Were fucking owned

Grow up, genius. This is America, that means citizens can and do contest laws, rulings, etc. Maybe you were asleep in civics class, maybe you don't know what happens to countries that just follow rulings of their gov't without question. TFB for you if your beliefs are challenged.....if you can't take it, then don't discuss things with others....just shove your head further up Rush Limbaugh's fat ass, and you'll hear exactly what you want.
Click to expand...

I am grown up... 50 years old as a matter of fact. I wasn't asleep in Civics class, and I am aware of the procedures to change the Constitution. Good luck with that! I know what happens in countries who don't protect or guarantee free speech, that's why I am glad the SCOTUS got it right. Oh, and I heard all this from the Supreme Court, the case is posted at their website, I linked it... didn't come from Rush, sorry you were confused about that.


Well toodles, in the real world corporations make profit, employ people, finance projects and small businesses and research, create brand names & products, copyrights, pay taxes, control small levels of infrastructure in some instances, etc., etc. Corporate logos ensure that any product or research financed or sponsored or created by them garners profit solely for them. And when the original founders, board members and worker die, the corporate name lives on....OTHER people buy that corporate brand in some cases. The "corporation" lives on IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN NAME, not that of the current board members.
Click to expand...

Nope... Corporations are inanimate, they don't "DO" anything! EVER! NEVER EVER EVER!! It is ALWAYS, without fault, 100% of the time, PEOPLE who belong to a corporation, who do things. Corporations themselves, have NO power or ability to "DO" a damn thing on their own. Sorry you were disillusioned.


You should have read ALL the material I sourced as well as the SCOTUS ruling you kept throwing in, toodles....they pretty much contradict your rant here.
Click to expand...

I did indeed read the case, but I refuse to read left-wing propaganda, it rots your brain... you are a good example of that. The SCOTUS most certainly didn't contradict MY rant, they contradicted YOUR rant! That's why you won't shut up about it! You are really quite confused here, chicklet!

Wrong as usual....for nearly a decade I processed contracts by investment bankers were the client would be identified by the corporate name, and the contract would instruct the reader as to what the corporate name did, what it wanted, and what the bankers would do for it. Whomever was the current legal authorization for the corporation signed the contract could change (and sometimes did), but the CORPORATION was the client.
Click to expand...

I don't give a flying fuck what you did, you never saw a corporation do anything of its own volition. As you admit yourself... "Whomever" was legal authorization... that "Whomever" was a person, was it not? I am willing to bet, it WAS a person! In which case, you just contradicted your own argument and PWNED yourself for me... thanks so much for doing that, I love it when that happens!

Ahhh, so if you don't see the words, "corporations are people too" then that wasn't one of the results of the ruling? Jeez, not much of a business man, are ya bunky? Because any good lawyer will tell you that there are several ways to make a statement besides the painfully obvious one. That's why I specified pages 4 & 5 and the cases they sight.
Click to expand...

No... If I don't see "corporations are people" I don't believe that was what the court said, and I don't believe you've made the case that this is what they said. Again, I couldn't give two fucks what a lawyer might say... lawyers are the most dishonest scum on earth, so what fucking difference does that make, and what does it have to do with what the SCOTUS said?

Really? And were in McCain-Feingold said that YOU couldn't donate to a campaign, because it doubled hard money donations, right? What it banned was corporations and unions using their funds to run "ADDITIONAL" campaign broadcasts within 30-60 days of election to what the party they were donating to was doing. So what you're pissed about is the "edge" on a crucial aspect was taken away. TFB....if a level playing field isn't to your liking, move to a country were your money is more influential.
Click to expand...

McCain-Feingold was the justification for the suit heard by the SCOTUS here, it has EVERYTHING to do with this! Corporations are no different than a 527 group, a union, or a dot org, so why would one not have the same access as the others? What about THAT is "level" on the playing field? No, the SCOTUS ruling NOW gives us a level playing field, all entities are treaty the same, whether they are corporations, organizations, activist groups, unions, or whatever. They ALL have the exact same rights to do the exact same things, no one is excluded, no one is given special consideration, it is all completely fair and impartial with regard to who has access to political speech in America... as it should be!
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Read posts #309 & #310, genius......then waste time and space denying everything there....just like Bravo and Dixie.

It's truly comical how you three clowns just keep avoiding, lying and denying everything I post...like it will magically go away. You're next post will just be dodgy blathering, generalities and attempted mocking, but it won't discuss ONE SPECIFIC item or point of the two posts I cite....just proves what an empty suit you are Tempie. Carry on.
Click to expand...

bravo said:
Is everyone following along ?

For the first 296 posts, TCclarable, argues that the SC decision was a flawed decision....ranting it wasn't about the First Amendment but about the Fourteenth ? After a drubbing ...he attempts to change the subject to the "ramifications' of the SC decision in post 297....

No one attempted to deny there would be ramifications, but that doesn't deter the lunatic....

Hes advised to start a new thread if he wants to debate the "ramifications"

He suggests reading post 309 and 310...thats a good idea...

Then I suggest 311 and 313 to finish the comedy....
Click to expand...

:palm: Since the total of my posts and responses to date do not add up to 296, your claim that I participated to such a degree on this thread is a lie.

And your fantastic claim that no one considers the ramifications of passing a law contradicts the very definition of the word as I provided, and the purpose of passing laws, which you obviously ignore and/or are ignorant (willfully, as it seems) of.

As anyone with a high school education can see in the chronological posts, I never "changed" the subject...just followed the logic that supports my original claim and disproves yours. So again, you lie.

Seems that's your forte.....a stubborn adherence to a preconceived notion that defies facts, established definitions and the logic derived from them. You'll lie, distort, deny and attack any information that openly proves you wrong. So be it.

Oh, and I've always wondered why your childhood TV hero Buffalo Bob had a male clown sidekick with a female name. Oh well, I guess that psycho-sexual puzzle is for your generation to figure out, as "clarabell" was before my time. Carry on.
 
Dixie said:
I am grown up... 50 years old as a matter of fact. I wasn't asleep in Civics class, and I am aware of the procedures to change the Constitution. Good luck with that! I know what happens in countries who don't protect or guarantee free speech, that's why I am glad the SCOTUS got it right. Oh, and I heard all this from the Supreme Court, the case is posted at their website, I linked it... didn't come from Rush, sorry you were confused about that.

You ramble a lot...and you fabricate past exchanges that the chronology of the posts just doesn't support. Next time, just cut to the chase and spare us all the bullhorn through the neocon smokescreen.


Nope... Corporations are inanimate, they don't "DO" anything! EVER! NEVER EVER EVER!! It is ALWAYS, without fault, 100% of the time, PEOPLE who belong to a corporation, who do things. Corporations themselves, have NO power or ability to "DO" a damn thing on their own. Sorry you were disillusioned.

Well toodles, then you better hop to and inform every investment bank, their lawyers, and their corporate clients and their lawyers in the 50 states about this...and then try to re-write all the legal decisions throughout history that have given corporations certain rights equivocal to the individual citizen (check my previous links)....because LONG before you and I came on the seen they've been acting exactly opposite of what as far as LEGAL, BUSINESS ACTIONS. See genius, no one said the corporation was alive per se, but they have been given LEGAL RIGHTS on par with people in certain instances. Comprende? If not, get an adult to explain it to you.



I did indeed read the case, but I refuse to read left-wing propaganda, it rots your brain... you are a good example of that. The SCOTUS most certainly didn't contradict MY rant, they contradicted YOUR rant! That's why you won't shut up about it! You are really quite confused here, chicklet!

:palm: Another willfully ignorant neocon who's proud of it. Small wonder you haven't a clue beyond what Limbaugh tells you...because you can't honestly, factually or logically tell me WHAT is wrong with the information I presented in detail. That's why you're so pissed when I humiliate you on these boards, because I READ what YOU offer, and subsequently can deconstruct it with logic and readily available valid information. You're a typical neocon monkey...see no evil, hear no evil. Pathetic.

I don't give a flying fuck what you did, you never saw a corporation do anything of its own volition. As you admit yourself... "Whomever" was legal authorization... that "Whomever" was a person, was it not? I am willing to bet, it WAS a person! In which case, you just contradicted your own argument and PWNED yourself for me... thanks so much for doing that, I love it when that happens!

:palm: See the above response, you nit.



No... If I don't see "corporations are people" I don't believe that was what the court said, and I don't believe you've made the case that this is what they said. Again, I couldn't give two fucks what a lawyer might say... lawyers are the most dishonest scum on earth, so what fucking difference does that make, and what does it have to do with what the SCOTUS said?

"...I don't believe" It's not a question of "belief" bunky, but ALL THE FACTS and the logic derived from them. You're so intent upon "getting" the liberals that you don't realize how contradictory and absurd you appear here... you don't "...five two fucks what a lawyer might say" yet you spend posts after post celebrating what a bunch of lawyers degreed...then you deny the full ramifications of the decision of the lawyers YOU favor. Good lord, your hypocrisy is only exceded here by your willful ignorance and general stupidity.

McCain-Feingold was the justification for the suit heard by the SCOTUS here, it has EVERYTHING to do with this! Corporations are no different than a 527 group, a union, or a dot org, so why would one not have the same access as the others? What about THAT is "level" on the playing field? No, the SCOTUS ruling NOW gives us a level playing field, all entities are treaty the same, whether they are corporations, organizations, activist groups, unions, or whatever. They ALL have the exact same rights to do the exact same things, no one is excluded, no one is given special consideration, it is all completely fair and impartial with regard to who has access to political speech in America... as it should be!
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that regurgitating moot points and past claims that have already been discussed will magicaly make your assertions valid? The chronology of the posts clearly shows that this tactic of yours doesn't hide your inability to logically and factually disprove or refute my responses and source material. Like all intellectually bankrupt neocons, you just ignore what you don't like and parrot the party line ad nauseum. Unfortunately for you, the posts show how poorly that tactic works for you. But do carry on.....you make my argument with each diatribe.
 
Nope... Corporations are inanimate, they don't "DO" anything! EVER! NEVER EVER EVER!! It is ALWAYS, without fault, 100% of the time, PEOPLE who belong to a corporation, who do things. Corporations themselves, have NO power or ability to "DO" a damn thing on their own. Sorry you were disillusioned.

Well toodles, then you better hop to and inform every investment bank, their lawyers, and their corporate clients and their lawyers in the 50 states about this...and then try to re-write all the legal decisions throughout history that have given corporations certain rights equivocal to the individual citizen (check my previous links)....because LONG before you and I came on the seen they've been acting exactly opposite of what as far as LEGAL, BUSINESS ACTIONS. See genius, no one said the corporation was alive per se, but they have been given LEGAL RIGHTS on par with people in certain instances. Comprende? If not, get an adult to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I comprende... Corporations have no animate ability, they are comprised of people, and people have Constitutional rights to freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

I have had 5 adults explain it to me, they sit on the Supreme Court. I've read their findings, I have read their opinion, and I support it 100%, as do many other Americans who see it as a victory for Free Speech. You've not made an argument for why it shouldn't be a victory for Free Speech, you've just continued in blind stubbornness to insist that corporations are some sort of non-human thing that they aren't. A Corporation is comprised of people, that IS what it IS... it can't "do" anything, only THE PEOPLE OF the corporation can do things. Maybe you should get an adult to explain it to you, because you seem very confused about this!
 
Nope... Corporations are inanimate, they don't "DO" anything! EVER! NEVER EVER EVER!! It is ALWAYS, without fault, 100% of the time, PEOPLE who belong to a corporation, who do things. Corporations themselves, have NO power or ability to "DO" a damn thing on their own. Sorry you were disillusioned.

Well toodles, then you better hop to and inform every investment bank, their lawyers, and their corporate clients and their lawyers in the 50 states about this...and then try to re-write all the legal decisions throughout history that have given corporations certain rights equivocal to the individual citizen (check my previous links)....because LONG before you and I came on the seen they've been acting exactly opposite of what as far as LEGAL, BUSINESS ACTIONS. See genius, no one said the corporation was alive per se, but they have been given LEGAL RIGHTS on par with people in certain instances. Comprende? If not, get an adult to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Yes, I comprende... Corporations have no animate ability, they are comprised of people, and people have Constitutional rights to freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

I have had 5 adults explain it to me, they sit on the Supreme Court. I've read their findings, I have read their opinion, and I support it 100%, as do many other Americans who see it as a victory for Free Speech. You've not made an argument for why it shouldn't be a victory for Free Speech, you've just continued in blind stubbornness to insist that corporations are some sort of non-human thing that they aren't. A Corporation is comprised of people, that IS what it IS... it can't "do" anything, only THE PEOPLE OF the corporation can do things. Maybe you should get an adult to explain it to you, because you seem very confused about this!
Click to expand...


"no one said the corporation was alive per se, but they have been given LEGAL RIGHTS on par with people in certain instances."

Oh GROW UP, you little coward. You cannot refute or disprove what I state, the logic derived from the facts, the source material and how I disproved all the dodgy bullshit and distortions you throw out. So all you do is just REPEAT AD NAUSEUM the exact same thing.... a rehash of moot points while ignoring/denying what I've posted.

In effect, you're just an petulant child who stubbornly refuses to honestly discuss a subject and admit when you're wrong. By your mindset, you're having the last word/repetition wins the debate. So be it. the chronology of the thread here is your undoing. You're done.
 
evince said:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=1&hp


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
Click to expand...

right wing evil
 
why have your republican turds not fixed this with legislation ?


because they dont want this country democratic
 
evince said:
why have your republican turds not fixed this with legislation ?
Click to expand...

are you too stupid to be able to think for yourself? so much so, that you need 'legislation' to do it for you?

don't answer that, it was rhetorical. we already know you're too stupid to think for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top