PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Today is the first day of the unravelling of Democracy...


Frankie
01-21-2010, 09:38 PM
... in the United States of America. With today's Supreme Court ruling we now OFFICIALLY live in a society of "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE CORPORATIONS, AND FOR THE CORPORATIONS." I have already witnessed one country I belonged to to go down the crapper by RADICAL Religion and now another by RADICAL Capitalism.

I will get the customary "you are stupid" replies in this thread from the few but loud usual suspects. But non of your ignorant attacks makes me any sicker that I truly feel right now. Honestly, I am extremely depressed and can't get rid of the pressure in my chest.

:(

petegz28
01-21-2010, 09:40 PM
I am mixed on the deal. But honestly, what is the difference between a corporation running ads and a newspaper or tv show running whatever articles and pimping whatever person they want?

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:41 PM
There was another thread on this. It was pretty good. You should go check it out.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 09:41 PM
What does this have to do with capitalism? Corporatism and capitalism are different things.

Royal Fanatic
01-21-2010, 09:46 PM
With things like the Health Care Monstrosity and the Cap & Trade Bill to be worried about, this is a nit.

Frankie
01-21-2010, 09:47 PM
What does this have to do with capitalism? Corporatism and capitalism are different things.

I said "RADICAL" Capitalism which has led to "Runaway" Corporatism.

Norman Einstein
01-21-2010, 09:52 PM
I said "RADICAL" Capitalism which has led to "Runaway" Corporatism.

That is just an opinion you have no documentation?

BucEyedPea
01-21-2010, 09:54 PM
Well I was never really fond of democracy anyway. So let it unravel.

Norman Einstein
01-21-2010, 09:58 PM
Well I was never really fond of democracy anyway. So let it unravel.

BEP - Democracy = good. Democrat = not so good.

mlyonsd
01-21-2010, 09:58 PM
Frankie you should take heart from the fine people of Massachusetts and the fact that in the end the voter really does hold the keys to congress when standing up to a corrupt party and administration, no matter which lobbyist group is paying them.

headsnap
01-21-2010, 10:02 PM
So the SC just gave other Corporations some of the power that the Corporations that own the networks already had... :shrug:

Taco John
01-21-2010, 10:12 PM
I said "RADICAL" Capitalism which has led to "Runaway" Corporatism.

that's idiotic.

Frankie
01-21-2010, 10:20 PM
Frankie you should take heart from the fine people of Massachusetts and the fact that in the end the voter really does hold the keys to congress when standing up to a corrupt party and administration, no matter which lobbyist group is paying them.

Voters will not have nearly the funds to match unlimited spending by corporations. Sorry dude, if SOME of our politicians are now in the corporate pockets soon ALL of them will be. The conscientious ones will soon be dinosaurs. The Congress will be there to rubber stamp what the corporations want and the POTUS will merely be their mouth-piece. You and I will have no voice and no representation. It feels so frustrating already.

Frankie
01-21-2010, 10:21 PM
that's idiotic.

Why?

SNR
01-21-2010, 10:23 PM
Is this about Scott Brown? Or the Supreme Court thread on the front page of this subforum that I really don't give a shit about?

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 10:34 PM
I am mixed on the deal. But honestly, what is the difference between a corporation running ads and a newspaper or tv show running whatever articles and pimping whatever person they want?Thye have Billions to spend and they profit financially.

Jenson71
01-21-2010, 10:40 PM
What does this have to do with capitalism? Corporatism and capitalism are different things.

I don't think Frankie means 'corporatism' in the way that political theorists mean 'corporatism'. Frankie is probably talking about the domination of society and business by big business.

fan4ever
01-21-2010, 10:40 PM
So the SC just gave other Corporations some of the power that the Corporations that own the networks already had... :shrug:

...and that ladies and gentlemen is an excellent point...Democrats get FREE advertising from the mainstream media.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-21-2010, 10:45 PM
What does this have to do with capitalism? Corporatism and capitalism are different things.

The latter invariably leads to the former.

It's like gravitational accretion.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 10:55 PM
The SCOTUS is only 1 leg of a 3 legged animal. This ain't over. Both the executive and legislative branches will have their say on this. They both have the power to legislate corporations in the USA.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 10:58 PM
I don't think Frankie means 'corporatism' in the way that political theorists mean 'corporatism'. Frankie is probably talking about the domination of society and business by big business.


Yeah, I know. He doesn't know the difference between corporatism and capitalism, that much is clear.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 11:00 PM
The latter invariably leads to the former.

It's like gravitational accretion.


Is that why Democrats are trying to mandate that people be forced to buy insurance from mega-corporations? Because of capitalism?

ROFL

GTFOOH

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 11:29 PM
Well I was never really fond of democracy anyway. So let it unravel.welllll this will be a big step to you getting your wish. Goldman Sachs has $16 billio to give out for bonus's. Say they decide to only give out $10 billion in bonus's and decide to spend $6 billion to defeat financial reforms of the company? $6 billion can buy a lot of legislation. That is defintely not democracy or the will of the people.

whatsmynameagain
01-21-2010, 11:50 PM
welllll this will be a big step to you getting your wish. Goldman Sachs has $16 billio to give out for bonus's. Say they decide to only give out $10 billion in bonus's and decide to spend $6 billion to defeat financial reforms of the company? $6 billion can buy a lot of legislation. That is defintely not democracy or the will of the people.

apparently a lot of cp posters are going to benefit from this policy. congrats!
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger
01-22-2010, 12:00 AM
I don't even know what you ruling you're talking about, but I presume by your protestations that they've brought back robber barons or something?

Taco John
01-22-2010, 01:33 AM
welllll this will be a big step to you getting your wish. Goldman Sachs has $16 billio to give out for bonus's. Say they decide to only give out $10 billion in bonus's and decide to spend $6 billion to defeat financial reforms of the company? $6 billion can buy a lot of legislation. That is defintely not democracy or the will of the people.


No, that's corporatism.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ticytEUvVhQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ticytEUvVhQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Taco John
01-22-2010, 01:36 AM
I would love to see someone lob Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin a question about corporatism. That brief moment of perplexed astonishment right before they plow into some pre-knit ramble to avoid the question is priceless.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 08:11 AM
... in the United States of America. With today's Supreme Court ruling we now OFFICIALLY live in a society of "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE CORPORATIONS, AND FOR THE CORPORATIONS." I have already witnessed one country I belonged to to go down the crapper by RADICAL Religion and now another by RADICAL Capitalism.

I will get the customary "you are stupid" replies in this thread from the few but loud usual suspects. But non of your ignorant attacks makes me any sicker that I truly feel right now. Honestly, I am extremely depressed and can't get rid of the pressure in my chest.

:(

Sounds to me like it's time for you to move on. Venezuela might suit you.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 08:15 AM
Sounds to me like it's time for you to move on. Venezuela might suit you.I can see the ruling and the reasons behind it. I would not be in favor of banning all coporate donations to political causes. But there has to be some restraint. Surely you can see the inert danger of an unlimited and unrestrained corporation buying elections? How will that be good for us?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 08:31 AM
welllll this will be a big step to you getting your wish. Goldman Sachs has $16 billio to give out for bonus's. Say they decide to only give out $10 billion in bonus's and decide to spend $6 billion to defeat financial reforms of the company? $6 billion can buy a lot of legislation. That is defintely not democracy or the will of the people.

6 billion is alot of money, considering they were able to buy B.O. for "only" 90 million.

tmax63
01-22-2010, 08:39 AM
Corporations are no different than unions. They are large groups of people that have huge amounts of money to spend on candidates that support their positions. This is no more than the yin to the union's yang.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 09:00 AM
I can see the ruling and the reasons behind it. I would not be in favor of banning all coporate donations to political causes. But there has to be some restraint. Surely you can see the inert danger of an unlimited and unrestrained corporation buying elections? How will that be good for us?

What's good about restricting free speech?

No restraint is necessary, IMO.

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 09:16 AM
welllll this will be a big step to you getting your wish. Goldman Sachs has $16 billio to give out for bonus's. Say they decide to only give out $10 billion in bonus's and decide to spend $6 billion to defeat financial reforms of the company? $6 billion can buy a lot of legislation. That is defintely not democracy or the will of the people.

That's not democracy anyway. That's cartel capitalism aka corporatism aka mercantilism aka crony capitalism. But it ain't democracy—at all! It's not even our REPUBLIC!

Ya' know if you offer the same freedom to the opposition to have free speech the positions get aired for people to decide. Unions should have the same liberty to run such ads or promote a candidate. They just should NOT have no right to force people to go along with it in some way in their union. That's where they go wrong.

Now on top of airing all the views if we followed the Constitution exactly NO ONE would be getting anything including what you posted. That's where people's protections exist.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 09:17 AM
What's good about restricting free speech?

No restraint is necessary, IMO. I agree its not ideal. But you do see the danger, correct or not?

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 09:19 AM
I would love to see someone lob Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin a question about corporatism. That brief moment of perplexed astonishment right before they plow into some pre-knit ramble to avoid the question is priceless.

I know. These arguments that set things up as it's corporations versus the people are so lame. There's truth in it, but the wrong violations are cited as the problem. That and it's really the Mercantilists ( including their other labels) versus the socialists in this country fighting so vocally and getting all the air time.

stevieray
01-22-2010, 09:19 AM
frankie, no offense, but I think the people in Iran who embrace the west have a better understanding of America than you do.

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 09:21 AM
Here's the other thing BRC.....ads are expensive but print media is dying. There is the net which democratizes the costs of getting a message out by making it cheaper. It's not as BIG a threat as it's made out to be. You should be concerned when the govt wants more restrictions and regs on the internet which is what the Ds are aiming for.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 09:34 AM
I agree its not ideal. But you do see the danger, correct or not?

It's dangerous to let people have the freedom to speak freely about politics. Every once in a while you get a Barack Obama who hoodwinks people into a bad situation like we find ourselves in today. But the alternative is worse.

In short, no I don't see any danger that exceeds the general dangers of free speech.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 09:39 AM
It's dangerous to let people have the freedom to speak freely about politics. Every once in a while you get a Barack Obama who hoodwinks people into a bad situation like we find ourselves in today. But the alternative is worse.

In short, no I don't see any danger that exceeds the general dangers of free speech.What is different now? This debate has went on for 100 years? The people and courts have always said yes, you can contribute, voice your opinions but the money contributed has to be restrained so that those without access to those Billions can still be heard. Been this way for 100 years. Again, what has changed so much that we should allow a possible corporate takeover of our elections?

gblowfish
01-22-2010, 09:39 AM
The President and each congressman and senator should have to wear a NASCAR style suit bearing all the logos of corporate sponsors to work each day.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 09:42 AM
What is different now? This debate has went on for 100 years? The people and courts have always said yes, you can contribute, voice your opinions but the money contributed has to be restrained so that those without access to those Billions can still be heard. Been this way for 100 years. Again, what has changed so much that we should allow a possible corporate takeover of our elections?

What do you mean? What happened 100 years ago?

oldandslow
01-22-2010, 09:43 AM
Well I was never really fond of democracy anyway. So let it unravel.

I know you like the republic, but I am curious about your response here...would you like to clarify...not poking fun, am genuinely curious.

Frankie
01-22-2010, 09:49 AM
That is just an opinion you have no documentation?

Obvious does not need documentation. Although one could find a lot out there, I'm sure. Capitalism is fantastic in moderation. But it has no heart and is based solely on increasing profit, people be damned.

Frankie
01-22-2010, 09:50 AM
I don't think Frankie means 'corporatism' in the way that political theorists mean 'corporatism'. Frankie is probably talking about the domination of society and business by big business.

Yes.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 09:52 AM
What do you mean? What happened 100 years ago?First court cases involving business and politics.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 09:53 AM
He does have valid point. Republicans talk about activitist judges all the time like its a bad thing. wellll how much more activist can you get than this?


Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 6:30 AM
The Sweeping Impact of SCOTUS's Campaign-Spending Decision

Howard Fineman
I rarely attend a Supreme Court argument, but I did last fall for a "rehearing" of the campaign-spending case. I wrote a column about it (http://www.newsweek.com/id/215302), predicting that the Roberts Court would sweep away long-established restrictions on spending by corporations. The most vivid image I saw was the red-faced Chief Justice John Roberts, veins popping on his neck as he vibrated with disgust at the idea that government could limit what a corporate entity could do or say in the political arena.

The 5–4 opinion issued Thursday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482.html) by the Roberts Court—written by swing voter Anthony Kennedy—was even more sweeping than I had imagined and predicted.




It's nothing short of revolutionary. Here's how I add up the possible consequences:

It adds to Republican chances of pickups in red states with small, cheap media markets.
It turns the cottage industry of campaign consulting into a Hollywood-lucrative major media sector.
It reduces candidates and political parties to mere appendages in their own campaigns.
It will turn corporate boardrooms into political cockfighting pits, since that is where the key decisions will be made.<LI sizset="44" sizcache="194">It gives President Obama a populist issue, if he has the cojones and imagination and sense of injustice to take it on.
It rips the veil of "conservatism" from this court, which just rendered one of the most wildly "activist" opinions in decades. It makes a mockery of the legal theory of "original intent." The Founders would be rolling over in their graves.
Other than that, it's not much of a story.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/22/the-sweeping-impact-of-scotus-campaign-spending-decision.aspx

Frankie
01-22-2010, 09:53 AM
...and that ladies and gentlemen is an excellent point...Democrats get FREE advertising from the mainstream media.

Bullshit! Mainstream or not, the airwaves are dominated by Limbaugh and his kind. What are you talking about? The media is corporate-owned. Corporations do not bite themselves in the ass. The "liberal" mainstream media is a myth and nothing but a Righty talking point.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:54 AM
Bullshit! Mainstream or not, the airwaves are dominated by Limbaugh and his kind.

He has a product that people want to buy. Whats the problem?

Frankie
01-22-2010, 09:56 AM
Yeah, I know. He doesn't know the difference between corporatism and capitalism, that much is clear.

Enlighten me please.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 09:56 AM
Enlighten me please.

Freud couldn't do that.

Frankie
01-22-2010, 09:57 AM
I don't even know what you ruling you're talking about, but I presume by your protestations that they've brought back robber barons or something?

Potentially yes.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 10:00 AM
The SCOTUS is only 1 leg of a 3 legged animal. This ain't over. Both the executive and legislative branches will have their say on this. They both have the power to legislate corporations in the USA.


Uh...not really.

States can legislate Corporations in the USA.

But the Federal government has very little say over the creation and regulation of corporations (especially the Executive branch; though I know you'd like the President to be an Emperor, he isn't).

Brock
01-22-2010, 10:01 AM
Maybe you can run away from this one like you ran away from your old one.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:01 AM
What's with all the corporations who charter in Delaware? Isn't Joe Biden a former Senator there?

Frankie
01-22-2010, 10:03 AM
I can see the ruling and the reasons behind it. I would not be in favor of banning all coporate donations to political causes.

The entire lobby system is a sick idea. Politicians should be given equal budget, in the field they are campaigning, free of outside lobbies and told to budget their campaign. The ones who fail do so because of two things: (1) They are not good budget managers, (2) They do not support what the majority of voters want. What's wrong with that?

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 10:04 AM
He does have valid point. Republicans talk about activitist judges all the time like its a bad thing. wellll how much more activist can you get than this?


Well the fact that it simply struck down a bill as violative of the 1st Amendment would be a start.

It's not like they enacted the affectation doctrine here (now THAT was some good activist judgin'...). They simply said that a law passed by Congress unconstutionally restricted our rights to free speech.

I'd say that pointing out violations of the Bill of Rights falls squarely within the realm of 'doing their job' and not 'activist judging'

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:05 AM
The entire lobby system is a sick idea. Politicians should be given equal budget, in the field they are campaigning, free of outside lobbies and told to budget their campaign.

And how do you propose to enforce this? Cameras in the bathrooms?

Frankie
01-22-2010, 10:05 AM
What's good about restricting free speech?

No restraint is necessary, IMO.

Redefine, not restrict. There are loopholes in the definition that allow a lot of bullshit.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 10:08 AM
I'd say that pointing out violations of the Bill of Rights falls squarely within the realm of 'doing their job' and not 'activist judging'So your point is that all those judges for the last 100 years wern't doing their job?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:08 AM
Fluh fluh Flunkie!

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 10:09 AM
Uh...not really.

States can legislate Corporations in the USA.

But the Federal government has very little say over the creation and regulation of corporations (especially the Executive branch; though I know you'd like the President to be an Emperor, he isn't).I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but you are wrong. Congress can pass legislation to regulate business.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 10:11 AM
First court cases involving business and politics.

What were these cases? What did they establish?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:11 AM
Jah jah Junkie!

For a candidate who has railed against lobbyist money, likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has chosen an interesting running mate.

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have reported that Obama’s pick for vice president, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., took more than $200,000 in campaign contributions from credit card company MBNA during his 35-year career in the U.S. Senate.

So when many consumers are hurting and bankruptcies are at an all-time high, will Biden’s attachments to big business hurt the Obama campaign?

Probably not, both Republican and Democratic donors said.

“You’re not going to see it on talking points at the Republican convention" or in advertisements, said Marc Nuttle, a GOP strategist. “But it will come up, I can assure you that.”


http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/joe-biden-credit-card-industry/

KC native
01-22-2010, 10:11 AM
What's with all the corporations who charter in Delaware? Isn't Joe Biden a former Senator there?

Wow, you just keep displaying the depths of your stupidity. Delaware has some of the toughest laws wrt corporate protection. It's tough to pierce the corporate veil in Delaware and Nevada.

Frankie
01-22-2010, 10:12 AM
Freud couldn't do that.

Do you ever post in the lounge? Or are you here to just keep polluting this forum with your limited mind's diarrhea?:shake:

Taco John
01-22-2010, 10:13 AM
I know you like the republic, but I am curious about your response here...would you like to clarify...not poking fun, am genuinely curious.

Democracy fucking blows dude. You guys just about committed every American to be forced into corporate shackles under the guise of democracy and health. When radical democracy starts strong-arming people onto corporate customer rolls, there's something seriously wrong.

Taco John
01-22-2010, 10:13 AM
Obvious does not need documentation. Although one could find a lot out there, I'm sure. Capitalism is fantastic in moderation. But it has no heart and is based solely on increasing profit, people be damned.

You're a moron. Morons be damned.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:14 AM
Wow, I just keep displaying the depths of my stupidity. Delaware has some of the toughest laws wrt corporate protection. It's tough to pierce the corporate veil in Delaware and Nevada.

Why does Joe Biden keep taking money from evil corporations?

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 10:14 AM
Do you ever post in the lounge? Or are you here to just keep polluting this forum with your limited mind's diarrhea?:shake:Just ignore him and don't respond to any of his posts.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 10:15 AM
What were these cases? What did they establish?google it yourself.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:16 AM
Do you ever post in the lounge?

No games until Sunday.

Jah jah JUNKIE!

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:18 AM
When radical democracy starts strong-arming people onto corporate customer rolls, there's something seriously wrong.

B.O. cares about poor people!

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 10:18 AM
google it yourself.

ROFL

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 10:30 AM
So your point is that all those judges for the last 100 years wern't doing their job?

Damn.

McCain Feingold is 100 years old?

But to your question - oftentimes yes. Through the middle of the century (I'd say 1920 to 1960) the SCOTUS was easily our least effective branch of government. Congress actually did a fair job and even the Executive did well.

You really need to read things like the 'penumbra' approach to Constitutional rights and the affectation doctrine (which essentially gutted state soveriegnty by making virtually everything 'interstate commerce') to realize how badly our Supreme Court failed us during that period in our Country's history.

It sounds like you've come to this particular gunfight unarmed. I'd suggest you do some reading before you draw next time.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 10:34 AM
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but you are wrong. Congress can pass legislation to regulate business.

