Were fucking owned

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The decision comes in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case involved a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The film, “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation. The group complained that the FEC action was unconstitutional censorship of political speech.

The agency responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the FEC under BCRA.

Citizens United filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The Movie.”

The panel disagreed. It ruled that the documentary was the functional equivalent of electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run broadcast ads during election season.

In its ruling on Thursday, the high court upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but reversed on the constitutional challenge.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...n-finance-limits-violate-free-speech/(page)/2

Now, explain to me how the SCOTUS determines that unions and corporations suddenly become on par with you and me AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING WHO IS A USA CITIZEN FROM THIS CASE?

it has been explained numerous times. the case does not make a corp or union on par with you or i. it states ONLY that corps/unions are associations of people and thus should not be denied free speech in the political process. its really quite simple.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Now you want us to explain the SC ruling to you?

You gonna go argue the case before the court ?

You gotta be joking, right ?

The only joke here is YOU, dummy....because you don't DARE address the point I just made. Here it is again for you to ignore:

The decision comes in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case involved a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The film, “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation. The group complained that the FEC action was unconstitutional censorship of political speech.

The agency responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the FEC under BCRA.

Citizens United filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The Movie.”

The panel disagreed. It ruled that the documentary was the functional equivalent of electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run broadcast ads during election season.

In its ruling on Thursday, the high court upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but reversed on the constitutional challenge.



Bottom line: Bush appointees doing what they do best....screwing the public. I don't want to hear a peep for jokers like you about unions and campaign funding ever again...because they and the corporations have now been given a nod to go the distance.

Riddle me this, you braying jackass.....before this, was a corporation or union given "rights" like a person?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012102654.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The decision comes in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case involved a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The film, “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation. The group complained that the FEC action was unconstitutional censorship of political speech.

The agency responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the FEC under BCRA.

Citizens United filed suit, arguing before a three-judge panel that the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional in the way it was being enforced by the FEC against “Hillary: The Movie.”

The panel disagreed. It ruled that the documentary was the functional equivalent of electioneering and that Citizens United must disclose the documentary’s financial supporters if it wanted to run broadcast ads during election season.

In its ruling on Thursday, the high court upheld the lower court’s ruling on the disclosure issue but reversed on the constitutional challenge.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...peech/(page)/2

Now, explain to me how the SCOTUS determines that unions and corporations suddenly become on par with you and me AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING WHO IS A USA CITIZEN FROM THIS CASE?

it has been explained numerous times. the case does not make a corp or union on par with you or i. it states ONLY that corps/unions are associations of people and thus should not be denied free speech in the political process. its really quite simple.

But it's NOT the association of people, it's the corporation and union that are being put on par. In other words, you willfully ignorant twit....the members of the corporation and unions need NOT be tallied in a vote for political endorsement (a charge continuously made against unions), just the corporation heads write the checks as if the "corporation" is an entity unto itself. That was the original case in contention, but the SCOTUS just stretched things out of proportion. Well bunky, the unions now have the same card blanche, so don't you EVER bitch about them again.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But it's NOT the association of people, it's the corporation and union that are being put on par. In other words, you willfully ignorant twit....the members of the corporation and unions need NOT be tallied in a vote for political endorsement (a charge continuously made against unions), just the corporation heads write the checks as if the "corporation" is an entity unto itself. That was the original case in contention, but the SCOTUS just stretched things out of proportion. Well bunky, the unions now have the same card blanche, so don't you EVER bitch about them again.

here you go again with insults...the very thing you bitch about and then cry that people will be put on ignore...

a corporation or union is in fact an association of people you ignorant dungbeetle....and what the fuck does your sentence mean? because unions can pay for political adverts i can't bitch about them? you are the most ignorant toss basket on this board.

