Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

bravo said:
Whine about the Washington Times ? Then give a link to Politico ?

Are you a moron?

The Unions were already airing ads for Obama in 2008...
Other than your head, whats your point?
Click to expand...

:palm: Once again, our intellectually impotent neocon foghorn misses the point.

If he had bothered to examine the original case, he would have noted that it was about Citizen's United giving proper authorship regarding the anti-Hillary ad, it's timing, etc. Any union that aired ads for Obama met the proper standards.

Let me dumb it down for you, einstein....if you had bothered to read the politico article you would have noted that the SCOTUS decision went above and beyond what was required in the original case. THAT is what's causing all the trauma....the SCOTUS essentially used this case to not only give private citizen status to a corporations and unions, but they've stipped down the barriers regarding campaign donations/PR support.

In other words, in the near future when you jump on the neocon squawk about unions and politicians, just remember YOU approved the decision that increased your problem.
 
I can't wait to here the howl from the neocon peanut gallery when they go after a union and are stymied by this ruling that will treat the union as a person.
Click to expand...

The ruling doesn't treat a union or a corporation as a person, that is a misnomer. A person has the right to vote, corporations and unions don't. The SCOTUS made no mention of "personhood" in either the argument for or against this ruling, so where you come up with this, is only in your empty and vaccant little liberal mind.

I don't think we'll have to worry about the right going after a union for expressing their freedom of speech, we are pretty adamant about defending that right. This is a consistent problem with the left, who will undoubtedly continue trying to stymy the free speech of those they disagree with.
 
Dixie said:
The ruling doesn't treat a union or a corporation as a person, that is a misnomer. A person has the right to vote, corporations and unions don't. The SCOTUS made no mention of "personhood" in either the argument for or against this ruling, so where you come up with this, is only in your empty and vaccant little liberal mind.

I don't think we'll have to worry about the right going after a union for expressing their freedom of speech, we are pretty adamant about defending that right. This is a consistent problem with the left, who will undoubtedly continue trying to stymy the free speech of those they disagree with.
Click to expand...

Do you think this ruling will increase corporate influence in our society? can you at least be honest about that?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Do you think this ruling will increase corporate influence in our society? can you at least be honest about that?
Click to expand...

This ruling basically rolls back what was the case before McCain-Feingold. Because of the limits and restrictions placed on "corporations" in the bill, we ended up with an anti-capitalist liberal special interest driven Administration in the White House and super-majority in Congress! WHY? Because the only influences allowed to speak in the last election were anti-capitalist liberal special interest and the media!
 
Dixie said:
This ruling basically rolls back what was the case before McCain-Feingold. Because of the limits and restrictions placed on "corporations" in the bill, we ended up with an anti-capitalist liberal special interest driven Administration in the White House and super-majority in Congress! WHY? Because the only influences allowed to speak in the last election were anti-capitalist liberal special interest and the media!
Click to expand...

People could still give cash. So basically youre still lying.
 
AssHatZombie said:
People could still give cash. So basically youre still lying.
Click to expand...

Oh... so as long as "people" can give cash, it doesn't matter that we let this group or that .org raise money and contribute politically, or use union dues, while we hamstring corporate enterprise and stuff a gag in their mouths... that's okay since we're allowing "people" to give cash?

I'm not grasping your logic here! Please explain to me what the difference is, if the dollars came from a union, a PAC, a .ORG, a 527, a wealthy socialist, or a corporation? Political financial influence comes from many sources, why is it only 'corrupt' if it comes from a corporation? We currently allow all these other forms of political contribution and political speech, but for some reason, corporations are exempt. As if, everyone deserves freedom of speech except corporations, because they are automatically corrupt and self-serving! ...But now, ACORN or PNAC are different, we all know that, right???
 
From the source story...

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak."

Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.

It's not often I get a change to praise a Kennedy, but Tony nailed this one!
 
Dixie said:
Oh... so as long as "people" can give cash, it doesn't matter that we let this group or that .org raise money and contribute politically, or use union dues, while we hamstring corporate enterprise and stuff a gag in their mouths... that's okay since we're allowing "people" to give cash?

I'm not grasping your logic here! Please explain to me what the difference is, if the dollars came from a union, a PAC, a .ORG, a 527, a wealthy socialist, or a corporation? Political financial influence comes from many sources, why is it only 'corrupt' if it comes from a corporation? We currently allow all these other forms of political contribution and political speech, but for some reason, corporations are exempt. As if, everyone deserves freedom of speech except corporations, because they are automatically corrupt and self-serving! ...But now, ACORN or PNAC are different, we all know that, right???
Click to expand...

I don't want any orgs giving money.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I don't want any orgs giving money.
Click to expand...

But they do! And so do unions, and so do wealthy individuals, and so do political action committees! Unless we are going to ban all political speech, we can never have what you want! That is what you need to try and understand... my position is not because I am so in love with corporations and just think they should be given free reign to do as they damn well please, but rather, because it is only fair to allow that entity to have the same right to free speech as we allow for all other entities. That was why the SCOTUS ruled as they did, because of the 'equal protection' clause, and because we didn't ban all other forms of political contribution. It's just not constitutional to pick and choose who gets to have free speech, regardless of your hatred and vitriol (with or without basis).

This has been totally perverted by the left, who want you to believe it was about allowing corruption in politics, where we had none before! Is that an absurd and naive notion, or what? This incessant demonizing of corporations, as if they are some maniacal rogue monster out there chomping up our freedom... it's working! Normally reasonable people are even buying into this idea that all corporations are evil and self-serving, and determined to destroy America through political corruption. It's complete and absolute insanity, and we wonder where the hell the jobs are?

Look, to those of you who don't like this ruling because you think it opens the door to more corruption... remember this... we can never pass regulations and laws to end corruption... Corruption is the violation of rules and laws, it doesn't matter to the corrupt, you can regulate and restrict by law all you like, the corrupt will still be corrupt! Those who want to corrupt the system, will find a way no matter what "reforms" you make, and those who are corruptible in politics, will still be equally corruptible with money from another source! Instead of trying to "regulate" our way to less corruption, how about enforcing strict and harsh punishments for corrupt activity? Wouldn't that be a better idea than stripping American citizens of their right to free speech?
 
Dixie said:
But they do! And so do unions, and so do wealthy individuals, and so do political action committees! Unless we are going to ban all political speech, we can never have what you want! That is what you need to try and understand... my position is not because I am so in love with corporations and just think they should be given free reign to do as they damn well please, but rather, because it is only fair to allow that entity to have the same right to free speech as we allow for all other entities. That was why the SCOTUS ruled as they did, because of the 'equal protection' clause, and because we didn't ban all other forms of political contribution. It's just not constitutional to pick and choose who gets to have free speech, regardless of your hatred and vitriol (with or without basis).

This has been totally perverted by the left, who want you to believe it was about allowing corruption in politics, where we had none before! Is that an absurd and naive notion, or what? This incessant demonizing of corporations, as if they are some maniacal rogue monster out there chomping up our freedom... it's working! Normally reasonable people are even buying into this idea that all corporations are evil and self-serving, and determined to destroy America through political corruption. It's complete and absolute insanity, and we wonder where the hell the jobs are?

Look, to those of you who don't like this ruling because you think it opens the door to more corruption... remember this... we can never pass regulations and laws to end corruption... Corruption is the violation of rules and laws, it doesn't matter to the corrupt, you can regulate and restrict by law all you like, the corrupt will still be corrupt! Those who want to corrupt the system, will find a way no matter what "reforms" you make, and those who are corruptible in politics, will still be equally corruptible with money from another source! Instead of trying to "regulate" our way to less corruption, how about enforcing strict and harsh punishments for corrupt activity? Wouldn't that be a better idea than stripping American citizens of their right to free speech?
Click to expand...
It is corruption made legal. great. You're a fascist now. feel proud.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It is corruption made legal. great. You're a fascist now. feel proud.
Click to expand...

LOL... No, it's NOT corruption made legal! Whether the SCOTUS ruled this way or not, we would still have corruption, this didn't do a thing to effect it either way! You are actually the one who is advocating fascism here. You want a system where the means of production has no voice or power, and the state can thereby control means of production. My position is in favor of liberty and the Constitutional right to free speech.

Feel proud, AssClown Fascist!
 
Dixie said:
The ruling doesn't treat a union or a corporation as a person, that is a misnomer. A person has the right to vote, corporations and unions don't. The SCOTUS made no mention of "personhood" in either the argument for or against this ruling, so where you come up with this, is only in your empty and vaccant little liberal mind.

I don't think we'll have to worry about the right going after a union for expressing their freedom of speech, we are pretty adamant about defending that right. This is a consistent problem with the left, who will undoubtedly continue trying to stymy the free speech of those they disagree with.
Click to expand...

Jeezus, I forget that with your limited intelligence people can get ANYTHING by you if they don't spell it out in block letter form.

Pay attention, you stupe: the end result of the decision is that corporations and unions should not be denied freedom of speech. Now, since when in the hell are corporations and unions (business entities) suddenly on par with YOU and I (human US citizens) under the Bill of Rights? the Constitution? No, there has always been careful separation of the corporation from the citizen and politics. Now, with regards to campaign funding, the corps and unions can all but write the check and put it in the candidates hand. Think not? Go and READ IT AGAIN.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Jeezus, I forget that with your limited intelligence people can get ANYTHING by you if they don't spell it out in block letter form.

Pay attention, you stupe: the end result of the decision is that corporations and unions should not be denied freedom of speech. Now, since when in the hell are corporations and unions (business entities) suddenly on par with YOU and I (human US citizens) under the Bill of Rights? the Constitution? No, there has always been careful separation of the corporation from the citizen and politics. Now, with regards to campaign funding, the corps and unions can all but write the check and put it in the candidates hand. Think not? Go and READ IT AGAIN.
Click to expand...


Since, oh about 36 hrs ago, when the Supreme Court of the US decided it!

There has never been separation of corporation from citizens, because it takes citizens to operate a corporation. Subsequently, those citizens have the constitutional right to a redress of their grievances.

The actual CASE before the SCOTUS, cites specifically, the provisions in McCain-Feingold, which made it illegal for corporations to fund independent political advertising. Other groups, unions, 527s, pacs, etc... still could fund independent advertising, no restriction was placed on them. The court correctly found that it was unfair to not give corporate entities the same rights as these other entities. And for that matter, none of you have presented a single argument for why that shouldn't be the case!
 
Dixie said:
Since, oh about 36 hrs ago, when the Supreme Court of the US decided it!

There has never been separation of corporation from citizens, because it takes citizens to operate a corporation. Subsequently, those citizens have the constitutional right to a redress of their grievances.

The actual CASE before the SCOTUS, cites specifically, the provisions in McCain-Feingold, which made it illegal for corporations to fund independent political advertising. Other groups, unions, 527s, pacs, etc... still could fund independent advertising, no restriction was placed on them. The court correctly found that it was unfair to not give corporate entities the same rights as these other entities. And for that matter, none of you have presented a single argument for why that shouldn't be the case!
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be the case because it will hasten our descent into fascism.
 
It is my opinion that the individual liberties and personal rights perserved in the constitution should apply to individuals and not corporations or businesses.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It shouldn't be the case because it will hasten our descent into fascism.
Click to expand...

Why didn't we descend into fascism from 1776 to 2002, when it was legal for corporations to have freedom of speech? Sorry, this is just not scaring me much!

Usually the old boogey-man trick only works for the great unknowns, things we've never done before, and an illusion of risk can be drawn. I suppose, with the lack of attention in America, you can find enough stupid people who think this is something new that we've never allowed before, but most intelligent people who've read the ruling, realize this is a rollback to what we did before 2002 and McCain-Feingold, and the sky isn't going to fall!

Jarod said:
It is my opinion that the individual liberties and personal rights perserved in the constitution should apply to individuals and not corporations or businesses.
Click to expand...

Well it's just too bad you aren't on the Supreme Court, because by a 5-4 vote, they disagree with your opinion. They found that "Congress shall make no law" meant just what it says. They also found that our Constitutional rights MUST apply to corporations because corporations are made up of individuals. Grouping people together and denying their Constitutional rights is just as wrong as denying those rights individually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top