I remember one or two individuals on this forum coming out in support of the SCOTUS decision in the Citizens United vs. FEC case at the time that ruling was handed down. If you need a memory refresher, this was the case where the Supreme Court basically said that corporations are people, and as such, are deserving of free speech. Corporations are people, and whatever their money can buy is protected speech.
It was a VERY bad decision, and here is an article that really puts this into perspective. I would like to hear those that supported the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United vs. FEC state their opinions on the contents of this piece.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/25/1058593/-An-Open-Letter-to-My-Surly-Republican-Friends?detail=hide
An Open Letter to My Surly Republican Friends
by SBucher
To my republican friends: ...
Someone forwarded a post to me the other day by Erick Erickson on redstate, a right-wing blog that I otherwise never read. In a particular blog post, he was complaining about the Republican field, now effectively reduced to just Romney and Gingrich, and how neither of them appears to have a good chance to beat Obama. His main point is that the rise of Gingrich, while it has something to do with his debate performances, is really driven by the GOP base revolting against the party leadership. He said "The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since."
What's happening is that party leadership is foisting Romney on the GOP. And they don't like it. They don't like Romney having been a moderate in the past, and they don't like that he is Mormon, and they don't like that he has taken both sides of every issue. And even their alternative, Newt Gingrich, is not well-liked, but he is the only alternative. Seriously, Newt Gingrich? The so-called party of family values is to pick a serial adulterer and a pathological liar as their candidate? Seriously?
Well here is what I have to say to my GOP friends: Romney is your guy. Get used to it. He will be your candidate in November, and there is nothing you can do about it. Why, because the people who control all the money are insisting on it. THEY want Mitt Romney. THEY want someone who understands the plight of the millionaire. THEY want someone who will lower their taxes even further. THEY want someone who understands that $374,000 is not a lot of money. And they will get their candidate because they have all the money, and they will spend whatever it takes to make him the nominee.
It doesn't feel very good, does it? You thought that the process of selecting a nominee was a democratic one, and that rank-and-file Republicans would get to pick the candidate they want. And then you wake up one morning and find that what you want doesn't matter. That other people, those with more money, are getting to make the decision, not you. You no longer have a democracy within the Republican party, because the wealthy are now calling all the shots. Well, get used to it, because that it the world you helped create.
For decades, Democrats have battled uphill against a better-funded opposition. We understand what you are going through. It's sad, really, but not surprising. Throughout all of history, wealth and power seek each other out. The wealthy use their wealth to acquire power, while the powerful use their power to acquire wealth. It is all very stable and self-reinforcing, that is until the peasants revolt. And the most effective revolt ever waged against the merger of wealth and power has been democracy. So we too are saddened by the fact that you have lost your democracy within the GOP. The prospect that Romney, supported by no more than 25% of Republicans and by far fewer Democrats, might actually become President would all but close the book on America's Democracy and seal our fate as being members of the peasantry.
I am actually very angry about all this. Our democracy, the only thing standing between us and rule by oligarchy, has been systematically eroded for decades by a small wealthy elite. I am angry that for all this time, while our democracy has been slowly taken from us, you stood by and watched or even cheered while it happened. I am angry that the demise of democracy wasn't a problem for you until you got bit in your own sorry ass. Only then is it your problem? Pathetic. I am very angry about your apathy and complicity in this. But I must set all that anger aside, because this issue is far more important than my anger.
The wealthy elite kicked us, liberals, to the curb a long time ago. What is happening to you, our Republican friends, right now, this year, during this presidential campaign, is that you too are being kicked to that very same curb. They never needed us, since we were opposing their every move. But they did need you. They needed your energy, your willingness to repeat their messages, your willingness to listen to and call liberal talk radio like this very program to argue their position, and they needed you for fundraising. Yes, while we were kicked to the curb decades ago, they still needed you. Until now.
No longer do they need your energy, your engagement, your money. Ask yourself, if GOP party leadership needed any of these things from you, would they be forcing Mitt Romney on you? Would they be able to? This is exactly what Erick Erickson at redstate was complaining about. That party leadership isn't looking to the base, and the reason is that they no longer need what you have to offer.
You, the Republican base voter, are now entirely dispensable because they have something more powerful in their back pocket: Citizens United. Under this Supreme Court ruling, they can raise unlimited funds to elect anyone they want. If Romney were to become President, do you think he would do your bidding, or that of the wealthy who got him there? And your alternative, Newt Gingrich, who do you think owns him? Sheldon Adelson dropped $5M into the Gingrich campaign to buy his win in South Carolina. Now his wife Miriam has dropped another $5M to buy a win in Florida. Deep down, you know that this is not what democracy looks like.
And that is where our interests, yours and ours, finally converge. You need a reversal of Citizens United just as much as we do. Our candidates are already on record in support of reversing Citizens United. Yours are against it, meaning that it is time for you to do some of the heavy lifting. Maybe that means urging your GOP elected officials and candidates to support Keith Ellison's proposed Constitutional Amendment, which I don't think does enough, BTW, or maybe it means voting for a Democrat now and again. But something. You need to step up, be a patriot, and do something to restore democracy to American politics.
It is really quite simple: corporations are not people, money is not speech, democracy is not for sale to the highest bidder.
the bottom line the way I see it is this....McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional....the gov should not be able to tell anyone (business of people) what they can or cannot do with their money or HOW much they can spend or not spend on ANYTHING....weathy or unwealthy.
It seems as if we wanted to be honest either Corperations should be able to give all (as much as they want) or none at all. How arrogant is it that gov thinks they can put limits and say how much they can give.
Our federal government was created wit certain enumerated rights and powers....for them to say just WHAT entities can or cannot contribute to a political campaign is NOT one of those rights or powers.
Why is it then okay for Unions and non-pro-fits to give enormous amounts of money to any campaign they want, and believe that THAT is not undermining the good of the people?
The fact is that Corporations are no less "people" than Unions or Non-profits........and constitutionally there are no difference between the two.
With all of this said, let me be clear I do not like coporate or union influence on our government...but lets stick to our constitution and try to figure out how best to handle this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 30, 2012, 10:32:45 AM
the bottom line the way I see it is this....McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional....the gov should not be able to tell anyone (business of people) what they can or cannot do with their money or HOW much they can spend or not spend on ANYTHING....weathy or unwealthy.
It seems as if we wanted to be honest either Corperations should be able to give all (as much as they want) or none at all. How arrogant is it that gov thinks they can put limits and say how much they can give.
Our federal government was created wit certain enumerated rights and powers....for them to say just WHAT entities can or cannot contribute to a political campaign is NOT one of those rights or powers.
Why is it then okay for Unions and non-pro-fits to give enormous amounts of money to any campaign they want, and believe that THAT is not undermining the good of the people?
The fact is that Corporations are no less "people" than Unions or Non-profits........and constitutionally there are no difference between the two.
With all of this said, let me be clear I do not like coporate or union influence on our government...but lets stick to our constitution and try to figure out how best to handle this.
In your little mind and world you would destroy unions, safety nets for all of the people, do away with the minimum wage and child labor laws. Ryan's bill takes care of most of your ideas. :doh:
But in my opinion a corporation in a godless entity, with out a soul, with no morals, no honor to up hold honesty and obligation to our country or our people. The only thing a corporation worships in the bottom line and nothing more. They would sell the rope to anyone (China) who would hang them with it, if they thought they could make a profit in the short term. Long live Mitt Romney. :pirate: :salute: :bsflag:
Hank, you aren't really trying to equate the legal construct of the corporation with an association of workers like the union are you? I'd like to hear that one.
