Does Citizens United rank as one of the worst decisions of any SCOTUS?

Truck Fump / h1b said:
have you always been a smarmy globalist fake maga traitor fucktoid?
Click to expand...
:bang: What do think, should I start using emojis and maybe some memes to make my points, like many here? Not you, it's usually just paranoia with you. I am however, interested in the opinion of someone in your state of mind. It's just for a study about human nature I've been working on for many years now.
 
Tobytone said:
:bang: What do think, should I start using emojis and maybe some memes to make my points, like many here? Not you, it's usually just paranoia with you. I am however, interested in the opinion of someone in your state of mind. It's just for a study about human nature I've been working on for many years now.
Click to expand...
you're simply not maga.

h1b support is pure globalist traitor.

all the same arguments for the border apply.
 
christiefan915 said:
It was snark, not deflection. Do you want to get into the details of who decides what is propaganda?
Click to expand...
only you get to decide what is propaganda..........for YOU. in order to do that, you must have some intelligence. Those that are unable to distinguish between reality and propaganda are obviously less intelligent. So I say again, Citizens is an opinion that can easily be dismissed UNLESS a sizable portion of society WANTS people to be dumb as fuck.
 
Damocles said:
Again, translation from liberalese into English (translations provided by the letter threeve and the number H): That pesky first amendment that allows people to gather and form corporations! Those freedoms we have guaranteed by the constitution, they suck! Especially when gatherings of people use funds to advertise for a candidate I don't like! BASTiges!
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, nowhere in the First Amendment, nor the Constitution, does it even imply there is a right to form a corporation, and, in addition, no Constitutional right is absolute, they are all regulated, porn isn’t permitted anywhere anytime now is it
 
archives said:
No it doesn’t, nowhere in the First Amendment, nor the Constitution, does it even imply there is a right to form a corporation, and, in addition, no Constitutional right is absolute, they are all regulated, porn isn’t permitted anywhere anytime now is it
Click to expand...
your ridiculous porn reference aside, The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are indeed absolute. Where they are not, those exceptions are CLEARLY expressed with appropriate verbiage. The ONLY reason to accept the big government premise that no right is absolute is for the use of force to deny certain people to do certain things that some person or group doesn't like.

There is a right to form a corporation, just like there is a right to peaceably assemble and to acquire property.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
your ridiculous porn reference aside, The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are indeed absolute. Where they are not, those exceptions are CLEARLY expressed with appropriate verbiage. The ONLY reason to accept the big government premise that no right is absolute is for the use of force to deny certain people to do certain things that some person or group doesn't like.

There is a right to form a corporation, just like there is a right to peaceably assemble and to acquire property.
Click to expand...
Wrong, no right is absolute, they are all regulated, they have always been, you can not name one right listed in the Constitution that isn’t regulated, rights are based on reason, not desire

And once again, no where in the Constitution does it say anywhere that there exists a right to form a corporation as you are claiming
 
archives said:
Wrong, no right is absolute, they are all regulated, they have always been, you can not name one right listed in the Constitution that isn’t regulated, rights are based on reason, not desire

And once again, no where in the Constitution does it say anywhere that there exists a right to form a corporation as you are claiming
Click to expand...
you are completely wrong, as usual. You obviously have a severe case of cognitive dissonance, whereas you like to assume the rights that you like cannot be regulated as opposed to the rights you don't like, or want regulated, and then base your critique on the SCOTUS decisions based upon those rights.

A person does indeed have the right to form a corporation because a person has the right to contract and acquire property. That is based upon judicial decisions via their reading of the US Constitution. There are also the varied phrases in the BofR such as 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed'. Those indicate, CLEARLY that the government has no power or authority to regulate those rights.

your continued obstinance and ignorance over the freedoms you apparently despise discredits the rest of your so called intelligence.
 
archives said:
No it doesn’t, nowhere in the First Amendment, nor the Constitution, does it even imply there is a right to form a corporation, and, in addition, no Constitutional right is absolute, they are all regulated, porn isn’t permitted anywhere anytime now is it
Click to expand...
This pretends that Assembling is not a right.

But hey, you can pretend that folks that own corporations and gather to form such don't have the same rights as you. I will be thrilled to tell Unions they can no longer run PACs because their right to assemble and to petition the government is suspended because they work under the same corporate law as all other corporations.

Methinks you would not like the result of such an idiotic and short-sighted ruling. Nobody is saying "absolute", that's your strawman in your own field. I get that you hate that money counts as speech in politics. You know, "Congress shall make no laws" and stuff, but hey, my belief in the rights we have even when they are annoying to me is pretty strong, I get that others think they only apply when folks do things they like with those rights... I think they exist even when they do things we do not like.

Taking away the rights of people because they are part of a corporation is wrong. Even when I do not like what they do.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
This pretends that Assembling is not a right.

But hey, you can pretend that folks that own corporations and gather to form such don't have the same rights as you. I will be thrilled to tell Unions they can no longer run PACs because their right to assemble and to petition the government is suspended because they work under the same corporate law as all other corporations.

Methinks you would not like the result of such an idiotic and short-sighted ruling. Nobody is saying "absolute", that's your strawman in your own field. I get that you hate that money counts as speech in politics. You know, "Congress shall make no laws" and stuff, but hey, my belief in the rights we have even when they are annoying to me is pretty strong, I get that others think they only apply when folks do things they don't like with those rights...
Click to expand...
I would not mind at all if Unions were restricted and a dollar cap on the amount a campaign can spend. I would like the campaign session to be limited to 90 days.

Congress critters might start actually governing instead of pandering to the big money.
 
Phantasmal said:
I would not mind at all if Unions were restricted and a dollar cap on the amount a campaign can spend. I would like the campaign session to be limited to 90 days.

Congress critters might start actually governing instead of pandering to the big money.
Click to expand...
I get that. Laws that limit the time of a campaign session could be passed... however what that does is allow them to gather money differently rather than officially as part of a campaign (I'll buy 70 zillion copies of your book Obama, if you help me pass this law when you are elected)....

Laws that govern political donations would not apply as they would go around it.

What I would like to see is daylight requirements. Each and every dime spent on a campaign, even from PACs should be linked to the person that donated. If you give even one copper penny we should attach a name to it so big donors can't just donate $5 at a time so their name is not reported.
 
Damocles said:
I get that. Laws that limit the time of a campaign session could be passed... however what that does is allow them to gather money differently rather than officially as part of a campaign (I'll buy 70 zillion copies of your book Obama, if you help me pass this law when you are elected)....

Laws that govern political donations would not apply as they would go around it.

What I would like to see is daylight requirements. Each and every dime spent on a campaign, even from PACs should be linked to the person that donated. If you give even one copper penny we should attach a name to it so big donors can't just donate $5 at a time so their name is not reported.
Click to expand...


ActBlue has entered the chat.

actblue scam at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
duckduckgo.com duckduckgo.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top