From ren's and DRC's comments from the previous page:
Kerry, in the positivist legal minds of these folks, corruption in America can simply be redefined and then, voilla! No more corruption!
That is the problem with using terms that one doesn't have to define--maybe even doesn't understand. In that way, those in position to do so can 'make it mean' anything they want--even 'change its meaning' when they want to. It's kind of sad that Obama has resorted to the same logical distortions. Some may claim 'that's what Obama meant to do all along'. Some may claim 'Obama has to play the cards dealt him'. I voted for Obama--and I don't even know what to claim at this point. They do need to get rid of corporate personhood and money as speech.....
A lot of people with a little money is not the same as a few people with a lot of money.
As many here may know, my brother is a Ron Paul-supporting libertarian. However, my brother realizes that corporations, using the guise of 'individual freedom' in this 'free market', have wrecked this system. I contend with his that, when it comes to correcting corporate-colluded influence in government that has wrecked this system (my brother agrees that 'corporate freedom' is NOT 'individual freedom' and a 'corporate-government colluded market' is NOT the 'free market'), what can correct it other than 'government'? But, my brother remarks, can it be the government that we have now--already proven to collude with corporations? And, how do you get to a government that isn't colluding with corporations?
In agreement with Thom Hartmann, we need to get rid of corporate personhood and money as speech.....that's the point I was trying to make as one the OWS could center on before the Capital distraction tried to claim 'there was no such thing as that' and 'the Supreme Court didn't mean that--have you read the entire ruling?' muse......