Constitutional Oligarchy?

[MikeK]

When are you going to accept that freedom of speech applies to all people, even if you don't like them?

corporations are not people. They deserve no constitutional rights whatsoever. That the SC defends their rights only proves the corruption of the court.

Look up the legal definition of a corporation.

The contemporary legal definition of a corporation holds that it is:

A legal entity, created under the authority of a statute, which permits a group of people, as shareholders, to apply to the government for an independent organization to be created, which then pursues set objectives, and is empowered with legal rights usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money.

That is but one occurrence of the legal definition and I assure you there are many more, some of which will boldly contradict others. The bone of contention in this discussion being the USSC's utterly outrageous ruling which holds that a corporation is a person having the same legal rights as a human. In the above definition the word usually operates as a sound basis by which to question the validity of that ruling. However I'm sure Justice Roberts would avoid any reference to this particular definition and refer only to a definition which semantically favored his obvious patronage of the corporatocracy and its political agenda.

A handy device by which to test the viability of the ruling is the idea that if a corporation is indeed a person, subject to the same legal rights and constraints as affect any other person, then any corporation which is less than eighteen years of age is not permitted to engage in the vast majority of legal transactions and is therefore rendered useless to perform its intended function. And I'm sure you can think of even more, equally valid complications that point out the absurdity of the ruling.

Because we are ordinary persons and the USSC holds the power to issue absurd rulings does not mean we are required by law to be stupid enough to believe they make sense or to agree with them. And the more of us who understand and agree with that the better our chance is to do something about it.

 

[The T]

Money..does not equal speech.

And should not equal "more access" to the political process.

That's part of the reason people left Europe for America.

No, they left Europe because their system was designed to keep you poor.

Well..that's because the people with all the cash ran the show.

Why is it..conservatives are so gleefully determined to create that very same system.

Then YOU agree that Unions and organizations as those run by Soros, and other leftist groups should fully diclose their books as well?

 

[The T]

A corperation is a people?

What are the UNIONS but Coprporations? Their products are manipulation of their membership and politicians. I wonder if the OP thinks Unions should have limits on their speech too?

In my never ending effort to dispell the ignorance of 'T' and other willfully ignorant RW fringers, let me refer the reader to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Of particular importance note the headnotes (and its author's job) and the exchange between Davis - the author - and Chief Justice Waite.

Inmaterial. Answer the question.

 

[Sallow]

Then YOU agree that Unions and organizations as those run by Soros, and other leftist groups should fully diclose their books as well?

Sure.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Then YOU agree that Unions and organizations as those run by Soros, and other leftist groups should fully diclose their books as well?

Sure.

Yep. Full disclosure on any and all matters political. And full disclosure means any elected official who accepts anything of value - money, tickets to the World Series or Super Bowl, a job for his/her spouse of child, a donation to a charity operated by an elected official, the use of boat, airplane, sexual partner or insider trading - every single thing.

It's not only Citizens United v. FEC - as egregious as that will become - it's about Bribery. As a LEO would it be appropratie for me to accept anything of value - even a cup of coffee -from someone who I was investigating of criminal activity? Hell no, it is a conflict of interest at best, and a felony on its face (or it should be).

 

[shintao]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

I would support no campaign funding, rather 24-48 hours free media coverage, 12-24 hours free radio coverage, and 4 free full pages of newspaper, per candidate. The 24 hour TV coverage would be for an ongoing debate of the issues.

Any of those media sources would cover this for free, ONLY within a month of the election.

If it couldn't be done that way, I would go to the other extreme, and say let a candidate collect money from any source on the globe, and any amount to campaign with. Why should I pay for the FCC to investigate and waste taxpayer money, when people can skirt around the laws anyway!!! There is always a way. Keep government out of it.

 

[Sallow]

Then YOU agree that Unions and organizations as those run by Soros, and other leftist groups should fully diclose their books as well?

Sure.

Yep. Full disclosure on any and all matters political. And full disclosure means any elected official who accepts anything of value - money, tickets to the World Series or Super Bowl, a job for his/her spouse of child, a donation to a charity operated by an elected official, the use of boat, airplane, sexual partner or insider trading - every single thing.

It's not only Citizens United v. FEC - as egregious as that will become - it's about Bribery. As a LEO would it be appropratie for me to accept anything of value - even a cup of coffee -from someone who I was investigating of criminal activity? Hell no, it is a conflict of interest at best, and a felony on its face (or it should be).

Preaching to the choir.

Transparency is essential when rooting out corruption.

 

[Sallow]

Oligarchy, a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests.
Does Citizens United v. FEC portend our nations future?

I support campaign finance reform, limits on contributions and the total transparency of the donors.

Do you?

I would support no campaign funding, rather 24-48 hours free media coverage, 12-24 hours free radio coverage, and 4 free full pages of newspaper, per candidate. The 24 hour TV coverage would be for an ongoing debate of the issues.

Any of those media sources would cover this for free, ONLY within a month of the election.

