Supreme Court Reverses Anti-Citizens United Ruling In Montana

you know the supreme court struck down
some portions of the house on immigration law scalia had an interesting descent in
that case that he represented of the conservatives who thought that the whole long should be maintained not even half of it stricken they thought that the arizona law did
not conflict with their federal laws at all but i’ve found a couple lines in his
uh… dipping into the the most interesting now he agrees import highway to
understand that the parts available sculley agrees with the parts that they don’t know colby dissents so here’s what he said he said quote as
a lawyer has moved to protect it’s offering t finally there you go justin antonin
scalia saving up for states rights and saying look as on the state’s kind of
sovereignty and out of course you could pass laws saying that uh… if you are that here illegally that he could take
uh… caroll actually issue within the state of arizona and not just wait for
the federal government alright here here so it’s been a state’s rights guy uh… he continued to say if securing it’s there is securing its territory in this
fashion is not one of the power of arizona we should cease referred to it as a sovereign state very strong language my god if arizona
wants that pass laws in this regard no matter what
federal law as they should be able to do that i was and i just saw birthdate states rights you know there’s a catch coming right today on the same exactly on a different
decision on the case of citizens united now this is the the actual case is called american
tradition for mister person pollock it’s um… montana case that has to do with citizens united montanez and we’ve got our are all laws
in the sovereign state amount montana will literally the last one hundred
years the referendum passed by the voters
saying corporations cannot give two politicians because we think he gives
them too much power anti-corruption are bus system what it’s going to you turn around and said defect states
our products of course not shut up about your state’s rights might editor of the remaining rights no corporations have all the rights coverages are people my friend they didn’t even hear the case the majority that ruled on including
justice kennedy the so-called moderate conservative they said no we extra it’s we are in favor of
citizens united if there’s any state law that we think
disagrees with citizens united we strike it down early states rights sovereign you ballinger head and dualism
multinational corporations tell you to do if they want to buy your politicians you shut up in montana he’ll let them by your politicians i’d love this because in the original
citizens united case justice kennedy had written these two very important
line squall independent expenditures meaning the
kinds of corporations and rich people do influence politics including those made by corporations will not give rise to corruption or their appearance of corruption but the montana supreme court had said our law is very clear in montana the voters said it we agree it does lead to corruption at states rights uh… jobs jobs jobs no i don’t care corporations of all the time and then the second part of what the
activity of said was no sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech
of non-profit or for-profit corporations in other words you even have any government interest in
trying to get corporations to not buy your politician that was an original citizens united
casey that there is not even experience of impropriety that couldn’t possibly ineffective parents but it appears that these corporations
by giving bride from politicians legal drives a year here’s all of those
laws are in a million dollars that does not lead to a appears of
corruption but i think resisting anybody’s ever
heard in the montana supreme court said that’s that’s not the case of montana here are the voters are absolutely
convinces oza legislatures rosa want has a report but it does at the very least lead to an
appearance of corruption here at the demand here arguments five
before the dissenting justices certainly we got
any of those out what do you know i think at least that
and there is that there is approaching and the five conservatives who said we
don’t give a damn about any ideology any state’s rights any corruption or appearance of
corruption we’ll ruled by the corporations that is why we were put here and we will
do their bidding we’ll do their service so any hope that you had that this supreme court of justice
kennedy would see the light and somehow they would overturn citizens
united gaw no such file supreme court is hopeless in this regard there’s only one hope that remains and that is the constitutional amendment because their viruses complete in washington they’re never going to do it goes
corrupt politicians that are bought while those corporate money at the end
of the first place the supreme court is bought by the
corporations hussein corrupt politicians put those same corrupts a pre-recorded
as-is on the supreme court and it never gonna change their mind and
they didn’t today so the whole way did you notice that
amend the constitution say the paling toward claire dot desert all-out assist eighty one percent
a country believes that money invoices politicians but it corrupts politicians apparently
we were kind of one eighty one percent of the country said that so here’s your amendment that says corporations cannot give money they are
not human beings and anybody even a child knows they’re not human
beings may have cards and a half years they
have a lot more than a letter what kind of sectoral cassettes they they’re not human beings you do not have the rights the constitutional rights or the human
rights citizens of this country and from now on one of the publicly
finance all were licensed corporate interests and these monied
interests can buy our politicians burnett wanted done and or they come sheet there so instead of bright so today is absolutely clear supreme court is not here to help you
it’s here to hurt you they don’t work too four u they work for the corporations and found them in the constitution and tell them nowhere in charge you’re not in charge

