Supreme Court rolls back spending for Corporations

I

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Now don't get me wrong I believe people have the Right to free speach.
I believe corperations can hire people to speak for them.
I don't want Rush off the Air IMO he is funny and informative.

We people were created in the image of God.
We get our rights from our creator.
Our Creator did not confer those rights onto fictional entities.
These Fictional entities have other advantages granted to them by Government charter.

However better men then me have probably already made this arguement and been shouted down.
I'm gonna go watch cartoons and wait for my body to die.
 
R

Radiate

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
So tell us, Amazing Criswell, who will be the Monsato candidate next Presidential cycle? :dunce:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't recall ever mentioning anything about MonsaNto attempting to rig a presidential election. Maybe if you pull your head out of your ass you could actually read my post and see that.

Actually, it's pretty funny that you automatically lump me in with your opposition, attacking me on such a weak straw-man basis. It's a clear as day example of the typical left/right foolishness that gets everyone nowhere these days.

Grow the hell up already.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
McCain-Feingold is an unconstitutional piece of crap meant to restrict political speech. And this ruling only addressed one provision.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not help the little guy one bit. Another Bush era blunder.

But it gave an enormous boost to Political Action Committees like the Goldman Sachs PAC, and non-profit political organizations like ACORN.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Radiate said:
I'm sorry, I don't recall ever mentioning anything about MonsaNto attempting to rig a presidential election. Maybe if you pull your head out of your ass you could actually read my post and see that.

Actually, it's pretty funny that you automatically lump me in with your opposition, attacking me on such a weak straw-man basis. It's a clear as day example of the typical left/right foolishness that gets everyone nowhere these days.

Grow the hell up already.
Click to expand...
No need to apologize.

Your post didn't say much beyond that the result of this ruling would not end well and Monsato would apparently be the result.

You brought up Monsato. It's your strawman, not mine.

Grow up? What the hell is that supposed to mean coming from someone who insists I have my head up my rectum? Voice of experience I suppose. :lol:

Run along, boy. We grown ups are having a discussion.
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Liberalism's bullying tendencies are never more on display than when its denizens are at war with the speech rights of its opponents.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Yes ... "progressives"

Ever notice that liberals always take the opposite label of what they represent?

Progressive? No, repressive.

9/11 Truther? No, delusional.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
what do you call a 'birther'??

and this was never about the right to free speech.... you conservatives just labeled it that so it would gain momentum... it was the only defense you had against the corruption...

the idea of companies lobbying for or against certain candidates will have nothing to do with how that candidate can improve the quality of life of the citizens of this nation. it will have everything to do with how their financial statements look.

if you thought corporate america and wallstreet had washington by the balls, get ready for what's comming....

we've been through this before, at some point we're going to have some legislation put in place to control corporate swine again, it's just how it's gonna go.... american greed spills blood for green, that kind of greed cannot go unregulated. our current state of affairs should provide the evidence.......
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
what do you call a 'birther'??

and this was never about the right to free speech.... you conservatives just labeled it that so it would gain momentum... it was the only defense you had against the corruption...

the idea of companies lobbying for or against certain candidates will have nothing to do with how that candidate can improve the quality of life of the citizens of this nation. it will have everything to do with how their financial statements look.

if you thought corporate america and wallstreet had washington by the balls, get ready for what's comming....

we've been through this before, at some point we're going to have some legislation put in place to control corporate swine again, it's just how it's gonna go.... american greed spills blood for green, that kind of greed cannot go unregulated. our current state of affairs should provide the evidence.......
Click to expand...
It's ironic when a Proggy complains about Corporatism when Progressive public policy gave rise to Corporatism.

Proggies trust the experts until an issue comes along and the experts disagree with them. All during the global warming debacle we skeptics were lambasted for not trusting the scientists; even though we had scientists, too.

Yet in this case you refute all of the experts when you claim it "was never about the right to free speech." You are the first person I have encountered in this debate who makes such a claim.

The professionals have established that this is a First Amendment case. The attorneys, the judges, the appellate courts, and finally the Supreme Court.

Who to believe?

Funny, because since this horrendous law was enacted, critics of it have described it as an assault against political speech - the very essence of free speech.

This one is a no brainer.

The government cannot suppress free speech.

Anyone who disagrees either does not understand the issue, or they prefer ever more intrusive government.
 
upnorth2505

upnorth2505

New Member
It truely amazes me that some people think that this is a good thing. Corporations spending as much as they want to get certain people elected?