Same thing with your money = speech and McCain/Feingold being 'unconstitutional'.
Quote from: Locutus on January 29, 2012, 11:16:04 PM
I remember one or two individuals on this forum coming out in support of the SCOTUS decision in the Citizens United vs. FEC case at the time that ruling was handed down. If you need a memory refresher, this was the case where the Supreme Court basically said that corporations are people, and as such, are deserving of free speech. Corporations are people, and whatever their money can buy is protected speech.
It was a VERY bad decision, and here is an article that really puts this into perspective. I would like to hear those that supported the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United vs. FEC state their opinions on the contents of this piece.
The RW has used the way the Shrub ideologically stacked the Supreme Court to get their anti-American agenda, that wouldn't pass the legislature, as an end run through the courts.
What gets me is that the common man RWers continue to vote for those self serving scum when it's shown time and time and time again to be against their very own self interest. A very strange way to commit suicide.
Quote from: Y on January 30, 2012, 06:29:22 PM
The RW has used the way the Shrub ideologically stacked the Supreme Court to get their anti-American agenda, that wouldn't pass the legislature, as an end run through the courts.
What gets me is that the common man RWers continue to vote for those self serving scum when it's shown time and time and time again to be against their very own self interest. A very strange way to commit suicide.
Yup! They also like to toss the pejorative "activist judges" around, usually when talking about left leaning judges, but have been amazingly silent on this case which is an absolute
stellar example of judicial activism if I ever saw one.
Quote from: Locutus on January 30, 2012, 06:53:17 PM
Yup! They also like to toss the pejorative "activist judges" around, usually when talking about left leaning judges, but have been amazingly silent on this case which is an absolute stellar example of judicial activism if I ever saw one.
Now, now, you know that 'activist' only applies to judges that aren't actively promoting the RW agenda. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 30, 2012, 10:32:45 AM
the bottom line the way I see it is this....McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional....the gov should not be able to tell anyone (business of people) what they can or cannot do with their money or HOW much they can spend or not spend on ANYTHING....weathy or unwealthy.
It seems as if we wanted to be honest either Corperations should be able to give all (as much as they want) or none at all. How arrogant is it that gov thinks they can put limits and say how much they can give.
Our federal government was created wit certain enumerated rights and powers....for them to say just WHAT entities can or cannot contribute to a political campaign is NOT one of those rights or powers.
Why is it then okay for Unions and non-pro-fits to give enormous amounts of money to any campaign they want, and believe that THAT is not undermining the good of the people?
The fact is that Corporations are no less "people" than Unions or Non-profits........and constitutionally there are no difference between the two.
With all of this said, let me be clear I do not like coporate or union influence on our government...but lets stick to our constitution and try to figure out how best to handle this.
I doubt you've thought this through. You claim elsewhere that you're against raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations because that money is necessary to create jobs. In fact, this money is being used to buy poiltical favors and influence the legislative process to allow these people and corporations to increase profitability absent any innovation, increase in productivity or having created a single job. How many people could be employed with the billions spent buying the democratic process?
The gov has no business telling them HOW much they can spend on promoting speech or ideas. Like it or not, it is unconstitutinal.
Nothing in the Constitution gives corporations rights as citizens.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 31, 2012, 09:03:09 AM
Nothing in the Constitution gives corporations rights as citizens.
the latin word for corporations is "body of people". They are a group of people. Show me in the constitution where the government has the powers to tell a group of people how much money they can or cannot spend to voice thier opinion.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 31, 2012, 09:32:00 AM
the latin word for corporations is "body of people".
So fucking what; can a corporation go to prison?
Quote from: Exterminator on January 31, 2012, 09:49:01 AM
So fucking what; can a corporation go to prison?
THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT CAN
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 31, 2012, 10:04:31 AM
THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT CAN
If a corporation is a, "body of people," as you claim and that corporation is found guilty of wrongdoing, why shouldn't everyone who's a member of that body go to prison?
Typically, corporations are fined and no one is held personally responsible. Sounds like the party of, "personal responsibility," really wants all of the rights and
none of the responsibilities.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 31, 2012, 10:29:40 AM
If a corporation is a, "body of people," as you claim and that corporation is found guilty of wrongdoing, why shouldn't everyone who's a member of that body go to prison?
Typically, corporations are fined and no one is held personally responsible. Sounds like the party of, "personal responsibility," really wants all of the rights and none of the responsibilities.
Tell that to:
Jeff Skilling, former CEO of Enron
Serving 24 years for fraud, insider trading, and other crimes related to the collapse of Enron
Bernie Ebbers, former CEO of WorldCom
Serving 25 years for accounting fraud that cost investors over $100 billion
Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco Serving 8 to 25 years for stealing $134 million from Tyco
John Rigas, former CEO of Adelphia Communications Serving 25 years for bank, wire, and securities fraud related to the demise of Adelphia
Sanjay Kumar, former CEO of Computer Associates Serving 12 years for obstruction of justice and securities fraud
Walter Forbes, former CEO of Cendant Serving 12 years for fraud
Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth Serving 7 years for bribery and mail fraud
Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications
Serving 6 years for insider trading
Sam Waksal, former CEO of ImClone Served 7 years for securities fraud (released last year)
Martin Grass, former CEO of Rite Aid Served 6 years for fraud and obstruction (just released this year)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 31, 2012, 09:32:00 AM
the latin word for corporations is "body of people". They are a group of people. Show me in the constitution where the government has the powers to tell a group of people how much money they can or cannot spend to voice thier opinion.
So they have two standings in this republic/democracy: that of a private citizen, and that of a "corporate body."
Did I get that right?
tell me guys, do YOU want coporartions to go away? Is THAT what I am hearing?
Not at all but if they're individuals, they should be taxed as individuals and if the corporation is found guilty of wrongdoing, everyone involved in the corporation should go to prison, not just one or two scapegoats.
Alternately, let's just quit calling them individuals and tell them to stay the fuck out of the legislative process.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 31, 2012, 10:56:24 AM
Not at all but if they're individuals, they should be taxed as individuals and if the corporation is found guilty of wrongdoing, everyone involved in the corporation should go to prison, not just one or two scapegoats.
So are you against Corporations then?....Like the one you work for? Like the ones that is supporting your 401K?
Read it again.
I see you snuck some shit in there after your last post.
QuoteAlternately, let's just quit calling them individuals and tell them to stay the
fuck out of the legislative process
Like the Unions?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 31, 2012, 11:13:51 AM
I see you snuck some shit in there after your last post.Like the Unions?
Yes, like the unions.
Quote from: Exterminator on January 31, 2012, 11:17:15 AM
Yes, like the unions.
I have never seen you bitch about them being too powerful......
now that right to work is in place........we will see just how many people want to support them....they may be losing some of thier power.
so I ask you again.....are you against Corporations?....Like the one you work for? Like the ones that is supporting your 401K?
I don't often bitch about unions because they generally represent their members in the legislative process. The wealthy and corporate CEO's typically represent no one but themselves.
I've already said I am not against corporations but they aren't people nor should they have the same inalienable rights as are granted to people; can't you read?
Quote from: Exterminator on January 31, 2012, 11:31:10 AM
I don't often bitch about unions because they generally represent their members in the legislative process. The wealthy and corporate CEO's typically represent no one but themselves.