Corporate law is controlled via state constitutions.

Corporations are purely a creature of state law. While the Congress could attempt to pass laws regulating businesses in general (likely under the commerce clause), that would cover ALL businesses and not just corporations. Any attempts to directly manipulate the right of Corporations, a recognized legal entity, apart from sole proprietorships or partnerships would likely be struck down as Unconstitutional. As would any attempts to chill speech from 'business' generally.

You're right - you're not a Constutional lawyer.

RINGLEADER
01-22-2010, 10:38 AM
that's idiotic.

I second this...

patteeu
01-22-2010, 11:34 AM
google it yourself.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make, how can I google it myself? You wave your hands and post a few generalities about something vague and then you want me to google it myself to clear up the confusion? No thanks.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 11:36 AM
Redefine, not restrict. There are loopholes in the definition that allow a lot of bullshit.

Sorry, what you're talking about is greater restriction. Let's not muddy the water with an ambiguous term like redefine.

Taco John
01-22-2010, 11:39 AM
Sorry, what you're talking about is greater restriction. Let's not muddy the water with an ambiguous term like redefine.

How do you expect Democrats to be able to sell their ideas to people if they don't redefine everything?

patteeu
01-22-2010, 11:40 AM
Damn.

McCain Feingold is 100 years old?

But to your question - oftentimes yes. Through the middle of the century (I'd say 1920 to 1960) the SCOTUS was easily our least effective branch of government. Congress actually did a fair job and even the Executive did well.

You really need to read things like the 'penumbra' approach to Constitutional rights and the affectation doctrine (which essentially gutted state soveriegnty by making virtually everything 'interstate commerce') to realize how badly our Supreme Court failed us during that period in our Country's history.

It sounds like you've come to this particular gunfight unarmed. I'd suggest you do some reading before you draw next time.

Excellent

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 11:43 AM
I don't even know what point you're trying to make, how can I google it myself? You wave your hands and post a few generalities about something vague and then you want me to google it myself to clear up the confusion? No thanks.Glad to lead you to the trough...but you will have to drink....

The Supreme Court never said corporations had equal rights with US citizens or that they were "legal" persons with equal "rights" that citizens have.

Look up the debate over the 1886 Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County vs. some railroad. Some took that ruling to define a corperation as a person.

By this ruling yesterday, the SCOTUS said corporations are "persons" and therefore entitled to equal rights.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 11:53 AM
Glad to lead you to the trough...but you will have to drink....

The Supreme Court never said corporations had equal rights with US citizens or that they were "legal" persons with equal "rights" that citizens have.

Look up the debate over the 1886 Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County vs. some railroad. Some took that ruling to define a corperation as a person.

By this ruling yesterday, the SCOTUS said corporations are "persons" and therefore entitled to equal rights.

You're wrong. They didn't do that yesterday at all. They effectively said that you can't limit political speech just because it's being funded by a corporation. It's the speech that is protected, not the supposed right of corporations.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 11:58 AM
BRC, the way you and some of the others in this thread are looking at this, you could ban political speech in the form of a book (books don't have 1st amendment rights), a political marketing or PR agency (agencies aren't people and don't have 1st amendment rights), a TV or radio program (TV and radio companies don't have 1st amendment rights because they aren't people), etc. etc. The only protected speech would be the actual voices of natural persons, which wouldn't really be free speech at all.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 12:01 PM
You're wrong. They didn't do that yesterday at all. They effectively said that you can't limit political speech just because it's being funded by a corporation. It's the speech that is protected, not the supposed right of corporations.okay then why every time this comes up about politics and corporations they always refer back to that 1886 ruling?

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 12:05 PM
BRC, the way you and some of the others in this thread are looking at this, you could ban political speech in the form of a book (books don't have 1st amendment rights), a political marketing or PR agency (agencies aren't people and don't have 1st amendment rights), a TV or radio program (TV and radio companies don't have 1st amendment rights because they aren't people), etc. etc. The only protected speech would be the actual voices of natural persons, which wouldn't really be free speech at all.I've said I don't have a problem with the SCOTUS ruling. I can see how the law would allow unlimited contributions to political causes/candidates by corporations. But just because its the law doesn't mean that is what is best for America. Denying women the right to vote and segregation was legal too at one point.

It's about what kind of democracy we want to live in. And allowing billions from corporations to be injected into that democracy can't be good for the average middle class guy like myself.

Hydrae
01-22-2010, 12:06 PM
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad is the case you trying to remember. I put up a couple of interesting (to me at least) posts in the other thread yesterday but no one touched them. I guess the conundrum of the corporate person being owned by others (slavery anyone?) isn't an issue people wanted to deal with.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 12:08 PM
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad is the case you trying to remember. I put up a couple of interesting (to me at least) posts in the other thread yesterday but no one touched them. I guess the conundrum of the corporate person being owned by others (slavery anyone?) isn't an issue people wanted to deal with.yeah now I remember. Something pulled from the old memory banks from college.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 12:14 PM
okay then why every time this comes up about politics and corporations they always refer back to that 1886 ruling?

I don't know which "they" you mean, but the court decision in the case being discussed didn't refer to it.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 12:16 PM
I've said I don't have a problem with the SCOTUS ruling. I can see how the law would allow unlimited contributions to political causes/candidates by corporations. But just because its the law doesn't mean that is what is best for America. Denying women the right to vote and segregation was legal too at one point.

It's about what kind of democracy we want to live in. And allowing billions from corporations to be injected into that democracy can't be good for the average middle class guy like myself.

You're right, you should just mainline your information through the mainstream media.

The more I watch this, the more I'm sure of it. 'Corporations' are going to be the scapegoat that eventually leads to the rise of a totalitarian form of government.

It's decades away still, but I can see the groundwork already being laid. By the turn of the century the 'corporations' will be deemed the country's great evil, much like the csars and later the bureaucrats in Soviet Russia, the WWI politicians in Italy, the Jews/Slavs in Germany.

We'll slowly erode liberties in the name of protecting the people from the evil corporations. Afterall, it's too much to expect the population to simply stop spending money with these corporations. Nah, we need to turn our freedoms over to the government so they can protect us.

Corporations are powerless without the citizens that support them. Use your dollar vote and simply stop buying from them. Oh wait, that requires you acknowledge that corporations are individual entities that exist apart from other corporations and they aren't just a nebulous mass of puppy killers. It would also require some personal discipline and/or accountability on the part of individual citizens - lord knows we can't ask for that.

Nope, just let the government do it.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 12:17 PM
I've said I don't have a problem with the SCOTUS ruling. I can see how the law would allow unlimited contributions to political causes/candidates by corporations. But just because its the law doesn't mean that is what is best for America. Denying women the right to vote and segregation was legal too at one point.

It's about what kind of democracy we want to live in. And allowing billions from corporations to be injected into that democracy can't be good for the average middle class guy like myself.

It's hard to understand what your position is. You agree with the ruling but you think it's dangerous and believed it is based on a 100 year old misreading of the constitution (at least until I pointed out that it wasn't). It's like how you support Obama but you dislike almost everything he does. You're a complicated fellow.

The point of my post was just that the argument you were using to point out the danger that you seem to see, would be just as applicable to other forms of free speech that we all recognize as such. I guess the bottom line is that I don't share your apprehension about any danger in this ruling. I see more reason to worry about the free speech that wasn't unshackled by the ruling (e.g. campaign contribution limits).

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 12:20 PM
You're a complicated fellow.

That's some Kissinger level diplomacy right there.

I'd have called him a misinformed O-bot that talks out of both sides of his mouth, often with little to no factual support for anything he says.

But your way is much nicer.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 12:25 PM
yeah now I remember. Something pulled from the old memory banks from college.

Oh please, you got it off Huffpo this morning.

:rolleyes:

wild1
01-22-2010, 12:26 PM
1. People who don't believe politics are already awash in corporate dollars are simply too naive to participate in the discussion.

2. Most of the objections are from people whose party stands to lose huge here, and for no other reason than that.

3. One party stands to lose huge here primarily because they might actually be held accountable now to a greater degree for being so vehemently anti-business.

4. That same party would love for the current situation to continue where politics are awash in union dollars - of course, restrictions are ok with them, so long as their most reliable supporters are excepted.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 12:27 PM
It's hard to understand what your position is. You agree with the ruling but you think it's dangerous and believed it is based on a 100 year old misreading of the constitution (at least until I pointed out that it wasn't). It's like how you support Obama but you dislike almost everything he does. You're a complicated fellow.

The point of my post was just that the argument you were using to point out the danger that you seem to see, would be just as applicable to other forms of free speech that we all recognize as such. I guess the bottom line is that I don't share your apprehension about any danger in this ruling. I see more reason to worry about the free speech that wasn't unshackled by the ruling (e.g. campaign contribution limits).My point was that I agree its probably legal but, its not what is best for America. How is that hard to understand?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Does Keith Olberman work for a corporation? Yes, I think he does. Thank you, no further comments, your honor.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 12:28 PM
That's some Kissinger level diplomacy right there.

I'd have called him a misinformed O-bot that talks out of both sides of his mouth, often with little to no factual support for anything he says.

But your way is much nicer.you know that you don't have to deride a poster because you disagree with him or her, correct?

wild1
01-22-2010, 12:29 PM
Does Keith Olberman work for a corporation? Yes, I think he does. Thank you, no further comments, your honor.

I'm sure Fox News could be shackled by the left in this way; "sure, we have freedom of the press, but Fox News is not an actual printing press. "

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 12:29 PM
My point was that I agree its probably legal but, its not what is best for America. How is that hard to understand?

Very good, Mussolini.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 12:30 PM
you know that you don't have to deride a poster because you disagree with him or her, correct?

I think I read that somewhere.

:hmmm:

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 12:34 PM
you know that you don't have to deride a poster because you disagree with him or her, correct?

That's rich. That's all your side did during the primaries. When all that Rev Wright stuff broke, you guys character assassinated everybody who dared speak out against the one. And please don't start the I never called anybody names BS because we all do it, whether it's passive aggressive or it's done candidly, we all call each names and we all insult each other.

