Tweet
Failed GOP Presidential candidate Fred Thompson commented on twitter (yes, even Fred Thompson is on twitter) about the reaction to the SCOTUS decision that will let corporations give as much money to support, or oppose, a political candidate. Fred suggested that Democrats were lucky the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t also grant corporations the right to bear arms — presumably because he believes that all Democrats should, or deserve to be shot.
Does old Freddy think that handing America over to the corporations is the right way to go, and anyone that disagrees should be executed? It sure looks that way.
Fred, you should stick to Hollywood.
14 Comments
Fred Thompson is a failure, as is evidenced by his tweet, which is not particularly incisive or funny. Unsurprising, though. The corporations are doing their best to pit citizens against one another. United we stands, divided we fall. Pay no attention to this failed hack.
Roger Ebert replies:
Yo! It B funny when old farts uz Textspeak 2 seem 2B cool. 140 enuf 4 any dude, u think?
Um, he doesn’t seem to suffer fools very well.
Fade in.
EXT-New York City street-Night
Musical sting.
As police lights flicker in the background two men stand over a body. They are LT. JOHN STAMP and SGT. ED PAGE.
PAGE
The victim was shot.
STAMP
How many times?
PAGE
Sixty-four thousand.
STAMP
He was shot sixty-four thousand
times?
PAGE
Yeah, I’d say a corporation.
STAMP
That’s their M.O. for sure.
PAGE
Looks like we’ll be drinkin’ early.
CUT TO-
Beginning Credits.
‘Law And Disorder’
Thompson knows his people well. I live in a very rural Republican county where you often hear it mentioned that “libruls” should be shot, and most agree that “The country outta be run like a corporation”. These people should be taken seriously.
Roger Ebert is one of the few people who could pass my “Should You Be Allowed To Use Twitter?” test with flying colors:
A deep thinker, Ol’ Fred. If corporations may now enjoy unfettered free speech, does this right extend to multinational corporations as well? And does it also extend to foreign government-owned corporations?
In the health care reform debacle we’ve seen close up and personal how many politicians (on both side of the aisle) are already corporately-owned and operated. And we’ve also seen that those who’ve been bought stay bought.
Up until now, there were some restraints on what corporations could and could not do. Now, thanks to SCOTUS, those are gone. Consequently, it is now possible for any corporation or group of corporations with sufficiently deep pockets to lay down a take-no-prisoners media barrage against one political candidate in favor of another — and remember, the laws of libel and slander are much looser for public figures than for private individuals. With our current crop of “journalists” operating in “He said, she said,” mode, how could most of us separate the wheat from the chaff?
So maybe Ol’ Fred kinda got it wrong. This could play out that a corporation (or possibly another country?) would snicker at our right to bear arms — because they’d own us and our military.
Farfetched? Probably. All I’m saying is the SCOTUS decision opened a whole can of worms that cannot be dismissed as lightly as Ol’ Fred seems to think.
I’m surprised Fred stayed awake long enough to type those sentences. He needs frequent naps, you know.
And what exactly does former senator Freddy Fuddpucker think Blackwater (now Xe, if it isn’t hiding behind a new name today) hands its employees to do their corporate business? There are corporations already involved in the business of murder with arms not to mention poisonous and otherwise dangerous products.
Oh wait! He meant corporations which just murder Dems, huh? Fucking monster…
A corporation is a heirarchical organization within which the allocation of productive resources is centrally planned and ownership of productive resources is vested in the organization, rather than the individuals that make it up.
It sounds like your neighbors are closet communists to me.
No not communist:
“from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”
Feudal barony? Absolutely.
Okay. Thanks for the definition. But merely pointing out that Fred’s people do accept that corporations are benevolent and know best.
No. Not communists. Fascists by definition.
If corporation has free speech, it should also not have the privilege of limited liability.
Free speech has consequences. Unlimited liability. Let’s see how the shareholders like the idea of corporate malfeasance risks all the shareholder’s assets.
To get limited liability? Enter a civil contract with the state surrendering your “free speech”.
The are some very interesting items in the tax code, that would not survive “equal protection under the law.” Taxing income for one. Can’t depreciate principal residence (Corporate HQ) for a second.
I think Fred was being facetious. He was one of only 11 Republicans who voted for McCain-Feingold.
stop making sense.