100 Responses

  1. A86 says:

    The ultimate end of capitalism is when it gets to a point that cattle start asking, "Do we really NEED bosses? Why can't we all be our own boss? Why does this guy own all this stuff and we don't? Why are reporting to these men and taking orders from them all day in return for crumbs compared to what he gets for sitting around most of the day?" Capitalism then morphs into Fascism when the business owners run to the govt for help against recession/depression and the threat of the cattle rising.

  2. fiercefunky says:

    One aspect Cenk is failing to note; it's the people's fault if they let corporations get away with this. If people are fools are easily lead to vote against their interests, and if they support these companies by buying their products which in turn gives them the money they use to buy politicians. The public isn't altogether powerless, just too lazy to be informed and apathetic to use their power as consumers.

  3. Vinco Baculus says:

    While I agree with the majority of your statement, the one part I do have minor issue with is the "support these companies" part. It's not possible, at least in some areas, to purchase, at least reasonably, from groups that are not corporations of a larger nature. Monopolies in some areas are alive and well. Overall, yes though, it is the people's fault, and we are most definitely boned.

  4. Dreadnaught1985 says:

    Scenario… Your local community is under threat of being poisoned by plans for a industrial waste facility being placed near by. You and your community petition and hold a referendum which an overwhelming number of people back. But the corporation that is building the facility cuts a nice big check for your state politicians… And your Referendum is overturned. But then there is nothing wrong with free speech.

  5. samaniblake says:

    mmm smells like manifesto. i like.

  6. TMOvids says:

    Firstly, that's not legal. Secondly, citizens united did not even address that, so it's not totally relevant. Free speech is good, and you should have the right to broadcast whichever views you have. Bribery, on the other hand, is rightfully restricted.

  7. TMOvids says:

    No. If someone dominates the conversation, then fine. That's still free speech. Forcibly limiting certain people and mandating others to create an equal conversation is what would impede on free speech.
    There's just nothing wrong with the Citizens United ruling, but Cenk obsesses over it, going even so far as to promote a constitutional amendment for something which would essentially be totally useless.

  8. TMOvids says:

    I think it's you who needs to look up Citizens United. It did not make bribing politicians with billions of dollars legal. It simply allowed people to spend as much as they wish voicing their opinion on political matters.
    Citizens United decision did nothing but confirm the presence of the first amendment in your country. It is good.

  9. TMOvids says:

    Trying to manipulate society so that every single viewpoint has equal speaking time is utterly abhorrent. You would potentially be saying TYT must shut down because we already have liberalviewer and TAA on youtube. People should be free to say what they think. Always.

  10. TheNavigateur says:

    And everyone must have an equal chance to be heard otherwise the whole point of giving everyone the freedom to say what they think (which I'm not against at all, rather 100% FOR) is nil. You miss this point because you're one-track-minded. Yes TYT has too much of a voice compared to many others. That doesn't mean they should be "shut down" altogether, just that everyone's opinions should be able to be heard on an equal basis. So try to argue honestly about this instead of fabricating hyperbolae.

  11. TMOvids says:

    If you're for TYT having their voice, and people being free to voice their opinions in this way, then I don't see how you hold any opposition to the citizens united ruling. If anything, you seem to be supporting provisions for people to air TV ads, which is of course a dreadful idea.

  12. Robfenix says:

    Are US states Member States of the United Nations? Can they sign treaties? Do they have embassies in other countries? Are any of them recognized as sovereign entities by any country in the world? No. Therefore, this talk of "sovereignty" is stupid.