The more you continue to defend B.O. and his Marxist agenda, the more silly you look. It's damn near impossible to engage you in a conversation without making fun of you.

Deal with reality, you O-bots made your bed, and now you are gonna lie in it. Don't like it? Too bad, should have thought of that when you were insulting everybody back during the primaries who could see right through that greasy slimebag who crawled out from underneath a rock in Chicago. Because we were right all along, and you continue to be wrong.

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 12:40 PM
Censorship of any is bad for the country. The left seems to think that its ok to censor those who perhaps may at any time possibly disagree with them. The right is willing to allow for open expression of ideas even if they dont agree.

This entire crazy outrage over the SC ruling should serve to prove it and the action by Obama and the left in congress will further demonstrate that free speech is only free if its left speech.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 12:41 PM
My point was that I agree its probably legal but, its not what is best for America. How is that hard to understand?

So you would favor a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to restrict political speech funded by corporations? Would your amendment also give them the power to restrict political speech by all organizations (e.g. unions, clubs, film companies, partnerships, PR firms, etc.)? Would your amendment require all organizations to be treated the same or would you allow Congress to pick and choose how much speech is restricted for different types of organizations?

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 12:42 PM
Censorship of any is bad for the country. The left seems to think that its ok to censor those who perhaps may at any time possibly disagree with them. The right is willing to allow for open expression of ideas even if they dont agree.

This entire crazy outrage over the SC ruling should serve to prove it and the action by Obama and the left in congress will further demonstrate that free speech is only free if its left speech.

That's not entirely true either; recall the movements to ban flag burning.

Neither side has clean hands here, both parties support free speech far more vehemently when it matches their agendas.

At the same time, the Democratic platform is one of large government and centralized authority. It runs almost completely contrary to the idea of unfettered free speech. Of the two parties, the Libs are certainly far more guilty of it.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 12:45 PM
Censorship of any is bad for the country. The left seems to think that its ok to censor those who perhaps may at any time possibly disagree with them. The right is willing to allow for open expression of ideas even if they dont agree.

This entire crazy outrage over the SC ruling should serve to prove it and the action by Obama and the left in congress will further demonstrate that free speech is only free if its left speech.

Of course. But they think they are fooling everybody. :rolleyes:

mlyonsd
01-22-2010, 12:48 PM
There is a bright side Frankie.

Remember all the 'Democracy is ruined' threads over wire tapping, the Patriot Act, and other Bush treasoness policies?

Even though it's over now we lasted a bit longer than expected so count your blessings.

gblowfish
01-22-2010, 01:21 PM
Congress just went up for sale on EBAY today.
Happy Bidding!
http://tinyurl.com/ycesmop

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 01:48 PM
http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e588340120a7f9629c970b-500wi

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

KC native
01-22-2010, 01:50 PM
So you would favor a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to restrict political speech funded by corporations? Would your amendment also give them the power to restrict political speech by all organizations (e.g. unions, clubs, film companies, partnerships, PR firms, etc.)? Would your amendment require all organizations to be treated the same or would you allow Congress to pick and choose how much speech is restricted for different types of organizations?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Edit: FTR I'm for completely publicly funded campaigns with everyone receiving equal funds.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 01:56 PM
Yes, yes, and yes.

Edit: FTR I'm for completely publicly funded campaigns with everyone receiving equal funds.

And if an individual wants to spend his own money financing a campaign commercial, he can just STFU.

Do you not see that this is an absolute affront to free speech rights? That the framers wanted nothing more than to protect political and religious speech?

Or do you just not care?

patteeu
01-22-2010, 02:06 PM
Yes, yes, and yes.

Edit: FTR I'm for completely publicly funded campaigns with everyone receiving equal funds.

Well duh. I already knew you were a socialist who favors government control over political freedom. I was curious about what BigRedChief thought.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 02:15 PM
So you would favor a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to restrict political speech funded by corporations? Would your amendment also give them the power to restrict political speech by all organizations (e.g. unions, clubs, film companies, partnerships, PR firms, etc.)? Would your amendment require all organizations to be treated the same or would you allow Congress to pick and choose how much speech is restricted for different types of organizations?Man, I don't know. Saying an individual and or corporation can only give say $5K or whatever to a candidate/cause seems to be a reasonable accomendation to not restrict free speech. But, it is restricting free speech and I don't like restricting free speech even a little. It's a slippery slope I rather not see us travel. In no way do I want government deciding who it applies to and who it doesnt. If you don't have someone deciding who to restrict and who not to then you have to let everyone in to play.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 02:17 PM
Man, I don't know. Saying an individual and or corporation can only give say $5K or whatever to a candidate/cause seems to be a reasonable accomendation to not restrict free speech. But, it is restricting free speech and I don't like restricting free speech even a little. It's a slippery slope I rather not see us travel.

The logical extension of this statement, then, is that those with the most money have the most speech.

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:19 PM
This is a horrible ruling. The Supreme Court is nothing but political activist anyway.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 02:20 PM
The logical extension of this statement, then, is that those with the most money have the most speech.I know. Sucks.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:22 PM
This is a horrible ruling. The Supreme Court is nothing but political activist anyway.

You are an exceptional moron.

I'd bet any amount of money you haven't read the opinion.

Nor do you have a damn clue what you're talking about.

You may not like its consequences, but in light of established legal precedent and what the Constitution actually says, this is the only ruling that could've come from it.

Wild1 is right - you don't like it because it hurts the Democrats. However, if you had any understanding of the law whatsoever, or had read the opinions/oral arguments, you'd know that it's absolutely the correct ruling.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:24 PM
I know. Sucks.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the statement is true on its face, there are certainly evils to free speech.

But they are all outweighed by the free exchange of ideas.

All of them.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:25 PM
The logical extension of this statement, then, is that those with the most money have the most speech.

Not if their message falls on deaf ears. Then they just wasted more money than I did; people ignore me for free.

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:26 PM
You are an exceptional moron.

I'd bet any amount of money you haven't read the opinion.

Nor do you have a damn clue what you're talking about.

You may not like its consequences, but in light of established legal precedent and what the Constitution actually says, this is the only ruling that could've come from it.

Wild1 is right - you don't like it because it hurts the Democrats. However, if you had any understanding of the law whatsoever, or had read the opinions/oral arguments, you'd know that it's absolutely the correct ruling.

lol I don't like it because it hurts Democrats? Is that why I voted for Bush in 2004, Ron Paul in 2008, and have interned for a Republican :clap:

Keep bringing the stupidty you sound about as smart as the real DJ.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:27 PM
I know. Sucks.

Do you have cable tv? Aren't you being unfair to people who don't?

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:28 PM
And Dj I would like you to explain why the Supreme Court had upheld the ruling a few other times. Please do us all a favor and drive your muscle car that you have to make up for lack of common sense and a small penis, and please drive it off a cliff. Thanks.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:28 PM
Not if their message falls on deaf ears.

It's been that way since the dawn of Democracy.

Do you think the Federalists were paupers? That Jay, Hamilton and Madison didn't have access to funds that your rank and file farmer didn't have in the late 1700s? That Thomas Paine didn't know some people that could get Common Sense out in the market?

Of course not - speech has always trended toward the connected and wealthy, it always will, no matter what restrictions you put on it.

However, both sides of any debate will have their share of the wealthy and connected, enough to get any ideas out there in play. It's then up to the population at large to determine what, if any, weight they want to give to what they hear.

I'm fully in favor of letting the people decide what they think is important, not the government.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:28 PM
Assuming for the sake of argument that the statement is true on its face, there are certainly evils to free speech.

But they are all outweighed by the free exchange of ideas.

All of them.

What they don't get is communication requires a sender and a receiver. Jesus didn't have mass media and billions of dollars at his disposal, but he probably still holds the record for reaching the most people and influencing them.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:29 PM
And Dj I would like you to explain why the Supreme Court had upheld the ruling a few other times. Please do us all a favor and drive your muscle car that you have to make up for lack of common sense and a small penis, and please drive it off a cliff. Thanks.

Give me the citation for it, big guy.

This was a matter of first impression in the SCOTUS.

You really are shockingly uninformed here.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 02:29 PM
You are an exceptional moron.

I'd bet any amount of money you haven't read the opinion.

Nor do you have a damn clue what you're talking about.

You may not like its consequences, but in light of established legal precedent and what the Constitution actually says, this is the only ruling that could've come from it.

Wild1 is right - you don't like it because it hurts the Democrats. However, if you had any understanding of the law whatsoever, or had read the opinions/oral arguments, you'd know that it's absolutely the correct ruling.

Both parties are totally inured to corporations, even if the Republicans are a little bit moreso.

This isn't as devastating to the Democrats (it's a flesh wound) as much as it is another triumph of corporate money over the public good.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:30 PM
It's been that way since the dawn of Democracy.

Do you think the Federalists were paupers? That Jay, Hamilton and Madison didn't have access to funds that your rank and file farmer didn't have in the late 1700s? That Thomas Paine didn't know some people that could get Common Sense out in the market?

Of course not - speech has always trended toward the connected and wealthy, it always will, no matter what restrictions you put on it.

However, both sides of any debate will have their share of the wealthy and connected, enough to get any ideas out there in play. It's then up to the population at large to determine what, if any, weight they want to give to what they hear.

I'm fully in favor of letting the people decide what they think is important, not the government.

I feel ya.

Hey, I got alot of great ideas for movies, but I can't make any movies because nobody will finance them. Spielberg and Scorsese make great movies but without the financial backing we never know that.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:30 PM
lol I don't like it because it hurts Democrats? Is that why I voted for Bush in 2004, Ron Paul in 2008, and have interned for a Republican :clap:

Keep bringing the stupidty you sound about as smart as the real DJ.

Well hell, you don't even get to hide behind bias as an excuse, that's unfortunate.

It appears you're stuck with raw stupidity as your only explanation. Sorry to hear that.