your entire post is nonsense....i suggest you read the case because the case says exactly what i told you that you claim is not true.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
But it's NOT the association of people, it's the corporation and union that are being put on par. In other words, you willfully ignorant twit....the members of the corporation and unions need NOT be tallied in a vote for political endorsement (a charge continuously made against unions), just the corporation heads write the checks as if the "corporation" is an entity unto itself. That was the original case in contention, but the SCOTUS just stretched things out of proportion. Well bunky, the unions now have the same card blanche, so don't you EVER bitch about them again.

here you go again with insults...the very thing you bitch about and then cry that people will be put on ignore...

a corporation or union is in fact an association of people you ignorant dungbeetle....and what the fuck does your sentence mean? because unions can pay for political adverts i can't bitch about them? you are the most ignorant toss basket on this board.

your entire post is nonsense....i suggest you read the case because the case says exactly what i told you that you claim is not true.

Stop lying Yurt, you're one of the people who excel at insults and condescending remarks. Seems you can dish it out, but you can't take it. When you change your ways, then you won't get it back.

An association of people can collect money and donate it...we already have that. A business owner, union or corporation can donate money under specific guidelines and regulations, we already have that. What we don't have until now was a business or union declaring itself a separate entity, with rights like an individual citizen...the corporation using it profits, the unions using it's donations NOT based consensus but as an "individual". THAT'S bullshit...plain and simple.

A clearer explanation:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/01/21/general-us-supreme-court-campaign-finance_7292002.html

All you are doing is ignoring certain facts and repeating a mantra that makes no logical sense.

 

[NOVA]

But it's NOT the association of people, it's the corporation and union that are being put on par. In other words, you willfully ignorant twit....the members of the corporation and unions need NOT be tallied in a vote for political endorsement (a charge continuously made against unions), just the corporation heads write the checks as if the "corporation" is an entity unto itself. That was the original case in contention, but the SCOTUS just stretched things out of proportion. Well bunky, the unions now have the same card blanche, so don't you EVER bitch about them again.

But it's NOT the association of people, it's the corporation and union that are being put on par.

Well, Mr. Ignorant Twit, its hard to know where to start...
the corporation and union that are being put on par?
Yeah, to a degree...whats your point?
================
In other words, you willfully ignorant twit....the members of the corporation and unions need NOT be tallied in a vote for political endorsement

That is correct...so what? Who claimed differently? No one ! thats what I thought....
================
(a charge continuously made against unions)

and WTF "charge" are you refering to?
Union members do not vote on political endorsements...I was member of the IBEW for nearly 40 years and NEVER once was asked how I stood politcally, members aren't asked, the union leaders assume you agree...you don't have a clue...
================
just the corporation heads write the checks as if the "corporation" is an entity unto itself.

Corporation heads can't write checks without oversight by others,...
the Board of Directors, the Corporations by-laws, even stockholders, etc...again, you've no clue WTF you're ranting about..there is no such oversight by union members.
================
That was the original case in contention, but the SCOTUS just stretched things out of proportion. Well bunky, the unions now have the same card blanche, so don't you EVER bitch about them again.

The unions could always endorse and contribute as they wanted...as a matter of fact, to the tune of 90% to 10% in favor of Democrats...
while at the same time, business split 50-50 to both partys...



After all is said and done, your entire post is a joke masquerading as something relevant to the debate...... your link to the Forbes article explains it ...seems you just don't understand what it says

 

[Taichiliberal]

But it's NOT the association of people, it's the corporation and union that are being put on par.

Well, Mr. Ignorant Twit, its hard to know where to start...
the corporation and union that are being put on par?
Yeah, to a degree...whats your point?
================
In other words, you willfully ignorant twit....the members of the corporation and unions need NOT be tallied in a vote for political endorsement

That is correct...so what? Who claimed differently? No one ! thats what I thought....
================
(a charge continuously made against unions)

and WTF "charge" are you refering to?
Union members do not vote on political endorsements...I was member of the IBEW for nearly 40 years and NEVER once was asked how I stood politcally, members aren't asked, the union leaders assume you agree...you don't have a clue...
================
just the corporation heads write the checks as if the "corporation" is an entity unto itself.