I've already said I am not against corporations but they aren't people nor should they have the same inalienable rights as are granted to people; can't you read?
yes
Among the problems I see with the granting of corporations constitutional rights, is the stark difference in how they are treated when it comes to conducting themselves.
You and I MUST respect every individuals constitutional rights, and when we impose upon them we are held legally accountable for it. Not so with corporations. They can trample our individual, constitutional rights all day long, and there is not a thing you can do to legally hold them accountable for it. :mad: :mad: :mad:
The equal application of law does not apply to corporations, and that in itself is a major problem!
Precisely.
the bottom line is still, the government has NO right to tell anyone or business HOW much they can or cannot spend to promote free speech.
That is all I am saying regarding Citizens United vs. FEC.
THAT was what it was all about.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 01, 2012, 01:11:29 PM
the bottom line is still, the government has NO right to tell anyone or business HOW much they can or cannot spend to promote free speech.
That is all I am saying regarding Citizens United vs. FEC.
THAT was what it was all about.
No, it wasn't what it was all about, and you know it, Henry.
It was about moneyed people being able to guarantee themselves favorable legislation to make incredible profits.
Buying the favor of those who control the legislation was the bottom line.
If you think it was about anything else, you're either hallucinating or incredibly naive.
so you think it is okay for our Government to say how much money business can spend or not spend on freedom of speech....to promote ideas that they think is best?
Hey, for what it is worth, I AM on the fence on this whole issue.....I think something needs to be done....but, I don't have the answer....but, gov telling people or business HOW to use thier money is NOT a constituitional way.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 01, 2012, 02:09:34 PM
so you think it is okay for our Government to say how much money business can spend or not spend on freedom of speech....to promote ideas that they think is best?
Hey, for what it is worth, I AM on the fence on this whole issue.....I think something needs to be done....but, I don't have the answer....but, gov telling people or business HOW to use their money is NOT a constitutional way.
Henry, they didn't have multibillion dollar corporations, and billionaires (Koch brothers} buying politicians and elections back when they wrote the Constitution.
And where did the dumbass Supreme Court say that a corporation is a person. It doesn't have a live beating heart and it doesn't breath. I know one thing it doesn't say anything about in the Constitution. I think these asshole "SCOUS" have been bought some how. But even you know it all about the money. :mad: :rant:
But I'm getting sick and tired of you saying the government doesn't have the right to say anything about what people say or do. If the government of the people of the United States of American can't control the robber barons and the super rich from stomping us into slavery and the dust then who does? :doh:
Individually, a person can contribute money to any campaign he/she wishes.
The Constitution doesn't have any guarantees for "corporate rights" at all.
To equate "corporate rights" with individual rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution is a travesty.
The only reason any person on the court could have for this incredible decision is because he/she is imbued with the "geed is good" ethic
espoused by Gordon Gecko.
Of course, with the questionable backgrounds of some on the court who voted for it, the "greed is good" ethic is competing with the "stupid is as stupid does" ethic.
Sarcasm certainly intended.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 01, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
Individually, a person can contribute money to any campaign he/she wishes.
The Constitution doesn't have any guarantees for "corporate rights" at all.
To equate "corporate rights" with individual rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution is a travesty.
The only reason any person on the court could have for this incredible decision is because he/she is imbued with the "geed is good" ethic
espoused by Gordon Gecko.
Of course, with the questionable backgrounds of some on the court who voted for it, the "greed is good" ethic is competing with the "stupid is as stupid does" ethic.
Sarcasm certainly intended.
And seconded! Well said my friend!
Okay guys, help me out here...I am trying very hard to get my head wrapped around this....though I understand where frustration comes in with corrupt political money....I think we need to follow our constitution as close as possible....let me break this down.
Are you somehow suggesting that Corporations do NOT have Constitutional rights?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 02, 2012, 09:16:42 AM
Are you somehow suggesting that Corporations do NOT have Constitutional rights?
Not suggesting it, stating it plain and simple: corporations are not people and have
no rights whatsoever.
bingo
individuals do; corporations don't
Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2012, 09:34:57 AM
Not suggesting it, stating it plain and simple: corporations are not people and have no rights whatsoever.
So then the government can censor the NY Times if it choose too?....They can take over NBC studios and tell them what they can no longer air?
They have NO rights whatsoever?!? really? The 1st amendment does not apply?
With your logic, our government could go into GM and search through all of their offices for anything illegal....because the 4th amendment no longer applies?
They could take over The Bank of America's properties and use it for thier own use because the 5th amendment means nothing anymore?
Ex, Corporations ARE bodies of people with RIGHTS....therefore, those rights cannot be stepped on. Despite they are individuals or groups of people.
No, because they are the property of individuals, like you own your house.
But the corporation is not imbued with additional rights because it is a business, like you do not magically assume additional rights because you own property.
Oops. I am answering for someone else.
My apologies.
I do have to add that the government can absolutely go into a business and search it -- so long as a search warrant is legally obtained first, or permission is granted by an officer of the corporation.
Why would you think the government could not do that?
They can search your home with a legally obtained search warrant (or other circumstances -- but you get the point).
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 02, 2012, 10:22:58 AM
No, because they are the property of individuals, like you own your house.
But the corporation is not imbued with additional rights because it is a business, like you do not magically assume additional rights because you own property.
Oops. I am answering for someone else.
My apologies.
I do have to add that the government can absolutely go into a business and search it -- so long as a search warrant is legally obtained first, or permission is granted by an officer of the corporation.
Why would you think the government could not do that?
They can search your home with a legally obtained search warrant (or other circumstances -- but you get the point).
But, if a corporation does not have rights, as you say, they are not protected by the Constitution....then the gov don't need no paper to tell them what they can do....
Corps ARE people...just a bunch of them....so, you say the lose ALL Constitutional rights?
No apologies FTW, I am curious on this one...I have been reading a bunch on this this morning.....
I have found this interesting:
It's true, of course, that corporations "are not human beings." But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. Human beings organized as corporations shouldn't have fewer constitutional rights than those organized as sole proprietors, partnerships, and so on. In this context, it's important to emphasize that most media organizations and political activist groups also use the corporate form. As Eugene points out, most liberals accept the idea that organizational form is irrelevant when it comes to media corporations, which were exempt from the restrictions on other corporate speech struck down by the Court today. The Supreme Court (including its most liberal justices) has repeatedly recognized that media corporations have First Amendment rights just as broad as those extended to media owned by individuals. Yet the "corporations aren't people" argument applies just as readily to media corporations as to others. After all, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations "are not human beings" and they too "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." We readily reject this reasoning in the case of media corporations because we recognize that even though the corporations in question are not people, their owners and employees are. The same point applies to other corporations.
Yep.
Like I said, they have rights as individuals.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 02, 2012, 10:22:58 AM
No, because they are the property of individuals, like you own your house.
But the corporation is not imbued with additional rights because it is a business, like you do not magically assume additional rights because you own property.
Oops. I am answering for someone else.
My apologies.
I do have to add that the government can absolutely go into a business and search it -- so long as a search warrant is legally obtained first, or permission is granted by an officer of the corporation.
Why would you think the government could not do that?
They can search your home with a legally obtained search warrant (or other circumstances -- but you get the point).
Just like you so corporations can be searched and taken over by the government if you and them do something illegal. The government has took over a couple thousands of banks in the last few years and yes Henry the government took over a whore house and ran it.
With the last Supreme Court ruling the corporations have more rights than Henry. They can give more money to politicians than Henry and they don't go to jail.