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:30 PM
Give me the citation for it, big guy.

This was a matter of first impression in the SCOTUS.

You really are shockingly uninformed here.

I see you are taking the teflon idiot approach.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 02:30 PM
You are an exceptional moron.
.Can you please refrain from these type of posts?

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 02:31 PM
What they don't get is communication requires a sender and a receiver. Jesus didn't have mass media and billions of dollars at his disposal, but he probably still holds the record for reaching the most people and influencing them.

No, he just had the largest organization in the world pimping his ideas for almost 2000 years, and after Constantine, the most powerful man in the world making people convert to said ideas at the point of a sword.

Great analogy, though.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:32 PM
Both parties are totally inured to corporations, even if the Republicans are a little bit moreso.

This isn't as devastating to the Democrats (it's a flesh wound) as much as it is another triumph of corporate money over the public good.

I gotta disagree. I think ever since McCain Feingold, George Soros has been the big financial player in shaping policy--- you're going to make a case that he is good for the public?

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:32 PM
Both parties are totally inured to corporations, even if the Republicans are a little bit moreso.

This isn't as devastating to the Democrats (it's a flesh wound) as much as it is another triumph of corporate money over the public good.

How do you figure that the Republicans are more beholden to corporate interests? It's an old saw that is completely belied by the facts/raw figures of late.

Again - it's simply the ruling that had to be made. If you're going to grant corporations 1st amendment rights, you cannot enact prior restraints on political speech. This isn't a triump of corporate money, it's basic jurisprudence.

Granting corporations 1st amendment rights in the first place could fall under the 'triumph' heading, but this doesn't.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:33 PM
No, he just had the largest organization in the world pimping his ideas for almost 2000 years, and after Constantine, the most powerful man in the world making people convert to said ideas at the point of a sword.

Great analogy, though.

You're right. If Constantine didn't have that gun to my head right now, I'd forsake Jesus in a heartbeat.

:rolleyes:

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:33 PM
If it were really up to the people to decide as DJ likes to claim then he is arguing aginst his own argument. If I want to support a candidate I donate money but now my contribtution doesn't matter a company can spend 100X more which cancels me out.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:35 PM
If it were really up to the people to decide as DJ likes to claim then he is arguing aginst his own argument. If I want to support a candidate I donate money but now my contribtution doesn't matter a company can spend 100X more which cancels me out.

And one vote for the other candidate cancels out your vote. That's the way the ball bounces.

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:36 PM
And one vote for the other candidate cancels out your vote. That's the way the ball bounces.

How can a grass roots candidate possibly be successful now? You can't tell me that a canidate with 1mil will beat a canidate with 100 million.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:37 PM
Can you please refrain from these type of posts?

Nope.

When someone comes to the table with this:

This is a horrible ruling. The Supreme Court is nothing but political activist anyway.

Despite a pretty informative thread thus far that would provide a great deal of insight into the opinion, I'm gonna have to stick with 'exceptional moron'.

I've provided enough substance to the thread that I'm comfortable launching a few shot across the bow as well.

Your options remain the same as they ever were...

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 02:38 PM
How can a grass roots candidate possibly be successful now? You can't tell me that a canidate with 1mil will beat a canidate with 100 million.Hence my dilemma. I don't like restricting free speech but how can we keep this scenerio from happening?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:38 PM
How can a grass roots candidate possibly be successful now? .

ACcording to Axelrod, you're looking at him:

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj296/hco12345/fail.gif

Frankie
01-22-2010, 02:38 PM
Just ignore him and don't respond to any of his posts.

I haven't been, but he likes to stalk me. You should see my neg-rep screen. This guy is a troll and a stupid abuser of the system.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:41 PM
How can a grass roots candidate possibly be successful now? You can't tell me that a canidate with 1mil will beat a canidate with 100 million.

The other candidate will also have $100 million.

You continue to ignore the fact that there is money on both sides of all debates.

It is ultimately up to the people, they're the ones that cast the vote. They have access to the internet, to print and news media of their choosing. There is virtually unlimited information for those willing to look for it. People ultimately make the decision; corporations don't vote.

Either they buy it (ugh, global warming) or they don't (healthcare). Chilling free speech to protect lazy people from themselves is absurd.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:43 PM
I haven't been, but he likes to stalk me. You should see my neg-rep screen. This guy is a troll and a stupid abuser of the system.

LMAO at both of you.

ROFL

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:43 PM
The other candidate will also have $100 million.

You continue to ignore the fact that there is money on both sides of all debates.

It is ultimately up to the people, they're the ones that cast the vote. They have access to the internet, to print and news media of their choosing. Their is virtually unlimited information for those willing to look for it. People ultimately make the decision; corporations don't vote.

Either they buy it (ugh, global warming) or they don't (healthcare). Chilling free speech to protect lazy people from themselves is absurd.

Thats not true money won't be on both sides when one is the grassroots fighting aginst bank bailouts while the establishment candidate is for bank bailouts. Tell me who will raise more money the guy getting 100 dollar donations or the guy hosting 5,000 events? It's not a fair fight. And saying corporations don't vote is the far from the truth where have you been the last 20+ years.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 02:45 PM
Thats not true money won't be on both sides when one is the grassroots fighting aginst bank bailouts while the establishment candidate is for bank bailouts.

Dude, last election cycle our choices were McAmnesty and B.O.

Tell me which one was the "grassroots" and which one was the "establishment" candidate.

Chocolate Hog
01-22-2010, 02:48 PM
Dude, last election cycle our choices were McAmnesty and B.O.

Tell me which one was the "grassroots" and which one was the "establishment" candidate.

That wasn't because they were helped by McCain/Feingold. I would argue part of the reason the grassroot candidates didn't win is because they are a threat to the establishment/big business.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 02:48 PM
Thats not true money won't be on both sides when one is the grassroots fighting aginst bank bailouts while the establishment candidate is for bank bailouts. Tell me who will raise more money the guy getting 100 dollar donations or the guy hosting 5,000 events? It's not a fair fight. And saying corporations don't vote is the far from the truth where have you been the last 20+ years.

Corporations don't vote.

Does Wal-Mart walk into the booth and pull the lever? No, corporations do not vote. They may influence citizens, but they don't cast the ballot.

Once again - it's up to the citizen to examine the veracity of corporate claims. You seem to believe that corporations will lie to the population and the population isn't intelligent or motivated enough to see through it. Now that may be the case, but sheep are sheep no matter who's delivering the message; they were going to be duped one way or the other (again, see: Obama, Barack).

Additionally, when you grant exemptions to things like trade unions, which are clearly partisian, it's wholly unfair to not extend those protections across the board to corporations.

And you say 'grassroots can't beat a bank bailout' and that's also not true. Look at how aghast the populace was with TARP. The citizenry hated that piece of crap; no amount of corporate cries ever convinced the citizens. Now Congress ignored us because that's what they do, but that's an argument for smaller government. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of corporate media.

Put as much information out there as possible and let individuals sort it out. I don't want the government protecting me from messages, I'll figure out what I do or do not believe on my own, thank you.

KC native
01-22-2010, 02:56 PM
And if an individual wants to spend his own money financing a campaign commercial, he can just STFU.

Do you not see that this is an absolute affront to free speech rights? That the framers wanted nothing more than to protect political and religious speech?

Or do you just not care?

Individuals can do whatever they want. Legal entities should not be afforded the same rights.

KC native
01-22-2010, 02:57 PM
Well duh. I already knew you were a socialist who favors government control over political freedom. I was curious about what BigRedChief thought.

ROFL

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 03:01 PM
Individuals can do whatever they want. Legal entities should not be afforded the same rights.

And that may well be true, I've said from the start that I would have little problem with taking 1st amendment rights from corporations.

At the same time, you'd better start pulling exemptions from trade unions as well. And at that point, aren't you getting pretty close to cutting off PACs? PACs are untouchable, IMO. That's nothing but a group of people organized for the purposes of political speech. You cannot interfere with those and still pretend that the 1st Amendment means something.

I'd just as soon not venture down that road. Let them say what they want, Unions, corporations - all of them. Prior restraints on any form of political speech should be intensly disfavored.

I'll sort it out on my own.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 03:03 PM
Hence my dilemma. I don't like restricting free speech but how can we keep this scenerio from happening?

Are you serious?

Set aside x number of dollars for political races. Set aside amounts for House, Senate, Presidential, etc.

It's not difficult to imagine, there are just too many entrenched interests against it.

RaiderH8r
01-22-2010, 03:03 PM
Spending limits favor incumbancy...always. An incumbant has 2,4, or 6 year head start in fundraising. As an upstart candidate I can get a single check and be a contender. My only caveat is this, unlimited contributions but every cent, is reported within 48 hours of being received by a campaign. If I'm bought and paid for by Joe's Crab Shack then the voters should know and can make their decisions accordingly.

This will create an interminable atmosphere of campaigning and finally, for once, campaigns may actually have to think about risking their success due to overexposure. It ain't perfect but it's fair.

KC native
01-22-2010, 03:03 PM
And that may well be true, I've said from the start that I would have little problem with taking 1st amendment rights from corporations.

At the same time, you'd better start pulling exemptions from trade unions as well. And at that point, aren't you getting pretty close to cutting off PACs?

I'd just as soon not venture down that road. Let them say what they want, Unions, corporations - all of them.

I'll sort it out on my own.

I prefer if none of them had their input (PAC's, Unions, and Corporations). Then people can sort it out on their own without the noise.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 03:04 PM
Individuals can do whatever they want. Legal entities should not be afforded the same rights.

Seig Heil!

RaiderH8r
01-22-2010, 03:04 PM
Are you serious?

Set aside x number of dollars for political races. Set aside amounts for House, Senate, Presidential, etc.

It's not difficult to imagine, there are just too many entrenched interests against it.

As a citizen I should get to support whomever I choose to be my representative and contribute to their campaign. I should not, as a taxpayer, be forced to pay for somebody's job application process.

No limits means anybody, ANYBODY can be a contender regardless of their income level.

