Congress Shall Make NO LAW....

[Damocles]

Do all the signs you want litte damo boy.

There is no difference between a sign, a billboard, a commercial....

Do you get to restrict what form of presentation you want to allow or disallow based on the "speech" you want to see?

Which part of the first are you not violating?

Either you say that people are not allowed to assemble (form a company) for the purpose of protest, or you say they are not allowed to petition through this specific means, or you say that they are not allowed to say what they want, or you are saying that they cannot assemble for any purpose and exercise rights....

In each of those you violate a portion of the first Amendment. Congress shall make no law...

It may seem scary to you that people can say what they believe, even if they are assembled as a corporation, but it is one of those things we allow so that we too can assemble and say what we want, and petition the government.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

When the Judiciary is actively restoring freedom of speech pursuant to the Constitution, yes... I do support an activist court!

As I pointed out, it is YOUR view which promotes unabashed fascism. Do I need to explain it to you again.... You do not live in a society where only individuals can contribute in politics. You will never live in that society in America. Given that FACT OF LIFE AND REALITY... We can NOT restrict one group from rights to free speech while giving those same rights to others! According to the Constitution, Congress shall make NO LAW... So it is very clear that we can not restrict ANY free speech from ANY group or individual! You are advocating for a system where "corporate" entities are discriminated against in the political debate, and "corporations" are merely collections of individuals... groups... just like ACORN is a group or collection of individuals. These entities all deserve a right to petition for redress of their grievances, because they are entities comprised of citizens, and Congress can't deny them that right.

It is the view of many that this is fascism. Of course the fascists like you say it's not.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's not really a strawman. A lot of people who support the idea of few restrictions on corporate money make exactly that argument, that money is speech. Limbaugh has actually made that argument pretty frequently.

Ultimately, that's what it comes down to, since corporations can vastly outspend average Americans, and the sheer magnitude of their financial advantage would (and already does, to a great degree) give them an inordinately large voice in our political process.

Do some googling on the prescription drug bill from a few years back (the famous midnight vote). The whole story behind that bill is pretty chilling, and a good wake-up call for anyone who thinks corporate money in politics isn't that big of a deal...

money isn't speech. the only speech money can buy is advertisements. obama vastly outspent mccain and was able to afford a half hour of prime time. nearly everyone who is complaining about the corps doesn't have a problem with that.

if it is about money, then it should across the board. bill gates shouldn't be allowed to buy adverts, any news agency shouldn't be allowed to give an opinion, any talk show etc....

as i said before, the potential harm from corps with deep pockets (not all corps have deep pockets) spending on political ads is outweighed by the restriction on speech and the exchange of ideas. as damo earlier pointed out, if customers of the corp do not like the corp advertising a certain way, they can "vote" with their wallet and boycott the corporation. i fail to see how people are all of sudden outraged when political parties have been spending millions on politcal campaigns and nary a word of outrage. moveon.org....i don't recall the same outrage from the folks who are now outraged over corps.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

somebody needs to inform azzhattle what fascism actually means

That's what I'm thinking too!

When you are advocating that Government regulate political speech from the 'means of production', in deference to, and in favor of, the political speech from the statists and anti-capitalists entities, clearly pushing us into a statist anti-capitalist system where the state fully controls all aspects of the means of production and any political debate pertaining to it, what do you call that? It's essentially support for Fascism!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

money isn't speech. the only speech money can buy is advertisements. obama vastly outspent mccain and was able to afford a half hour of prime time. nearly everyone who is complaining about the corps doesn't have a problem with that.

if it is about money, then it should across the board. bill gates shouldn't be allowed to buy adverts, any news agency shouldn't be allowed to give an opinion, any talk show etc....

as i said before, the potential harm from corps with deep pockets (not all corps have deep pockets) spending on political ads is outweighed by the restriction on speech and the exchange of ideas. as damo earlier pointed out, if customers of the corp do not like the corp advertising a certain way, they can "vote" with their wallet and boycott the corporation. i fail to see how people are all of sudden outraged when political parties have been spending millions on politcal campaigns and nary a word of outrage. moveon.org....i don't recall the same outrage from the folks who are now outraged over corps.....

WOw. Not buying a product is voting now. Damo is a fucking idiot genius.

 

[Damocles]

WOw. Not buying a product is voting now. Damo is a fucking idiot genius.

I have to be a genius at idiot in order to communicate with you. Now can we get to the part where you actually answer my questions?

 

[Onceler]

There is no difference between a sign, a billboard, a commercial....

Do you get to restrict what form of presentation you want to allow or disallow based on the "speech" you want to see?

You're basing your perspective on protecting the Constitution & freedom of speech, which I will allot is not a bad thing at all. I understand where you're coming from.

But this debate is on a different plane, imo. It's looking at what has happened to our political process objectively, and deciding - as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans - is this something that is good for America & American ideals.

Corporate money has been a game changer in American politics. It's not an exaggeration to say that corporations actually write some legislation on capitol hill today, and also have the power to buy the votes necessary to pass that legislation. That was certainly true of the prescription drugs bill. At what point is it no longer a government for & by the people? If corporations can buy our elections, write our bills & get them passed, do average Americans still have a voice?

And, at that point, what is the more important pinciple - freedom of speech, as it applies to organizations & not individuals, or preserving a gov't by & for the people?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I have to be a genius at idiot in order to communicate with you. Now can we get to the part where you actually answer my questions?

Your questions are the typical strawman / metaphor-that-doesn't-apply bullshit. Your typical tricks.

