Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

Superfreak said:
Battle of the dimwits

This topic has been played to death on this board and in the media.

They have the RIGHT to build the friggin mosque.

Others have the RIGHT to ask them to consider a different location and express their opinions on the matter.

Period.
Click to expand...

And islam should be illegalized. Yep. Those are the main points.
 
WinterBorn said:
There are already restrictions on campaign contributions, and there are already restrictions on where churches can build.

The allowance of corporations to donate as individuals is a loophole that defeats the purpose of the campaign donation restrictions.

The restrictions on building within a city were already met and dealt with before the hoopla starts.



The corporations, if allowed to donate as individuals, can basically buy an election (or at the very least a politician). This is exactly why the campaign restrictions are in place.

But to deny the private owners of land the right to build what they want after having cleared all the building code hurdles, based solely on those people's religion, is exactly why the founding fathers wrote the first amendment.
Click to expand...

If you are going to let unions (groups of individuals with a common purpose/goal) contribute unlimited amounts, then there is no difference with allowing corporations (groups of individuals with a common goal/purpost) to do the same.

If I were able to write the law... no corporation or union would be allowed to contribute.

If PACs are formed, the PACs would be required to disclose every single donation. The combined donations to PACs would be limited to a set figure each year. That way people like Murdoch and Soros etc... couldn't manipulate elections with their vast resources.

Just look at the benefits Petreobas (Soros holds a billion dollar position in it) is getting from the 'moratorium' on deep water drilling. Take a look at where those rigs (now suddenly available) are heading. Then take a look at what the government is investing in the BRAZILIAN deep water projects (deeper than Horizon by the way).

It is not just corporations we have to look out for. Ask CA residents whether unions can influence elections with their vast resources (funny that when the federal government bails out public union workers jobs... it keeps money flowing into the union political campaign coffers... which benefits whom?)
 
UOTE=Superfreak;698860]If you are going to let unions (groups of individuals with a common purpose/goal) contribute unlimited amounts, then there is no difference with allowing corporations (groups of individuals with a common goal/purpost) to do the same.

If I were able to write the law... no corporation or union would be allowed to contribute.
Click to expand...

i could agree with that...i think citizens though was about unions and corps, however, as usual, the scotus was somewhat vague on unions, but they were treated the same during parts of the opinion

If PACs are formed, the PACs would be required to disclose every single donation. The combined donations to PACs would be limited to a set figure each year. That way people like Murdoch and Soros etc... couldn't manipulate elections with their vast resources.
Click to expand...

they do anyways...

Just look at the benefits Petreobas (Soros holds a billion dollar position in it) is getting from the 'moratorium' on deep water drilling. Take a look at where those rigs (now suddenly available) are heading. Then take a look at what the government is investing in the BRAZILIAN deep water projects (deeper than Horizon by the way).

It is not just corporations we have to look out for. Ask CA residents whether unions can influence elections with their vast resources (funny that when the federal government bails out public union workers jobs... it keeps money flowing into the union political campaign coffers... which benefits whom?)
Click to expand...

absolutely right on the last part
 
AssHatZombie said:
We're not on the same side. You stuck in fascism mode. I am your father.
Click to expand...

celebrity-pictures-yoda-much-fail.jpg
 
Yurt said:
i could agree with that...i think citizens though was about unions and corps, however, as usual, the scotus was somewhat vague on unions, but they were treated the same during parts of the opinion



they do anyways...



absolutely right on the last part
Click to expand...

One correction to your above, where you said, they do anyways... at this time there is no limit on what individuals can contribute to PACs in general. There needs to be.
 
Superfreak said:
One correction to your above, where you said, they do anyways... at this time there is no limit on what individuals can contribute to PACs in general. There needs to be.
Click to expand...

i see what you're saying, you want to void the disclosure part where the pac's disclose and simply say X is from individuals, when we don't know if its one or a hundred and one being soros....is that right?
 
The corporations, if allowed to donate as individuals, can basically buy an election (or at the very least a politician). This is exactly why the campaign restrictions are in place.

But to deny the private owners of land the right to build what they want after having cleared all the building code hurdles, based solely on those people's religion, is exactly why the founding fathers wrote the first amendment.
Click to expand...

But that is the dichotomy here, in one instance, you want to apply the Constitution, in the other, you don't think it should apply. Now personally, I believe the Constitution applies to corporations, because corporations are comprised of individuals. The 1st Amnd applies to corporations regarding campaign contribution, or building mosques. But some Liberals previously expressed a sentiment very different from me, on the corporations having the right to contribute to politics. In that case, faux outrage ensued, and they were appalled that corporations were given "human rights!" Now, with the mosque, the "corporate" entity (mosque building group, inc.) must be granted "human rights" from the very same 1st Amendment, there isn't even any questioning of this.

...Explanations???
 
Yurt said:
i see what you're saying, you want to void the disclosure part where the pac's disclose and simply say X is from individuals, when we don't know if its one or a hundred and one being soros....is that right?
Click to expand...

That AND limit the amount a Soros/Murdoch can give to ALL PACs combined.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Prepare to be assimilated.
Click to expand...

No. I will destroy the structural memes of any collective seeking to absorb me. Except for The good Ole USA. We're a collective. Nations are a collective too, that's the point, but when fascists abuse collective trust for short term gain which harms all others, but then still expect the support of the collective, they are sorely mistaken on what the people will accept.
 
Dixie said:
But that is the dichotomy here, in one instance, you want to apply the Constitution, in the other, you don't think it should apply. Now personally, I believe the Constitution applies to corporations, because corporations are comprised of individuals. The 1st Amnd applies to corporations regarding campaign contribution, or building mosques. But some Liberals previously expressed a sentiment very different from me, on the corporations having the right to contribute to politics. In that case, faux outrage ensued, and they were appalled that corporations were given "human rights!" Now, with the mosque, the "corporate" entity (mosque building group, inc.) must be granted "human rights" from the very same 1st Amendment, there isn't even any questioning of this.

...Explanations???
Click to expand...

So no one really has an explanation? That's what I figured!

You see, I think this is one of those issues the right has failed miserably at communication on. From the outset, the debate has been framed by the left, as if those opposed to the mosque are somehow in favor of violating constitutional rights to freedom of worship. We should have stood up from the very start and popped them in the mouth with this repeatedly, until they were too bloody to speak anymore! It never has been about religious freedom, but if THAT is what the left is standing for, why weren't they standing to defend the same exact 1st Amendment rights for corporations to contribute to political campaigns? You can't have it both ways! You can't insist that some entities deserve constitutional protections, while others can go pound sand! Either the 1st Amendment applies to ALL such entities, or it doesn't, we can't establish double standards and only apply the constitution to these entities when we feel compelled.

I think the mosque builders have a right to build, but I also think those opposed to it, have a right to try to stop them from building it. Liberals seem to think there is some mandate by the constitution to prohibit anyone from contesting the mosque, and the 'corporate entity' building the mosque, is protected unequivocally. Okay.... but that means corporations wanting to donate to political campaigns should also enjoy the same 1st amendment constitutional right to freedom of speech.
 
Ditzy, your question has been answered. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that politicians are not corrupted. This case is nothing like CFR. At this point the only motivation would be to limit or infringe upon a fundamental right.

But, wait we can pretend it was really because they want to build a hospital, right?
 
RStringfield said:
Ditzy, your question has been answered. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that politicians are not corrupted. This case is nothing like CFR. At this point the only motivation would be to limit or infringe upon a fundamental right.

But, wait we can pretend it was really because they want to build a hospital, right?
Click to expand...

What the dog fuck are you even yammering about? The State has absolutely NO interest in EITHER case. This is about XYZ, Inc. who wants to donate to a politician or build a mosque. In one instance, the 1st Amendment protects them, in the other, it doesn't. I asked for an explanation, and you start in on some stupidity about "state interest" which doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with this.
 
Dixie said:
What the dog fuck are you even yammering about? The State has absolutely NO interest in EITHER case. This is about XYZ, Inc. who wants to donate to a politician or build a mosque. In one instance, the 1st Amendment protects them, in the other, it doesn't. I asked for an explanation, and you start in on some stupidity about "state interest" which doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with this.
Click to expand...

That's what he does. He introduces a straw man to conflate the argument. His other tactic is split an unimportant hair to distract when he is cornered...and last but not least he plays the intellectually dishonest card of claiming you were arguing something you were not.

He's a dishonest asshole :)
 
The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that politicians are not corrupted.
Click to expand...

This is just asinine beyond belief! The state has no such obligation or compunction. Please show me ANY damn thing from ANY founding document, where you discerned the state has the responsibility to ensure politicians aren't corrupt? They can certainly prosecute those who are found to be corrupt, but you said they have an interest to "ensure" that politician aren't corrupt... how do they do that, exactly? The PEOPLE elect the politicians, not the STATE! It is entirely up to THE PEOPLE to determine if a politician is corrupt, not the STATE! Hell, who was the fucker that actually ran for office from prison not too long ago? I don't think he won, but still, he ran.. the state didn't "ensure" he couldn't run, they had nothing to say about it. You're about retarded with this idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top