Corporation heads can't write checks without oversight by others,...
the Board of Directors, the Corporations by-laws, even stockholders, etc...again, you've no clue WTF you're ranting about..there is no such oversight by union members.
================
That was the original case in contention, but the SCOTUS just stretched things out of proportion. Well bunky, the unions now have the same card blanche, so don't you EVER bitch about them again.

The unions could always endorse and contribute as they wanted...as a matter of fact, to the tune of 90% to 10% in favor of Democrats...
while at the same time, business split 50-50 to both partys...



After all is said and done, your entire post is a joke masquerading as something relevant to the debate...... your link to the Forbes article explains it ...seems you just don't understand what it says

Once again, our intellectually impotent neocon bullhorn wastes a lot of time and space regurgitating his lack of understanding and displaying his stubborn willing ignorance. Let me quickly deconstruct his blatherings:


1. Our faux Bravado fool doesn't understand that once a corporation or union is placed on status as a "person", it's contribution status dramatically changes...increases, because the corporate profit can now be treated on par with income of an individual citizen. That's why you had rules regarding treasury being used for campaign funding, etc...because the members of the corp didn't have direct say...so the gov't sort of looked out for that interest. Now, the SCOTUS has thrown that out the window.

2. My point was that since this new ruling, neocon conservatives have wailed that unions were getting away with murder regarding campaign donations. These were false charges, as our intellectually impotent neocon clown has just confirmed. Evidently, much "bravo" does not include reading carefully and comprehensively what others write.

3. Once again, much "bravo" does not include reading carefully and comprehensively what others write...because he keeps taking sentences out of context. My point is that with the new ruling, corporations are now singular ENTITY WHO ENJOY RIGHTS LIKE REGULAR CITIZENS. So if a check is now cut, it's done under the guise of "freedom of speech" and therefore NOT under the regulation of a corporation in that instance. The corporated heads merely change a few words on the check header, but it's they who are signing it. The convoluted logic should be evident, but false bravado keeps neocon's from acknowledging such.

4. As I addressed PMP on this subject, the informaton comes across that it's not about who donates to whom, but the AMOUNT donated. As the evidence shows, the corps ALWAYS out gunned the unions. And the contribution to whomever was favored by the corps depends on the Administration (case in point, Obama's record corp campaign fund donations). Now, BOTH ARE off the lease.

When all is said and done, "Bravo" is just an applause to neocon willful ignorance.

 

[NOVA]

Once again, our intellectually impotent neocon bullhorn wastes a lot of time and space regurgitating his lack of understanding and displaying his stubborn willing ignorance. Let me quickly deconstruct his blatherings:


1. Our faux Bravado fool doesn't understand that once a corporation or union is placed on status as a "person", it's contribution status dramatically changes...increases, because the corporate profit can now be treated on par with income of an individual citizen. That's why you had rules regarding treasury being used for campaign funding, etc...because the members of the corp didn't have direct say...so the gov't sort of looked out for that interest. Now, the SCOTUS has thrown that out the window.


Members of a corp DO have a direct say...stockholders, Board of Directors, and by voting on the by-laws of the corp...
Union members have no voice...as I explained to you before. I was a union member for over 36 years...I KNOW...you know shit..

2. My point was that since this new ruling, neocon conservatives have wailed that unions were getting away with murder regarding campaign donations. These were false charges, as our intellectually impotent neocon clown has just confirmed. Evidently, much "bravo" does not include reading carefully and comprehensively what others write.

Unions were spending what the law allowed on campaigns, 90% to Democrats, 10% to Republicans...no false charges....they had to abide by the existing laws...Clarabell...


3. Once again, much "bravo" does not include reading carefully and comprehensively what others write...because he keeps taking sentences out of context. My point is that with the new ruling, corporations are now singular ENTITY WHO ENJOY RIGHTS LIKE REGULAR CITIZENS. So if a check is now cut, it's done under the guise of "freedom of speech" and therefore NOT under the regulation of a corporation in that instance. The corporated heads merely change a few words on the check header, but it's they who are signing it. The convoluted logic should be evident, but false bravado keeps neocon's from acknowledging such.

