Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's absolutely right. It was an atrocious decision by the right-wing corrupted Supreme Court, and it undermines our democracy. How in the world can you Republicans say this is how this country should work?
so the fascist liberals are saying that an entity (corporation, political group, nonprofit, legal group) should NOT have a RIGHT to express their VIEWS and their CONSTITUTIONAL right of freedom of speech?????
guess what the DNC and RNC are corporations
fact newspapers are corporations.... just like the BLOG from the OP... its a corporation.....heck the internet is a corporation fact dnc and rnc are corporations
fact move-on.org is a corporation
fact aclu is a corportaion
are you saying that corporations (even big bad BANKS) should have NO OPINION or VIEW (ie FREEDOM OF SPEECH) as to what politicians are making laws that WILL EFFECT THEM?????
are you saying that move-on.org(a corporation) should not have the RIGHT to take out a full page add in the New York Times(another corporation) stating their OPINION or View of a certain political subject????
if a "corporation" shall have no rights or 'personhood' then it there by ELIMINATES that corporation, which LIMITS freedom of speech....IE if I (a person) want to take out an ad in a newspaper (a CORPORTAION), then I would not be allowed (ie loss of rights), because said vehicle(newspaper) is a corporation..............
example: if corporations dont have rights, then how does a woman sue mcdonalds because the coffee is to hot, ...by YOUR arguement the only person (entity) she could have sued would be the cashier that SOLD her the coffee, since mcdonalds is a 'thing' and not a person of liability
I understand that it can be difficult to grasp, but corporations are for all purposes people (a multitude of people, but still people)...and I know that I may not use the correct wording , to explain
do you understand that once you start limiting RIGHTS, then you are EMPOWERING the GOVERNMENT and leading to totalitarianism......please read 1984
the right of freedom of speech (which include political donations) is given to ALL, this includes people, NEWSPAPERS, non-profit, political organizations (remember move-on.orgs full page ad in the NYT named ""Gen. Betrayus"")(or acorn), legal organizations(aclu), and also corporations (yes they should have freedom of speech, since LAWS might/might not effect them), and Unions
so YOU fascist liberals want NO-ONE to be able to express their views if they are part of a larger entity???? how nice of you to keep trying to remove peoples freedom
so the fascist liberals are saying that an entity (corporation, political group, nonprofit, legal group) should NOT have a RIGHT to express their VIEWS and their CONSTITUTIONAL right of freedom of speech?????
guess what the DNC and RNC are corporations
fact newspapers are corporations.... just like the BLOG from the OP... its a corporation.....heck the internet is a corporation fact dnc and rnc are corporations
fact move-on.org is a corporation
fact aclu is a corportaion
are you saying that corporations (even big bad BANKS) should have NO OPINION or VIEW (ie FREEDOM OF SPEECH) as to what politicians are making laws that WILL EFFECT THEM?????
are you saying that move-on.org(a corporation) should not have the RIGHT to take out a full page add in the New York Times(another corporation) stating their OPINION or View of a certain political subject????
if a "corporation" shall have no rights or 'personhood' then it there by ELIMINATES that corporation, which LIMITS freedom of speech....IE if I (a person) want to take out an ad in a newspaper (a CORPORTAION), then I would not be allowed (ie loss of rights), because said vehicle(newspaper) is a corporation..............
example: if corporations dont have rights, then how does a woman sue mcdonalds because the coffee is to hot, ...by YOUR arguement the only person (entity) she could have sued would be the cashier that SOLD her the coffee, since mcdonalds is a 'thing' and not a person of liability
I understand that it can be difficult to grasp, but corporations are for all purposes people (a multitude of people, but still people)...and I know that I may not use the correct wording , to explain
do you understand that once you start limiting RIGHTS, then you are EMPOWERING the GOVERNMENT and leading to totalitarianism......please read 1984
the right of freedom of speech (which include political donations) is given to ALL, this includes people, NEWSPAPERS, non-profit, political organizations (remember move-on.orgs full page ad in the NYT named ""Gen. Betrayus"")(or acorn), legal organizations(aclu), and also corporations (yes they should have freedom of speech, since LAWS might/might not effect them), and Unions
so YOU fascist liberals want NO-ONE to be able to express their views if they are part of a larger entity???? how nice of you to keep trying to remove peoples freedom
You obviously haven't a clue what the Citizens United case is about. Citizens United concerns itself with campaign finance reform and whether mega corporations domestic and foreign can dump unlimited amounts of money into the US political system to influence our elections. The idea now that Senate campaigns are nearing a billion dollars and that presidential campaigns are now billion dollar enterprises confirms the dire impact of money in politics.
More money in politics breeds more corruption. More politicians are beholden to that big money. The idea that politicians on the national stage will give a damn about working class heros when they need to raise a billion dollars in order to compete with his opponents billion dollar campaign is laughable.
Conservativs always talk about national sovereignty and the demon one world government ironically gladly give up sovereignty to foreign corporations and foreign business interests to interfere with US elections. You corrupt elections you corrupt the process even more. But hey who even said the far right was logical.
