that what Democrats call "progressive" has little to nothing to do with Progressivism the political movement.

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

changing connotations of a term, yada yada...

[x-eleven.livejournal.com]

What we ought to do is take an example from NASCAR. The drivers always wear patches with the names and logos of their sponsors. Every candidate for public office should do the same: wear the names and logos of all their corporate and union contributors. That way, we'd know who the potential buyers of influence are. What're the chances?

It is important to pay attention when deciding on a candidate to back. That means going beyond what the MsM is selling you and thinking for yourself. If more voters would do that, there would be lots less "surprises" and "buyer's remorse", post-election.

[dudeuhman.livejournal.com]

yeah, this is pretty disgusting.

Support our oops!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I don't see how you drew a conclusion about "Keith Olbermann believes American slavery must not be such a big deal after all" from the commentary. He outlined a parallel between the Dred Scott and yesterday's SCOTUS decisions. Any hurrah for Taney was sarcasm over the current situation, not genuine agreement.

I do concur, however, with people who say that Olbermann has blown the issue out of proportion. The situation he fears is already part of the status quo. People who vote for things like Prop 8 and George Jr. based on slick ad campaigns deserve the rotten situation as it stands.

Re: Support our oops!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Er....if I compare health care to Auschwitz that's cheapening the real horror of it. Oh, wait, that's the whole Right Wing Schtick in a nutshell. This trivializes the very real horror that was slavery and the meaning of the Dred Scott decision.

Though I do agree with your second point....