Corporations are "people"? Shit with that logic whales are people too!! LOL

Our country's forefathers are rolling in their graves on this one. It is clear that this is totally contrary to the intent of the constitution. I would think that even conservative constitutionalists would find this utterly apalling.

The constitution is clear about the rights of the individual. . . Not the corporation.

How can any reasonable, rational person possibly think that corporations are going to have our best interests in mind?? :dunce: :dunce:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
upnorth2505 said:
It truely amazes me that some people think that this is a good thing. Corporations spending as much as they want to get certain people elected?

Corporations are "people"? Shit with that logic whales are people too!! LOL

Our country's forefathers are rolling in their graves on this one. It is clear that this is totally contrary to the intent of the constitution. I would think that even conservative constitutionalists would find this utterly apalling.

The constitution is clear about the rights of the individual. . . Not the corporation.

How can any reasonable, rational person possibly think that corporations are going to have our best interests in mind??
Click to expand...
So a Corporation is considered a legal entity for taxation purposes only? :dunce:

It does not work that way.

It's very interesting where Proggies draw the line between freedom and oppression.

It becomes even more interesting because I would think that a Proggy would be seething at the Obama administration for extending the Patriot Act which was set to expire December 31, 2009.
 
upnorth2505

upnorth2505

New Member
Johnnyorganic said:
So a Corporation is considered a legal entity for taxation purposes only? :dunce:

It does not work that way.

It's very interesting where Proggies draw the line between freedom and oppression.

It becomes even more interesting because I would think that a Proggy would be seething at the Obama administration for extending the Patriot Act which was set to expire December 31, 2009.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

From Wikipedia:

"Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they may be responsible for human rights violations. Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter."

So yes, they do they the rights and responsibilites of a person. And both people and corporations are able to spend what they want for contributions.
I still think there should be some limit for both corporations and people. It places a huge (and I think unfair and disperportionate) amount of power in the hands of those who want to enact laws that serve them well, but are detremental to society as a whole.

Also, just to let you know, I am not a "Proggy." For the most part, the word "proggy" is a devil word dreamed up by the far right to freak out and manipulate the average person.

Finally, I am very pissed at some of what Obama is doing. I was unaware of him extending the patriot act. My bad. And this week with his heavy handed approach to the banks has Wall Street and business freaked out. This at a time when our country needs to be growing jobs. :cuss:

I do think that there needs to be some banking and Wall Street reform. Reform that makes sense, but does not stiffle innovation and growth. He is stomping around like a bull in a china shop and it is freaking business people out!!:wall:
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
The government cannot suppress free speech.
Click to expand...
unless the one's expressing their rights do not agree with the conservative agenda.

just look at what happened with the Admedeijad and Chavez interviews on CNN....

hypocrisy... it's simple hypocrisy...

and who said i'm not seething because obama extended the patriot act, i am.

but he doesn't have a choice.... he doesn't extend it, you scream at the top of your lungs he's FOR terrorism. or soft on terrorism. or putting america in danger. or any other accusation you can think of....

it's enough you made up the whole 'death pane' fantasy to the health care debate... he doesn't need another fantasy being concocted by the conservative masses...

see, the thing is, that when conservatives are in power, liberals are willing to cooperate to make things better, when a liberal is in power, conservatives fight against everything they put forth, even at the cost of the well-being of the people... that's just the way it is....
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Again, it was the Democrat machine which was squelching the speech in the Supreme Court case.

Folks, do some reading on the actual issue before you post.... :roll:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
My apologies, upnorth.

I was responding to you and Proggies in general.

If you say you are not a Proggy. I believe you.

You're not a Proggy.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
redivider said:
unless the one's expressing their rights do not agree with the conservative agenda.

just look at what happened with the Admedeijad and Chavez interviews on CNN....

hypocrisy... it's simple hypocrisy...

and who said i'm not seething because obama extended the patriot act, i am.

but he doesn't have a choice.... he doesn't extend it, you scream at the top of your lungs he's FOR terrorism. or soft on terrorism. or putting america in danger. or any other accusation you can think of....

it's enough you made up the whole 'death pane' fantasy to the health care debate... he doesn't need another fantasy being concocted by the conservative masses...

see, the thing is, that when conservatives are in power, liberals are willing to cooperate to make things better, when a liberal is in power, conservatives fight against everything they put forth, even at the cost of the well-being of the people... that's just the way it is....
Click to expand...
Hold it! Freedom of speech carries with it the right for others to react to your speech. That conservatives blasted CNN has nothing at all to do with the GOVERNMENT suppressing speech.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
FlyLikeAnEagle said:
The most obvious question to me is that in the preamble to the Constitution it says "We The People". I find nowhere in the Constitution does it say "We The Corporations". It also says to establish a "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" I don't see where it says a "Government of the Corporation, by the corporation, and for the Corporation".
Click to expand...
Only Flylikeaneagle and Illegal smile have almost figured out what is truly wrong here. I had hoped that CJ was going to figure it out, but looks like he hasn't either.

The US Constitution only enumerates rights afforded to A PERSON, not a Corporation. A Corporation is not a person, it has no inalienable rights that come from being a human being. God Also does not endow corporations with rights.Corporations do not vote, they do not bear arms, or run for elected office. How can they be protected by free speech? That is only afforded to the corporations that provide news and information. Not to corporations that lobby the politicians and elect presidents in return for favors. The mutants in the Supreme Court need to go back to the drawing board on this, because they forgot all about what the Constitution is for. Yours and mine futures have been purchased by the corporations with the most money. Exxon Mobile could very well spend its entire 45billion of profit each year ensuring that only their senators and congressmen and supreme court justices and presidents that will convey special privileges upon said corporations in return for the election and a cozy lifestyle. Honest men will never have a chance.

Its really all about screwing the citizen so the big companies can get even bigger and bigger and more powerful while the little guy will cease to have anything at all.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
NoDrama said:
Only Flylikeaneagle and Illegal smile have almost figured out what is truly wrong here. I had hoped that CJ was going to figure it out, but looks like he hasn't either.

The US Constitution only enumerates rights afforded to A PERSON, not a Corporation. A Corporation is not a person, it has no inalienable rights that come from being a human being. God Also does not endow corporations with rights.Corporations do not vote, they do not bear arms, or run for elected office. How can they be protected by free speech? That is only afforded to the corporations that provide news and information. Not to corporations that lobby the politicians and elect presidents in return for favors. The mutants in the Supreme Court need to go back to the drawing board on this, because they forgot all about what the Constitution is for. Yours and mine futures have been purchased by the corporations with the most money. Exxon Mobile could very well spend its entire 45billion of profit each year ensuring that only their senators and congressmen and supreme court justices and presidents that will convey special privileges upon said corporations in return for the election and a cozy lifestyle. Honest men will never have a chance.

Its really all about screwing the citizen so the big companies can get even bigger and bigger and more powerful while the little guy will cease to have anything at all.
Click to expand...
The founders were mainly afraid of an oppressive central government. The constitution specifies and limits the power of that government. It certainly says nothing about corporations, especially not that the government may limit their speech since they are not individuals. That's what the supreme court ruled on. Corporations are collectives of individuals. It is as silly to say exxon could spend all its profit on a campaign as it is to say millions of families could sell everything they own and give it to a candidate. Both would be legal but the exxon directors would not last long with stockholders. If you are not a stockholder in a corporation, it is none of your business what they do anymore than it is your business what I do. This thread is like a bunch of 3rd graders debating string theory.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
unless the one's expressing their rights do not agree with the conservative agenda.

just look at what happened with the Admedeijad and Chavez interviews on CNN....

hypocrisy... it's simple hypocrisy...

and who said i'm not seething because obama extended the patriot act, i am.

but he doesn't have a choice.... he doesn't extend it, you scream at the top of your lungs he's FOR terrorism. or soft on terrorism. or putting america in danger. or any other accusation you can think of....

it's enough you made up the whole 'death pane' fantasy to the health care debate... he doesn't need another fantasy being concocted by the conservative masses...

see, the thing is, that when conservatives are in power, liberals are willing to cooperate to make things better, when a liberal is in power, conservatives fight against everything they put forth, even at the cost of the well-being of the people... that's just the way it is....
Click to expand...
Okay, you're seething if you say so. :lol:

You'll forgive me if I missed your post/thread excoriating Obama for his missteps in that arena.

"He doesn't have a choice." LOL!

He's the motherfucking President of the United States!

He had a choice. And he made it.

I know... I know. It's Bush's fault. :dunce:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top