  13. robinvan1983 says:

    yes he is so against corruption that he deregulates corporation oversight and does nothing against lobbying power or campaign finance reform… great fight against corruption

  14. Carlos Santiago says:

    round up the rich involved in corruption and lobbyist, the politicians that support, take all they have, give it evenly among all the people and jail them for life for crimes against the american people.

  15. TMOvids says:

    Wait wait wait, I threw out the "supporting provisions for people to air TV ads" as kind of a joke. Is that actually your position? If I want a TV ad saying the moon is made of cheese and all jews should be killed, but I don't want to pay for the ad, you're ok with taxing the populace to subject them to that ad?

  16. bumpy Gamer says:

    When will this change?

  17. TMOvids says:

    At the moment, a media company does grant equal access. Anyone who wants to buy ad space can do so, regardless of their views. Are you saying this space should be free?

    And I never said rich people should be the only ones who decide which problems people hear about. So it's a nonsense question.

  18. robinvan1983 says:

    so tell me when a corp/pac is allowed unlimited donations/lobbying who shall a politician listen to ? The one that gives the most donations or the one that gives the least due to limited funds? What motivation is there to take up an issue that is popular by the people but isn't by lobbying groups. Not to mention that they get lobbying jobs once they go out of politics. If it wasn't for the unlimited funding of politicians, voting actually had power. Now it is just who smacks the most money

  19. robinvan1983 says:

    Do you know why companies lobby? So that politicians give legislature benefits to them. The only thing slanted about it, is that there is infinite donations. There used to be a cap on it up till early 90's now it is just might makes right. Who ever pays the most gets to decide. So that needs to be regulated. Because if a politician is depended on a lobby for income and future ex-politics job, then ofcourse he will favour them.

  20. Dreadnaught1985 says:

    The Freedom of speech was bastardised when Buckley v. Valeo confirmed that Money equals speech. And this situation where Montana placed restrictions on their political donations. It was overturned because the corporations that buy politicians want to buy the politicians in Montana… And well, the corporations own america now. You sold your freedoms so cheaply.

  21. TMOvids says:

    Buckley v Valeo never said money equals speech. It noted correctly that some forms of communication made possible by the spending of money involve speech alone, which should rightfully be protected under the first amendment. Other forms of political spending include certain conduct likely to cause a corrupting influence. These can be, and rightly are, restricted in the US.
    There really is nothing wrong with BvV or the CU ruling. They are increases in freedom. And I'm not American by the way.

  22. TMOvids says:

    Donations to politicians beyond $5000 ARE illegal.

  23. vegetta00 says:

    Anarchy has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with voluntaryism, the non-aggression principle, philosophy of liberty and the principles of self-ownership. You are bowing your head to violence and to the illusion of authority. The gov`t is your god and like all gods, it is not only false but also meant to subjugate you.

  24. Dreadnaught1985 says:

    I know it does not say it directly. But the Phrase "Money equals speech" but the phrasing of the statement means that they can spend as much money they want on elections as long as there is no corruption or appearance there of. But there is obvious signs of the corruption. When you see that the banking industry give a politician campaign donations and then that politician supports bail outs for the banks and helps to deregulate them. That is corruption.

  25. TMOvids says:

    "lol if it was" well then lol away. Campaign contributions have been restricted for more than a century now in the US. You cannot donate more than $5000 to a campaign, as this is rightfully recognised as a corrupting influence.

  26. C Gollum says:

    "In God We Trust"…lmao!! What a load of bullshit. The USA is in for so much shit if Mitt Romney wins in November. The God the US trusts resides in people's back pocket and pocket books….MONEY!! Congress and the Supreme Court is just an extension of corporations. Romney would turn over most government agencies into the hands of corporations and it's all off to the races. I'd be laughing when they the US falls further behind countries like ours in everything.

  27. C Gollum says:

    90% of people who oppose Obama Affordable Care Act hasn't read it. I'm not even from the US I read about 70% of that bill; it took me over 3 weeks. Quite frankly I don't see what's in the bill to be scared of. The republicans have done a great job in campaigning against it and keeping the foolish misinformed about the bill. Sad state of affairs.

  28. C Gollum says:

    They've been fucked since the late 1990's. They've turned their entire political system into a circus and a brothel for corporations and Wall Street. Nothing is important enough to take a stand. No wonder they're so far behind in everything when compared to other developed countries. As a matter of fact they're lower than 20th in Math and Science.

  29. platanaso1982 says: this was soo..then the 1st Amendment would have a special clause on monetary representation if one so would like to make his voice = money…dude ..RESET YOUR LOGIC

  30. TMOvids says:

    The first amendment ensures that you have the freedom to get your views across. The Buckley v Valeo case noted that some expenditures represent the exercise of speech alone, and as speech is protected, these expenditures should be protected.

  31. C Gollum says:

    What's even worse is when the highest COURT in the land is also bought by corporations and special interest groups.

  32. NoLeads Ent. says:

    when did it dawn on you, that the supreme court doesn't work for you…before, or after bush elected the last judge ahahahaha america, they brought your knowledge, understanding, and power to its knees !! ur ignorance and lack of care will soon corrupt the world…thanks allot…$ aint shit..wisdom is key 🙂

  33. Mxyzptlk562 says:

    Hence, all the contradictory polls. A lot of Americans polled say they are against the Affordable Care Act. But when asked about the particular provisions in the act, an overwhelming majority of American are in favor of it. Truth is the vast majority of Americans don't read or listen to relevant news & information. Most just hear the argument & will reflexively go with the faction that talks the loudest & the most. That's an area of expertise that Republicans & their corporate partners excel.

  34. Mxyzptlk562 says:

    Hence, all the contradictory polls. A lot of Americans polled say they are against the Affordable Care Act. But when asked about the particular provisions in the act, an overwhelming majority of American are in favor of it. Truth is the vast majority of Americans don't read or listen to relevant news & information. Most just hear the argument & will reflexively go with the faction that talks the loudest & the most. That's an area of expertise that Republicans & their corporate partners excel.

  35. Mick Porter says:

    Time for a Boston Tea Party. Just substitute ALL polititions for the tea. Crate 'um up and float or swim, we got our country back.

  36. platanaso1982 says:

    yeah and what you don't say is that Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were not present when these proceedings came about and in which they would have overturned this statue..see McConnell v. FEC..see Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002…We already pay politicians a salary …why do they need a bonus? (When most of them are rich already) = GREED

  37. TMOvids says:

    Nobody said money is speech. I simply quoted Buckley v Valeo which correctly noted that some expenditures represent the exercise of speech alone, and thus are protected under the first amendment.

  38. TMOvids says:

    I'm really sorry I'm finding your posts very hard to understand. If you're English as a second language then you're doing very well, but could you try and speak in whole sentences.

  39. TMOvids says:

    It is so. And you're right, I don't think donating 5,000 to a campaign is that big a deal.

  40. Larry G says:

    It appears that the Supreme Court has itself become corrupted. To expect them to rule in favor of anti-corrupt laws is vain and foolish hope.

  41. Syksy says:

    Which countries require people to carry their papers? I'm just curious.

  42. genie0390 says:

    stop drawing such stupid analogies, issues matter

  43. James M says:

    P –> Q. P. Therefore, Q.

    Modus ponens. Easy.

    I took the "nationalism" and "close ties between government and industry/business" to be self-evident. Hell, a good portion of the country thinks that your constitutional docs are divine, and your government runs off of corporate bribes.

    Oh, and definitions are extrapolated from common usage. Languages constantly evolve; there isn't a "definition fairy" that decrees that certain symbolizations must correspond with particular meanings.


  44. TheMann2000 says:

    Cenk, if you think you'll be able to get a constitutional amendment to ban money in politics, when you need three-quarters of the states (which means a minimum of 38 of them) to ratify your proposed amendment, you ought to flush down the toilet whatever it is you are smoking. It's never gonna happen. I don't like it, but the only way you're gonna get rid of this law is getting the Supreme Court to reverse itself. That means getting one of the five to retire and getting somebody better.

  45. DarcyBrandon says:

    I think the people who oppose it get their info from Fox News

  46. synapse131 says:

    And it was a Republican plan in the first place that Obama adopted since it was something they could "go for." Another case of Obama caving too easily and not knowing how to play poker.