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 03:06 PM
Reading some of this makes me so especially glad we have a constitution. And sad we have failed to educate so many.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 03:06 PM
Are you serious?

Set aside x number of dollars for political races. Set aside amounts for House, Senate, Presidential, etc.

It's not difficult to imagine, there are just too many entrenched interests against it.

OK. Same rules after the person takes office? I mean, how does a guy like Charlie Rangel enter politics with a networth of a few hundred thousand dollars, and wind up a millionaire?

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 03:07 PM
I prefer if none of them had their input (PAC's, Unions, and Corporations). Then people can sort it out on their own without the noise.

That's fascism.

Again - what is a PAC if not a group of people who have assembled for the sole purpose of expressing their views?

Rather than put all ideas in play and let the citizens sort it out, you now favor MASSIVE restrictions on free speech. Again, presumably to protect lazy idiots from themselves.

Ugh, I think patteau had it right.

Calcountry
01-22-2010, 03:07 PM
... in the United States of America. With today's Supreme Court ruling we now OFFICIALLY live in a society of "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE CORPORATIONS, AND FOR THE CORPORATIONS." I have already witnessed one country I belonged to to go down the crapper by RADICAL Religion and now another by RADICAL Capitalism.

I will get the customary "you are stupid" replies in this thread from the few but loud usual suspects. But non of your ignorant attacks makes me any sicker that I truly feel right now. Honestly, I am extremely depressed and can't get rid of the pressure in my chest.

:(What country was that?

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 03:08 PM
Reading some of this makes me so especially glad we have a constitution. And sad we have failed to educate so many.

The Constitution impedes their agenda.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 03:08 PM
Are you serious?

Set aside x number of dollars for political races. Set aside amounts for House, Senate, Presidential, etc.

It's not difficult to imagine, there are just too many entrenched interests against it.

So what about the individuals that run their own ads - that spend private money to forward their beliefs on a particular candidate?

Should those be outlawed? Because at that point you may as well scrap the first amendment altogether. If not, how's that differ from PACs? They're nothing more than the combination of free speech and free assembly.

It's appaling to me how many people are so willing to ignore the fundamental underpinnings of this entire debate - the importance of free political dissent.

How can anyone not see past the end of their noses on this one?

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 03:13 PM
It ain't perfect but it's fair.

In the absence of a perfect solution, you side with the free exchange of ideas every single time.

If a perfect solution could be reached (and even the most pie-in-the-sky dreamers will admit that they can't come up with one), then I'd be fine with that.

But there's simply not a perfect solution out there. In which case ultimate responsibility should default to the citizens, not the government.

Let me hear everything there is to hear and I'll handle it on my own.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 03:15 PM
Are you serious?

Set aside x number of dollars for political races. Set aside amounts for House, Senate, Presidential, etc.

It's not difficult to imagine, there are just too many entrenched interests against it.of course that would work but that changes our whole system and will never happen. Just pie in the sky scenerios.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 03:15 PM
So what about the individuals that run their own ads - that spend private money to forward their beliefs on a particular candidate?

Should those be outlawed? Because at that point you may as well scrap the first amendment altogether.

It's appaling to me how many people are so willing to ignore the fundamental underpinnings of this entire debate - the importance of free political dissent.

How can anyone not see past the end of their noses on this one?

It has nothing to do with the banning of dissent. Individuals are not candidates. If an individual wants to pay for an ad, then have at it. If a group of individuals want to do it, then have at it. But corporations exist for one reason and one reason only--to turn as much money as humanly possible. There's nothing political about that. It's only about the acquisition of capital.

Corporations don't care about the political process, they only care about creating conditions that make it most amenable for them to turn profit. In fact, by their very definition, that is their sole purpose.

I have no problem with the existence of corporations, but they should not have the protections of legal persons because they aren't people.

I realize that one could do a reductio ad absurdum argument with anything, but at some point, you need to think of it like Plato's philosopher-king.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 03:16 PM
Let me hear everything there is to hear and I'll handle it on my own.

Thank you.

I mean, think about it, if B.O. had to pay for all the air time he got during his campaign, you're talking billions of dollars.

Yet through it all, I knew the guy was a fraud.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 03:18 PM
Corporations don't care about the political process, they only care about creating conditions that make it most amenable for them to turn profit.

Imagine that, an institution that pays taxes seeking representation.

:drool:

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 03:20 PM
of course that would work but that changes our whole system and will never happen. Just pie in the sky scenerios.

Marginalizing it as "Pie in the Sky" is apathetic. Do you remember how this country achieved independence?

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Imagine that, an institution that pays taxes seeking representation.

:drool:

Corporations pay taxes in the US? That must be why they use all those offshore banks.

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 03:23 PM
Marginalizing it as "Pie in the Sky" is apathetic. Do you remember how this country achieved independence?True but that worked because the majority of the people wanted it to happen and a core group of that majority were willing to sacrifice to achieve that goal. I don't see more than 30% buying into this type of plan.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 03:24 PM
Corporations pay taxes in the US? That must be why they use all those offshore banks.

:rolleyes:

Exxon paid $30 billion in 2007. Next.

DJ's left nut
01-22-2010, 03:28 PM
It has nothing to do with the banning of dissent. Individuals are not candidates. If an individual wants to pay for an ad, then have at it. If a group of individuals want to do it, then have at it. But corporations exist for one reason and one reason only--to turn as much money as humanly possible. There's nothing political about that. It's only about the acquisition of capital.

Corporations don't care about the political process, they only care about creating conditions that make it most amenable for them to turn profit. In fact, by their very definition, that is their sole purpose.


How many of those individuals do you think are not self-interested? Corporations self interest is profit. An individuals self interest is generally the highest possible standard of living with the least possible amount of work to achieve it.

How can we now draw lines based on motive when Obama's in office predominantly because minorities wanted someone 'like them' in office and the lower classes wanted more government cheese?

And again - once you ban corporate speech, the Unions had better get banned in the same bill. Now you've banned two legally recognized entities comprised of individuals represented by leadership that may or may not agree with them from speaking.

Now how far behind are the PACs?

All in the name of achieving electoral balance? Will you start to put limits on how much each party can recieve from individuals? Because you'll still end up with inequities when guys like Soros and Gates can throw millions at a politically popular movement in order to get themselves some positive press (when it's practically pocket change for either guy). Do we need a motives test for those donations?

You're going down a terribly dangerous road and you're doing so based on a very arbitrary line of demarcation.

RaiderH8r
01-22-2010, 03:55 PM
It has nothing to do with the banning of dissent. Individuals are not candidates. If an individual wants to pay for an ad, then have at it. If a group of individuals want to do it, then have at it. But corporations exist for one reason and one reason only--to turn as much money as humanly possible. There's nothing political about that. It's only about the acquisition of capital.

Corporations don't care about the political process, they only care about creating conditions that make it most amenable for them to turn profit. In fact, by their very definition, that is their sole purpose.

I have no problem with the existence of corporations, but they should not have the protections of legal persons because they aren't people.

I realize that one could do a reductio ad absurdum argument with anything, but at some point, you need to think of it like Plato's philosopher-king.

Voters don't care about the political process. They're voting on their beliefs and ideaologies. Just because you disagree with the profit motive doesn't make it wrong. Every voter is their own special interest and every voter has a lobbyist in DC working to forward their agenda. Period. Book it. End of story.

RaiderH8r
01-22-2010, 03:59 PM
Marginalizing it as "Pie in the Sky" is apathetic. Do you remember how this country achieved independence?

Campaign Finance Reform?

Taco John
01-22-2010, 04:00 PM
How can a grass roots candidate possibly be successful now? You can't tell me that a canidate with 1mil will beat a canidate with 100 million.

Now? Look at all the money that was spent against Ron Paul. He still managed to raise money and get his message out. Of course, it didn't help that the corporate media had other ideas about him. You should check the way he was received by MSNBC the morning after he became the single day record breaking fundraiser. That should have been front page news in every paper in America. It was treated like a page 8 story - barely any mention at all. Hell, Fox didn't start covering the tea party rallies until Obama got into office, though they were going on well before that.

This ruling matters little except for legalizing what was already going on.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 04:29 PM
Now? Look at all the money that was spent against Ron Paul. He still managed to raise money and get his message out. Of course, it didn't help that the corporate media had other ideas about him. You should check the way he was received by MSNBC the morning after he became the single day record breaking fundraiser. That should have been front page news in every paper in America. It was treated like a page 8 story - barely any mention at all. Hell, Fox didn't start covering the tea party rallies until Obama got into office, though they were going on well before that.

This ruling matters little except for legalizing what was already going on.

There is no getting around it, Paul was---and continues to be--- treated unfairly. Hell, I'll even say the same thing about Dennis Kucinich, who's ideology is anathema to me, but as far as politicians go, he has a semblance of integrity.

The game is rigged by corporations alright--- NBC, CBS, ABC...

fan4ever
01-22-2010, 05:33 PM
Bullshit! Mainstream or not, the airwaves are dominated by Limbaugh and his kind. What are you talking about? The media is corporate-owned. Corporations do not bite themselves in the ass. The "liberal" mainstream media is a myth and nothing but a Righty talking point.

Wow. Never imagine I'd get a response like this from a guy you; you obviously view the media/world through objective and unbiased eyes.

You have to be in denile to believe there's not a liberal slant to the media; which obviously you are...Tonto must be so disappointed.

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 05:38 PM
True but that worked because the majority of the people wanted it to happen and a core group of that majority were willing to sacrifice to achieve that goal. I don't see more than 30% buying into this type of plan.

I read it was not by a majority but by 2% of the people.There were those who wanted to remain with England. They were called Tories. Many of them went to Canada.
The majority probably watched and the rest may have never known what was going on.

Taco John
01-22-2010, 05:42 PM
Here is how Morning Joe covered a record-breaking single day fundraising event. They started the morning talking about Giuliani and Hillary and their non-news hum-drum, and Ron Paul supporters started pounding their email astonished that this remarkable fund-raising event didn't rise to the top story that it was.

They showed us though. The set the news agenda, and they let us know it by painting the event and the people involved in the absolute worst light possible.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i8xdKJ64GAc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i8xdKJ64GAc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Frankie, I didn't see you lamenting the unravelling of Democracy then.

bowener
01-22-2010, 05:47 PM
I am mixed on the deal. But honestly, what is the difference between a corporation running ads and a newspaper or tv show running whatever articles and pimping whatever person they want?

Corp.'s have mountains of money, and typically what is best for them is not what is best for middle and lower America, so when they throw hundreds of millions of dollars at ads to sway voters in their favor it isn't going to end well for a lot of us.

I haven't read on British election procedures recently, but if it is the same as a few years ago, I wish we would adopt them. I am probably off on the numbers, but I know each party gets the same amount of money (nowhere near our epic insanity that is spent in the USA), ads can only run one month or less before the election, can't be misleading or negative, and must run only on the government channel (CSPAN here~). I think election day is also a national holiday as well. I don't know about anybody else, but that sounds great to me.

If this is what we did maybe most Americans would actually have to read about their candidate rather than blindly believe some stupid fucking ad that blows the truth so far out of proportion that it barely resembles what it once was.

BucEyedPea
01-22-2010, 05:50 PM
Posted by Hamas

I have no problem with the existence of corporations, but they should not have the protections of legal persons because they aren't people.

Yes you do have a problem with them. By reading your post you think the word profit is dirty.

The First Amendment is written to read as a restraint on what the govt cannot do —infringe speech. It does not say the "people" have that right. Yeah, that's implied that they do if the govt can't infringe it but that doesn't exclude anything or anyone else.

The decision of the court was based on the construction of these words:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

HonestChieffan
01-22-2010, 05:51 PM
BEP gets it

KCTitus
01-22-2010, 05:55 PM
Im sure it's already been said, but the actual first day of the unraveliing of our republic would have been November 4, 2008, although some pretty good damage was done prior to that, that day marked the first ever administration to actually attempt to transform a democracy into a fascist/socialist state.

January 19, 2010 prevented the slide and January 21st is when freedom and the Constitution triumphed.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 08:32 AM
The logical extension of this statement, then, is that those with the most money have the most speech.

So what? If you've got something you want to say that is widely popular, you should be able to raise the money even if you don't have it already.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 08:39 AM
How can a grass roots candidate possibly be successful now? You can't tell me that a canidate with 1mil will beat a canidate with 100 million.

The same way they always could. By building up a base of support (maybe becoming a Representative or a state/county officeholder) and then growing that support with an appealing message until the funding levels are sufficient to finance a run for higher office.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 08:45 AM
Individuals can do whatever they want. Legal entities should not be afforded the same rights.

What's the difference between a corporation buying a television ad to spread a message and a corporation paying a person enough money to buy the same television ad to spread the same message? When it comes to protecting free speech, the focus should be on the speech not on the speaker.

Saul Good
01-23-2010, 08:59 AM
Corp.'s have mountains of money, and typically what is best for them is not what is best for middle and lower America, so when they throw hundreds of millions of dollars at ads to sway voters in their favor it isn't going to end well for a lot of us.

This has been especially true, lately. Corporations have really struggled the last couple of years. As a result, middle and lower America have been thriving. It's going to suck if business for these corporations picks up and everybody has jobs again like they did before the Democrats swept to power in 2006.

Frankie
01-23-2010, 12:52 PM
Wow. Never imagine I'd get a response like this from a guy you; you obviously view the media/world through objective and unbiased eyes.

You have to be in denile to believe there's not a liberal slant to the media; which obviously you are...Tonto must be so disappointed.

There is not a "liberal" slant. There is a "common sense" slant in the more cerebral of the media. But still there is more domination of the Right-slanted media and it's because they manage to attract more rating. The Enquirer sells a lot of tabloid stuff, so do Limbaugh and Beck.

stevieray
01-23-2010, 01:06 PM
There is not a "liberal" slant. There is a "common sense" slant in the more cerebral of the media. But still there is more domination of the Right-slanted media and it's because they manage to attract more rating. The Enquirer sells a lot of tabloid stuff, so do Limbaugh and Beck.

you are friggn clueless....your 'common sense" media tried to equate Coakley's loss to the tragedy in Haiti.

Beck has done shows with an all black audience...get back to me when the racists on the left even come close to airing a similar show.

you're a shill frankie

Jenson71
01-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Beck has done shows with an all black audience...get back to me when the racists on the left even come close to airing a similar show.

Chris Matthews did something exactly like that just recently. Is he one of the racists on the left you are talking about? And if not, who is?

notorious
01-23-2010, 02:46 PM
each party gets the same amount of money (nowhere near our epic insanity that is spent in the USA), ads can only run one month or less before the election, can't be misleading or negative, and must run only on the government channel (CSPAN here~). I think election day is also a national holiday as well.


Excellent.

It makes too much sense, so it will never see the light of day.

Frankie
01-23-2010, 03:00 PM
you are friggn clueless....your 'common sense" media tried to equate Coakley's loss to the tragedy in Haiti.

I DID NOT say "common sense" media. I said "common sense" slant. The media ranges Fox News, and folks like Beck and Limbaugh herding the less educated and the naive into their radical ideology to the Media that tries or at least acts common sense driven serving the more cerebral. But even those are so much slaves to ratings for their parent corporations that they CANNOT be even near perfect. After all this is the same media that totally left the bloody post election movement in Iran to outdo each other covering Michael Jackson's death for weeks.

Frankie
01-23-2010, 03:04 PM
Chris Matthews did something exactly like that just recently. Is he one of the racists on the left you are talking about? And if not, who is?

The more mainstream media has always done that kind of programing. Stevie hasn't bothered to watch. So, of course, Glen Beck's insincere dog and pony show registers with him as the only such programing.

Frankie
01-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Corp.'s have mountains of money, and typically what is best for them is not what is best for middle and lower America, so when they throw hundreds of millions of dollars at ads to sway voters in their favor it isn't going to end well for a lot of us.

I haven't read on British election procedures recently, but if it is the same as a few years ago, I wish we would adopt them. I am probably off on the numbers, but I know each party gets the same amount of money (nowhere near our epic insanity that is spent in the USA), ads can only run one month or less before the election, can't be misleading or negative, and must run only on the government channel (CSPAN here~). I think election day is also a national holiday as well. I don't know about anybody else, but that sounds great to me.

If this is what we did maybe most Americans would actually have to read about their candidate rather than blindly believe some stupid ****ing ad that blows the truth so far out of proportion that it barely resembles what it once was.

Thank you. Great post. :bravo:

patteeu
01-23-2010, 03:24 PM
Thank you. Great post. :bravo:

I can see why you'd applaud, if you think free speech is something only meant to protect pornography and protest placards.

wild1
01-23-2010, 03:48 PM
Just once I would like to read a thread without seeing some leftist going to the old rubberchicken mention of Limbaugh or Beck.

Frankie
01-23-2010, 04:25 PM
I can see why you'd applaud, if you think free speech is something only meant to protect pornography and protest placards.

I believe wholeheartedly in free speech. But this type of thing could very well defined and amended out of it. Having raised a kid, I am not too happy about how loopholes within the definition of free speech allows for all the runaway porno either. The same goes for political lies. Remember the Swift Boaters? There ought to be restrictions in the First Amendment protecting our society against that. That's all.

notorious
01-23-2010, 04:25 PM
I can see why you'd applaud, if you think free speech is something only meant to protect pornography and protest placards.

It's touchy. I am all for free speech, but a company/union can basically buy legislation by buying votes with a LOT of advertising.

We want people in power to do the right thing, not be pressured by companies to bend to their will.



I have always believed that both sides have about the same amount of extremist idiots along with the smart, educated voters. The candidate that appeals to the most people will usually win.

wild1
01-23-2010, 04:38 PM
Remember the Swift Boaters? There ought to be restrictions in the First Amendment protecting our society against that. That's all.

Against what? Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's statements about the past?

DJ's left nut
01-23-2010, 04:57 PM
I believe wholeheartedly in free speech.

Blah blah blah bullshit that makes it very clear I don't believe wholeheartedly in free speech.



Stevieray was right.

You are a shill.

patteeu
01-23-2010, 07:48 PM
I believe wholeheartedly in free speech. But this type of thing could very well defined and amended out of it. Having raised a kid, I am not too happy about how loopholes within the definition of free speech allows for all the runaway porno either. The same goes for political lies. Remember the Swift Boaters? There ought to be restrictions in the First Amendment protecting our society against that. That's all.

No one who is really wholeheartedly in favor of free speech wants to amend it to restrict the parts of it they don't like. Those people are, at best, halfheartedly in favor of it.

Maybe, at least during the course of our GWoT, we should restrict the speech of Muslims. What do you think, Frankie?

patteeu
01-23-2010, 07:50 PM
It's touchy. I am all for free speech, but a company/union can basically buy legislation by buying votes with a LOT of advertising.

We want people in power to do the right thing, not be pressured by companies to bend to their will.



I have always believed that both sides have about the same amount of extremist idiots along with the smart, educated voters. The candidate that appeals to the most people will usually win.

I don't agree that that's a problem. The bigger problem, IMO, is the limitation on campaign contributions to political candidates which puts them on an unlevel playing field compared to non-candidates and which puts incumbents at an advantage over challengers.

KCTitus
01-24-2010, 01:43 AM
I believe wholeheartedly in free speech. But this type of thing could very well defined and amended out of it. Having raised a kid, I am not too happy about how loopholes within the definition of free speech allows for all the runaway porno either. The same goes for political lies. Remember the Swift Boaters? There ought to be restrictions in the First Amendment protecting our society against that. That's all.

No... you dont believe in free speech. You believe in free speech as long as you agree with the speaker.

Otherwise, you discount it and believe it's either a joke, a lie or not worthy of constitutional protection. I dont care what you say, so why should you be so concerned about others free speech? Unless you realize that you're losing the argument and need to shut down dissent.

