Were fucking owned

Dixie said:
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!
Click to expand...

Im not from the left. So go tell aunt rosey.
 
Taichiliberal wrote:
How does a corporation has "freedom of speech", stupid? It's not a person
Click to expand...
!

Dixie said:
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!
Click to expand...

:palm: You keep repeating the same claptrap while desperately ignoring a FACTS. But then I again I forget you're willfully ignorant.

Here, get educated...and DON'T waste my time with your supposition and conjecture. Discuss the logic of the information presented:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp
 
Taichiliberal said:
!



:palm: You keep repeating the same claptrap while desperately ignoring a FACTS. But then I again I forget you're willfully ignorant.

Here, get educated...and DON'T waste my time with your supposition and conjecture. Discuss the logic of the information presented:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...

Well...lets repeat it one more time to see if it just might penetrate your thick skull....

“The First Amendment is clear when it states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions may directly spend on political campaigns.


It can't be explained any plainer....
End of freekin' story......:tongout:
 
bravo said:
Well...lets repeat it one more time to see if it just might penetrate your thick skull....

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
!



You keep repeating the same claptrap while desperately ignoring a FACTS. But then I again I forget you're willfully ignorant.

Here, get educated...and DON'T waste my time with your supposition and conjecture. Discuss the logic of the information presented:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...dered-a-person


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...e.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...

“The First Amendment is clear when it states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions may directly spend on political campaigns.


It can't be explained any plainer....
End of freekin' story......:tongout:
Click to expand...

What's plain is that you think you're the guard dog for all the neocon numbskulls here, but all you've done is demonstrate what a willfully ignorant little lap dog you are. Here stupid, pay attention from the links I provided that you didn't read:

What most people don't know is that after the above-mentioned 1886 decision, artificial persons were held to have exactly the same legal rights as we natural folk. (Not to mention the clear advantages corporations enjoy: they can be in several places at once, for instance, and at least in theory they're immortal.) Up until the New Deal, many laws regulating corporations were struck down under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment--in fact, that clause was invoked far more often on behalf of corporations than former slaves. Although the doctrine of personhood has been weakened since, even now lawyers argue that an attempt to sue a corporation for lying is an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment right to free speech. (This year, for example, we saw Nike v. Kasky.)

You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.


Got that dummy? The 14th Amendment, NOT the 1st Amendment. And those rulings were seriously pared down after the NEW DEAL, and especially by McCain Feingold. And the ruling all comes down to this:

''If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?'' said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.


Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with reality, would ya? Jeez! :palm:
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
!



:palm: You keep repeating the same claptrap while desperately ignoring a FACTS. But then I again I forget you're willfully ignorant.

Here, get educated...and DON'T waste my time with your supposition and conjecture. Discuss the logic of the information presented:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...


No supposition or conjecture here. Maybe you need to become edumacated yourself, dimwit?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
!



You keep repeating the same claptrap while desperately ignoring a FACTS. But then I again I forget you're willfully ignorant.

Here, get educated...and DON'T waste my time with your supposition and conjecture. Discuss the logic of the information presented:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...dered-a-person


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...e.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
No supposition or conjecture here. Maybe you need to become edumacated yourself, dimwit?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Click to expand...

Like YOU read the whole thing? Puh-leeze, don't come here with that bullshit. What you've previously posted demonstrated that not only didn't you read the whole thing, but you don't have a fucking clue as to the implications of what you read (or you don't want to beyond a certain point).

This is what I told your lapdog Bravo. Maybe you need to get your ass out of your head and think beyond receiting what just appeals to your convictions:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Were fucking owned
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
What's plain is that you think you're the guard dog for all the neocon numbskulls here, but all you've done is demonstrate what a willfully ignorant little lap dog you are. Here stupid, pay attention from the links I provided that you didn't read:

What most people don't know is that after the above-mentioned 1886 decision, artificial persons were held to have exactly the same legal rights as we natural folk. (Not to mention the clear advantages corporations enjoy: they can be in several places at once, for instance, and at least in theory they're immortal.) Up until the New Deal, many laws regulating corporations were struck down under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment--in fact, that clause was invoked far more often on behalf of corporations than former slaves. Although the doctrine of personhood has been weakened since, even now lawyers argue that an attempt to sue a corporation for lying is an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment right to free speech. (This year, for example, we saw Nike v. Kasky.)

You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.


Got that dummy? The 14th Amendment, NOT the 1st Amendment. And those rulings were seriously pared down after the NEW DEAL, and especially by McCain Feingold. And the ruling all comes down to this:

''If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?'' said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.


Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with reality, would ya? Jeez! :palm:
Click to expand...

What most people don't know????

Heres what most people DO KNOW...you're a freekin' board joke...

Take your little post and email it to the US Supreme Court and argue your shit stained ass off....you've bored us enough with your repetitive bullshit...

“The First Amendment is clear when it states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions may directly spend on political campaigns.

These are the facts:

The debate is over...
The issue is settled law...
The consensus is in...
You're a clown....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What's plain is that you think you're the guard dog for all the neocon numbskulls here, but all you've done is demonstrate what a willfully ignorant little lap dog you are. Here stupid, pay attention from the links I provided that you didn't read:

What most people don't know is that after the above-mentioned 1886 decision, artificial persons were held to have exactly the same legal rights as we natural folk. (Not to mention the clear advantages corporations enjoy: they can be in several places at once, for instance, and at least in theory they're immortal.) Up until the New Deal, many laws regulating corporations were struck down under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment--in fact, that clause was invoked far more often on behalf of corporations than former slaves. Although the doctrine of personhood has been weakened since, even now lawyers argue that an attempt to sue a corporation for lying is an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment right to free speech. (This year, for example, we saw Nike v. Kasky.)

You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.


Got that dummy? The 14th Amendment, NOT the 1st Amendment. And those rulings were seriously pared down after the NEW DEAL, and especially by McCain Feingold. And the ruling all comes down to this:

''If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?'' said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.


Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with reality, would ya? Jeez!
Click to expand...

bravo said:
What most people don't know????

Heres what most people DO KNOW...you're a freekin' board joke...

Take your little post and email it to the US Supreme Court and argue your shit stained ass off....you've bored us enough with your repetitive bullshit...

“The First Amendment is clear when it states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions may directly spend on political campaigns.

These are the facts:

The debate is over...
The issue is settled law...
The consensus is in...
You're a clown....
Click to expand...


And there you have it, folks. This dummy has neither the intelligence or courage to discuss the FACTS surrounding the SCOTUS. Like the true willfully ignorant parrot that he is, he just keeps repeating a moot point, like a dumb little kid yelling, "We won, we won".

Let me dumb it down for you, you intellectually impotent dupe......THE FIRST AMENDMENT WASN'T THE ISSUE, AS IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT WAS USED TO TREAT CORPORATIONS AS PEOPLE IN PRE-NEW DEAL AMERICA.

The recent decision essentially reinforces a "concept" that was NEVER a law, but the mind fart of some judge.

''If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?'' said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.

All you've proven is what a truly cowardly neocon parrot you are. Now, repeat yourself ad nauseum, because so far you DARE NOT address directly the points I've made....
 
Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it, folks. This dummy has neither the intelligence or courage to discuss the FACTS surrounding the SCOTUS. Like the true willfully ignorant parrot that he is, he just keeps repeating a moot point, like a dumb little kid yelling, "We won, we won".

Let me dumb it down for you, you intellectually impotent dupe......THE FIRST AMENDMENT WASN'T THE ISSUE, AS IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT WAS USED TO TREAT CORPORATIONS AS PEOPLE IN PRE-NEW DEAL AMERICA.

The recent decision essentially reinforces a "concept" that was NEVER a law, but the mind fart of some judge.

''If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?'' said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.

All you've proven is what a truly cowardly neocon parrot you are. Now, repeat yourself ad nauseum, because so far you DARE NOT address directly the points I've made....
Click to expand...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Here is the SC CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Syllabus
Surprise, surprise,...the Fourteenth Amendment isn't refereed to even once in the entire document....yet you claim that it was/is the issue? Maybe if you bend over we'll understand you better...

straightdope.com ??? strightdope...it that your homepage ?
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Here is the SC CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Syllabus
Surprise, surprise,...the Fourteenth Amendment isn't refereed to even once in the entire document....yet you claim that it was/is the issue? Maybe if you bend over we'll understand you better...

straightdope.com ??? strightdope...it that your homepage ?
Click to expand...

well done Pwner of Touchie, well done
 
Originally Posted by bravo
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Here is the SC CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Syllabus
Surprise, surprise,...the Fourteenth Amendment isn't refereed to even once in the entire document....yet you claim that it was/is the issue? Maybe if you bend over we'll understand you better...

straightdope.com ??? strightdope...it that your homepage ?
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
well done Pwner of Touchie, well done
Click to expand...

That's the point, genius......the Scotus decision just declares a corporation on par with individuals without firmly establishing the legal history and precedents of how that comes about. That's what all the links I provide are pointing out. 1st amendments rights are NOT about corporations and businesses per se.....something McCain/Feingold put a fine tuning on.

