Why Citizens United is a Sound Decision

[Yurt]

since the other thread is just a poppycock by rune and one in which he will not debate. i decided to start a real thread on the issue.

let us examine the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

are corporations or other organizations denied the right to petition the government for redress? to peaceably assemble? of course not. in fact, YOU and other liberals cry foul when unions tried to organize but were denied at some event in WI. you would not deny unions the right of redress or assembly. therefore, how is it you can deny them the exercise of speech in political campaigns.

FACT: when unions spend millions, liberal have zero problem with it. (except nigel). the only issue is - who - is spending the money.

CONCLUSION: liberals are hypocrites on this issue and cannot support their stance that citizens was a bad decision. corps cannot give directly, they can only advertise their opinions. this is a two way street given their ads must be disclosed. if they make an ad, customers are free to not give their business. if you want to deny corporations the exercise of speech in politics, then you MUST also deny ANY AND ALL organizations the exercise of that right.

[Yurt]

Again, corporations are corporations and people are people. Corporations are comprised of many people. The court ruled the 'corporation' could not be denied constitutional rights, without denying those rights to the people who comprise the corporation. Liberals perverted this into the hyperbolic strawman, that "corporations are people."

For the sake of constitutional rights, they are protected whether you belong to a corporation or not, because they are inalienable. Therefore, the fact that you are part of a corporation, doesn't limit, restrict, or deny your constitutional rights. In a sense, you could argue that "Democrats" are a corporation, or "Republicans" ...are they also not entitled to run political advertisements? Seems we might be getting into sketchy territory when we start restricting free speech to ONLY individual persons, doesn't it?

.

[AssHatZombie]

since the other thread is just a poppycock by rune and one in which he will not debate. i decided to start a real thread on the issue.

let us examine the first amendment:



are corporations or other organizations denied the right to petition the government for redress? to peaceably assemble? of course not. in fact, YOU and other liberals cry foul when unions tried to organize but were denied at some event in WI. you would not deny unions the right of redress or assembly. therefore, how is it you can deny them the exercise of speech in political campaigns.

FACT: when unions spend millions, liberal have zero problem with it. (except nigel). the only issue is - who - is spending the money.

CONCLUSION: liberals are hypocrites on this issue and cannot support their stance that citizens was a bad decision. corps cannot give directly, they can only advertise their opinions. this is a two way street given their ads must be disclosed. if they make an ad, customers are free to not give their business. if you want to deny corporations the exercise of speech in politics, then you MUST also deny ANY AND ALL organizations the exercise of that right.

Corporations do not have rights. They are not people.

[Yurt]

Corporations do not have rights. They are not people.

so they cannot seek redress against the government?

[Canceled]

Corporations do not have rights. They are not people.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Hmmm... let me seeeeee? AssHate or SCOTUS?
Who is the better authority on constitutionality?
Hmmmmmm.... such a tough choice there! Thinking....thinking....

[Yurt]

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Hmmm... let me seeeeee? AssHate or SCOTUS?
Who is the better authority on constitutionality?
Hmmmmmm.... such a tough choice there! Thinking....thinking....

so scotus has never been wrong?

[Rune]

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Hmmm... let me seeeeee? AssHate or SCOTUS?
Who is the better authority on constitutionality?
Hmmmmmm.... such a tough choice there! Thinking....thinking....

The clear answer to your querry is Asshat. He is the only choice not owned.

[Yurt]

The clear answer to your querry is Asshat. He is the only choice not owned.

you've clearly read my posts and thread dune. do you have an answer?

can you rebut my OP? or must you rely on others?

[Threedee]

The clear answer to your querry is Asshat. He is the only choice not owned.

Asshate is owned by the Jews, just like the rest of us.

[AssHatZombie]

Asshate is owned by the Jews, just like the rest of us.

True dat.

[Howey]

It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.

[Canceled]

It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.

So now, in your world... Every union member in America supports Obama and always votes for the democrat candidate, while a company called "Citizens United" is comprised of people who are forced to work for an evil boss who just wants to line his pockets by selling videos about Hillary, which his employees have no opinion on. And also, in Liberal Utopia... Big Fish don't EAT the little fish, they LEAD them! Amazing revelation there, Howey! THANKS!

[Yurt]

It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.

really? when i was younger i was forced to join a union in order to take a job at a great hotel. i did not want to join the union, but if i wanted the job, which i needed, i had to join them.

so no....unions do not always represent their members interests. further, why should a union speak for me politically?

[Rune]

[edit]

Well said.

[AssHatZombie]

really? when i was younger i was forced to join a union in order to take a job at a great hotel. i did not want to join the union, but if i wanted the job, which i needed, i had to join them.

so no....unions do not always represent their members interests. further, why should a union speak for me politically?

You're just too young too remember and too ignorant to know that capitalists will abuse workers if left to maximize their greed with no worker protections in place. They did you a favor.