If it couldn't be done that way, I would go to the other extreme, and say let a candidate collect money from any source on the globe, and any amount to campaign with. Why should I pay for the FCC to investigate and waste taxpayer money, when people can skirt around the laws anyway!!! There is always a way. Keep government out of it.

Option A...plus three mandatory debates.

 

[Flopper]

So you think that telling me I can only support a candidate to a certain degree and no more doesn't violate my right to free speech?

or telling me we cant criticize a candidate 30 days prior to an election isnt a violation of free speech?

You are certainly correct. That would infringe on your right of free speech but that's nothing new. If you give a speech in the park and listeners riot, you are arrested for exciting a riot. If you threaten the president, you are violating federal law. If you campaign too close to a polling place, advertise cigarettes or liquor on TV you can be arrested, And the list goes on.

 

[Liability]

Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.

When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.

But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.

So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.

And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.

If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.

I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

So you're unwilling to publically support the causes you believe in? Thanks for clearing that up.

Not even close to what I said. Your inavbility to comprehend English is stunning. You are a true dolt.

See what part of this corresponds with what you "gleaned" from my post, you moron:

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist [thugs].

I said: "I will not be silenced."

You "read into" it that I have somehow declared that I will meekly accept being silenced. Yep. You are a fucking imbecile.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Liability]

Again, Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences. If you believe enough to open your wallet, then you should be willing to stand behind that. Otherwise, don't give.

When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.

But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.

So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.

And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.

If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.

I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

Wow. I once though you were simply and arrogant ass; now I'm beginning to doubt your sanity.

Wow. You've already confirmed that you are a stupid pile of shit.

Now you have simply reconfirmed that.

In the meanwhile, moron, you have no authority to demand that the NAACP turn over its donor list. This must gall you, you poor bombastic dolt.

 

[The T]

Then YOU agree that Unions and organizations as those run by Soros, and other leftist groups should fully diclose their books as well?

Sure.

Yep. Full disclosure on any and all matters political. And full disclosure means any elected official who accepts anything of value - money, tickets to the World Series or Super Bowl, a job for his/her spouse of child, a donation to a charity operated by an elected official, the use of boat, airplane, sexual partner or insider trading - every single thing.

It's not only Citizens United v. FEC - as egregious as that will become - it's about Bribery. As a LEO would it be appropratie for me to accept anything of value - even a cup of coffee -from someone who I was investigating of criminal activity? Hell no, it is a conflict of interest at best, and a felony on its face (or it should be).

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

 

[Flopper]

I read somewhere that the average House member spends 50% of his time campaigning in one form or another. Most House members owe their victory and their vote to the special and corporate interest who financed their campaign. Isn't this just a bit crazy. We elect and pay people to spend two years in Washington representing us. They only work half the time and when they are working they don't represent us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

When I speak here, I am perfectly content to take the barbs, the slings and the arrows of irrational lefties. Water off a duck's back.

But when the fubars of the whacky left start engaging in more dangerous harassment of their political opponents, I am not anywhere near so content. You leftie schmucks think that it is perfectly ok to engage in economic blackmail for example. Some of your more extreme lefty idiots also believe in physical intimidation. I might be up for a rumble, but I would not expose my family to it.

And yet, I am not in the slightest bit willing to be silenced by virtue of the intimidation tactics of a bunch of Stalinist tugs.

So, with or without your imprimatur, I continue to maintain that I have a right to give to the causes of my choosing (i.e., political parties, individual candidates and the like) without being compelled to disclose my identity to a bunch of thugs.
.

And therefore, your "advice" is flatly rejected as the ignorant musings of someone who just doesn't get it.

If I contribute to a political cause (like, let's make up a group, "Conservatives in Favor of Limited Government") and if this is the kind of thing that would get you leftist twerps in a lather, ready to "silence" me via intimidation etc., I will continue to provide my financial support without disclosing it to your fellow travelers.

I decline your generous invitation to enjoy invalid and perhaps criminal "consequences" from a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

Wow. I once though you were simply and arrogant ass; now I'm beginning to doubt your sanity.

Wow. You've already confirmed that you are a stupid pile of shit.

Now you have simply reconfirmed that.

In the meanwhile, moron, you have no authority to demand that the NAACP turn over its donor list. This must gall you, you poor bombastic dolt.

You are way too dishonest, as well as being an arrogant ass. BTW, my comment in re your sanity should not be judged as an ad hominem attack.
Of course the devil is in the details of any law, and by suggesting full and total transparency may not be practical a rational person might suggest such a law restrict full disclose to anyone who donates over $100.
Suggesting as you do the right of privacy (btw, where is that right codified?) is absurd, for it provides cover for both those who have legitimate purpose and those who do not. The absurdity of your argument lies in the possibility that a foreign nation will have the ability to launder money into a campaign making our great experiment in self rule a shame.
Restricting campaign donations and providing for full disclosure surely comes under the guise of providing for our nations defense, a legitimate role of government even a RW Fringer such as yourself might support.