Norman Einstein
01-24-2010, 07:20 AM
I believe wholeheartedly in free speech. But this type of thing could very well defined and amended out of it. Having raised a kid, I am not too happy about how loopholes within the definition of free speech allows for all the runaway porno either. The same goes for political lies. Remember the Swift Boaters? There ought to be restrictions in the First Amendment protecting our society against that. That's all.

So where do you dra the line in free speech? One day free speech is amended to exclude politicians saying something untrue. One day free speech is amended to exclude exaggerated commercials. One day God is no longer allowed to be spoken because the president is Muslim. One day you can't say any word that is derogatory towards the new President (female, black, hispanic, MEXICAN, asian, etc). One day you can't call someone a c*nt because it is derogatory towards women.

Based on your view that a well defined issue can be "amended out of the constitution" we have a communist country.

There is an old saying, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". In this case the term would be altered to say "If it works, don't fook with it."

Frankie
01-24-2010, 11:36 AM
So where do you dra the line in free speech?

I didn't claim I readily have the solution. But I'm sure there is a good compromise if the society and its leaders put their mind on it. The fact is a lot of very profitable industries (say the porno industry) will suffer. But there could be very good guidelines for "free" speech.

mlyonsd
01-24-2010, 11:39 AM
I didn't claim I readily have the solution. But I'm sure there is a good compromise if the society and its leaders put their mind on it. The fact is a lot of very profitable industries (say the porno industry) will suffer. But there could be very good guidelines for "free" speech.

Do you believe a corporaton like GE should be able to own its own media outlet (NBC) and use them as a mouth piece while other corporations that compete against GE aren't allowed to talk to the same audience?

Saul Good
01-24-2010, 12:12 PM
Since Frankie used the term "unraveling of Democracy" in the title...survey says...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"
But have mixed views on other issues at heart of new Supreme Court ruling
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

Is Campaign Giving Free Speech? Preference for Campaign Finance Laws

The free-speech question elicits uncommon agreement across party lines. More than 6 in 10 Republicans and Democrats believe campaign donations are a protected form of free speech, but fewer than half of independents (48%) agree.

Opinions on Whether Campaign Contributions Are Free Speech, by Party ID

Public attitudes about the issues involved in the court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision come from a nationwide Gallup survey sponsored by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center. The poll was conducted Oct. 1-2, 2009, shortly after the high court heard concluding arguments in the case.

Americans Favor Limits on Contributions

While corporations and unions are still barred under a 1907 law from making donations directly to federal candidates, the court's decision Thursday allows organizations to run ads in direct support of or opposition to specific candidates; it also overturns 2002 McCain-Feingold restrictions on how close to elections corporate-sponsored ads can run.

"More specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give."

The 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case underscores the tension between protecting free speech and giving certain groups or individuals undue influence over election campaigns. Another poll question asked Americans to weigh the two considerations and say which is the greater priority for them: placing limits on how much individuals, corporations, and unions can contribute to campaigns or protecting the rights of these groups to freely support political campaigns. By 52% to 41%, Americans say placing limits on contributions is paramount for them.

Prioritizing Limits on Campaign Contributions vs. Free Speech

More specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.

Campaign Finance Limits on Individuals Campaign Finance Limits on Groups

Thus, it would appear that, regardless of Americans' support for the principle that campaign donations are a form of political speech, and that corporations and unions should get the same treatment as individuals, they are likely to have significant concerns about the practical effect of the court's ruling, that is, more corporate and union money being poured into elections.

Norman Einstein
01-24-2010, 01:24 PM
I didn't claim I readily have the solution. But I'm sure there is a good compromise if the society and its leaders put their mind on it. The fact is a lot of very profitable industries (say the porno industry) will suffer. But there could be very good guidelines for "free" speech.

You are wanting both worlds and you cannot have that. Either there is free speech or there isn't. If you don't like the concept go to a place where speech is regulated as you like it.

KCWolfman
01-24-2010, 01:40 PM
Frankie is worried about corporations being able to give their opinions on politics - finally?

Has Frankie never heard of CBS, ABC, and NBC nightly news?

Oh, wait, they were giving the message Frankie wanted - even if it wasn't accurate.

DJ's left nut
01-24-2010, 01:41 PM
I didn't claim I readily have the solution. But I'm sure there is a good compromise if the society and its leaders put their mind on it. The fact is a lot of very profitable industries (say the porno industry) will suffer. But there could be very good guidelines for "free" speech.

So again - you don't what free speech.

You've admitted as much by putting "free" in quotations.

You want government regulated speech and you can't even determine how much government regulation you want. You just know that you want the government to be able to determine what you and I hear.

Do me a favor and never EVER say "I believe wholeheartedly in free speech" again.

Saul Good
01-24-2010, 02:23 PM
Frankie is worried about corporations being able to give their opinions on politics - finally?

Has Frankie never heard of CBS, ABC, and NBC nightly news?

Oh, wait, they were giving the message Frankie wanted - even if it wasn't accurate.

I thought it was "fake but accurate".

Frankie
01-24-2010, 05:38 PM
You are wanting both worlds and you cannot have that. Either there is free speech or there isn't.

That's BS. Can you go into a full theater and freely shout fire and cause a human stampede? People who only think in terms of Black or White have very limited thinking.

Frankie
01-24-2010, 05:39 PM
Frankie is worried about corporations being able to give their opinions on politics - finally?

Has Frankie never heard of CBS, ABC, and NBC nightly news?

Oh, wait, they were giving the message Frankie wanted - even if it wasn't accurate.

Read the whole thread KCW. This has been discussed.

Norman Einstein
01-24-2010, 05:48 PM
That's BS. Can you go into a full theater and freely shout fire and cause a human stampede? People who only think in terms of Black or White have very limited thinking.

You are talking about an act that can be considered directly physically hazardous to people. Free speech might be considered a little more comprehensive than what you think. What you want to do is muddy the waters more than it is already. Your attempt to tell us all that we are limited in our thinking makes me believe that you have other motives other than making a point.

As stated before, the right to free speech is not something that should be fooked with. Once any revision is made pandora's box is opened and there will be no way to recover from it.

If you can't handle the freedom of speech as it is I again suggest you find a place with your definition of free speech and go there and be happy.

headsnap
01-24-2010, 05:57 PM
Read the whole thread KCW. This has been discussed.

It took a while, but Frankie finally posts something that is correct!

Frankie
01-24-2010, 07:20 PM
You are talking about an act that can be considered directly physically hazardous to people. Free speech might be considered a little more comprehensive than what you think. What you want to do is muddy the waters more than it is already. Your attempt to tell us all that we are limited in our thinking makes me believe that you have other motives other than making a point.

As stated before, the right to free speech is not something that should be fooked with. Once any revision is made pandora's box is opened and there will be no way to recover from it.

If you can't handle the freedom of speech as it is I again suggest you find a place with your definition of free speech and go there and be happy.

My point is there IS a limit to everything INCLUDING freedom. the question is where to draw the line beyond which freedom is actually ruinous to the society. Society recognizes that we are NOT free enough for anarchy. The same society can decide that depiction of fisting on the internet for our kids to see or giving unlimited rights to monitory powerful giants is dangerous to the well being of common individuals. Don't ask me where to draw that line. Recognize that a line has to be drawn and then work with me on a compromise.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 07:21 PM
My point is there IS a limit to everything INCLUDING freedom. the question is where to draw the line beyond which freedom is actually ruinous to the society. Society recognizes that we are NOT free enough for anarchy. The same society can decide that depiction of fisting on the internet for our kids to see or giving unlimited rights to monitory powerful giants is dangerous to the well being of common individuals. Don't ask me where to draw that line. Recognize that a line has to be drawn and then work with me on a compromise.

You're a worthless scumbag. How did you even get into this country?

KCWolfman
01-24-2010, 07:36 PM
That's BS. Can you go into a full theater and freely shout fire and cause a human stampede? People who only think in terms of Black or White have very limited thinking.

And people who mitigate grey instead ALWAYS cry that they are being trod upon without any proof.

Freedom of speech is easy - Your freedom ends where mine begins. I can pay a television station to run a commercial as I hurt no one. Yelling fire could cause a riot therefore, I have infringed upon your right.

Norman Einstein
01-24-2010, 08:32 PM
My point is there IS a limit to everything INCLUDING freedom. the question is where to draw the line beyond which freedom is actually ruinous to the society. Society recognizes that we are NOT free enough for anarchy. The same society can decide that depiction of fisting on the internet for our kids to see or giving unlimited rights to monitory powerful giants is dangerous to the well being of common individuals. Don't ask me where to draw that line. Recognize that a line has to be drawn and then work with me on a compromise.

How did you feel about the patriot act? Based on your view of free speech you probably felt that everything in the act was fully OK.

I maintain that if you don't like the way freedom is administered here you go to a counry that has the type of "freedom" you describe.

Saul Good
01-24-2010, 08:36 PM
How did you feel about the patriot act? Based on your view of free speech you probably felt that everything in the act was fully OK.

I maintain that if you don't like the way freedom is administered here you go to a counry that has the type of "freedom" you describe.

There's a country like that called Iran.

Bearcat2005
01-24-2010, 08:41 PM
My point is there IS a limit to everything INCLUDING freedom. the question is where to draw the line beyond which freedom is actually ruinous to the society. Society recognizes that we are NOT free enough for anarchy. The same society can decide that depiction of fisting on the internet for our kids to see or giving unlimited rights to monitory powerful giants is dangerous to the well being of common individuals. Don't ask me where to draw that line. Recognize that a line has to be drawn and then work with me on a compromise.

That is a very dangerous path, a slope that leads to tyranny. Their can never be a limit to liberty, you speak of "unraveling of democracy" then make comments such as that? I think you have little understanding of your "logic" and the results of it.

headsnap
01-24-2010, 08:54 PM
There's a country like that called Iran.

ironic, isn't it?

Norman Einstein
01-24-2010, 08:55 PM
There's a country like that called Iran.

Should we take up a collection to help with the moving costs?