APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

should corporations have the same rights as citizens

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
8 exclamation points...in one fairly short post?

Usually, when people are losing, they get more frantic.

Look, since you're on another thread arguing for "speech for the means of production," I think there is little question who the socialist is, and who the capitalist is here.
 
Crashk said:
Capitalism exists under the rules of govt. Capitalism is a monetary system not a form of government. When govt acts in the interests of corporations over the interests of the people, the government is defined as a form of Fascism, no longer a democracy or a communist form of govt. I guess the new term for this is corpocracy.

cor·poc·ra·cy (kôr-pkr-s)
n. pl. cor·poc·ra·cies
1. A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.

Dixie..
"What is the difference between a dollar from ACORN or PNAC, and a dollar from a corporation? Is one dollar less or more prone to be corrupt? Also, what is the difference between the freedom of someone representing ACORN or PNAC and the freedom of someone who owns a corporation? Is one persons right to free speech more valuable?

The only difference between the dollars from Acorn or Pnac and corporate dollars is the amounts. Chinese backed businesses will spend billions to promote their interests in our govt.

If the person who owns or directs or makes decisions for a corporation and is a Chinese communist he now has free speech in our electoral system. He can influence millions of votes. There are no controls on the amount of money his corporation can funnel into advertising for or against whatever this man deems good for his profits. He now has a voice in our govt. policy making while he sits in foreign country.

Communist and other multinational corporations can't give money directly to candidates yet but there are no limits on what they can spend for advertising as long as the 'sponsored by' disclaimer is in the small print. And there are a million ways to hide where the real money is coming from.

You wing-nuts dont see any danger in all this? Really?
Click to expand...

What kind of a moron assumes that corporations being able to return to political contributions as they did before McCain-Feingold, is going to turn us into a different form of government now? What is your basis for this fear mongering? We obviously didn't turn into a 'corpocracy' before, why would that happen now? Rich sinister Chinese men didn't try to take over government by running political ads and brainwashing us before, why would it happen now? Seems to me, you are creating a bunch of boogie-men to care people with! Why do they have to sound like the bad guy in a Bond movie? What about a somewhat notorious film director who isn't foreign or doesn't look much different than a toothless ignorant redneck, producing political propaganda and calling it 'documentaries' to the cheers of radical liberals across the country? Oh wait... we already have one of those, and he isn't restricted in any way on his political speech! Hmmm, I wonder why we aren't all turning into pinhead socialists?
 
Onceler said:
8 exclamation points...in one fairly short post?

Usually, when people are losing, they get more frantic.

Look, since you're on another thread arguing for "speech for the means of production," I think there is little question who the socialist is, and who the capitalist is here.
Click to expand...
Liberals always mistake laughter and/or passion for freneticism...

He's right, Onceler. All this does is make it so they don't have to donate to 527s. Very little changes. In fact I predict there will still be 527s as some corps will want to get donations from others that agree with the stance they are taking in their ads.
 
Damocles said:
Liberals always mistake laughter and/or passion for freneticism...

He's right, Onceler. All this does is make it so they don't have to donate to 527s. Very little changes. In fact I predict there will still be 527s as some corps will want to get donations from others that agree with the stance they are taking in their ads.
Click to expand...

So you agree with him that in order to eliminate (or reduce) organizational money in politics, you have to ban free speech? How about getting rid of 527's?

Do you also agree with him that I'm like Saddam Hussein?
 
Onceler said:
So you agree with him that in order to eliminate (or reduce) organizational money in politics, you have to ban free speech? How about getting rid of 527's?

Do you also agree with him that I'm like Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...
I don't know if you have a manly enough mustache to be like Saddam.

And you'd have to ban nearly all equal speech. Unions would be out, for instance. Should groups that band together have a right to speak? Do we stop foreigners from that same right when they visit?

The more I think about it, the more I understand the decision. Sometimes you have problems that come along with freedoms, you have to decide if they overwhelm the freedom itself... We've seen this particular freedom for at least 200 years, I'd disagree with the necessity to end it because we don't like some "groups" to speak while we like others. Sometimes you don't get to like how people use their rights.

At least with publicly traded corps the shareholders can band together to kick out the leadership if they go too crazy.
 
Damocles said:
I don't know if you have a manly enough mustache to be like Saddam.

And you'd have to ban nearly all equal speech. Unions would be out, for instance. Should groups that band together have a right to speak? Do we stop foreigners from that same right when they visit?

The more I think about it, the more I understand the decision. Sometimes you have problems that come along with freedoms, you have to decide if they overwhelm the freedom itself... We've seen this particular freedom for at least 200 years, I'd disagree with the necessity to end it because we don't like some "groups" to speak while we like others. Sometimes you don't get to like how people use their rights.

At least with publicly traded corps the shareholders can band together to kick out the leadership if they go too crazy.
Click to expand...

