Open Thread

Fighting Back

I just love the Godzilla imagery.

Artist - RJ Matson

In other news, the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future is launching a major ad-buy across the country to prepare for Super Tuesday. Expect a lot of smear ads against Santorum.

Wait, I just said smear and Santorum in the same sentence.

  • cousinavi

    Sharp sticks.

  • KQµårk™

    Sorry to correct everyone but you can see an outline of a shell over the shoulders of the monster so it’s probably Gamera. I watched allot of Japanese monster movies as a kid what can I say.

    • Michael Foley

      Actually, it’s a donkey and his ears – but I was a fan of Gamora as well!

      • KQµårk™

        LOL I see now.

        I mistakenly thought the nostrils were eyes too.

  • joseph2004

    You can’t win moral fights by ditching them whenever they become inconvenient. Obama might have had some care about SuperPACs, but it wasn’t obviously deep enough for him to hold fast to it. As it is, for those who really believe all the money flowing into SuperPACs means the end of Democracy (I don’t), it must be discouraging to realize that Obama is only the last to have kicked the legs out from under their moral cause.
    I don’t think the Citizens United ruling was wrong. (Go for it Obama SuperPACers!)
    Messaging from SuperPACs from unions or corporations cannot be assumed to be dangerous or anti the public good. That it has been assumed as such has been the unchallenged premise that fuels the opposition to the CU ruling.
    But I want to hear those messages, too, not just what politicians or Katrina vanden Heuvel or Bill Moyers think is appropriate. If anything, CU points out how depressingly tuned out average voters are and why they need to wake up and tune in.

    • cousinavi

      I’ve never seen a perspective as willfully ignorant of how political messaging actually works.
      Have you not noticed how one television network utterly dedicated to trashing the president 24 hours/day has affected a large chunk of the voting public? And you think opening up the electoral process to unlimited, anonymous corporate cash is a good thing?
      If you want to hear what BoA, Monsanto and the fucking Koch brothers have to say, shouldn’t they at least be made to put their goddamn names on the message, rather than hide behind “The Committee to Elect Mitt Romney”?
      AS IF the United Fruit Pickers have anything like the resources of [insert Fortune 500 company here].

      Free speech ain’t fuckin’ free anymore, and some people are in a better position than others to buy it. That’s not remotely how elections, much less freedom, are supposed to work.

      • joseph2004

        Are you in danger of being swayed by the “fucking Koch brothers” and all their money, or is it just everyone else you’re worried about?

        Who do you trust to filter only what you need to know and no more?

        When we give politicians the power to write laws that curb speech – political speech – we chip away at our own power.

        If you’re worried about the stupid voters out there, advocate that pubic schools teach students how our government works and that their vote really matters, not that their votes have been “stolen” by corporations or the powerful elites and that they might as well stay home.

        • cousinavi

          Wow. I applaud the depth and breadth of your insistent ignorance. It must take some great effort to be that stubbornly myopic.
          IF it were the case that massive ad buys across all media platforms DIDN’T sway at least some voters, no one would bother.
          Opening the floodgates to ANONYMOUS CORPORATE messaging – not “political speech” designed to present fair perspective but rather to tilt the playing field in favour of whatever stripe of deregulation / tax break / “Job creator” profit driving whim happens to be on the plate of those who can write multimillion dollar cheques without giving it thought does nothing but pervert the entire fucking concept of government by the people.
          Curb political speech? Not at all, you blithering Republican corporatist shill. Merely to protect it from being drowned in a sucking bog of Wall St./Oil cash.
          When I stand up and offer a political opinion, I get called out for it – commonly by yammering ‘tards like you. But when the Koch brothers drop 100 million dollars scrounged up between their multi-national resource raping friends, they get to hide behind an anonymous SuperPac.
          My opinions are broadcast on me wee little blog – a few hundred eyes on a GOOD day. The Koch brothers fund prime time ads on heavy rotation in every medium and every fucking market.
          You twisted thugs have a truly fucked up notion of what Freedom, Equality and Democracy mean. Frankly, it’s morally repulsive, intellectually stunted, and just plain stupid.

