Were fucking owned

evince said:
He was the first black candidate you asswinks.

He was a much better selling story than an old wrinkled white man.

The MSM is corporate owned.

I'm sure they are real sad about this decision
Click to expand...

MSM might really be sad about the decision...
Media Corporations had the sole right to blast us with left wing bullshit on MSNBC for years...now they might get come competition from non-media corporations....:good4u:
 
scalia's concurrence states what i have been saying re other orgs in a more eloquent fashion:

The dissent says that when the Framers “constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” Post, at 37. That is no doubt true. All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women—not, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons . Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not “an individual American.”
Click to expand...

what say you to that?
 
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/janqtr/11cfr110.20.htm

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.


hmmmm...this throws a monkey wrench into things
 
evince said:
Why is it hate to not want non Americans to own our government?
Click to expand...

you mean like china? buying political ads does not equate with government ownership, i guess what you're saying is, obama owns the government because he raised the most political funds and paid for the most expensive political ads....

nice job :good4u:
 
A corporation is not a citizen and wont have his papers checked.

All it has to be is under US laws be an American co.

It doesnt matter who the major stock holders are.
 
Yurt said:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/janqtr/11cfr110.20.htm

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection
with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly,
make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or
expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in
connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political
committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national
shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national
party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a
State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal
account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the
organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.


hmmmm...this throws a monkey wrench into things
Click to expand...

Not really, unless you can find something in the ruling that excludes foreign corporations. There is an article in Newsweek today saying that foreign corps may actually be the biggest beneficiaries of the new ruling...
 
Dixie said:
Why is it you live in some warped fantasy world where all American corporations are owned by foreigners? Do we not have ANY American-owned corporations in America? Do they not have any money? Where do you come up with your convoluted thinking?
Click to expand...

The majority of what are considered "large businesses" are now owned by foreign entities.
 
Epicurus said:
Doesn't seem to bother any of you that it was the legally correct ruling.

It definitely produces some unpleasant results, but it is the judiciary's job to interpret the law as it is written. They did that, and correctly in this case.

It is incumbent upon the legislature to enact such reforms as may be necessary. Your gripe should be with them. The Supreme Court was absolutely correct on this issue. If you don't like the way the laws are, press for a constitutional amendment to change it. Don't go griping about the Supreme Court just because they won't pretend a law is constitutional when it isn't. Change it.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

People whine about activist judges, then whine when they only judge a case based on the existing laws.
 
Onceler said:
Not really, unless you can find something in the ruling that excludes foreign corporations. There is an article in Newsweek today saying that foreign corps may actually be the biggest beneficiaries of the new ruling...
Click to expand...

imo, the case did not touch upon those laws....i think it easily could become an issue...those laws are very strenuous concerning foreign involvement in elections...

if scotus is treating the corps as a person with 1st amendment rights, then it conflicts with federal election laws and since scotus did not rule those laws unconstitutional, i would say the issue is ripe for consideration...

let me take a moment to thank damo for writing the above post, i have no original thoughts and without damo i would not be able to think
 
Yurt said:
imo, the case did not touch upon those laws....i think it easily could become an issue...those laws are very strenuous concerning foreign involvement in elections...

if scotus is treating the corps as a person with 1st amendment rights, then it conflicts with federal election laws and since scotus did not rule those laws unconstitutional, i would say the issue is ripe for consideration...

let me take a moment to thank damo for writing the above post, i have no original thoughts and without damo i would not be able to think
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say just Damo. There are a few other posters you rip off from time to time.

But he's certainly the one you cheerlead the most...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top