  47. 210daved1 says:

    shows that the republican judges dont care about americans… they put corporations interest above the american peoples..they need to be impeached

  48. 210daved1 says:

    if 81% of americans are against citizens united then stop voting gop

  49. seattle8686 says:

    you're racist because you don't know any blacks and you take your opinions of blacks from white racists like yourself.

  50. seattle8686 says:

    "You also are too fucking stupid to know that the law focus on people here illegally and doesn't care about skin color."

    You obviously have never been to the Southwest.
    Ever go to a border check? If you are white, you get no hassle. You are darker, look Hispanic/Latino, you are profiled and asked questions.

    Skin color does matter on the border. Your comment shows how ignorant you are.

  51. seattle8686 says:

    Second, I would like to introduce you to irony by pasting two of your comments.

    Comment one: "All you can do is use profanity and call people names. This shows you have no solid facts to backup a position."

    Comment Two: "Typical Greasy Demmie" and "…you little child".

    You understand that you called someone names and then criticized them for calling you names? Bullies tend to behave the way you do. Namecall and then get hurt when the people they bully stand up to them

  52. seattle8686 says:

    p.s. you didn't bring up any facts, just opinions. Nice try kid

  53. Stingerbillion says:

    I wish we had more people like you in this country who knew how to read and do research without listening to garbage media spreads around on daily basis.

  54. Bartholomew Fatima says:

    The tea party (at its peak) and occupy (at its peak) combined aren't even close to what I mean by civic action. People don't want to rule (their civic duty in a republic), they want to be ruled. When nearly every congressman supported internet censorship, where were the recalls? When the newest NDAA was signed in, why was anyone at work the next day? No we aren't anywhere near "full action mode," we are sleeping the deep, deep sleep of America, to pervert an Orwell line.

  55. voidmind says:

    If you go for public financing of political campaigns (i.e., it's fiananced by your tax dollar) and completely remove the possibility of donations made by individuals or corporations as individuals, wouldn't that make the whole "corporations are people" thing moot? Corporations would still be on the same footing as individual citizens… neither could contribute to campaign financing because it would no longer be based on such donations.

  56. _Jacobin says:

    how so?

  57. _Jacobin says:

    The Fast and Furious scandal is practically made up by republican propoganda. TYT actually made a video about this; /watch?v=CzRZIrfnkQU&feature=plcp

  58. Mr Argyle says:

    Cenk for President 2016!!!

  59. RainerWarrior666 says:

    Too bad he cannot ever become President.

  60. RainerWarrior666 says:


  61. Carson Zickefoose says:

    Most Pro-First Amendment Supreme Court sense the 1950s…until political speech is free, money is speech. Limiting political speech is the single biggest middle finger one can give to the Constitution. Semper Fi.

  62. Carson Zickefoose says:

    And dude, state's rights do not trump the Bill of rights to the U.S. Constitution. You aren't making any sense here. At all. Period. Semper Fi.

  63. Carson Zickefoose says:

    Correct. there is no Federal or State Government interest in denying the First Amendment to the u.s. Constitution, no matter how well one's "intentions" may be. No, we dont' give a damn about ideology. We support the First Amendment. Political Speech is NOT FREE.

  64. MrEsbias says:

    I <3 Cenk Uygur

  65. DjDedan says:

    Thanks for "educating" me however this was what i was referring to: "Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism." – Karl Marx(1818 – 1883)

  66. nofuckyouyoutube says:

    dah fuq did i just watch?

  67. ThrasherGnar says:

    dumb ass comment

  68. imaginepeace63 says:

    What do you expect when you vote for the KKK party? What would you call a black guy in a KKK uniform? A uncle Tom.,

  69. imaginepeace63 says:

    The confederates were conservative. Democrat does not always mean liberal you moron. Fact is the southern states like Mississippi vote republican and were part of the confederate states of America. That is not coindence. Strom thurmond switched parties. He was a democrat and then he became a republican after Pres Johnson (democrat) got rid of Jim Crow laws.

