Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
on my dumbest day i make you look like a mental pocket basket
Congress Shall Make NO LAW....
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
on my dumbest day i make you look like a mental pocket basket
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
good one?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So the premise of your argument now has been reduced to... People aren't smart enough to be informed, so we must allow government to regulate what they hear?
LMFAOOOoooo.... keep this going, please!!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yep....azzhattle loves fascism
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
They're smart enough. they just won't check. So damo's solution is bullshit.
I know you think if they don't check then they "deserve what they get". I like to do what's good for people even when they aren't watching, and corporate america's wishes are NOT necessarily what's good for the majority of americans. Though it is true many people work at corporations, this doesn't mean the message the CEO wants to put out is also what they want also.
Many times management wishes is at odds with labor and even customers.
Being mandated by government to purchase products is starting to happen now with health insurance. And they're also shipping all the jobs overseas.
In many ways the desires of big companies are hostile to the rights of customers and employees. Though of course, you believe corporations are morally pure entities.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
azzhattle is a fascist who wants the government to suppress political speech because the masses are stupid
OK~~~I am being persuaded to be pro-SCOTUS on this ruling. Ahzhat brought up the question of "foreign" corporate owners in American companies being able to influence the elctorate more due to this ruling; can anyone address this?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
YOU IMBECILE! Your first sentence contradicts your next paragraph!
My point is that the SCOTUS just reversed nearly a century of laws and rulings which kept corporate/union influence on our electoral system to a minimum. Also, Corporations and unions have NEVER been treating as a separate entity onto themselves. Now they are, which is pretty odd given that shareholders don't get a vote as to what the executive board decides the corporation should politically support, do they? Unions do, corporations don't. But as individuals, the corps are given RIGHTS LIKE A PERSON. If you don't understand how dangerous that is, then get an adult to explain it to you.
And here's something to clarify your distorted take on what this decision does to McCain-Feingold
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/01/21/general-us-supreme-court-campaign-finance_7292002.html
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
azzhattle is right, the ruling leaves open the question of foreign owned corps. it goes against federal law, i posted it earlier, and IMO, since the court did not address the issue, the issue is still ripe and throws a monkey wrench into the ruling.
damo's opinion that this can all be dealt with this strict background on corps is well and good, however, corporations, especially huge corporations, can easily create so many shell corporations that verifying if a corp is foreign owned or not will really be impractical. and then, what if just one shareholder is foreign? is there going to be a percentage?
i believe free speech trumps these concerns. political speech is one of the most important types of speech in our country's history.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let's clear up a few things, we aren't talking about giving corporations the right to pass laws and appoint political representatives. That seems to be your take, and that's just not what the case is here. Whatever 'message' the CEO wants to put out, is up to him, and his right to free speech can't be abridged by the Congress! What part of that are you having trouble understanding? Again, we are not talking about corporations being able to pass laws and elect people to office, we still maintain our right as citizens to call the shots on that. Corporations were not given the right to vote or special legislative privileges, despite what some moron pinhead lefties might be putting out there!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
by the way, if money is the issue....i see noting in the ruling that says congress cannot put spending limits on political speech. perhaps that is a good thing. while people whine about corps, those same people (most) had nary a problem with obama's prime time political ad about himself....because he did not take public financing as he promised....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nahhh... not a whole century's worth... Has the War on The 1st Amendment been going on THAT long? I hadn't realized progressives had so infiltrated our rights, but if you say so!!
No, corporations were given the same rights as other groups, like unions, PAC's, 527's, .ORG's, and such. They WERE being treated as a separate entity and denied their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. And shareholders most certainly have the power to hold the Board of Directors and CEO accountable for ANY action effecting the shareholders.
I did get an adult to explain it to me... Justice Anthony Kennedy... he explained it very well to me, and I am sorry you feel the 1st Amendment is dangerous... maybe you should start the movement to have it repealed?
Oh, and I don't need to read about what this ruling did to McCain-Feingold, I already know... it neutered it... completely destroyed it because it was unconstitutional. I was one of the people screaming this at McCain when his stupid pandering ass was pushing it! Now, it's DEAD! Just like McCain's political future!
Why do you keep bring up Obama's ad? No one has a problem with it because his campaign paid for it. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Honestly, this whole conversation, since the ruling, has been kind of surprising to me.
I'm not saying this in a patronizing way (or, at least, I hope I'm not), but I realize that millions of Americans are too busy with their lives & work & families to get caught up in politics & issues like this one all the time; most people, imo, tend to be pretty apolitical until election time rolls around every couple of years. I don't expect most people to have an understanding of how deep & destructive the corporate influence on our government & ideals is, though I do think most people have an inkling.
This board, however, is filled with political junkies; people who are consumed with this stuff. How is it possible that so many here don't seem to understand how entrenched corporations are in our elections & legislation, or (even worse), get it, but are okay with it, and with the idea of ever-increasing influence?
It's bizarre....
I'm not saying this in a patronizing way (or, at least, I hope I'm not), but I realize that millions of Americans are too busy with their lives & work & families to get caught up in politics & issues like this one all the time; most people, imo, tend to be pretty apolitical until election time rolls around every couple of years. I don't expect most people to have an understanding of how deep & destructive the corporate influence on our government & ideals is, though I do think most people have an inkling.
This board, however, is filled with political junkies; people who are consumed with this stuff. How is it possible that so many here don't seem to understand how entrenched corporations are in our elections & legislation, or (even worse), get it, but are okay with it, and with the idea of ever-increasing influence?
It's bizarre....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
money. you keep complaining about money from corps unfairly influencing elections. obama had approx. 7 times the amount of campaign money that mccain had. mccain could not afford a half hour of prime time that undoubtedly cost millions of dollars. where is your outrage that obama had an unfair advantage to influence our national elections? it doesn't matter if the money came from individual donors, if the issue you have with corps is money, then it shouldn't matter who the speaker is.
make sense now....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and yet you're ok with a candidate who has 600 million dollars to spend vs. a candidate who has only 87 million dollars so spend.....
that you don't see the irony at best or hyp0crisy at worst, is truly bizarre....what has become clear to me is that most people, not necessarily you, are against this solely because of the speaker, not the money, if it was the money, there should be equal outrage over such a lopsided run for president.....
And you're basing that on the # of times I have said how disgusted I was by the amount of money Obama had in 2008?
God, you're an idiot. A full-blown idiot.
Way to go....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
And you're basing that on the # of times I have said how disgusted I was by the amount of money Obama had in 2008?
God, you're an idiot. A full-blown idiot.
Way to go....
lets see a post then....because all you've done in this thread is whine that i would bring it up. if you agree with me, why are you whining about it? your words indicate you disagree with me. try honesty, it makes things clearer.
I guess it makes sense but I still think it's a shitty argument. Your basic argument boils down to "since one candidate gets more money in donations from real people, corporations should be allowed to engaged in electioneering activities." It isn't a very good argument.
And it may not matter to you that Obama's money came from real people. It matters to me. That's a fundamental difference of opinion on which we can agree to disagree. To quote Justice Rehnquist, you're confusing metaphor with reality. I like reality.