Not to long ago Toyota was fined by the government 16.5 million dollars for not reporting safety defects in their cars. Wow, the government was really going to hurt Toyota with this fine. Hell, Toyota makes more than that in one day.
But, there is one question I would like to ask is, Henry was born and raised in a blue collar family. A union family, a hard working family, a tax paying family. So where does Henry come up with this fucked up thinking about rich people, corporations and unions? How could he possibly even dreamed them up? It must be some form of mental illness. It couldn't have been from some blue nosed college because he went to a trade school, they don't teach politics or predatory capitalism or greed is good. All of this and he's only 51 years old. For Henry, when does wisdom kick in. :ne1:
So will some one out there please tell me, where in hell does Henry come up with this crap. :confused: :no: :no: :no: :doh: :wall: :ne1: :pirate: :baaa: :@#%&: :dam: :knife: :smash: :huh2: :seeya2:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 02, 2012, 12:01:24 PM
But, if a corporation does not have rights, as you say, they are not protected by the Constitution....then the gov don't need no paper to tell them what they can do....
Corps ARE people...just a bunch of them....so, you say the lose ALL Constitutional rights?
No apologies FTW, I am curious on this one...I have been reading a bunch on this this morning.....
I have found this interesting:
It's true, of course, that corporations "are not human beings." But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. Human beings organized as corporations shouldn't have fewer constitutional rights than those organized as sole proprietors, partnerships, and so on. In this context, it's important to emphasize that most media organizations and political activist groups also use the corporate form. As Eugene points out, most liberals accept the idea that organizational form is irrelevant when it comes to media corporations, which were exempt from the restrictions on other corporate speech struck down by the Court today. The Supreme Court (including its most liberal justices) has repeatedly recognized that media corporations have First Amendment rights just as broad as those extended to media owned by individuals. Yet the "corporations aren't people" argument applies just as readily to media corporations as to others. After all, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations "are not human beings" and they too "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." We readily reject this reasoning in the case of media corporations because we recognize that even though the corporations in question are not people, their owners and employees are. The same point applies to other corporations.
The individuals (owners) have rights as individuals. Corporations should not! It is "double dipping" and then there is the fact that corporations are not subjected to being held legally accountable for the violation of an individual's constitutional rights.
Corporations are subject to governmental oversight on some level that varies from industry to industry. That is why we have governmental entities like OSHA and the FAA, etc. (Although,
deregulation has served to decrease the level of oversight for many industries, and that has served to bring us things like the mortgage crises and the exacerbation of the economic crises domestically).
No one says a corporation does not have a right to free speech and constitutional protection from malicious prosecution, but what we ARE saying is they do NOT have a vote, nor should they, in our governmental process; and what Citizens United vs, FEC did was provide them a HUGE inroad into our governmental process by enabling corporations to contribute to election campaigns without limitation.
I for one believe that corporations should have zero ability to contribute to any political campaign, and this belief would include organizations like labor unions. IMHO the standard should be if you do not have a vote you are ineligible to contribute toward any political campaign. . . in any way, shape, or form. This would exclude endorsement of a given candidate or political party, but limit it to a predetermined ceiling surrounding how much may be expended toward the purchase and publication of advertising materials, like $200, 000.00 per fiscal year.
Corporations should have no right to vote, but they already have via the ability to purchase without limitation the allegiance of a given candidate or party that would support legislation that increases their position; at levels most individuals would never be able to meet or exceed, even if they banded together.
Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission = The Best Government Money Can Buy :yes:
Should a corporation be able to vote, Henry? How about get married? Adopt children? Drive a car?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 02, 2012, 12:50:07 PM
The individuals (owners) have rights as individuals. Corporations should not! It is "double dipping" and then there is the fact that corporations are not subjected to being held legally accountable for the violation of an individual's constitutional rights.
Corporations are subject to governmental oversight on some level that varies from industry to industry. That is why we have governmental entities like OSHA and the FAA, etc. (Although, deregulation has served to decrease the level of oversight for many industries, and that has served to bring us things like the mortgage crises and the exacerbation of the economic crises domestically).
No one says a corporation does not have a right to free speech and constitutional protection from malicious prosecution, but what we ARE saying is they do NOT have a vote, nor should they, in our governmental process; and what Citizens United vs, FEC did was provide them a HUGE inroad into our governmental process by enabling corporations to contribute to election campaigns without limitation.
I for one believe that corporations should have zero ability to contribute to any political campaign, and this belief would include organizations like labor unions. IMHO the standard should be if you do not have a vote you are ineligible to contribute toward any political campaign. . . in any way, shape, or form. This would exclude endorsement of a given candidate or political party, but limit it to a predetermined ceiling surrounding how much may be expended toward the purchase and publication of advertising materials, like $200, 000.00 per fiscal year.
Corporations should have no right to vote, but they already have via the ability to purchase without limitation the allegiance of a given candidate or party that would support legislation that increases their position; at levels most individuals would never be able to meet or exceed, even if they banded together.
I can come closer with the idea of a Corp having zero ability to give a political contribution than a "limited" amount, dreamed up by Washington....it is either right or wrong, not kind of/sort of. I even like the idea, but it is STILL as I see it, a violation of Constitutional Rights. An admendment is the only constitutional remedy to this. I think it would have to be clear about WHAT it could restrain and not allow loopholes to restrain Capitalism in any measure. I do agree, something needs to be done, but the SCOTUS decision is, in my eye, the correct one....perhaps not the best though.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 02, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
I can come closer with the idea of a Corp having zero ability to give a political contribution than a "limited" amount, dreamed up by Washington....it is either right or wrong, not kind of/sort of. I even like the idea, but it is STILL as I see it, a violation of Constitutional Rights. An admendment is the only constitutional remedy to this. I think it would have to be clear about WHAT it could restrain and not allow loopholes to restrain Capitalism in any measure. I do agree, something needs to be done, but the SCOTUS decision is, in my eye, the correct one....perhaps not the best though.
people |ˈpēpəl|
pluralnoun
1 human beings in general or considered collectively
Since you are so stuck on what the constitution says, doesn't it start with the three words, "We the people. . ."?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 02, 2012, 01:27:48 PM
people |ˈpēpəl|
pluralnoun
1 human beings in general or considered collectively
Since you are so stuck on what the constitution says, doesn't it start with the three words, "We the people. . ."?
and it is PEOPLE who ARE the body of Corporations.....NO people-NO corporations.....
I think it comes down to where those on the left think for some reason, that Corporations EVIL.....and those on the right think they are GOOD...
.....corporate successes benefit human beings and corporate failures harm human beings...that is part of natures law.....
Corporate successes benefit only certain human beings, usually officers and investors.
Others are helped collaterally, usually by accident, and usually to a limited degree.
Corporations do not exist for altruistic reasons; they exist to make money.
Let's not blow smoke about how corps are just misunderstood good guys -- that is assigning them attributes they do not deserve.
Nearly all, in my opinion, simply bump people out of the way on the path to making lots of money. The "bumping" does result, however, in lots of grief for lots of people.
So, are corps "evil"?
Not necessarily all the time, but the isolation of those who commit the cruelty from those they victimize makes it easy to dehumanize their victims and convince themselves they do no wrong.
When, however, they do occasionally get caught with their hands in the cookie jars and are found to be directly responsible for their dirty deeds, they try to convince others that they are NOT really to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS, but as simply cogs in the wheel of the corporate machine.
In other words, they (corporations) are human beings when it benefits them, and simply machines when that benefits them.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall?
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall?
