APP - Defend Citizens United

Rana said:
No, individuals still have their rights, they don't need the double rights as a corporation and no, individuals may speak and donate, they don't get two rights, just one per person.
Click to expand...

Oh good then! So you don't need rights both as a person, and as a women then, right? And we can get rid of groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood? Women's reproductive rights... out the window, sister, you only get ONE right per person, that's what you said.
 
Dixie said:
Oh good then! So you don't need rights both as a person, and as a women then, right? And we can get rid of groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood? Women's reproductive rights... out the window, sister, you only get ONE right per person, that's what you said.
Click to expand...

That just doesn't make sense, Dixie.
 
Rana said:
That just doesn't make sense, Dixie.
Click to expand...

What do you mean it doesn't make sense, you had just posted that people only get ONE right, they didn't get DOUBLE rights. If that is the case, you get your PEOPLE right, you don't get your WOMAN right too! These "corporations" who represent the viewpoint of women in matters of politics, are unconstitutional, according to you... they don't get DOUBLE rights, just one per person.

Look pinheads... let's cut to the chase... if Citizens United had been a liberal pro-choice advocacy corporation, putting out a video expose on Bush and how he was pro-life and wanted to prevent women from having abortions, and they were denied the right to distribute their video... you would all be laying in the streets screaming in agony over the injustice of it! The video in question, was an expose on Hillary Clinton, and Citizens United was found to be within their constitutional rights to distribute it. Therefore, you don't like that. We get it! Still, the ruling was appropriate and didn't CHANGE anything that wasn't already the case before 2002.
 
Threedee said:
Don't give a shit about the APP rules. This thread should have been posted elsewhere to begin with.
Click to expand...

"Repeat offenders/those that show blatant disregard for the criteria, or those that are particularly nasty will be silenced from the forum for a amount of time deemed appropriate by mods after taking all the facts into consideration"
 
Dixie said:
What do you mean it doesn't make sense, you had just posted that people only get ONE right, they didn't get DOUBLE rights. If that is the case, you get your PEOPLE right, you don't get your WOMAN right too! These "corporations" who represent the viewpoint of women in matters of politics, are unconstitutional, according to you... they don't get DOUBLE rights, just one per person.

Look pinheads... let's cut to the chase... if Citizens United had been a liberal pro-choice advocacy corporation, putting out a video expose on Bush and how he was pro-life and wanted to prevent women from having abortions, and they were denied the right to distribute their video... you would all be laying in the streets screaming in agony over the injustice of it! The video in question, was an expose on Hillary Clinton, and Citizens United was found to be within their constitutional rights to distribute it. Therefore, you don't like that. We get it! Still, the ruling was appropriate and didn't CHANGE anything that wasn't already the case before 2002.
Click to expand...

I am one person, who happens to be a woman, you know you are being ridiculous.
 
Wow, so easy to go off topic. Guess I have to try harder.
Back to CU. Can anyone defend this heinous abberation?
 
Yurt said:
first off, you continue to show your ignorance by claiming "money" in and of itself is speech. that is not what the ruling held. no wonder you don't have a clue what you're talking about. the case was about ORGANIZATIONS SPENDING money.

let us examine the first amendment:



are corporations or other organizations denied the right to petition the government for redress? to peaceably assemble? of course not. in fact, YOU and other liberals cry foul when unions tried to organize but were denied at some event in WI. you would not deny unions the right of redress or assembly. therefore, how is it you can deny them the exercise of speech in political campaigns.

FACT: when unions spend millions, liberal have zero problem with it. (except nigel). the only issue is - who - is spending the money.

CONCLUSION: liberals are hypocrites on this issue and cannot support their stance that citizens was a bad decision. corps cannot give directly, they can only advertise their opinions. this is a two way street given their ads must be disclosed. if they make an ad, customers are free to not give their business. if you want to deny corporations the exercise of speech in politics, then you MUST also deny ANY AND ALL organizations the exercise of that right.
Click to expand...

here it is rune.

now, can you place yourself above your pettiness, since you posted this in APP, and address the points?
 
G R I N D said:
"Repeat offenders/those that show blatant disregard for the criteria, or those that are particularly nasty will be silenced from the forum for a amount of time deemed appropriate by mods after taking all the facts into consideration"
Click to expand...

Understood.

Well, now people are starting to see what I meant by stating that this topic should have been posted elsewhere. Look's like Dune's constant trolling is not allowed on this forum, either.
 
Threedee said:
Understood.

Well, now people are starting to see what I meant by stating that this topic should have been posted elsewhere. Look's like Dune's constant trolling is not allowed on this forum, either.
Click to expand...

Are you calling yurt, people? ;)
 
Rana said:
I am one person, who happens to be a woman, you know you are being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'M not being ridiculous, I am simply applying the standard YOU suggested, that people only get ONE right. I know you didn't suggest we have a 'double standard' did you? Where people who are part of a corporation don't get "double rights" but women who are part of a group advocating for women DO get them? Because that would be unconstitutional, you can't have rights I don't have, based on your political philosophy.

As I said... IF Citizens had been distributing a pro-choice expose on Bush and his pro-life positions, would you have been equally opposed to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Citizens? Would you have argued they didn't have the right to make this information public so the voters could decide? I seriously doubt it, which is why you are hypocrites and totally wrong about this issue. We all have the right to a political voice, and even if that comes through a corporation, it is still our right... our inalienable right! Got it?
 
Dixie said:
I'M not being ridiculous, I am simply applying the standard YOU suggested, that people only get ONE right. I know you didn't suggest we have a 'double standard' did you? Where people who are part of a corporation don't get "double rights" but women who are part of a group advocating for women DO get them? Because that would be unconstitutional, you can't have rights I don't have, based on your political philosophy.

As I said... IF Citizens had been distributing a pro-choice expose on Bush and his pro-life positions, would you have been equally opposed to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Citizens? Would you have argued they didn't have the right to make this information public so the voters could decide? I seriously doubt it, which is why you are hypocrites and totally wrong about this issue. We all have the right to a political voice, and even if that comes through a corporation, it is still our right... our inalienable right! Got it?
Click to expand...

No, you are being ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top