There is no "guise of freedom of speech"...its a legal right to freedom of speech....the rest of your charges are just bluster and bullshit...wrong and irrelevant...

4. As I addressed PMP on this subject, the informaton comes across that it's not about who donates to whom, but the AMOUNT donated. As the evidence shows, the corps ALWAYS out gunned the unions. And the contribution to whomever was favored by the corps depends on the Administration (case in point, Obama's record corp campaign fund donations). Now, BOTH ARE off the lease.


Yeah, I corrected your nonsense on that thread too, I believe.....Corps did not 'out-gun' the unions...they didn't have the right until this SC ruling, bonehead....

When all is said and done, "Bravo" is just an applause to neocon willful ignorance.

talking to you is like pissing into an ocean of ignorance frozen over with stupidity....but your act is top notch until one actually reads your rubbish....
Do you really have a little horn on your belt, clown?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, our intellectually impotent neocon bullhorn wastes a lot of time and space regurgitating his lack of understanding and displaying his stubborn willing ignorance. Let me quickly deconstruct his blatherings:


1. Our faux Bravado fool doesn't understand that once a corporation or union is placed on status as a "person", it's contribution status dramatically changes...increases, because the corporate profit can now be treated on par with income of an individual citizen. That's why you had rules regarding treasury being used for campaign funding, etc...because the members of the corp didn't have direct say...so the gov't sort of looked out for that interest. Now, the SCOTUS has thrown that out the window.


Members of a corp DO have a direct say...stockholders, Board of Directors, and by voting on the by-laws of the corp...
Union members have no voice...as I explained to you before. I was a union member for over 36 years...I KNOW...you know shit..

And when you can provide PROOF that corporate by-laws require a stockholder vote for political contributions, then let me know. Until then, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

2. My point was that since this new ruling, neocon conservatives have wailed that unions were getting away with murder regarding campaign donations. These were false charges, as our intellectually impotent neocon clown has just confirmed. Evidently, much "bravo" does not include reading carefully and comprehensively what others write.

Unions were spending what the law allowed on campaigns, 90% to Democrats, 10% to Republicans...no false charges....they had to abide by the existing laws...Clarabell...

You're making a moot point! THE DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHO FAVORS WHO PER SE. The whole point of contention about the recent SCOTUS law is two fold.....HOW MUCH CAN BE given to a campaign, WHERE THAT MONEY IS DERIVED FROM, and how it's used. In effect McCain-Feingold has been skewered, and corporations/unions have been put upon the same status as an individual US citizen. Got that, pops! Good...now, run-a-long and tell the boys at the retirement home about your "clarabell" crack...I'm sure it'll be a big hit with them.

3. Once again, much "bravo" does not include reading carefully and comprehensively what others write...because he keeps taking sentences out of context. My point is that with the new ruling, corporations are now singular ENTITY WHO ENJOY RIGHTS LIKE REGULAR CITIZENS. So if a check is now cut, it's done under the guise of "freedom of speech" and therefore NOT under the regulation of a corporation in that instance. The corporated heads merely change a few words on the check header, but it's they who are signing it. The convoluted logic should be evident, but false bravado keeps neocon's from acknowledging such.

There is no "guise of freedom of speech"...its a legal right to freedom of speech....the rest of your charges are just bluster and bullshit...wrong and irrelevant...

YOU IDIOT! YOU ARE EQUATING A CORPORATION AS A HUMAN BEING, NOT AS A BUSINESS. If you think there is no difference, then do a little research as to how the IRS treats each one. No one has ever "denied" corporate heads, a corporate membership, etc., of freedom of speech

4. As I addressed PMP on this subject, the informaton comes across that it's not about who donates to whom, but the AMOUNT donated. As the evidence shows, the corps ALWAYS out gunned the unions. And the contribution to whomever was favored by the corps depends on the Administration (case in point, Obama's record corp campaign fund donations). Now, BOTH ARE off the lease.