Now where have I heard that before? :biggrin: :biggrin:
My turn. :smile:
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 02, 2012, 04:17:25 PM
My turn. :smile:
Have at it my friend. :yes: ;D
Hope you have better luck than others.
Don't expect to, but I'm a sucker.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
:doh: Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall? :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :groan:
I updated your comment. :ditto: :salute:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 02, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall?
Mine was almost healed, but I butted the wall again today. . . :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 03, 2012, 12:38:20 AM
Mine was almost healed, but I butted the wall again today. . . :biggrin:
At least you can say, so far the snow plow hasn't dug up your front yard. :wink: :smile:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 02, 2012, 01:52:03 PM
and it is PEOPLE who ARE the body of Corporations.....NO people-NO corporations.....
. . .
And thus those people who represent the corporations are "double dipping" if we give corporations the status of people.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 03, 2012, 11:57:37 AM
And thus those people who represent the corporations are "double dipping" if we give corporations the status of people.
The way I figure it anyone who thinks a corporation is a person, human has :poop: for brains. :haha:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 03, 2012, 11:57:37 AM
And thus those people who represent the corporations are "double dipping" if we give corporations the status of people.
Okay, explain....how is it double dipping?
If a corp. breaks the law...the CEO, goes to jail....
What do Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, John Rigas, Sanjay Kumar, Walter Forbes, Joe Nacchio, Richard Scrushy, Sam Waksal, and Martin Grass all have in common? They were all CEOs of prominent public companies, convicted of big-time corporate fraud and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2012, 01:14:36 PM
Okay, explain....how is it double dipping?
If a corp. breaks the law...the CEO, goes to jail....
What do Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, John Rigas, Sanjay Kumar, Walter Forbes, Joe Nacchio, Richard Scrushy, Sam Waksal, and Martin Grass all have in common? They were all CEOs of prominent public companies, convicted of big-time corporate fraud and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
You sure got that right. They were the largest contributor's to the Republican Party. Old Ken Lay died before he went to jail for 45 years. Sure fine group of Republicans. :haha:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 03, 2012, 01:14:36 PM
Okay, explain....how is it double dipping?
If a corp. breaks the law...the CEO, goes to jail....
What do Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, John Rigas, Sanjay Kumar, Walter Forbes, Joe Nacchio, Richard Scrushy, Sam Waksal, and Martin Grass all have in common? They were all CEOs of prominent public companies, convicted of big-time corporate fraud and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
If corporations are going to claim "human" status based on their being a group of people and the entire group's monies are going to be used to influence political races, the entire group should be held responsible for any wrongdoing. You can't have it both ways.
For the record, Jeff Skilling was never the CEO of Enron. Kenneth Lay, a huge Republican contributor who died mysteriously days before he was to begin his jail sentence and who was conveniently cremated before anyone of any importance saw the body (read: rich and retired on a private tropical island), was the CEO of Enron but it doesn't surprise me in the least that you wouldn't understand the difference.
In any case, expect that pressure for a constitutional amendment will continue to build since it's obvious that the mental midgets amongst us will never get it unless and until it is succinctly spelled out for them in language that even their little pea-sized brains can grasp.
or you can just do what Obama has done, and ignore the constitution and do what ever you want.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 06, 2012, 08:19:04 AM
or you can just do what Obama has done, and ignore the constitution and do what ever you want.
Please tell us specifically what Obama has done that ignores the Constitution?
easy, for starters he appointed people to lead the CFPB and NLRB with a recess appointments...when there WAS NO recess.
Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house...yet he ignored it and did what he wanted to do.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 06, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
easy, for starters he appointed people to lead the CFPB and NLRB with a recess appointments...when there WAS NO recess.
Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house...yet he ignored it and did what he wanted to do.
You might want togo back and do some more research because you're wrong. Want to try again with something else?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 09:39:44 AM
You might want togo back and do some more research because you're wrong. Want to try again with something else?
Nope, not wrong at all....you might want to try again if you want.
Department of Justice opinion on recess appointments. (http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf)
and that is BS...and YOU know it....
Article I, section 5, plainly states that neither house of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other house...
I think it is QUITE clear as to what it means...The DOJ is in the backpocket of the POTUS....Eric Holder is also crook (subject for another day and thread)...
the bottom line is this....we are no longer a nation governed by laws, but by regulations, composed by Czars, appointed by an insatiably power-hungry President.
I'm thinking that when my choice of whom to entrust with interpretation of the Constitution is between the U.S. Department of Justice and some whiney redneck parroting what he heard on Fux News, I'm going with the former. The fact of the matter is that Republicans intentionally tried to circumvent the intent of that clause with their childish little pro-forma sessions and it didn't work out for them; take your Midol and move on.
you hate it when I am right and you are clearly wrong....dontcha!... ;D
Seriously? :rolleyes:
The Citizen's United Catastrophe
We have seen the world created by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and it doesn't work. Oh, yes, it works nicely for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country, especially if they want to shroud their efforts to influence politics behind shell corporations. It just doesn't happen to work if you think we are a democracy and not a plutocracy.
Two years ago, Citizens United tore down a century's worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system. It will go down as one of the most naive decisions ever rendered by the court.
The strongest case against judicial activism — against "legislating from the bench," as former President George W. Bush liked to say — is that judges are not accountable for the new systems they put in place, whether by accident or design.
The Citizens United justices were not required to think through the practical consequences of sweeping aside decades of work by legislators, going back to the passage of the landmark Tillman Act in 1907, who sought to prevent untoward influence-peddling and indirect bribery.
If ever a court majority legislated from the bench (with Bush's own appointees leading the way), it was the bunch that voted for Citizens United. Did a single justice in the majority even imagine a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor's identity? Did they think that a presidential candidacy might be kept alive largely through the generosity of a Las Vegas gambling magnate with important financial interests in China? Did they consider that the democratizing gains made in the last presidential campaign through the rise of small online contributors might be wiped out by the brute force of millionaires and billionaires determined to have their way?
"The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Those were Justice Anthony Kennedy's words in his majority opinion. How did he know that? Did he consult the electorate? Did he think this would be true just because he said it?
Justice John Paul Stevens' observation in his dissent reads far better than Kennedy's in light of subsequent events. "A democracy cannot function effectively," he wrote, "when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
But ascribing an outrageous decision to naivetéis actually the most sympathetic way of looking at what the court did in Citizens United. A more troubling interpretation is that a conservative majority knew exactly what it was doing: that it set out to remake our political system by fiat in order to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy. Seen this way, Citizens United was an attempt by five justices to push future electoral outcomes in a direction that would entrench their approach to governance.
In fact, this decision should be seen as part of a larger initiative by moneyed conservatives to rig the electoral system against their opponents. How else to explain conservative legislation in state after state to obstruct access to the ballot by lower-income voters — particularly members of minority groups — through voter identification laws, shortened voting periods and restrictions on voter registration campaigns?
Conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end of the system and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other. As veteran journalist Elizabeth Drew noted in an important New York Review of Books article, "little attention is being paid to the fact that our system of electing a president is under siege."
Those who doubt that Citizens United (combined with a comatose Federal Election Commission) has created a new political world with broader openings for corruption should consult reports last week by Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo in the New York Times and by T.W. Farnam in The Washington Post. Both accounts show how American politics has become a bazaar for the very wealthy and for increasingly aggressive corporations. We might consider having candidates wear corporate logos. This would be more honest than pretending that tens of millions in cash will have no impact on how we will be governed.
