Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC attacks Mitt Romney - as a Serial Killer!! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, Mitt the Ripper:
There’s some fun in the primary season at last!
According to the people running the The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC (real name!).
Colbert officially handed his Super PAC over to Jon Stewart last week so that he could form an exploratory committee to decide whether or not he should run for the President of the United States of South Carolina. The Super PAC, which is definitely not coordinating with him, has begun running and ad in South Carolina calling Mitt a serial killer, since if corporations are people, then Mitt’s dismantling and murder of corporations and selling off their spare parts makes him a killer. Pretty unassailable logic, really.
Most people know this is one big joke, but I have to say Colbert, or rather, the people who run the Super PAC that’s definitely not coordinating with him, is taking political satire to a whole new level. I think this trumps the White House Correspondents dinner when he called out Bush for his BS right and mocked him right in front of his face.
The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC is using humor and the new election rules under Citizens United to show everybody just how terrible a decision that is, that to grant these immortal, non-eating, ethereal, perpetual people unlimited free speech rights like a real flesh-and-blood human takes away from freedom.
Though I don’t expect the idiots who liked Citizens United to come to their senses anytime soon, this Super PAC is just the tip of the iceberg. We’ve already seen signs of the support breaking, as any GOP that’s been the target of these unlimited funded organizations are finding out the hard way. Ask Gingrich a month ago how much he likes the Super PACs and Citizens United and he’ll probably say he loves them. But ask him after he gets attacked by Romney’s Super PAC and he bitches that they should disclose their donors. Whoever wins the GOP nomination will be the target of Obama’s attack ads, who are probably waiting in the wings for the nomination to be sewn up. Obama himself will have an estimated $750 million to use, similar to his 2008 total. That will buy a lot of reminders that Mitt was a serial killer or Gingrich is a serial adulterer.
Even though the decision was by the USSC and the election won’t really affect that, hopefully the Super PAC formerly associated with Stephen Colbert can really drill it into people’s heads about how ridiculous that ruling was.
I was going to say that’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen, but I just said that about something else, so I’ll have to settle for 2nd stupidest.
BTW, I liked the Citizen’s United decision. Does that make me an idiot?
Depends, can you justify it without resorting to vague proclamations about freedom and liberty?
Here’s my belief, if you want something to rebut against:
Corporations are not people. If the actual humans running a corporation wants to be political, be political using their own money and their own name. Don’t use the name of a company and pretend like everyone in that organization is for that.
The argument about how a corporation needs to have human rights in order to function, like being able to hire people, get sued, etc. is unconvincing. Such functions can be parceled out to individual departments with amended responsibilities. It does not require giving a corporation the level of rights that it enjoys
Maybe I’m tired, but that’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen - that weird cry at the end, the very heavy hand …
I’d say yes,but that’s probably against the rules, so I’ll say no.
CU is a ridiculous decision, and should be thrown out.
Here’s my belief, if you want something to rebut against:
Well, that’s nice and all, but how are you getting that out of the constitution? Remember, the courts don’t decide things based on what individual justices (or you) think is best. They decide things based on what the constitution says. The constitution says Congress shall make no law… You need to set the bar really high if you’re going to make a law. You’re just spouting your own personal opinion.
Can you quote the part of the SCOTUS decision that says that?
John, we’ve been friends for ages, so this is something you just have to answer yourself, in a WWdzSUHB?* manner. 
-
- What Would dropzone Say Under His Breath?
John Lithgow FTW!
Where in the constitution does it say corporations are people? Besides, we all know that with different people on the Supreme Court, the interpretation could have swung the other way.
You haven’t answered the question though, why do you think corporations are people? I’m basing my views off the fact that a corporation is not the same as a human being. That while parts of it may be governed similar to a human being, as an entity, it does not deserve the free speech rights of a human being (it doesn’t even have a mouth to make speech, for instance)
That is the argument I hear from people who argue the converse. I don’t believe that, and I’d be shocked to hear if the Supreme Court wrote that too. But since we both think its not in there, you’ve made my argument for me. A corporation does not deserve rights such as free speech even if some technicality requires it to have “rights” so that challenges to it can be made
Am I the only one who listens to what Trevor Potter says with a look of absolute horror?
Because hundreds of years of law, and the existence of corporations in the first place, are based on the idea? Here’s Duhaime’s definition, which, while Canadian, is still applicable, because both Canadian and American definitions of personhood derive from British common law.
A corporation has legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, sign contracts, receive gifts, and appear in court, and therefore is a person. It’s clearly not a human being, and whether it has the same rights as a human being is a different question. But I can’t see any grounds to deny it personhood.
Citizens United decision has absolutely nothing to do with whether corporations are people or not.
Where in the Citizens United decision does it say anything about corporations being people?
Where does the Constitution say that the “free speech” is a personal right?
“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
Says nothing about where the speech originates, right?
Whatever you think of Citizens United, or as I like to think of it The Xtreeme Corporate Personhood Decision (fewer responsibilities than actual persons, but MORE rights - WooHOOO!!!), isn’t it brilliant that Colbert’s PAC brought up the Corporate Personhood issue, and Romney’s turn as head of Bain Capital, and a touch of pro-life posturing, and skewered them all in one hilarious minute? Good times.
Corporate personhood was fine when corporations were run by the owners and were small affairs. Granting free speech rights to an unsleeping, immortal, unscrupulous, psychotic being like a corporation is the single most irresponsible thing I’ve ever seen SCOUTS do.
The whole thing needs overhauled, with laws and regs that specifically set out what a corporation can and cannot do.
No.
Things change. No good reasoning derives simply from “its always been this way”
One does not need to be a person to be able to do those things. Corporations are run by people who make decisions based on what they feel is in the best interest of them and the corporation. There’s absolutely no reason why a corporation can’t be sued in court, sign contracts, or receive gifts and still not be considered a person. I work for a very large company. If I received a gift, I could elect to keep it, or give it to my management. No reason why corporate personhood needs to factor into that. Same thing if it was sued. There are lawyers representing the interests of the corporation, the interests being whatever those in charge of it think its interests ought to be. No reason why a corporation has to be a person to do that
Read the post I was responding to.
Man, have you even been following this thread? What kind of supposed immortals keep getting offed by the same unrelenting serial killer?
And yet, strangely enough, there are laws prohibiting foreign political contributions.