          • jmby

            Thank you, CousinAvi, for saying what I was just about to type, and for saying it so well.

            ….”Wait, I just said smear and Santorum in the same sentence”…

            And now I must go Silkwood scrub my brain.

          • joseph2004

            Somewhere in there you hinted at it – the lazy voting (and non-voting) citizen is the problem. But you ignore that while shilling for a system of tweaks to drown out messaging that you don’t like. I’m sure you believe you’re defending freedom and democracy, but your first response above makes it clear what really bothers you – and it isn’t lack of disclosure; it’s that someone somewhere has a voice that you disagree with, that it has reach, and why in the hell doesn’t someone write a law that squelches it before it destroys America!

            I’m trying to draw attention to what I feel is the true problem – lack of voter participation in this democracy you claim to care so much about. We can certainly agree on disclosure rules etc, but that’s not what you’re angry about. You’re more concerned about silencing voices that you disagree with, such as that bogeyman Fox News. You’ve put them up as exhibit A for how our democracy is being corrupted. They have reach (not as much as you imagine), and they have a following. This makes you angry. If Fox were standing behind the president’s every word and action, well, you’d think that was true patriotic democracy in action.

            You don’t want to address the non-partisan issue of how depressingly out of touch the voter is in this country by doing the hard job of getting people to understand what’s at stake in keeping what we have going. You want to create a system that protects the ignorant public from views you don’t like, or that you deem destructive. You’ve decided that the Fox News’s of the world are dangerous. But what’s dangerous is an indifferent voter. Without a voting public that cares, you can forget the rest.

            I want to teach my kids and my nephews and nieces how to approach the political environment from a position of strength of mind.
            Your message is that they have no power, out of the gate, that their vote means nothing (you’ve obviously accepted that for yourself), that they ought to give up because the Koch Brothers “stole” their votes.

            You see the voters’ knee-jerk mindless reaction to attack ads and want to fix it by bringing down the ads, in effect sheltering the voter. I want to see a voter not prone to those knee-jerk reactions. The Koch brothers didn’t steal the one thing every citizen has – an actual vote. You seem to have bought into the notion that in fact they really have. The Koch’s can spend $billions if they want to – it shouldn’t matter. That it does is the problem. If voters gave a shit, we wouldn’t be worried whether the Koch’s or Soros or Warren Buffet gave every last dime they had to their favorite candidates. Voters would vote their conscience, not someone else’s.

            Meg Whitman dropped $100million of her own money in CA but nevertheless lost her bid for Governor. The Koch brothers are reputed to have “corrupted” WI’s politics, but that didn’t prevent WI from drumming up enough signatures for a recall on Walker. Romney’s approach of showering the airwaves with attack adds, while effective in Florida, appears to be backfiring. It speaks to what I’m talking about, that when voters get involved, they have the power to make policy and change.

            “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” Now, you can come up with all sorts of ways of getting around this simple clause and of interpreting it as befits your own political biases. I know you’re trying. To paraphrase someone else you would muzzle if you could just get a politician or two to go along with it, “I hope you fail.”

          • cousinavi

            You’re an idiot. I can’t be bothered to sort you out. I can only hope against hope that someday, perhaps by accident perhaps by miracle, you come to realize how fucking stupid you are.

          • joseph2004

            I feel the same toward you.

          • mrbrink

            Nothing should have a right to speak out against me that I can’t shoot directly in the face.

          • nicole

            Someday historians will lampoon those such as yourself who so willingly allowed our country to be turned into corporate fucking states r us.

            You and others like you have stood by in either god awful smug stupidity or in criminally willful ignorance as corporate america, personified by the right fucking broken and ugly wing sucked the last bit of blood out.

          • joseph2004

            Yikes! I wonder what they’ll say about you.

          • mrbrink

            Your fundamental mistake is in thinking that the impact of the rich’s power and their lording of endless resources over the poor will always be in the best interests of American democracy and free speech.