In the short run, Congress should do all it can within the limits of Citizens United to contain the damage it is causing. In the long run, we have to hope that a future Supreme Court will overturn this monstrosity, remembering that the first words of our Constitution are "We the People," not "We the Rich."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-citizens-united-catastrophe/2012/02/05/gIQATOEfsQ_story.html
Remember how the Republicans cried :cry: :cry: about activist judges. Well look what the 5 Catholic Republican Supreme Court judges did.
CITIZEN UNITED
:zoners:
Quote from: The Troll on February 06, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
Remember how the Republicans cried :cry: :cry: about activist judges. Well look what the 5 Catholic Republican Supreme Court judges did.
CITIZEN UNITED
:zoners:
I think Y pointed out that it's only judicial activism when they don't like the decisions being made. But it's also like I said, if there was
ever a case of justices legislating from the bench, this case was it. :yes:
Guys, I cannot get past a very simple part of this whole case...it is this. The first amendment says that it prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. That is very clear. Telling a corporation in the United States, consisting of American PEOPLE..that they cannot spend money to voice their opinion....violates that amendment.
I understand YOUR frustration, but the court ruled correctly!
If WE the PEOPLE thinks it needs to be changed, then an amendment to that rule needs to be applied. Judges are NOT to be deciding and making NEW rules and laws....they are to interpret the ones we have in place.
Where in our constitution does it say corporations are to be treated differently?
Quote from: Locutus on February 06, 2012, 12:23:43 PM
Did a single justice in the majority even imagine a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor's identity? Did they think that a presidential candidacy might be kept alive largely through the generosity of a Las Vegas gambling magnate with important financial interests in China?
There is a point in here that people like Henry conveniently overlook. Citizens United has made it possible for corporations to have a major influence over the outcome of elections even if those corporations are wholly owned by people who are not U.S. citizens and not eligible themselves to vote in those elections.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 01:02:57 PM
There is a point in here that people like Henry conveniently overlook. Citizens United has made it possible for corporations to have a major influence over the outcome of elections even if those corporations are wholly owned by people who are not U.S. citizens and not eligible themselves to vote in those elections.
think again....and prove me wrong if you can. Regarding foreign nationals and foreign corps....they are STILL banned from participating directly or indirectly to any American Elections....they are still part of the rules intact by the FEC regulations. CU's decision did NOT over turn it...it was not even under consideration by the courts.
and let's see what happens during this next election....if Obama has the economy under control, he will win. If the economy is still in turmoil he will lose.........despite the amount of money that is being spent by any corporation.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 06, 2012, 01:18:07 PM
think again....and prove me wrong if you can. Regarding foreign nationals and foreign corps....they are STILL banned from participating directly or indirectly to any American Elections....they are still part of the rules intact by the FEC regulations. CU's decision did NOT over turn it...it was not even under consideration by the courts.
All foreign governments, corporations or individuals have to do if they want to be allowed to influence elections here is to incorporate in any U.S. state or territory. Perhaps you don't have a problem with, for example, communist Chinese influencing our political process. I do.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 01:02:57 PM
There is a point in here that people like Henry conveniently overlook. Citizens United has made it possible for corporations to have a major influence over the outcome of elections even if those corporations are wholly owned by people who are not U.S. citizens and not eligible themselves to vote in those elections.
Right. And remember, the original case was in regard to the very narrow issue of whether Citizen's documentary
Hillary: The Movie was "electioneering communication" under McCain-Feingold. A district court ruled that it was and, hence, could be regulated. The SCOTUS, in a baffling decision, broadened the scope into a corporate "free speech" issue. That's the
very definition of judicial activism and legislating from the bench if I ever saw one.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 01:24:49 PM
All foreign governments, corporations or individuals have to do if they want to be allowed to influence elections here is to incorporate in any U.S. state or territory. Perhaps you don't have a problem with, for example, communist Chinese influencing our political process. I do.
Henry must have missed the part about "shell corporations" in that piece.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 01:24:49 PM
All foreign governments, corporations or individuals have to do if they want to be allowed to influence elections here is to incorporate in any U.S. state or territory. Perhaps you don't have a problem with, for example, communist Chinese influencing our political process. I do.
The citezins united had NOTHING to do with the outcome of that....the ruling did not change anything regarding that...it was not even discussed in this case.....it was like that before this case.
WTF?
"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." -- Justice John Paul Stevens.
"I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." - Chief Justice John Roberts
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 06, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
Guys, I cannot get past a very simple part of this whole case...it is this. The first amendment says that it prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. That is very clear. Telling a corporation in the United States, consisting of American PEOPLE..that they cannot spend money to voice their opinion….violates that amendment.
I understand YOUR frustration, but the court ruled correctly!
If WE the PEOPLE thinks it needs to be changed, then an amendment to that rule needs to be applied. Judges are NOT to be deciding and making NEW rules and laws….they are to interpret the ones we have in place.
Where in our constitution does it say corporations are to be treated differently?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 06, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
Guys, I cannot get past a very simple part of this whole case...it is this. The first amendment says that it prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. That is very clear.
And you merely support that freedom even for communists seeking to influence American elections; we've got that.
QuoteTelling a corporation in the United States, consisting of American PEOPLE..that they cannot spend money to voice their opinion....violates that amendment.
As noted previously, there is
nothing preventing any foreign entity from incorporating in any U.S. state or territory. Once they have done so, they are legally an American corporation with the same rights and priviledges as any other.
QuoteWhere in our constitution does it say corporations are to be treated differently?
I don't know; where in the Constitution does it say that fucking frogs should be treated differently either, for that matter? Should we let them vote, too? I'm sure the founding fathers, in their wildest dreams, never anticipated this level of stupidity.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 02:01:51 PM
As noted previously, there is nothing preventing any foreign entity from incorporating in any U.S. state or territory. Once they have done so, they are legally an American corporation with the same rights and priviledges as any other.
AND YOU ARE WRONG:
Federal law bans all foreign nationals from contributing either directly or indirectly to any candidate or political party "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." It also bans all foreign nationals from making "an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."
Thus, foreign nationals are banned not only from contributing directly to candidates, but also from making any political expenditures of any kind. This ban includes foreign corporations, since the term "foreign nationals" is defined to include individuals, foreign governments, foreign political parties, and corporations "organized under the laws or having their principal place of business in a foreign country." The punishment for violating this provision can be severe: In addition to civil penalties, knowing and willful violations that aggregate $2,000 or more in a calendar year can result in up to one year in federal prison, and violations aggregating $25,000 or more can result in up to five years in federal prison.There is an exemption for foreign nationals who are lawful permanent residents of the United States. The FEC has implemented congressional intent in this exemption with regard to corporations by issuing regulations that allow only American domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations, not the foreign corporations themselves, to establish PACs. The regulation specifically provides that a "foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities." Such PACs can operate only if their donations and disbursements do "not come from a foreign national" and "no foreign national participates in making decisions" on the PAC's election-related activities. Under current law, there are multiple layers of protection to prevent foreign influence on U.S. elections. This exemption makes perfect sense. Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections, but their American subsidiaries that employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other companies as long as all of the money comes from, and all of the decisions are made by, Americans. source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/02/citizens-united-and-the-restoration-of-the-first-amendment (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/02/citizens-united-and-the-restoration-of-the-first-amendment)
Try to get this through your thick head: Nothing in our current laws explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. The Citizens United ruling gives companies unlimited power to do that - and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests. Senate Bill 2959, the American Elections Act of 2010, addressed this issue specifically but your fellow fucking Republicans failed to act to close this gaping hole.
