Unintended Consequences of Citizens United

It's called a conversation, SF.

I apologize profusely for making a point in response to you instead of someone else. I'm sorry I've upset you. It was terribly insensitive of me, knowing that you are a delicate flower, to attack you so brazenly. Please forgive me.
 
aeprga said:
It's called a conversation, SF.

I apologize profusely for making a point in response to you instead of someone else. I'm sorry I've upset you. It was terribly insensitive of me, knowing that you are a delicate flower, to attack you so brazenly. Please forgive me.
Click to expand...

poor dung... embarrassed that your ignorant game was exposed?

I pity you.
 
SF does not understand what the phrase, semantic games, means.

Personally, I don't see how insuring your employees can be considered a religious act.

Citizens United involved a direct speech act and political speech at that, which is usually afforded greater protections. Also, Citizens United involved a corporation that was expressly instituted for the purposes of engaging in political action or speech. Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts. They are not a church and even if they were they should only be exempt in those functions that are ecclesiastical in nature.
 
Darla said:
Mott consider yourself duly corrected so superfreak stops crying!
Click to expand...

Oh no... are you going to gang up on me??? Make sure to call Rana in here to condemn you for doing so...

Dung is just being his normal self... it is expected. He has no interest in an actual conversation, so you can calm down now. Let go of your anger.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
SF does not understand what the phrase, semantic games, means.
Click to expand...

You do not understand what science means.

Personally, I don't see how insuring your employees can be considered a religious act.
Click to expand...

It isn't. That said, corporations should not be forced to provide employees with insurance coverages that they do not want to provide. It is THEIR choice... not that of the government. If the employee doesn't like it, the employee can go get coverage elsewhere.
 
You can tell how I have on interest in an actual conversation by the way I try to advance the conversation in response to things that people write, selecting certain posts to highlight certain things I find interesting (whether this is an unintended consequence of Citizens United) and other posts to highlight other things I find interesting (whether corporations have religious views).

You can tell that SF has a keen interst in advancing the converstation by how he focuses on individual posters and their subjective motivations as opposed to the topic(s) of discussion generally.
 
Superfreak said:
You do not understand what science means.
Click to expand...

Sure I do. You are just too stupid to understand that your entire argument is over semantics, which goes to my previous point. But let's not spoil Mott's thread.

Superfreak said:
It isn't. That said, corporations should not be forced to provide employees with insurance coverages that they do not want to provide. It is THEIR choice... not that of the government. If the employee doesn't like it, the employee can go get coverage elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with this case. They are not challenging whether congress has constitutional authority to compel a business to provide their employees with insurance.
 
aeprga said:
You can tell how I have on interest in an actual conversation by the way I try to advance the conversation in response to things that people write, selecting certain posts to highlight certain things I find interesting (whether this is an unintended consequence of Citizens United) and other posts to highlight other things I find interesting (whether corporations have religious views).

You can tell that SF has a keen interst in advancing the converstation by how he focuses on individual posters and their subjective motivations as opposed to the topic(s) of discussion generally.
Click to expand...

LMAO... ok Dung... then why did you not answer my question? If you truly wish to have a conversation, then you should have jumped at the opportunity. Yet you didn't. Instead we get the above 'I am so unbelievably awesome' nonsense from you.

So tell us Dung... Do you think corporations have opinions on anything? (religion included)
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
That has nothing to do with this case. They are not challenging whether congress has constitutional authority to compel a business to provide their employees with insurance.
Click to expand...

It is up to the business to decide what insurance to provide, if any. It is up to the business to determine what is covered under their plan and what isn't. If the employee doesn't like it, the employee can either get supplemental insurance or get an individual plan on their own.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Many churches are incorporated, so I would say, yes, obviously they can.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I don't think a corporation has any opinions at all. Its shareholders, directors and officers certainly do, and those contituencies may come to a consensus opinion about things and express that opinion through the corporate entity. But I don't view that as an opinion independent of the opinions of the consituencies represented by the corporation.
 
Superfreak said:
It is up to the business to decide what insurance to provide, if any. It is up to the business to determine what is covered under their plan and what isn't. If the employee doesn't like it, the employee can either get supplemental insurance or get an individual plan on their own.
Click to expand...

These are not points that are being challenged and it has nothing really to do with the case.
 
I think state Secretaries of State should be required to have chaplains on staff in their corporations divisions to preside over corporate dissolution ceremonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top