Yeah, I corrected your nonsense on that thread too, I believe.....Corps did not 'out-gun' the unions...they didn't have the right until this SC ruling, bonehead....

Wrong again, einstein. Just click back on the threads.....you and that other idiot shut your yaps after I demonstrated on the last post the breakdown of corporations and unions on the link PMP provided. Seems PMP confused some organizations as unions. I dare you to provide the link to the post that backs up what you say. Put up or shut up.

When all is said and done, "Bravo" is just an applause to neocon willful ignorance.

talking to you is like pissing into an ocean of ignorance frozen over with stupidity....but your act is top notch until one actually reads your rubbish....
Do you really have a little horn on your belt, clown?

As the recorded post shows, you're just another intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot...stubbornly defending the latest talking point but unable to maintain any logic...let alone facts. Carry on.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And when you can provide PROOF that corporate by-laws require a stockholder vote for political contributions, then let me know. Until then, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

That wasn't what you argued. You claimed that stockholders have no voice in the political decisions of the corporation, and they most certainly DO have a voice. Now you are trying to augment that into, they don't directly get to vote on the corporate political decisions, but they don't have to... that's why they elect a board of directors and have a CEO.

In effect McCain-Feingold has been skewered, and corporations/unions have been put upon the same status as an individual US citizen. Got that, pops!

Why do you keep LYING about this? The SCOTUS made NO SUCH RULING! They returned corporations to the same status as other groups, unions, 527's, PAC's, etc. NONE of which are given the same status as an individuals. As I pointed out before (and you couldn't refute), corporations do NOT get to VOTE... Individual US citizens DO.... Got that, pops?

YOU IDIOT! YOU ARE EQUATING A CORPORATION AS A HUMAN BEING, NOT AS A BUSINESS. If you think there is no difference, then do a little research as to how the IRS treats each one. No one has ever "denied" corporate heads, a corporate membership, etc., of freedom of speech

I've not seen the first person equate a corporation with an individual human being! Not one person! Do you just continue to spew this absurd and mentally vacant LIE and hope that no one notices it?

The specific case before the SCOTUS was brought by an individual! His company was denied 1st Amendment rights to free speech by not allowing him to distribute a movie about Hillary Clinton. He most certainly was denied his right to free speech based on the fact he was the owner of the company who produced a movie, and because of CFR laws. The SCOTUS found it UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL! What part of "Congress shall make no law.." are you having trouble with, POPS?

 

[Taichiliberal]

That wasn't what you argued. You claimed that stockholders have no voice in the political decisions of the corporation, and they most certainly DO have a voice. Now you are trying to augment that into, they don't directly get to vote on the corporate political decisions, but they don't have to... that's why they elect a board of directors and have a CEO.


Where's the PROOF, MORON! Your supposition and conjecture doesn't cut it.


Why do you keep LYING about this? The SCOTUS made NO SUCH RULING! They returned corporations to the same status as other groups, unions, 527's, PAC's, etc. NONE of which are given the same status as an individuals. As I pointed out before (and you couldn't refute), corporations do NOT get to VOTE... Individual US citizens DO.... Got that, pops?

How does a corporation has "freedom of speech", stupid? It's not a person! It's a business that must adhere to the freedoms of allowed to business. But hey, just to make your dumbass feel good about unlimited conservative corp money to candidates, you don't mind this leap by Scotus.


I've not seen the first person equate a corporation with an individual human being! Not one person! Do you just continue to spew this absurd and mentally vacant LIE and hope that no one notices it?


The specific case before the SCOTUS was brought by an individual! His company was denied 1st Amendment rights to free speech by not allowing him to distribute a movie about Hillary Clinton. He most certainly was denied his right to free speech based on the fact he was the owner of the company who produced a movie, and because of CFR laws. The SCOTUS found it UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL! What part of "Congress shall make no law.." are you having trouble with, POPS?

Here stupid, get educated

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/...e_7292002.html

And PLEASE get some originality....since I don't use Bravo's antiquated attempts at insults, mimicking my calling him POPS doesn't make sense. God, you're dense!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How does a corporation has "freedom of speech", stupid? It's not a person!

Because a corporation is NOT some independent entity devoid of human element! It is a collection of PEOPLE! A corporation is absolutely NOTHING and does not exist without PEOPLE! It can't act on its own volition! If a corporation DOES ANYTHING it is because PEOPLE make it happen, the corporation has NO POWER whatsoever on its own!

How does a corporation have free speech? The same way a 527 group, a union, a PAC, or a .ORG has free speech! This according to the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC! ...THAT's HOW, STUPID!

 

[christiefan915]

Because a corporation is NOT some independent entity devoid of human element! It is a collection of PEOPLE! A corporation is absolutely NOTHING and does not exist without PEOPLE! It can't act on its own volition! If a corporation DOES ANYTHING it is because PEOPLE make it happen, the corporation has NO POWER whatsoever on its own!

How does a corporation have free speech? The same way a 527 group, a union, a PAC, or a .ORG has free speech! This according to the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC! ...THAT's HOW, STUPID!

How is a corporation going to determine what its collection of people want to support?

 

[NOVA]

Very interesting thread...posts 268 to 271, confirm it..

No amount of fact, reason, logic or proof will change the mind of the brainwashed...
TC's gotta be one hell of a tapdancer....
a mind like a bank vault...closed and sealed.

As the "expert" in brainwashing tells us...

Brainwashing a nation...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How is a corporation going to determine what its collection of people want to support?

Why does it have to do that? A corporation's primary function is not to politically represent its employees. I would say the chances are, a corporation would be comprised of people with vastly different political views, and it would be essentially impossible for a corporation to represent them all.

That said, there are some issues which are universal to everyone in the corporation. What is beneficial to the financial stability of the corporation for the future, is beneficial to all who work for the corporation and their futures. Things which help the corporation to prosper and grow, also help the employees and investors in that corporation.

 

[evince]

profits are the ONLY thing that matter.

They will be influencing our elections to increase profit.

Or they will be influencing our elections at the behest of their owner for whatever reason that person sees fit. If that person hates America then they will be influencing our elections in an attempt to harm our country.


Aint it grand.

 

[cawacko]

profits are the ONLY thing that matter.

They will be influencing our elections to increase profit.

Or they will be influencing our elections at the behest of their owner for whatever reason that person sees fit. If that person hates America then they will be influencing our elections in an attempt to harm our country.


Aint it grand.

Humor me Desh, if someone hates America and let's say is a CEO of a corporation what can they possibly do to 'harm' America vis a vis our elections (outside of supporting a Repubican of course)?

 

[NOVA]

Humor me Desh, if someone hates America and let's say is a CEO of a corporation what can they possibly do to 'harm' America vis a vis our elections (outside of supporting a Repubican of course)?

If the hate is deep enough, they could support a Democrat...

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Humor me Desh, if someone hates America and let's say is a CEO of a corporation what can they possibly do to 'harm' America vis a vis our elections (outside of supporting a Repubican of course)?

support pro immigration candidates to promote open borders and drive wages down. This is harmful to the current working class. And the intelligentsia cooperates with this labor market manipulation by using national guilt against americans, telling them they're racist if they complain.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

support pro immigration candidates to promote open borders and drive wages down. This is harmful to the current working class. And the intelligentsia cooperates with this labor market manipulation by using national guilt against americans, telling them they're racist if they complain.

Okay, but WE have the power to elect politicians who promise to do something about illegal immigration and the borders, don't we? Regardless of what the evil corporation wants, WE have the power of the vote, and they don't.

My whole problem with the argument from the left on this, is the presumption that WE THE PEOPLE are just going to blindly follow whatever the corporations support in politics! We're just too stupid and uninformed to do anything else! Of course, we are all smart enough to discern the propaganda pumped out by political activist groups, or 527's, and we don't mind the unions having influence in politics, apparently we are smart enough to think past whatever they do or say, but somehow we are powerless when it comes to the evil corporation!