I'm just all about limiting corporate money. I know there is no way to eliminate it. Epi made the argument that the Supremes did the right thing according to the law, and it's up to the legislature, and that's probably true. But the fact is, corporate money is way too involved in the political process - and this is something Dixie is celebrating. He doesn't want to see it limited at all.

And I hold that same standard for unions, PAC's & the rest.
 
Onceler said:
I'm just all about limiting corporate money. I know there is no way to eliminate it. Epi made the argument that the Supremes did the right thing according to the law, and it's up to the legislature, and that's probably true. But the fact is, corporate money is way too involved in the political process - and this is something Dixie is celebrating. He doesn't want to see it limited at all.

And I hold that same standard for unions, PAC's & the rest.
Click to expand...

Dixie is celebrating a victory for freedom of speech. I am sorry you don't agree with me, the supreme court, or the constitution! ....Too bad ...so sad!

You do NOT hold the same standards, you just elected a president who took enormous amounts of funding from unions, pacs and the rest! It did not seem to bother you in the least!

What you've done, is taken advantage of things like Enron, to demonize corporations. To effectively use that fomented hate to promote the idea that it's a good idea to limit their freedom of speech! Dunderhead McCain, in a pathetic attempt to pander to liberals, decided to give us CFR, with most of the right screaming... "John! It's Unconstitutional!" Now the SCOTUS has determined we were right, it WAS unconstitutional!

The way I see it, we can now return to how things were, when there was a BALANCE to the activist groups and unions, in political influence! Now the forces of capitalism can defend capitalism, when socialist liberals attack it in politics! I can certainly see why you wanted to continue denying people their freedom of speech, it will be the death nail in the modern progressive movement! That must really suck for you!!
 
Dixie said:
Dixie is celebrating a victory for freedom of speech. I am sorry you don't agree with me, the supreme court, or the constitution! ....Too bad ...so sad!

You do NOT hold the same standards, you just elected a president who took enormous amounts of funding from unions, pacs and the rest! It did not seem to bother you in the least!

What you've done, is taken advantage of things like Enron, to demonize corporations. To effectively use that fomented hate to promote the idea that it's a good idea to limit their freedom of speech! Dunderhead McCain, in a pathetic attempt to pander to liberals, decided to give us CFR, with most of the right screaming... "John! It's Unconstitutional!" Now the SCOTUS has determined we were right, it WAS unconstitutional!

The way I see it, we can now return to how things were, when there was a BALANCE to the activist groups and unions, in political influence! Now the forces of capitalism can defend capitalism, when socialist liberals attack it in politics! I can certainly see why you wanted to continue denying people their freedom of speech, it will be the death nail in the modern progressive movement! That must really suck for you!!
Click to expand...

You're so clueless. That's the reason we're seeing so many exclamation points; this is a partisan issue for you, as everything is.

It's not a partisan issue. Like I said - limit the unions, limit the corps. Because we're getting to a point where there aren't really Democrats, or Republicans; the are Corporats/Corublicans. I don't think you understand - at all - how intimately involved corporations are in writing legislation, and then buying the votes they need to pass it. If you believed in a gov't "by and for the people", you wouldn't be talking as you are.

And quit projecting your hack shit on me; I was disgusted with the amount of money Obama had this past campaign, and have said so dozens of times. I'm disgusted by the amount Presidential campaigns in general cost. It effectively nullifies the chance for ANY 3rd party viability, barring a billionaire candidate who is willing to spend his own.

It DOES suck, because America is not a better nation for it. And you continue to be the proud, ignorant rube in the face of that. You don't even realize what's happening.
 
Onceler said:
You're so clueless. That's the reason we're seeing so many exclamation points; this is a partisan issue for you, as everything is.

It's not a partisan issue. Like I said - limit the unions, limit the corps. Because we're getting to a point where there aren't really Democrats, or Republicans; the are Corporats/Corublicans. I don't think you understand - at all - how intimately involved corporations are in writing legislation, and then buying the votes they need to pass it. If you believed in a gov't "by and for the people", you wouldn't be talking as you are.

And quit projecting your hack shit on me; I was disgusted with the amount of money Obama had this past campaign, and have said so dozens of times. I'm disgusted by the amount Presidential campaigns in general cost. It effectively nullifies the chance for ANY 3rd party viability, barring a billionaire candidate who is willing to spend his own.

It DOES suck, because America is not a better nation for it. And you continue to be the proud, ignorant rube in the face of that. You don't even realize what's happening.
Click to expand...


Oh, you're disgusted, but you're still going to line up to vote for the man and kiss his ass every time he speaks! You're still going to parade his agenda out and carry the water for the democrat party, because as disgusted as you are with the money, you are a kool-aid drenched socialist nitwit! Your words of "disgust" ring HOLLOW!

No, it's really NOT a partisan issue, it's a FREE SPEECH issue! And THAT is the reason for the number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!
 
