mcconell on citizens united
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Congress shall make no bullshit law abridging my freedom of speech. It's not an act of Congress, it is set in goddamn motherfucking stone. 
Congress shall make no bullshit law abridging my freedom of speech. It's not an act of Congress, it is set in goddamn motherfucking stone.
until scotus reverses itself or another amendment overrules it
the original error was ruling that corporations are citizens
You are a fucking retard.
Money is not "speech" either.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
You're an idiot. Not only do I have the 1st Amendment and previous SCOTUS rulings on my side. I have the CU ruling itself, and the arguments of the majority opinion.
What do you have, Rune? That's right - you've got jack shit. Give ME an argument, because it is on you to refute the US Constitution, and case law from 1819 (Woodward) - 2010 (Citizens United). You aren't debating, you're just trolling (i.e. claiming you're winning, when you are not). If you want to beat the debate champ, you'd better offer an actual argument. Why is the 1st Amendment wrong, and why is the entire history of case law stemming from 1819 to 2010 wrong?
What do you have, Rune? That's right - you've got jack shit. Give ME an argument, because it is on you to refute the US Constitution, and case law from 1819 (Woodward) - 2010 (Citizens United). You aren't debating, you're just trolling (i.e. claiming you're winning, when you are not). If you want to beat the debate champ, you'd better offer an actual argument. Why is the 1st Amendment wrong, and why is the entire history of case law stemming from 1819 to 2010 wrong?
Start by proving money is speech, therefore protected by the first ammendment. It is not. You cannot articulate money.
Then prove that corporations are people. They are not. People eat and breathe. Corporations are creations of people.
Next show that CU is not contrary to previous rulings. It is.
Furthermore, illustrate how Wodward proves corporate personhood. It does not;
In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."
Finaly, I am hardly trolling. I challanged you to defend CU. You finaly spent more than 1 second at the task in the post in which you said I was trolling.
Then prove that corporations are people. They are not. People eat and breathe. Corporations are creations of people.
Next show that CU is not contrary to previous rulings. It is.
Furthermore, illustrate how Wodward proves corporate personhood. It does not;
In 1818, the United States Supreme Court decided Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), writing: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."
Finaly, I am hardly trolling. I challanged you to defend CU. You finaly spent more than 1 second at the task in the post in which you said I was trolling.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's a false equivalency Yurt. Unions and Corporations had specific limits on political contributions that now no longer exist under Citizens United. It does not take much imagination to realize why CU is such a bad decision as it will turn our nation from a Democracy and into a Plutocracy.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well you may not understand the 1st ammendment but you sure do understand the 5th. LOL
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
He won by default.
Ah.
Althea
Althea told me...
I hope heavy sarcasm was used here.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Can I get an Amen?
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Expression is protected as speech. But let's just defer to the dumbest fucking poster on the board on important stuff such as basic liberties.
Also, I'm fairly certain I was debate champ (yes Mott, you whining vagina, you and SM both lost) long before Dune ever arrived on this unfortunate site. Nice to know you people talk about me in your little PMs...
Also, I'm fairly certain I was debate champ (yes Mott, you whining vagina, you and SM both lost) long before Dune ever arrived on this unfortunate site. Nice to know you people talk about me in your little PMs...
Congress shall make no bullshit law abridging my freedom of speech. It's not an act of Congress, it is set in goddamn motherfucking stone.
Yeah, 3-D you are a real winner. Nice Job. lol.
Perhaps if you had answered even a single point I provided...
Of course expression is protected as speech, since it is speech, idiot.
Now, how does that pertain to money?
[h=2]ex·pres·sion[/h] /ɪkˈsprɛʃən/ http://www.justplainpolitics.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[ik-spresh-uhn] http://www.justplainpolitics.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. the act of expressing or setting forth in words: the free expression of political opinions.
2. a particular word, phrase, or form of words: old-fashioned expressions.
3. the manner or form in which a thing is expressed in words; wording; phrasing: delicacy of expression.
4. the power of expressing in words: joy beyond expression.
5. indication of feeling, spirit, character, etc., as on the face, in the voice, or in artistic execution: the lyric expression embodied in his poetry.