APP - Why Citizens United is a Sound Decision

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
since the other thread is just a poppycock by rune and one in which he will not debate. i decided to start a real thread on the issue.

let us examine the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dixie said:
Again, corporations are corporations and people are people. Corporations are comprised of many people. The court ruled the 'corporation' could not be denied constitutional rights, without denying those rights to the people who comprise the corporation. Liberals perverted this into the hyperbolic strawman, that "corporations are people."

For the sake of constitutional rights, they are protected whether you belong to a corporation or not, because they are inalienable. Therefore, the fact that you are part of a corporation, doesn't limit, restrict, or deny your constitutional rights. In a sense, you could argue that "Democrats" are a corporation, or "Republicans" ...are they also not entitled to run political advertisements? Seems we might be getting into sketchy territory when we start restricting free speech to ONLY individual persons, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

.
 
Yurt said:
since the other thread is just a poppycock by rune and one in which he will not debate. i decided to start a real thread on the issue.

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...

Corporations do not have rights. They are not people.
 
Dixie said:
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Hmmm... let me seeeeee? AssHate or SCOTUS?
Who is the better authority on constitutionality?
Hmmmmmm.... such a tough choice there! Thinking....thinking....
Click to expand...

so scotus has never been wrong?
 
Dixie said:
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Hmmm... let me seeeeee? AssHate or SCOTUS?
Who is the better authority on constitutionality?
Hmmmmmm.... such a tough choice there! Thinking....thinking....
Click to expand...

The clear answer to your querry is Asshat. He is the only choice not owned.
 
It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.
 
Howey said:
It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.
Click to expand...

So now, in your world... Every union member in America supports Obama and always votes for the democrat candidate, while a company called "Citizens United" is comprised of people who are forced to work for an evil boss who just wants to line his pockets by selling videos about Hillary, which his employees have no opinion on. And also, in Liberal Utopia... Big Fish don't EAT the little fish, they LEAD them! Amazing revelation there, Howey! THANKS!
 
Howey said:
It's quite simple.

Unions are representative of their individual members, who pay dues, and support candidates whom the union members wish. Think of the lead fish in a school of little fish. Corporations are representative of the corporate owner's profit/loss statement and support candidates whom they want to increase their wealth. Think of the big fish that eats all the little fish so he can get bigger and fatter.
Click to expand...

really? when i was younger i was forced to join a union in order to take a job at a great hotel. i did not want to join the union, but if i wanted the job, which i needed, i had to join them.

so no....unions do not always represent their members interests. further, why should a union speak for me politically?
 
Yurt said:
really? when i was younger i was forced to join a union in order to take a job at a great hotel. i did not want to join the union, but if i wanted the job, which i needed, i had to join them.

so no....unions do not always represent their members interests. further, why should a union speak for me politically?
Click to expand...

You're just too young too remember and too ignorant to know that capitalists will abuse workers if left to maximize their greed with no worker protections in place. They did you a favor.
 
A few observations. Corrected link: http://video.mit.edu/watch/democracy-after-citizens-united-9635/

The problem with CU is it assumes a corporation is a definable entity, and as such acts in a manner that makes sense in the way in which we consider a person for instance to act. Corporate goals rarely align with society's goals, or even with a nation's goals. Corporations exist to make money for their stock holders and executives. Persons exist as individuals, as recognizable responsible agents. Corporations operate outside the democratic framework that individuals operate under. Corporations operate equally well under communism as under democracy, they also operate across borders with resources and policies that differ from place to place. Funds from overseas operations then can enter and provide monies that influence local politics, and even transnational politics, by creating and funding ads and other various media that manages the idea landscape. CU gave enormous power to money that comes from anywhere to control media in our democracy with no responsible agent or clear understanding of who benefits, how, or why they benefit. 'Show me the money.' Or show me why all the money and from whom.

OT Unions suffer the same sort of dilemma but unions operate locally and specifically, when I was in a union I often disagreed with their decisions or policies. But I was also a recipient of the benefits of the union and having seen the manner in which corporations treat workers through mergers and benefit fights, I see unions as I see lawyers, a wall against empty greed and corporate irresponsibility.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also http://video.mit.edu/watch/democracy-after-citizens-united-9635/ ]


"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
You're just too young too remember and too ignorant to know that capitalists will abuse workers if left to maximize their greed with no worker protections in place. They did you a favor.
Click to expand...

actually, i've consistently said they had their time and place. they were good for the country, however, we have laws in place that now protect workers. unions are no longer a necessity.
 
midcan:

is it your claim that corporations cannot seek redress against the government? what about freedom of religion?

now...let us change "corporations" with "groups"? do you feel the same way?

as to your union example (yours or the link??) it is completely false. unions spend heavily to influence outwards. and they are not all merely local. in fact, many corporations are only local. to deny that is to deny reality.
 
Yurt said:
midcan:

is it your claim that corporations cannot seek redress against the government? what about freedom of religion?

now...let us change "corporations" with "groups"? do you feel the same way?

as to your union example (yours or the link??) it is completely false. unions spend heavily to influence outwards. and they are not all merely local. in fact, many corporations are only local. to deny that is to deny reality.
Click to expand...

Citizens United allows foreign interests to give slush money to influence American elections. That's the bottom line... and Mudhut, you are for it. Very American of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top