You obviously haven't a clue what the Citizens United case is about. Citizens United concerns itself with campaign finance reform and whether mega corporations domestic and foreign can dump unlimited amounts of money into the US political system to influence our elections. The idea now that Senate campaigns are nearing a billion dollars and that presidential campaigns are now billion dollar enterprises confirms the dire impact of money in politics.
More money in politics breeds more corruption. More politicians are beholden to that big money. The idea that politicians on the national stage will give a damn about working class heros when they need to raise a billion dollars in order to compete with his opponents billion dollar campaign is laughable.
Conservativs always talk about national sovereignty and the demon one world government ironically gladly give up sovereignty to foreign corporations and foreign business interests to interfere with US elections. You corrupt elections you corrupt the process even more. But hey who even said the fare right was logical.
and DID NOT Obama get a billion dollars too??
YES HE DID
and contributing to campaigns is part of the freedom of speech
are you saying that move-on.org(George soro's corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
are you saying that unions(a corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
are you saying that the DNC(a political corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
are you saying that the green entities(like the sierra club)(a political corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
this is especially big from the environmental corporations ....hmmmmm
He's absolutely right. It was an atrocious decision by the right-wing corrupted Supreme Court, and it undermines our democracy. How in the world can you Republicans say this is how this country should work?
Weird....obama was the biggest benefactor of "citizens united".....if the man-child had any character at all, he would have turned down the millions of dollars in campaign funds from these evil corporations.
But character is not something that obama will be remembered for.
He's absolutely right. It was an atrocious decision by the right-wing corrupted Supreme Court, and it undermines our democracy. How in the world can you Republicans say this is how this country should work?
You're only throwing a tantrum because you haven't been able (as yet ) to harness your own grab for raw power (in the form of one more rubber-stamping mediocrity on the Supreme Court) to try to force your way on all of us.
And I'll agree that there are a few appointed by Republicans who are almost as bad --Scalia seems to be the only Justice left with any sense of independence, and the notorious Kelo vs. New London is painful proof.
We who hold to libertarian/conservative values respect the rule of law and precedent -- unlike so-called "progressives" who feel their ends justify any means. We will play the rules and refrain from settling old sores if our viewpoint is upheld; I'm not so sure about some of your friends.
Justice has, regrettably, been put up for sale in America; but mere money is simply the preferred tool of weaklings and conformists; raw power is more in line with the collective "thinking" of a mob. I find the former to be the less-threatening of the two.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-22-2015 at 05:13 AM..
He's absolutely right. It was an atrocious decision by the right-wing corrupted Supreme Court, and it undermines our democracy. How in the world can you Republicans say this is how this country should work?
How can we say that? Because we actually believe in free speech. Too bad you don't.
And by the way, the damage to our democracy didn't stop Obama from forming the exact same PAC organization that he rails against. Just as President he accepted millions in donations from and didn't prosecute any of the bankers that he supposedly was against, and accepted a million dollar donation from Maher, who called Sarah Palin the exact same name that Obama called Sandra Fluke to comfort her over when Limbaugh said it, and fast tracked guaranteed government loans to companies that donated to his campaign after he was supposedly against corporate welfare, and wrote waivers to allow lobbyists to serve in his administration after campaigning against lobbyists serving in administrations, and had his Obamacare legislation voted on without giving congress time to read it after campaigning that he would put all legislation up on the internet for the entire nation to see, and excluded news photographers from government functions after pledging to have the most transparent administration. Just to name a few.
And yet you leftists still sing his praises. Anybody who supports Obama has zero ethics.
and contributing to campaigns is part of the freedom of speech
are you saying that move-on.org(George soro's corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
are you saying that unions(a corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
are you saying that the DNC(a political corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
are you saying that the green entities(like the sierra club)(a political corporation) should not have the RIGHT to make contributions to the DNC or Obama?????.... because they certainly do
this is especially big from the environmental corporations ....hmmmmm
hypocrite much
The notion that Democrats should not fight with Republicans on an even keel is ludicrous. At least Democrats and some Republicans, like John McCain, are willing to put limits on money in the electoral process. In answer to your question campaign finance reform should and will effect both parties equally as it should. But hey if you are fine with George Soros, Chinese and Russion business interests, Koch Brothers, and every other billionaire who wants to tinker with US elections spending their billions well that is prerogative as wrong as it is. I believe that all money in politics should have limits no matter the source.
The notion that Democrats should not fight with Republicans on an even keel is ludicrous. At least Democrats and some Republicans, like John McCain, are willing to put limits on money in the electoral process. In answer to your question campaign finance reform should and will effect both parties equally as it should. But hey if you are fine with George Soros, Chinese and Russion business interests, Koch Brothers, and every other billionaire who wants to tinker with US elections spending their billions well that is prerogative as wrong as it is. I believe that all money in politics should have limits no matter the source.
but every time the republicans bring up campaign finance reform..the democrats are the one who shoot it down
campaigns should be publicly financed (through donations (like the $2 on your 1040)...give EACH candidate the EXACT SAME AMOUNT....lets see who manages his money better
but the liberals don't want that...they want their union contributions and other corporate donations...like from soros'
liberals are the most crooked party around...all they know is how to do lie...and they lie real well
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) to harness your own grab for raw power (in the form of one more rubber-stamping mediocrity on the Supreme Court) to try to force your way on all of us.