            A few billionaires with an agenda have won much, and now, with just enough consolidated power throughout, they can terrorize the civil rights of the majority and hold the whole country hostage– blackmailing for further concentrated wealth and power.

            The army of the corporate monarchists are past the moat and beating down the doors of power to the people, and you want to lower the draw bridge.

            You crazy.

          • joseph2004

            Me crazy? Sheesh, that’s the pot calling the kettle black.

            “Your fundamental mistake is in thinking that the impact of the rich’s power and their lording of endless resources over the poor will always be in the best interests of American democracy and free speech.”

            Who said “…always”?

            Distort much? I mean, shit, if you have to make stuff up in order to make your case….

            You’re one warped hombre.

        • Razor

          “When we give politicians the power to write laws that curb speech – political speech – we chip away at our own power.”

          But… our power… was chipped away… by unlimited corporate donations. “Our power” can’t match the bajillions of money a Koch brother can hand over with one check.

          Oh fuck it, not even worth trying.

          • joseph2004

            Our freedoms are chipped away at by attitudes that say, in effect, “Oh shit, my vote doesn’t count.”
            If (and wow wouldn’t the world be a different place) we had 90% active voter interest and participation in American political life, where people were as tuned in as many here are, much of the corruption we complain about today couldn’t survive. There would be too many watchdogs. Flipflopping would never be allowed, or our political discourse would be enlightened enough to realize that minds can change, but the reasons for it have to be sound. Politicians would be compelled to actually act in the public interest with some integrity. Hell, the fact that we need a law making insider trading by congress illegal might never have been needed to begin with.
            The world would change.
            Don’t give up!

          • mrbrink

            Citizen’s United didn’t strengthen free speech and democracy, but it’s funny that you think it does and I was going to let it go that you thought pretty highly of your argument about how people should fend for themselves in an out-of-control toxic environment of rights-slashing and economic village-burning.

            “Don’t blame the Citizen’s United decision!”

            “People should be better at staying informed and just because the airwaves are controlled by the very corporate marauders of democracy is no excuse!” To paraphrase.

            That thing in the photo next to you isn’t the catch of the day, it’s a giant cock.

            The undisclosed buying of American democracy and using millions of dollars as a free speech suppressor– that those with the most money have more power over the direction of the vote by virtue of coercion and threats is blatantly anti-democratic and corrupt.

            There is no sustainable democracy to be had in one where money drowns out the public airwaves to lie and deceive. It’s a corporate war on the senses. Money as a power tool unhinging organizing people in the actual trenches of democracy all across the country, stripping and barricading them from the basic foundations of their rightful ownership over real free speech and a people’s bill of rights.

            You afford rights to unnatural entities to make top-down war on ass-up democracy and it’s no coincidence we’re in the state-by-state battle of the ages hanging on by a thread to basic civil rights.

            You’re defending an unequal, unethical “right” to use secret money as a weapon to suppress democracy and attack our elections.

            Corporations have more in common with the Three Laws of Robotics than the U.S. constitution, and when it comes to their new found unalienable rights to money bomb their enemies in public elections, you should be standing up to the multi-national tanks rolling in, asshole.

          • mrbrink

            Yeah, you crazy.

            There’s consensus now, dumb ass.

    • mdblanche

      When I heard that the Obama campaign was going to start using SuperPACs I was surprised, because I figured they already were. I never expected the President to refrain from using them any more than I expected him to pursue unilateral disarmament.

      • joseph2004

        Clearly, the option to use them was always on the table. On campaign financing, Obama is the quintessential flip-flopper. If he truly sees SuperPACs as a threat to democracy, that threat pales for him next to the prospect of losing in 2012.

        • JMAshby

          Of course it fucking pales in comparison to losing in 2012. Winning this election is more important than any single piece of policy.

          Libertarians are insufferable.

    • nicole

      You really are a bloody stupid idiot. Seriously delusional.

  • burbank_burt
  • Michael Foley

    This is more like “Release the Kraken” than a Godzilla reference, but still awesome!