Admit it, you're all a bunch of fucking communists who want your fellow communists to have access to our political process so you can pervert it even further.
It seems pretty clear cut to me Ex. ;D
Furthermore, how about you pull your head out of your ass and actually learn about these issues rather than using yet another of your right-wing propaganda websites as a source?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 06, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
Try to get this through your thick head: Nothing in our current laws explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. The Citizens United ruling gives companies unlimited power to do that - and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests. Senate Bill 2959, the American Elections Act of 2010, addressed this issue specifically but your fellow fucking Republicans failed to act to close this gaping hole.
Admit it, you're all a bunch of fucking communists who want your fellow communists to have access to our political process so you can pervert it even further.
I have meet a lot of good, kind and intelligent people in my 74 years on this earth and I sincerely mean this. I had never seem someone so ignorant, uneducated in the facts of life, greedy and self centers as "ME" and the Hawk. It seems like they just crawled out from under some moldy rock. I had meet some retarded people in my live and they seem to have their head on their shoulders and their feet on the ground unlike "ME" and the Hawk.
Is there any hope for them, NO! I also may state these are the last people I would want to cover my back or my country back. :groan:
Wow...I understand why they did it as it'll be impossible to compete in the general election otherwise but I have to believe that the Obama campaign's decision to encourage donations to the democratic super-Pac is probably the biggest douche-bag move of all time. Granted, I have never nor will I ever be an incumbent POTUS who is facing what promises to be a close race and still has much he would like to accomplish but abandoning your beliefs to achieve victory makes you one of them and contributes to the downward spiral that our political system has become.
It's a tough call...refuse the money and lose with dignity or accept the money hoping that in your next term you can enact a constitutional amendment barring this influence in future elections.
Our country is fucked no matter who gets elected.
Well, now some of that foreign cash will be used by the sitting POTUs. Wonder how long it will take the repugnicans to prove what has already been stated numerous times here already?
I think it was the smart and only move Obama could take. When the enemy has weapons of mass destruction and all you have is a B-B gun you got to buy some mass destruction weapons of your own.
The Republican Supreme Court caused this and they and the corrupt Republican Party and their dirty trick team has to be challenged.
But you're sure hear the Republicans cry. :cry: :cry: :cry: :trustme: :zoners:
Quote from: The Troll on February 07, 2012, 10:34:07 PM
I think it was the smart and only move Obama could take. When the enemy has weapons of mass destruction and all you have is a B-B gun you got to buy some mass destruction weapons of your own.
The Republican Supreme Court caused this and they and the corrupt Republican Party and their dirty trick team has to be challenged.
But you're sure hear the Republicans cry. :cry: :cry: :cry: :trustme: :zoners:
I agree with Ex on this one. I still think it is a very stupid move but it does demonstrate that our government is indeed the very best corporate money can buy! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 08, 2012, 12:37:16 AM
I agree with Ex on this one. I still think it is a very stupid move but it does demonstrate that our government is indeed the very best corporate money can buy! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
I think you guys are wrong about this, losing a battle be cause you don't have enough money to win is stupid. Losing sucks.
I sure rather be living the next 4 years under Obama and the Democrats than under the Republicans and the clown they pick to run this country.
:zoners: Damn I love this sign. Because it so true. :biggrin:
Hell, the word is, that Obama already has a billion dollar war chest. How much more does he need?
He had $770 million for his 2008 bid....
Quote from: The Troll on February 08, 2012, 09:52:23 AM
I think you guys are wrong about this, losing a battle be cause you don't have enough money to win is stupid. Losing sucks.
I sure rather be living the next 4 years under Obama and the Democrats than under the Republicans and the clown they pick to run this country.
:zoners: Damn I love this sign. Because it so true. :biggrin:
Clearly the POTUS came out against the SCOTUS ruling and has remained against it until now.
He should have stuck to that because there are a LOT of people who agree with his position, and in the final analysis I am confident that this will be receded for the very reasons many of us have listed within this forum since the ruling.
The ruling is dead wrong, and even had he lost in the upcoming election history would show his actions to be 100% correct. Now I am not so sure. . .
I think the viewpoint of the campaign is that you can't fight a conventional war with a nuclear armed opponent. :yes:
Quote from: Locutus on February 08, 2012, 12:15:37 PM
I think the viewpoint of the campaign is that you can't fight a conventional war with a nuclear armed opponent. :yes:
I bet you can, but you might not win
I will say this, I think he should stand on principal here. Though I, STILL think the SCOTUS followed the Constitution and I think standing on principal on what is best for the American people is worth more than the dollars they will recieve. This could be a wound he may not recover from by flipping sides.
And I think it is hypocrisy to criticize someone who does what your own party not only does, but actively supported the initiation of.
I think the President is wrong for doing this, but as a couple of others have already stated, I understand why he is doing it.
Now when the opposition begins criticizing him because of the amount of money he generates in embracing their own tactics, well. . . we already know the opposition is flush with hypocrites so it is no surprise.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2012, 12:31:09 PM
This could be a wound he may not recover from by flipping sides.
He'll have four more years in the White House in which to heal. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2012, 12:40:32 PM
He'll have four more years in the White House in which to heal. :biggrin:
Yep! :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2012, 12:40:32 PM
He'll have four more years in the White House in which to heal. :biggrin:
Especially if this Santorum surge continues.
I used to work with an old painter when I was a teenager....and he had a saying when people got to full of themselves about something....it went like this "the wind blew, the shit flew..........and there he stood" ..... that is what I think about when you guys overlook the republican party to your Obama. :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2012, 01:47:46 PM
I used to work with an old painter when I was a teenager....and he had a saying when people got to full of themselves about something....it went like this "the wind blew, the shit flew..........and there he stood"
Sounds like he was talking about Obama in the 2012 election. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2012, 01:57:17 PM
Sounds like he was talking about Obama in the 2012 election. :biggrin:
now you see....YOU would think that....... :razz: .......BUT, to a good ol fashion, common sense, hard workin dude.....you would see likewise... ;) :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
now you see....YOU would think that....... :razz: .......BUT, to a good ol fashion, common sense, hard workin dude.....you would see likewise... ;) :yes:
So you agree; splendid!
So anyway, where's that old painter now?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2012, 02:58:44 PM
So you agree; splendid!
So anyway, where's that old painter now?
dead
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2012, 03:14:58 PM
dead
Died old sick and tired with his only income was Social Security and in a pauper's grave. :yes: :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2012, 03:30:57 PM
Yep; so much for, "and there he stood."
yeah, but he stood for about another 30 years to the age of 91.....
Quote from: The Troll on February 08, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
Died old sick and tired with his only income was Social Security and in a pauper's grave. :yes: :yes:
In all seriousness, that old dude had a very nice nest egg....he was a penny pinchin ol geezer, and saved saved saved.....he had a nice home and drove nice cars....but worked hard...ALL THE TIME.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
In all seriousness, that old dude had a very nice nest egg....he was a penny pinchin ol geezer, and saved saved saved.....he had a nice home and drove nice cars....but worked hard...ALL THE TIME.
Until he dropped with a paint brush in his hand at 91. Cause he couldn't afford to retire. :'(
Quote from: The Troll on February 08, 2012, 03:59:13 PM
Until he dropped with a paint brush in his hand at 91. Cause he couldn't afford to retire. :'(
Not true....he DID work until he was 80, but only because he wanted too....and he only quit then because he needed to take care of his wife full time. Not everyone depends on a union or government to take care of them....Troll, why can you not see this?
Granted, the old guy did not have the kickass insurance like you did....but he lived to be 91. Maybe he was lucky.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 08, 2012, 04:25:38 PM
Not true....he DID work until he was 80, but only because he wanted too....and he only quit then because he needed to take care of his wife full time. Not everyone depends on a union or government to take care of them....Troll, why can you not see this?
Granted, the old guy did not have the kickass insurance like you did....but he lived to be 91. Maybe he was lucky.
You know my dad lived to 91 and he did it with that kick ass union benefits. How about you dad and his union benefits and I hope to live to live with my kick ass benefits. What do SCABS do. I'd like to know. :titanic:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 30, 2012, 10:32:45 AM
the bottom line the way I see it is this....McCain Feingold bill was unconstitutional....the gov should not be able to tell anyone (business of people) what they can or cannot do with their money or HOW much they can spend or not spend on ANYTHING....weathy or unwealthy.
It seems as if we wanted to be honest either Corperations should be able to give all (as much as they want) or none at all. How arrogant is it that gov thinks they can put limits and say how much they can give.
Our federal government was created wit certain enumerated rights and powers....for them to say just WHAT entities can or cannot contribute to a political campaign is NOT one of those rights or powers.
Why is it then okay for Unions and non-pro-fits to give enormous amounts of money to any campaign they want, and believe that THAT is not undermining the good of the people?
The fact is that Corporations are no less "people" than Unions or Non-profits........and constitutionally there are no difference between the two.
With all of this said, let me be clear I do not like coporate or union influence on our government...but lets stick to our constitution and try to figure out how best to handle this.
You really are a moron. I won't respond to anything else you post here. Useless. You are either really fucking dumb, or just fucking with the blog. I would like to think you are just a troll and not as fucking stupid as you sound. However, I fear you represent the majority of americans who are the hold-over of Southern Redneck; A NASCAR NATION.
Quotewon't respond to anything else you post here.
good :yes:
Quote from: dan foster on February 08, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
You really are a moron. I won't respond to anything else you post here. Useless. You are either really fucking dumb, or just fucking with the blog. I would like to think you are just a troll and not as fucking stupid as you sound. However, I fear you represent the majority of americans who are the hold-over of Southern Redneck; A NASCAR NATION.
Hey, don't call him a Troll, I'm the Troll on this forum. If you quit coming back to him the dumbass will think he won. :doh:
Hawk is just like the deceased Robert Novak. The things he said about working people, poor people and Democrats I thought he was kidding and couldn't be that mean. He though that rich should control and get everything. This man was dead serious. May the asshole rest in hell. :devil29:
Quote from: dan foster on February 08, 2012, 09:43:24 PM
You really are a moron. I won't respond to anything else you post here. Useless. You are either really fucking dumb, or just fucking with the blog. I would like to think you are just a troll and not as fucking stupid as you sound. However, I fear you represent the majority of americans who are the hold-over of Southern Redneck; A NASCAR NATION.
Sad, isn't it?
That is okay, have your fun...I have big shoulders. .... and a glutton for punishment. :yes:
You really don't have big shoulders.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 09, 2012, 11:56:56 AM
You really don't have big shoulders.
Or a big brain. :knife: :smile:
considering the weight, I sometimes slouch, but then I get a breath, and they firm up again.
it helps me when I know for a fact, that I am on the 'right' side of issues.... :razz: ;)
Maybe you used to and they sunk down to your waist? :biggrin:
I recently started to work out again....not just with wieghts but with conservatism.....and I feel GREAT!!!
You should try it!! :yes: :)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 09, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
I recently started to work out again....not just with wieghts but with conservatism.....and I feel GREAT!!!
You should try it!! :yes: :)
I never quit working out so I've managed to avoid that Dunlop you're sportin'. :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 09, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
I recently started to work out again....not just with wieghts but with conservatism.....and I feel GREAT!!!
You should try it!! :yes: :)
That would be like drinking poison koolaid. :koolaid: :puke:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 09, 2012, 12:57:59 PM
I never quit working out so I've managed to avoid that Dunlop you're sportin'. :biggrin:
I dont' have much of one...and can still play some hoops....just get a little tired faster than the average bear.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 09, 2012, 01:18:18 PM
I dont' have much of one...and can still play some hoops....just get a little tired faster than the average bear.
A little tired? You know what white men can't run or jump. :haha: :biggrin:
but, I could pass, shoot okay and play some very tough defence back in the day...
. . .In the meantime, Sensient filed yet another lawsuit -- this time in U.S. District Court -- arguing that state and federal officials and the Teamsters had conspired to violate its constitutional freedom from unlawful searches. The company "has been forced to pay costly fees to consultants, experts and lawyers," the complaint says. "And its long-earned and well-deserved reputation as a leader in the protection and promotion of employee health and safety has been put in jeopardy by the adverse publicity accompanying defendant's abuse of governmental power."
In IOSHA's response, Reason denied that the agency's search had been illegal. In fact, he said he had to threaten to call the police when Sensient interfered with his inspection.
He also said Sensient officials demanded to escort IOSHA inspectors, even to the bathroom. That case is still pending. . .
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120818/BUSINESS/208120308/Star-Watch-Official-says-plant-workers-dangerous-territory-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20120818/BUSINESS/208120308/Star-Watch-Official-says-plant-workers-dangerous-territory-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
So as you can clearly see here, corporate Amerika is indeed abusing and invoking its new constitutional rights to oppress and abuse the individual constitutional rights of its workers. (This examples is from a multi-million dollar corporation right here in Indiana). :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on August 19, 2012, 10:26:21 AM
. . .In the meantime, Sensient filed yet another lawsuit -- this time in U.S. District Court -- arguing that state and federal officials and the Teamsters had conspired to violate its constitutional freedom from unlawful searches. The company "has been forced to pay costly fees to consultants, experts and lawyers," the complaint says. "And its long-earned and well-deserved reputation as a leader in the protection and promotion of employee health and safety has been put in jeopardy by the adverse publicity accompanying defendant's abuse of governmental power."
In IOSHA's response, Reason denied that the agency's search had been illegal. In fact, he said he had to threaten to call the police when Sensient interfered with his inspection.
He also said Sensient officials demanded to escort IOSHA inspectors, even to the bathroom. That case is still pending. . .
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120818/BUSINESS/208120308/Star-Watch-Official-says-plant-workers-dangerous-territory-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com (http://www.indystar.com/article/20120818/BUSINESS/208120308/Star-Watch-Official-says-plant-workers-dangerous-territory-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
So as you can clearly see here, corporate Amerika is indeed abusing and invoking its new constitutional rights to oppress and abuse the individual constitutional rights of its workers. (This examples is from a multi-million dollar corporation right here in Indiana). :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
After this and all of the other safety violations that business pull to hurt their employees. The Republican want to destroy OSHA and let the business police their own safety standards. :rolleyes: :rant:
I wonder how many workers would like to work for a company like this for slave wages. :zoners:
Quote from: The Troll on August 19, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
After this and all of the other safety violations that business pull to hurt their employees. The Republican want to destroy OSHA and let the business police their own safety standards. :rolleyes: :rant:
I wonder how many workers would like to work for a company like this for slave wages. :zoners:
And if this company, in 2012, is so willing to thumb their noses at the governmental authority which is tasked with ensuring worker safety, how will it be when this and similar bodies designed to execute regulatory control over such abuses are abolished?
The SCOTUS already granted them constitutional rights without holding them responsible for conducting business within the same. What next?