Exactly WHAT are you neocons celebrating? Because the ramifications of this decision provides what you most allegedly hate.....more access to public influence via commercials and such with a lax time table towards the actual election night.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What's plain is that you think you're the guard dog for all the neocon numbskulls here, but all you've done is demonstrate what a willfully ignorant little lap dog you are. Here stupid, pay attention from the links I provided that you didn't read:

What most people don't know is that after the above-mentioned 1886 decision, artificial persons were held to have exactly the same legal rights as we natural folk. (Not to mention the clear advantages corporations enjoy: they can be in several places at once, for instance, and at least in theory they're immortal.) Up until the New Deal, many laws regulating corporations were struck down under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment--in fact, that clause was invoked far more often on behalf of corporations than former slaves. Although the doctrine of personhood has been weakened since, even now lawyers argue that an attempt to sue a corporation for lying is an unconstitutional infringement on its First Amendment right to free speech. (This year, for example, we saw Nike v. Kasky.)

You're thinking: By what tortured reasoning did the Supreme Court decide that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment, which everyone knows was enacted to protect the rights of real people? Answer: Apparently it didn't decide. As revealed by our friend bex--and detailed by Thom Hartmann in Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (2002)--the whole thing began as a courtroom comment by a judge, which was elevated to the status of legal precedent by an overreaching court reporter.


Got that dummy? The 14th Amendment, NOT the 1st Amendment. And those rulings were seriously pared down after the NEW DEAL, and especially by McCain Feingold. And the ruling all comes down to this:

''If all speakers are going to be treated the same, why wouldn't a corporation be able to make a contribution to a candidate just like a PAC or an unincorporated association or an individual?'' said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer who has fought limits on political money.


Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with reality, would ya? Jeez!
Click to expand...

bravo said:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Here is the SC CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Syllabus
Surprise, surprise,...the Fourteenth Amendment isn't refereed to even once in the entire document....yet you claim that it was/is the issue? Maybe if you bend over we'll understand you better...

straightdope.com ??? strightdope...it that your homepage ?
Click to expand...

That's the point, genius......the Scotus decision just declares a corporation on par with individuals without firmly establishing the legal history and precedents of how that comes about. That's what all the links I provide are pointing out. 1st amendments rights are NOT about corporations and businesses per se.....something McCain/Feingold put a fine tuning on.

Oh, and I've restored the integrity of the "quote" you edited. You should try honesty in your rants....makes you look less of a liar and loser.

Exactly WHAT are you neocons celebrating? Because the ramifications of this decision provides what you most allegedly hate.....more access to public influence via commercials and such with a lax time table towards the actual election night.
 
Taichiliberal said:
That's the point, genius......the Scotus decision just declares a corporation on par with individuals without firmly establishing the legal history and precedents of how that comes about. That's what all the links I provide are pointing out. 1st amendments rights are NOT about corporations and businesses per se.....something McCain/Feingold put a fine tuning on.

Oh, and I've restored the integrity of the "quote" you edited. You should try honesty in your rants....makes you look less of a liar and loser.

Exactly WHAT are you neocons celebrating? Because the ramifications of this decision provides what you most allegedly hate.....more access to public influence via commercials and such with a lax time table towards the actual election night.
Click to expand...

" the ramifications of this decision" are another matter, start a new thread....

" the ramifications of this decision" have nothing to do with the reason the SC made the decision as put forth in the syllabus...the First Amendment is mentioned numerous time in it .....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
That's the point, genius......the Scotus decision just declares a corporation on par with individuals without firmly establishing the legal history and precedents of how that comes about. That's what all the links I provide are pointing out. 1st amendments rights are NOT about corporations and businesses per se.....something McCain/Feingold put a fine tuning on.

Oh, and I've restored the integrity of the "quote" you edited. You should try honesty in your rants....makes you look less of a liar and loser.

Exactly WHAT are you neocons celebrating? Because the ramifications of this decision provides what you most allegedly hate.....more access to public influence via commercials and such with a lax time table towards the actual election night.
Click to expand...


bravo said:
" the ramifications of this decision" are another matter, start a new thread....

" the ramifications of this decision" have nothing to do with the reason the SC made the decision as put forth in the syllabus...the First Amendment is mentioned numerous time in it .....
Click to expand...

Are you fucking stoned or what? Ramifications happen with every law that is made or changed. That is why they are changed, reversed or eradicated.

Again....exactly WHAT are you neocons celebrating? Because the ramifications of this decision provides what you most allegedly hate.....more access to public influence via commercials and such with a lax time table towards the actual election night.

Like some ignorant child you keep repeating a moot point....and like a willfully ignorant neocon parrot you avoid/ignore any logical analysis or facts that contradict your touted beliefs.

You're convoluted logic and insipid stubborness is just getting silly now. Unless you can come up with something new, I'd say we're done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top