Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Yurt said:
so there were no government created corps around at that time?
Click to expand...

Not in the British Empire. The two corporations that settled America were the Virginia Company of London (hence, Virginia) and the Virginia Company of Plymouth (hence, Plymouth Rock, later rechartered as Mass. Bay Colony. Both were exclusively chartered by the Crown. Later charters reached into Penn., Maryland, the Carolinas, and so forth.

There were monopolies chartered all over the world, in the West Indies, East Indies, Africa, Balkans, Middle East, Russia, East Europe, etc.
 
Yurt said:
no, i specifically said airwaves such as tv and radio. granted, this might only work until the internet is completely meshed with tv.

the point is.........the ADS. obama was able to afford a half hour of prime time commercial for his campaign. that is stellar, something only corporations or other deep pockets can afford. and obama is just the beginning, he just set the playing the field as did all the other ever higher spending candidates before him. next up........the BILLION dollar campaign.

disclosure law, sure, you mean like those auction quick voices at the end of a 30 second commercial?

this is not just about holding a politician accountable dixie, this is about giving americans the most open, fair and knowledgable political process.
Click to expand...

The most open fair and knowledgeable political process is one where there are no limits or restrictions and everything is above the board for all to see. It's not "open" if the money can come from anonymous sources through 527 groups because they can't get it to the candidate any other way... it's not "fair" when one group of deep pockets is able to fund a campaign and another group is forbidden from it. We are not more "knowledgeable" if we don't have full disclosure of where the money is coming from.

Holding the politician accountable? That's what I said! That's exactly what we SHOULD be doing! Rather than restricting and regulating who can give what and how much, why not hold the politician accountable? ...Mr. Candidate, why did you accept $2 million from XYZ Corporation? Mr. Candidate, do you think it's appropriate for political leaders who supposedly represent "the people" to be accepting these big campaign contributions from special interests? By having transparency and full disclosure, and holding the politician accountable, you can combat corruption in politics and at least begin to fix the problems.
 
For internationalist fascists hiding behind the constitution:


Doesn't the very existence of our nation imply federal responsibility to control the borders?
 
What Unites America Across Party Lines? Bad SCOTUS Rulings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

More at link...
 
Yurt said:
i agree....

that is why i think we should limit ALL political spending. if you want to get out and plaster posters to telephone poles, go for it. but let's be honest, he or she who controls the airwaves (tv, radio) has a vastly stronger chance of winning an election.

the liberals in california are hypocritically running or are going to run i don't remember, ads about ex ebay ceo whitman spending her personal fortune on the election, they are accusing her of "buying" the election. now, i haven't seen the ads, so i'll leave it at that. but you can't tell me mccain knew and you knew, he was at a major disadvantage simply because obama had hundreds of millions more than mccain to spend on advertisements.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Look at how much money was sent and divide by the number of Americans and you'll be able buy everyone a Happy Meal and not much else. Even dirt-poor people spend more on cigarettes in a day then they spend on a political campaign that happens once in four years.

The airways are no longer controlled by three corporations. Today you have hundreds of channels, satellite and HD radio, and the internet. Information is cheap, and its no loner expensive or time consuming to cut through the bullshit and figure out what a candidate really stands for.
 
Threedee said:
Right, because we live in a box...
Click to expand...

Borders = living in a box? How do you figure, Amiga?


if national existence is arbitrary and not based on geography, I believe the federal government has no claim to enforce it's laws on me.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Not in the British Empire. The two corporations that settled America were the Virginia Company of London (hence, Virginia) and the Virginia Company of Plymouth (hence, Plymouth Rock, later rechartered as Mass. Bay Colony. Both were exclusively chartered by the Crown. Later charters reached into Penn., Maryland, the Carolinas, and so forth.

There were monopolies chartered all over the world, in the West Indies, East Indies, Africa, Balkans, Middle East, Russia, East Europe, etc.
Click to expand...

what is the fundamental differences between companies and corps then?
 
Yurt said:
what is the fundamental differences between companies and corps then?
Click to expand...

There wasn't a distinction, because I don't believe the term corporation was in use. The distinction was all about by what authority a company (particularly a large company) came into existence. Did if have a Royal Charter from the Crown, or was it some joint venture created by people with means (and probably those started up by people with titles were given more credence)? Some charters granted by the Crown were given greater autonomy than others, as well.

The Virginia Co. of Plymouth was originally chartered to some businessmen for American territory to the north of the VC of London. They went out to settle the territory and fled from Indian attacks never to return. The charter just sat on a shelf somewhere unused until a group of Puritan lawyers, led by Winthrop, discovered its existence and purchased it from the crown for themselves, under the new name, Massachusetts Bay Colony. That is an illustration of how the system worked.

During the short reign of James II, the King plotted to take over the colonies with strict Royal Charters (the existing ones were of a different category, and more autonomous). One was to be a Royal Colony of all New England. Needless to say, the colonists were really happy when James II was ousted in the Glorious Revolution and salutary neglect was restored to America for another 80 years.
 
There were basically three types of colonies:

Royal - owned and run directly by the Crown through appointed governors.

Proprietary - these were the most independent of the crown, and could be governed as the proprietors saw fit.

Charter - granted to individuals by the Crown for private use but with at least some strings attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top