  70. imaginepeace63 says:

    Citizens united is nothing about the first admendment. It is about buying elections. Elections are not meant to be bought you idiot.

  71. imaginepeace63 says:

    money is not speech. It is property. The finger to the constution is saying the elections can be bought. You are a idiot.

  72. imaginepeace63 says:

    Yeah whatever fox news says must be true right. what a lemming

  73. imaginepeace63 says:

    anywhere but fox or any other conservative source. The guardian, common dreams, raw story, information clearing house, the voting recrods of the senate and the house, CREW corruption files which show the names of corrupt federal law makers from both parties, and Open secrets org which has the campaign donor reports of anyone who runs for federal level office.

  74. imaginepeace63 says:

    a debate with 4 or 5 conservatives vs Michael Papatino is not fair and balanced

  75. imaginepeace63 says:

    Opensecrets org is fair and balanced. The voting recrods of the house and the senate is fair and balanced. The CREW corruption files are fair and balanced. Thom Hartman debating on conservative on his show is fair and balanced. Fox News is not.

  76. imaginepeace63 says:

    I have only vote either democrat or third party. I have voted and campaign for John Kerry's primary challenger because I wnated him replaced. Ed O'Reilly got 32% of the vote which was not bad.

  77. imaginepeace63 says:

    I consider myself to be a liberal and a populist. The idea of "far left" is something made up to push this country futher to the right. It is reverse psychology which is typical for conservative media to do.

  78. imaginepeace63 says:

    I didn't run. I voltuneered for the guy that ran to the left. If you look at Kerry's recrod he is not a liberal. The liberal image he has is that, a mask. He voted for NAFTA, the Iraq War, patriot act, the last three free trade agreements and the NDAA. THat is not how a liberal votes. Sen Merkley and Bernie Sanders are real liberals.

  79. imaginepeace63 says:

    I just showed you how Kerry is not center-left. That is a mask, or a lie. That is why I hate him. He is fake. As for the Obama job rate. He is actually building off of Bush's left over bad rates. They are getting slightly better but not enough. We need to invest in green jobs. get rid of the trade agreements because we are lossing manufacturing jobs. Raise wages on middle class, a tax cut to the middle class, raise taxes on the rich,end the wars and cut the war budget.That will make jobs.

  80. imaginepeace63 says:

    I was talking about green energy like WInd or Solar. As for Kerry have you ever read the voting recotds online? I do. Do you even know what website to go to? No. So don't tell me how Kerry votes when you don't even read the votes.

  81. Anti Hypocrite says:

    Supreme Court are a bunch of bias two face bought and sold by corporation the founding fathers would be embarrassed of these idiots are not for the American people their out for their selfs and destroying America with their unintelligent decisions you can not be a judge and the bias the statute justice is blindfolded for a reason to get the facts and not to see money in front of her eyes like United States Supreme Court does and they have no ethics.

  82. Fahrenheit4051 says:

    Unfortunately, if the Supreme Court rules that bribes constitute political speech, then a state has no right to deny "free speech" to corporations. The US Supreme has the final say, so until the ruling that bribes=speech is overturned, the state of Montana has no right to tell corporations that they can't bribe politicians.

  83. Fahrenheit4051 says:

    And yes, I know that they're not actual bribes, just ads and campaign donations.

  84. s9z9s says:

    Don't use the left's language. There are no "classes". What we have are upper income earners, not the "upper class". These are all separate individuals, and it dehumanizes us to be grouped up like this.

  85. Shadowsafter says:

    Yeah…except there are classes, the rest of the world is mature enough to admit that about their society, why aren't you?
    Romney got about half a million from his father at the start of his life to kick off his business career, not to mention the best schooling money could buy. Don't tell me kid Romney was an "upper income earner", he was an upper class child, and you know what? That's fine, he's from a rich family. Don't attack him for that, attack him for all his other dispicable attributes.

  86. s9z9s says:

    I wasn't born into a caste and neither were you. Many want to believe in a caste system because it's a way of explaining their own mediocrity: "Oh, that guy's richer than me because of just luck. He couldn't possibly be as intelligent and ambitious as I am." As for Romney and his wealth, John Kerry is far wealthier than Romney – and he married into it. But we didn't see any of you complaining back in 2004 because if a "D" is next to someone's name, they're held to entirely different standards.

