Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
But you do agree that corporations have the ability to way outspend the other orgs you have mentioned.
Can you just admit that?
Were fucking owned
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
But you do agree that corporations have the ability to way outspend the other orgs you have mentioned.
Can you just admit that?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no, i don't know that
in fact, the corp at issue in the case only had a 12 million dollar annual budget....i'm nearly 100% positive the DNC or other groups easily raise that kind of money
the "ability" ....are you then opposed to bill gates making political ads, because he has the "ability" to outspend most corporations.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lmao....yet you have no problem with the DNC buying airtime....they list themselves on their website as a corporation
Copyright © 1995-2009 DNC Services Corporation
Rubbish, 527s allowed the corps to spend as much as they wanted anyway. It's silly to ignore reality so that you can predict doom in whatever form you expect from your deluded point of view. Ignorance of reality is not a virtue. What you predict won't happen, we have the evidence of the past to point to that shows that corps spend on both sides, they don't belong to a party.
This doesn't mean I think that the decision was the right one, just that you are deluding yourself into fear mode for no reason based on your own from of irreality...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
if you are going to continue lying, there is no further point in discussing this issue with you. you claimed you wanted to end the bs and debate, i spend time answering you, taking the time giving you specific cites, sections from the case and my personal opinion on the issue and all you have to say is "damo answered for you"
that is flat out a lie. and you know it. your choice....
"DNC Services Corporation" is a corporation that in all likelihood is merely an intellectual property owner. This is not evidence that the "Democratic National Committee" is a corporation.
cawacko
Well-known member
We've seen what unions and people like George Soros are willing to do. Of course because they support what you believe that isn't a concern to you.
During the 2000's the Republicans thought just like you do, that they would have a perminent majority. How did that turn out for them?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
as i said, i am not sure they are a corporation, but they DNC services corp stands for the democratic national committee or DNC and was formed in 1848 according to this link:
http://www.answers.com/topic/dnc-service-corporation
like i also said, even if they are not a corporation, they can and do raise 10's, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars for candidates and they are allowed air time....me thinks they as biased, if not more biased, than any corporation....
if you are worried about corporations unduly influencing our political process, then we should ban all orgs, groups from making political speech or ads
evince
Truthmatters
Pretty fucking well seeing as how they got just who they needed on the SCOTUS to give them this result huh?
Democrats dont have a chance to be elected.
They will either call themselves Dems and do the corporate bidding or call themselves republicans and do the corporate bidding.
Either way they are a permenant majority that represents what you guys want and not what me and most of the country would vote for.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
It was this way before you woke up. The state and corporations are a monolithic entity focused on keeping the rest of us subjugated. Yes, The state too. sorry to burst your lib bubble.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
You know. Maybe if you lefties had defended individualism over all other forms of collectivism, we wouldn't headed this way.
But you think individualism is evil. So now we're seeing the results of preferring abstractions over real individuals.
But you think individualism is evil. So now we're seeing the results of preferring abstractions over real individuals.
It's huge, but even more telling is what percentage goes to Democrats:
Since 1990, unions have contributed $667 million, of which $614 million, or 92%, has gone to Democrats.
In 2008, $74.5 million was contributed with $68.3 going to the Democrats. Just in 2010, $6.5 million has been contributed with $6 million of that going to the Democrats.
http://www.aier.org/research/briefs...friends-government-spending-and-union-support
Good Luck
New member
That's the way it has been for over 100 years. Your diatribe is pure "woe is me because I am stupid" bullshit and in complete disregard for the facts.
Central fact #1: this decision has NOTHING to do with corporate ability to contribute money to a political campaign. What the decision did do is state that corporations cannot be legally limited in their direct expenditures in the expression of political matters. Since any limitation on direct political address could not be applied to MSM corporations without violating free press guarantees, equal application of law requirements make it impossible to limit other corporations from the same ability to express themselves in political matters.
Central fact #2: The MSM - most of which is corporate controlled in case you have forgotten - had no problem not only accepting Obama campaign ads at twice the rate as McCain's, but also published or broadcast on their own initiative positive stories about Obama at twice the rate. Are you aware of how many times Obama graced the cover of Time magazine during the 2008 election? He appeared not quite twice as often as Clinton during the primaries, and more than twice as often as McCain - and that includes when Clinton and McCain were exposed in a negative light. So much for your "Democrats don't have a chance to be elected." lies.
Central fact #3: Both republican politicians and democratic politicians are ALREADY fully and completely beholden to their corporate masters, as is evidenced by the democratic party's trillion dollar give-away to insurance companies laughingly pedaled as "health Care Reform". So nothing is changing in that venue.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, a political satire group started a series of radio ads called "Billionaires for Bush and Gore" The tagline of their ads was "We don't care who you vote for - we've bought 'em both". They were probably the most accurate ads ever aired in a political campaign.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
excellent point
but you will not hear libs like onceler, evince, nigel complaining about that because it benefits their political agenda. they are up in arms over this ruling because they incorrectly fear that corporations will give more money to repubs. it is exactly why you don't hear them complaining about the part of the ruling that allows unions to do the same thing, because they know unions spend on liberal issues at a rate far greater than corps spend on either party
You keep trying - desperately - to find this hypocrisy in me on this issue. I don't care what benefits my political agenda when it comes to the issue of campaign finance. This is a long thread, and I have posted quite a bit on it, and have been very clear not to make it a partisan issue at all; Republicans do it, Democrats do it - money in politics, at the level it is at now, corrupts both parties and the system to an unacceptable degree. I don't fear that it will benefit Republicans more than Democrats, either - and I made that point to Desh.
It's so typical Yurtie to jump all over the board in some sort of caffeine-induced frenzy, demading of every liberal poster "what about Obama's campaign ad? Huh? Huh?" Like a 12-year-old. I hated the money Obama had this past campaign, and the amount that it takes to run a Presidential campaign in general. Ask our Libertarian friends on the board what this does to the prospects for any 3rd party to ever become viable in politics.
This isn't speech; it's corporate ownership of government. If you don't want to wake up, that's fine, but cool the jets on the "hypocrisy police" BS.