Dixie said:
Oh, you're disgusted, but you're still going to line up to vote for the man and kiss his ass every time he speaks! You're still going to parade his agenda out and carry the water for the democrat party, because as disgusted as you are with the money, you are a kool-aid drenched socialist nitwit! Your words of "disgust" ring HOLLOW!

No, it's really NOT a partisan issue, it's a FREE SPEECH issue! And THAT is the reason for the number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yep; because money = speech, right?

Careful what you wish for, Dix. Once again, I find myself pitying you, in a kind of weird way.

You'll get it eventually...
 
Onceler said:
I'm just all about limiting corporate money. I know there is no way to eliminate it. Epi made the argument that the Supremes did the right thing according to the law, and it's up to the legislature, and that's probably true. But the fact is, corporate money is way too involved in the political process - and this is something Dixie is celebrating. He doesn't want to see it limited at all.

And I hold that same standard for unions, PAC's & the rest.
Click to expand...
You do understand, don't you, that corporate donations to campaigns is still limited? This decision had nothing to do with corporate donations to political candidates and/or parties. It had everything to do with what was effectively a gag order against corporations making direct political statements.

So now McDonalds (for instance) can (if they so wish) run their own political commercials in favor or against a political issue and/or candidate. The only thing THAT changes is they can do so directly, whereas before they had to form and register, or join/contribute to a 527, which could then run their ads for them. It saves McDs a few bucks from not having to pay 527 staffers.

From a legal/constitutional standpoint, what this does is put all corporations on equal footing with regard to free press/speech. With the limitation, corporations like McDonalds (or the ever-detested Exxon) could not make any kind of public statement in favor of or against a political candidate or issue. Meanwhile, MEDIA corporations could get away with saying damned near anything they wanted to under the heading of "news." With no practical way of limiting THAT without a HUGE free press controversy, the only other option was to take an "equal application of law" approach and allow all corporations the liberty to do what the media corporations were already effectively doing.

From a practical standpoint, it really does nothing except, possibly, put some 527 staffers in the unemployment line because they can run the ads directly. Then again, running ads directly stands the chance of pissing off a substantial block of investors and/or customers, (boycotting is SO popular these days!) in which case most corporations will most likely continue to hide behind 527s.

Therefore, IMO, in a practical sense nothing substantial will change, except we are (for a CHANGE) actually standing on the principle that Constitutionally guaranteed liberties are guaranteed liberties no matter how much we disagree with who is being protected.
 
Dixie said:
Oh, you're disgusted, but you're still going to line up to vote for the man and kiss his ass every time he speaks! You're still going to parade his agenda out and carry the water for the democrat party, because as disgusted as you are with the money, you are a kool-aid drenched socialist nitwit! Your words of "disgust" ring HOLLOW!

No, it's really NOT a partisan issue, it's a FREE SPEECH issue! And THAT is the reason for the number of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Speaking freely is one thing. Using your money to buy airtime to speak on that airtime is another. Regulating the airtime is not regulating your speech - you are perfectly free to speak that speech into the air right next to you. This is only fair.

Unregulated money * speech eliminates speech from those who aren't well off. Having no campaign regulations is a violation of free speech.
 
Atheistmark said:
Conservatives are murderers and deserve to die.
Click to expand...

Wow... are we going to have to put you on suicide watch? I mean, we're only one year into the Obama presidency and the Tea Party Express has just started rolling... you are going to be climbing the walls before this is over, if you are this worked up now!

It's a good thing you're a pussy who lives in your grandmother's basement, and wouldn't have the courage to swat a fly... I'd be worried for public safety with the death threats you keep making.
 
Atheistmark said:
Speaking freely is one thing. Using your money to buy airtime to speak on that airtime is another. Regulating the airtime is not regulating your speech - you are perfectly free to speak that speech into the air right next to you. This is only fair.

Unregulated money * speech eliminates speech from those who aren't well off. Having no campaign regulations is a violation of free speech.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and they say the Constitution disagrees with you as well. Using money to buy airtime is free speech, and Congress shall make no law to restrict it!

YOU PHAIL!
 
Dixie said:
Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and they say the Constitution disagrees with you as well. Using money to buy airtime is free speech, and Congress shall make no law to restrict it!

YOU PHAIL!
Click to expand...

Using money to buy airtime is using money to buy airtime. Speech is speech.
 
Dixie said:
Wow... are we going to have to put you on suicide watch? I mean, we're only one year into the Obama presidency and the Tea Party Express has just started rolling... you are going to be climbing the walls before this is over, if you are this worked up now!

It's a good thing you're a pussy who lives in your grandmother's basement, and wouldn't have the courage to swat a fly... I'd be worried for public safety with the death threats you keep making.
Click to expand...

All conservatives deserve to die. Hopefully one day you'll all be murdered, like you deserve, in the most gruesome way possible. There's no way to inflict enough pain on a conservative for them to get what they deserve, so we just have to kill as many of you cockroaches as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top