 

[Damocles]

You're basing your perspective on protecting the Constitution & freedom of speech, which I will allot is not a bad thing at all. I understand where you're coming from.

But this debate is on a different plane, imo. It's looking at what has happened to our political process objectively, and deciding - as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans - is this something that is good for America & American ideals.

Corporate money has been a game changer in American politics. It's not an exaggeration to say that corporations actually write some legislation on capitol hill today, and also have the power to buy the votes necessary to pass that legislation. That was certainly true of the prescription drugs bill. At what point is it no longer a government for & by the people? If corporations can buy our elections, write our bills & get them passed, do average Americans still have a voice?

And, at that point, what is the more important pinciple - freedom of speech, as it applies to organizations & not individuals, or preserving a gov't by & for the people?

So you are advocating a constitutional amendment then... That makes far more sense. However that doesn't change that the SCOTUS should have decided this same way 9-0 if they were actually reading the constitution rather than what they wished it said.

Anyway, yes they still have a voice because they are the ones that must be convinced to actually cast a ballot. Again, this changes nothing at all from what has come before. People already know that corporations buy influence. The laws should be created for full disclosure, not to restrict speech, in order to give "the people" more say. Full knowledge of who has purchased influence over a politician would be the ultimate tool to allow "the people" a voice.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There is no difference between a sign, a billboard, a commercial....

Do you get to restrict what form of presentation you want to allow or disallow based on the "speech" you want to see?

Which part of the first are you not violating?

Either you say that people are not allowed to assemble (form a company) for the purpose of protest, or you say they are not allowed to petition through this specific means, or you say that they are not allowed to say what they want, or you are saying that they cannot assemble for any purpose and exercise rights....

In each of those you violate a portion of the first Amendment. Congress shall make no law...

It may seem scary to you that people can say what they believe, even if they are assembled as a corporation, but it is one of those things we allow so that we too can assemble and say what we want, and petition the government.

The amount of cash corporations bring to the table is complete game changer.

Stop hiding the fascism you love behind the freedom your mock, you mocker of freedom. You're a perversion.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I've always admired damo for his inspiring and spirited defense of status quo stupidity.

 

[Damocles]

Your questions are the typical strawman / metaphor-that-doesn't-apply bullshit. Your typical tricks.

So, you have no answers to the reality that the constitution supports the SCOTUS decision. First facing reality, that is the first step towards getting what you want done. Now that we know that it will take a constitutional amendment you can go ahead and form your corporation that will work towards this end.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

So, you have no answers to the reality that the constitution supports the SCOTUS decision. First facing reality, that is the first step towards getting what you want done. Now that we know that it will take a constitutional amendment you can go ahead and form your corporation that will work towards this end.

Fuk u. you blo. dik.

 

[Damocles]

The amount of cash corporations bring to the table is complete game changer.

Stop hiding the fascism you love behind the freedom your mock, you mocker of freedom. You're a perversion.

Again, we have to work within reality not the magical world of fascism you believe exists already, in reality the government isn't allowed to make laws that restrict speech.

In order to work within the restrictions on government that we live by (First Amendment) the best solution is strict disclosure laws that allow people to be informed on who has tried, or have been successful at, purchasing influence.

Or you can work towards an Amendment to allow you to restrict speech. I prefer disclosure.

 

[Onceler]

So, you have no answers to the reality that the constitution supports the SCOTUS decision. First facing reality, that is the first step towards getting what you want done. Now that we know that it will take a constitutional amendment you can go ahead and form your corporation that will work towards this end.

What are your views on this topic (not whether the SCOTUS decision was correct constitutionally, but if you think corporations should have this kind of influence), and the subject of campaign finance reform in general?

As someone who seems to support 3rd parties, I would think you'd be against the general trend. The chance for a viable 3rd party is becoming a more distant & unlikely prospect with each election...

 

[Damocles]

What are your views on this topic (not whether the SCOTUS decision was correct constitutionally, but if you think corporations should have this kind of influence), and the subject of campaign finance reform in general?

As someone who seems to support 3rd parties, I would think you'd be against the general trend. The chance for a viable 3rd party is becoming a more distant & unlikely prospect with each election...

Read one post up from the one I am quoting. We must learn to work within the restriction of reality, since it is unconstitutional to restrict speech. I prefer working within that to actually limiting my rights.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Again, we have to work within reality not the magical world of fascism you believe exists already, in reality the government isn't allowed to make laws that restrict speech.

In order to work within the restrictions on government that we live by (First Amendment) the best solution is strict disclosure laws that allow people to be informed on who has tried, or have been successful at, purchasing influence.

Or you can work towards an Amendment to allow you to restrict speech. I prefer disclosure.

But there are caps on personal donations right? but this new decision you love.

The best solution is fix the constitution when it comes to election laws.

No cash from a corp with one scrap of foreign investment. SOund good to you?

Does anything but defending corporatism and fascism get you up?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Damo's all for fascism, to answer your question, onceler. he will never speak of ill of this win for fascism.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

anyhoo. SOrry damo for taking this out on you. This is just all fucked up.

 

[Damocles]

But there are caps on personal donations right? but this new decision you love.

The best solution is fix the constitution when it comes to election laws.

No cash from a corp with one scrap of foreign investment. SOund good to you?

Does anything but defending corporatism and fascism get you up?

That is under judicial review as well. Let's see if it goes all the way to the scotus before it is decided in the favor of unlimited personal donations as well.

Again, the aim should be at disclosure, not restriction.