Congress Shall Make NO LAW....
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Again, it was a risk that we took on when we understood and guaranteed the right to assemble and to speak freely. You might think it is "f-ed up"... but I think it was something that we have lived with for centuries.
The only way you'll ever know is with some strict disclosure laws. And if they receive a bad reaction because of who donated politicians will avoid those donations in the future...
Yeah, those disclosure laws will be tough to beat. With a few hundred bucks Gazprom could set up a corporation called "Citizens United" and funnel money through it without any problem and Dixie will welcome our overlords with open arms.
I mean, "Citizens United." How could that be bad.
Sure they will...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
he didn't say vote exactly, i couldn't remember what he said, that is why i put in quotes, i should have quote/unquote
of course it is not a vote, but individuals can still influence corporations
too funny how you ignored the rest of post and zeroed on damo's part
fascist hate basket
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i don't recall your outrage over political partys or moveon.org paying for ads...
Man, is the "police" thing annoying.
Do you remember anything? How do you know who was outraged, and by what?
This isn't a partisan issue; stop trying to make it one...
KingCondanomation
New member
I agree with the ruling, Justice Kennedy was dead on when he said that with CFR, a speaker who wants to avoid threats of criminal liability, must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak.
That is EXACTLY what the first amendment was designed to counter. Just because you don't like the one speaking, like a corporation, doesn't diminish the rights of the individuals behind that decision anymore than the rest of us.
But for those who do not agree with the ruling, keep in mind that McCain-Feingold was a giant failure for it's original intent, which was to keep money out of politics - the last election was the most expensive ever.
The major impact of CFR was to make it very hard for all those but the very wealthy who can afford expensive lawyers to see how/when they could speak legally - good luck to the rest of us. Thankfully that will no longer be a worry.
That is EXACTLY what the first amendment was designed to counter. Just because you don't like the one speaking, like a corporation, doesn't diminish the rights of the individuals behind that decision anymore than the rest of us.
But for those who do not agree with the ruling, keep in mind that McCain-Feingold was a giant failure for it's original intent, which was to keep money out of politics - the last election was the most expensive ever.
The major impact of CFR was to make it very hard for all those but the very wealthy who can afford expensive lawyers to see how/when they could speak legally - good luck to the rest of us. Thankfully that will no longer be a worry.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
your whining is the only annoying thing here. you constantly play gotcha games, but whine to no end when someone else merely asks if others were outraged over other groups spending millions of dollars.
it is wholly relevant to the discussion at hand. why is it there is all of sudden this outrage over corps getting free speech, when i don't recall any headlines recently or much during the last election about political parties spending millions, moveon.org spending millions....seems to me that outrage is false and is really about the speaker, not the money. if you can't understand that, then maybe you need sit out of the conversation as it is over your head little buddy.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Do you believe this will make candidates consider corporate desires more thorougly when making policy?
your whining is the only annoying thing here. you constantly play gotcha games, but whine to no end when someone else merely asks if others were outraged over other groups spending millions of dollars.
it is wholly relevant to the discussion at hand. why is it there is all of sudden this outrage over corps getting free speech, when i don't recall any headlines recently or much during the last election about political parties spending millions, moveon.org spending millions....seems to me that outrage is false and is really about the speaker, not the money. if you can't understand that, then maybe you need sit out of the conversation as it is over your head little buddy.
I've said dozens of times that I think that any restrictions should apply to unions, PAC's, corps & pretty much all organizations.
But I've lost count of the # of times you asked someone "why weren't you outraged about Obama's commercial? Huh? Huh?," which evolved to "why aren't you outraged about moveon.org? Huh? Huh?" after you saw another poster bring up that group...
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
yurt is a dumbass.
Hence "strict"... If a company is owned by another the full ownership chain would be revealed.
Your defeatism is underwhelmingly easy to overcome.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
your big disclosure solution is bullshit anyway damo. People don't look that shit up. OF course, you can blame them too now..
meanwhile we move into fascism while you feel good about your fucking constitutional purity.
What you refer to as defeatism is often called "an understanding of reality" by many...
Please... If it is on the internet not only would "people" look it up, but reporters would, Drudge would. People like you and I would, Rush Limbaugh, Janine Garafolo et al would so they could talk about it and inform people of the evils of the contributors.
Yes, they would indeed be brought up, just a bit.
Yet, what I propose can actually be implemented while what you propose cannot without a constitutional Amendment against the most popular and First of the Bill of Rights.. Who is within reality? I'll give you a hint, it is the person who is within the realm of possibility.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
more lies...
1. i wasn't talking to you
2. i did not see another poster bring up the group, just another false claim that i'm copying someone.
your petty attempts at running away from any actual discussion is telling. you do not have the mental capacity to understand why the issue is relevant, so you bring stupid ad homs instead of discussion. if the issue is really about money, where is all the outrage when political parties were spending, moveon.org, obama's half hour of prime time....? it is clear to me it is not at all about money, rather, it is all about the speaker. maybe not so much for you, but by an large it is for most people. they view corporations as evil and likely to give more to repubs, hence, why all of a sudden there is outrage over organizations and associations of people having free speech.
it is important to flesh that issue out. at least you and azzhattle want all groups banned and only individuals, the others do not, thus their position is intellectually dishonest. i know you understand as you had to tell me again that restrictions should apply to any group.