  87. Shadowsafter says:

    Oh wow you've been well propagandised, it took about two sentences for you to bring up a caste system, that's a classic appeal to emotion, good robot.
    Now, let me state that I'm an A-level (and A-grade) sociology student and there's no way some inbred bumpkin can prove to me that there aren't classes. While social mobility is a fact also, so are academies for rich children, trust funds and invite-only social clubs, all of which lay out a certain path for rich children to power and more wealth.

  88. Shadowsafter says:

    People don't complain that Democrats are rich because they don't use their money to F*ck over the poor at every turn. When the republicans vote to give tax cuts to the rich, hell yeah it's relevant to point out that they themselves would benefit from those tax cuts!

  89. Shadowsafter says:

    And another thing, sociology (that's the study of society as you probably don't know) takes it as given that there are classes, and the argument centers around why and how they develop and how the gaps between them can be bridged (or even if they should). If you tried to disprove one of the fundamental principles of all macro-level psychology by invoking the term "caste system" and personally insulting people, you'd have your stunted cock ripped off and tossed to the academic wolves.

  90. s9z9s says:

    So you kept agreeing with and regurgitating the Marxist talking points, teacher gave you an A, and now you think you're God's gift to the world? Also, when have Republicans ever cut taxes for the rich? There were across-the-board tax cuts under Reagan and W. Bush, but never any specific "tax cut for the rich." I mean, for being such an accomplished, highly-educated genius, it's hard to believe you can't get simple facts like this right. (…)

  91. s9z9s says:

    (…) The only ones not paying their fair share are 47% who don't pay a dime in income tax. And even after the Bush tax cuts, 71% of the tax burden is on the upper ten percent of income earners.

  92. Shadowsafter says:

    Lol now you're advocating taxing people who literally live on the breadline I love it!!!
    Plus, if the top 10% wield almost 90% of the wealth, taxing them 71% is pretty fucked up considering that ALL taxes still only come up to a fraction of the total wealth.
    Maths, ain't it a bitch?

  93. Shadowsafter says:

    Wow you really didn't know what sociology was, did you? Stop reading conservapedia bro!
    (btw you get marks in sociology for criticizing preexisting theories, not for repeating things that have already been said, that's what you do for Fox news!)
    When have republicans cut taxes for the rich? How about Bush jr freezing taxes for the rich entirely?

  94. s9z9s says:

    What does "freezing taxes for the rich entirely" mean? There were sets of across-the-board tax cuts, which you (if you're in the 53% who actually pays their fair share) are still experiencing the benefits of. And if you think 47% of the population is living on the bread line, you're nuts. Finally, the top ten percent don't have anything even close to 90% of the wealth – try 48%. See how the actual numbers fly in the face of your socialist programming?

  95. Starteller says:

    The Supreme Court is corrupt. We need a Direct Democracy to finally charge those Elites for their crimes

  96. Starteller says:

    The worst part is the Mass Medias are corrupt too and keep silence about this

  97. Carson Zickefoose says:

    2 Completely different cases with totally different Constitutional matters at hand. It's not about state's rights. It's about what is Constitutional and what is not. If Citizens United is the Law of the Land, then of course a state law that violates it MUST be struck down otherwise what was the point of the opinion? This is silly. This moron KNOWS that; it's all emotion, as with all the Left. Screw the facts, the law, the Constitution, everything needs to make us feel warm inside. Cars.

  98. Chrisfragger1 says:

    One of the few videos I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree with the TYT on. Bravo here

  99. LeRoy McMahon says:

    The difference is that the Wyoming statute conflicted with SCOTUS' interpretation of the constitution whereas the Arizona law addressed an area not covered by any federal law, constitutional or statutory. Thanks for showcasing your ignorance again young turks!

  100. adgray406 says:

    As a Montanan I was outraged when the Supreme Court overturned our 100 year old law that was passed by the people to prevent corporations from buying elections. Why must we repeat history?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *