When was there ever been a situation such that unions had some sort of advantageous position over corporations regarding campaign finance?
CFR Empowering Thugs to Terrorize their Critics
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
When was there ever been a situation such that unions had some sort of advantageous position over corporations regarding campaign finance?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
No. because neither unions nor multinational corporations represent the average american. Allowing them BOTH to game our elections is just dimishing the power of the average american.
Disabuse yourself of the many false dichotomies used to keep us down.
My point was that while allowing the one the other needs to be allowed as well...and unions are also multi national ahz.
To amend the constitution to disallow unions and corps from using the electoral proccess is the only way to stop it.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But you perceive unions and multinationals as being some kind of diametrically opposed interest that if balance out will equal freedom.
MOST WORKERS ARE NOT UNIONIZED.
AND CORPORATIONS ONLY WANT TO LOBBY GOVERNMENT TO SUBJECT US AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO THE RAVAGES OF UNCHECKED INTERNATIONALIST FASCISM.
TWO wrongs don't make a right, as you seem to believe.
They both should be disallowed, and we don't need to change the constitution. We already have plenty of laws that aren't constitutional.
Crashk
Unite or Die
"The ruling affirms that corporations, like individuals, have a free-speech right to spend unlimited amounts from their general treasuries on ad campaigns that support or oppose political candidates. It's true that foreign nationals are currently prohibited by law from making independent expenditures in U.S. elections. But that prohibition has little teeth. According to experts, it doesn't apply to foreign-owned corporations that incorporate in the U.S., or have U.S. subsidiaries -- meaning most foreign multinationals likely aren't covered. So there's "essentially no difference" between domestic and foreign corporations in terms of their ability to pump money into U.S. elections, says Lisa Gilbert of U.S. PIRG -- a view backed by several other advocates of increased regulation."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...s_court_decision_creates_huge_opening_for.php
Your antiunion Pavlovian conditioned response is fun to watch & expected. I understand now that you actually want to give our government over to your party's foreign business partners and lower our standard of living to that of the slaves your communist chinese comrades rule.
I'm against it.
Nothing but ad hom.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It took you 45 minutes to come up with that?
You're the biggest loser on this board.
Our electoral process should not include contributions from corporations. They are not individuals. Rights go to people, not abstractions.
He showed up, without warning, with the press in tow. He ambushed him.
Nope. Why do you feel the need to monitor my board activity weirdo? I have explained to you before that I often open a post for response then get distracted by something more urgent.
Again, you are off topic.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
OMG. He asked a guy some questions through a mail slot.
you're a extra stupid cunt today, for some reason.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Im right on topic, you dog-whore.
We should have more disclosure not less, and we shouldn't have corporate contributions at all.
You don't know that at all.
Part of the article I quoted referenced how lefties attacked a working person.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
He does know that. Making sure coporations can contribute anonymously is exactly why you care about this issue. We're on to your internationalist fascist agenda, shitlicker.
I think I will put you back on ignore. I don't know why i bother responding to you. You are fucking loony tunes.
Here is the story, again, that you ignore. Terrorists using information gained via disclosure requirements to threaten and harass a purchasing agent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902264.html
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yeah, put me on ignore, because you have no effective rebuttal. I now pronounce you my bitch.
Oh no, mailslot terrorism. Everybody panic.
We need fuller disclosure to help fend off the influence of the multinational corporations trying to destroy america.
I have shown your positions to be nothing but nonsense numerous times. You have no effective rebuttal. Your only answer to the vast consensus against you is that it is all just a conspiracy.
Your response is not even the least bit relevant to the incident described in that article. You ignore the problems of disclosure and how it can chill speech for your stupid fucking conspiracy nonsense again. You are fucking loony tunes. No two ways about it.
But most unions are involved in foreign policy manipulation, NOT to prevent globalization, but in order to manipulate for their own gains, markets; which shock of all shocks is not to prevent trade agreements ahz.
The power and influence that Unions have had in election cycles has been unfair. They have been able to shift power to policy makers that favor themselves. It either does have to be balanced out or as you suggest neither side should be able to do it.
According to the first amendment our courts have stated both sides are free to pay for whatever form of speech they choose to.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You've shown nothing of the sort.
You just keep repeating simplistic free trade talking points.
Just expalin in simple terms how protectionism DOESN'T spur domestic productions, DOESN'T create jobs, and DOESN'T stimulate overall demand. That would be a success for your position.
No speech is chilled. We should just know who's speaking.
You just wish to hide all internationalist fascist influence, with your secrecy rules.
It does not. Is that simple enough for you?
Protectionism kills jobs by forcing efficient producers to subsidize uncompetitive and inefficient ones. How's that?
Speech is chilled! This lady was targeted for harassment because she made political donations. This happened in the real world, not just in one of your delusions about what you imagine is happening in the shadows.
Last edited: