Defend Citizens United

[AssHatZombie]

It wasn't a fascist decision, and doesn't move us any closer to fascism than we might have been before 2002. Corporations are comprised of individuals, and the court found they had the inalienable right to speak freely, regardless of their affiliation as a corporation. The counter-argument is more fascist, in that it maintains the state authorities can limit the rights of these groups to have a political voice (see Totalitarian Fascism).

And you can have whatever paranoid thinking you like about corporations, but it makes no logical sense. If a corporation is concerned at all with making a profit for itself and it's shareholders, you'd think they wouldn't want to destroy the consumers who they depend upon to buy their products, wouldn't you? I mean, a reasonable and rational person might think, a corporation would benefit from the people prospering and doing economically well, perhaps? But you say, they exist solely to destroy the middle class and drive everyone into poverty? Well then, who are to be their customers in the future? Obviously, if they have destroyed us all, and ruined us financially, we can't possibly afford to buy whatever they have to sell as a corporation... so what was the point of them destroying us? Do you see how what you are saying makes no logical sense whatsoever?

Shareholders should contribute as individuals then. The corporations is an abstraction. And the global elites use corporations to carry out their social engineering agenda. Part of that agenda is population control, and making people poorer in a controlled manner, fast enough to stop household formation, but not so fast as to spark a revolution.

[Canceled]

Shareholders should contribute as individuals then. The corporations is an abstraction. And the global elites use corporations to carry out their social engineering agenda. Part of that agenda is population control, and making people poorer in a controlled manner, fast enough to stop household formation, but not so fast as to spark a revolution.

Nope... Shareholders should have the exact same right as union members, members of 527 groups, PACs and any other special interest, to express their freedom of speech as a group, and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly. As for the rest of your paranoia, I have no idea what you are talking about, it doesn't even make sense.

Corporations don't want to control the world, or population... why would they want less customers? Why would they want POORER customers? Your ramblings don't even make rational or logical sense, much less 'philosophical' sense. You should really try harder.

[AssHatZombie]

Nope... Shareholders should have the exact same right as union members, members of 527 groups, PACs and any other special interest, to express their freedom of speech as a group, and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly. As for the rest of your paranoia, I have no idea what you are talking about, it doesn't even make sense.

Corporations don't want to control the world, or population... why would they want less customers? Why would they want POORER customers? Your ramblings don't even make rational or logical sense, much less 'philosophical' sense. You should really try harder.

I think there shouldnt be any pacs at all. It should all be individuals when it comes to political contributions.

And corporations are TOOLS of the richest people on earth, who control them. Population control is important to elitists. Have you ever heard of population control? It's a real goal of many. Google it if you think im making it up. They want people to be too poor to do a lot of reproducing.