 

[Charles_Main]

It is false to say Money is not speech. If you want to be heard in a campaign. Money does indeed = Speech. Unless we are going to mandate free coverage for anyone who wants to make a statement.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure.

Yep. Full disclosure on any and all matters political. And full disclosure means any elected official who accepts anything of value - money, tickets to the World Series or Super Bowl, a job for his/her spouse of child, a donation to a charity operated by an elected official, the use of boat, airplane, sexual partner or insider trading - every single thing.

It's not only Citizens United v. FEC - as egregious as that will become - it's about Bribery. As a LEO would it be appropratie for me to accept anything of value - even a cup of coffee -from someone who I was investigating of criminal activity? Hell no, it is a conflict of interest at best, and a felony on its face (or it should be).

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

You are really not very bright. But let's put your ideas to the test.
As an American Citizens you believe you have the absolute right to provide money to AQ, essentially supporting an organization determined to kill Americans.
Yes or no?

 

[Liability]

Wow. I once though you were simply and arrogant ass; now I'm beginning to doubt your sanity.

Wow. You've already confirmed that you are a stupid pile of shit.

Now you have simply reconfirmed that.

In the meanwhile, moron, you have no authority to demand that the NAACP turn over its donor list. This must gall you, you poor bombastic dolt.

You are way too dishonest, as well as being an arrogant ass. BTW, my comment in re your sanity should not be judged as an ad hominem attack.
Of course the devil is in the details of any law, and by suggesting full and total transparency may not be practical a rational person might suggest such a law restrict full disclose to anyone who donates over $100.
Suggesting as you do the right of privacy (btw, where is that right codified?) is absurd, for it provides cover for both those who have legitimate purpose and those who do not. The absurdity of your argument lies in the possibility that a foreign nation will have the ability to launder money into a campaign making our great experiment in self rule a shame.
Restricting campaign donations and providing for full disclosure surely comes under the guise of providing for our nations defense, a legitimate role of government even a RW Fringer such as yourself might support.

You are projecting again, Shit.

Unlike you, I happen to be honest. And if you dislike what you perceive as my arrogance, that's just because you don't like any competition, you puss.

Your "comment" about my sanity is irrelevant since you obviously don't have a clue. But it was certainly an ad hominem you lying sack of self (i.e., shit).

In any event, trying to decipher the gibberish you call writing is complicated since you really appear not to grasp the rules of construction. Nonetheless, it appears that you mistakenly believe that I have spoken in "absolutes." There is no valid basis for that idiotic conclusion you came to, stupid. I have not spoken in absolutes (except that you are absolutely a dishonest piece of shit).

The absurdity of your postilion is that like many fucking arrogant asswipe liberoidals, you imagine that you have some justifiable authority to tell others that they are not free to give to the candidates of their choice without having to submit their names to you for inspection. Suck shit, you moron. You have no such authority nor will you ever have any such authority.

No. Foreign nations may not contribute to OUR political candidates. And I'd wager real money that assholes like President Obama have nevertheless been beneficiaries of foreign campaign contributions, like algore was. And if some foreign nations WERE to contribute to the re-election campaign of President Obama, you can rest pretty much assured, you fucking imbecile, that they wouldn't comply with the disclosure laws, either.

What makes you such a stupid shit? Were you dribbled like a basket ball at birth?

By the way, retard, do you in your infinite liberoidal arrogance disagree with the SCOTUS relative to NAACP v. Alabama?

 

[The T]

Yep. Full disclosure on any and all matters political. And full disclosure means any elected official who accepts anything of value - money, tickets to the World Series or Super Bowl, a job for his/her spouse of child, a donation to a charity operated by an elected official, the use of boat, airplane, sexual partner or insider trading - every single thing.

It's not only Citizens United v. FEC - as egregious as that will become - it's about Bribery. As a LEO would it be appropratie for me to accept anything of value - even a cup of coffee -from someone who I was investigating of criminal activity? Hell no, it is a conflict of interest at best, and a felony on its face (or it should be).

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

You are really not very bright. But let's put your ideas to the test.
As an American Citizens you believe you have the absolute right to provide money to AQ, essentially supporting an organization determined to kill Americans.
Yes or no?

Shithead. The emboldened is where you just LOST the argument. Please cease. You just showed your fear mongering tactic.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You "read into" it that I have somehow declared that I will meekly accept being silenced. Yep. You are a fucking imbecile.

Its ok. I'll care what you think when you're willing to stand behind your words.

I'm not sure why Conservatives, who generally defend things like the NSA wiretaps, preach the line "If you've got nothing to hide...." but then lose it when asked to disclose sources of funding for their candidates. It's like you believe in a right to privacy when it's your privacy at stake, but when it's someone else, screw 'em.

Take a look at the hypocriscy folks. How many threads do we see a week demanding Obama disclose all manner of crap. Transcripts, donor lists, grocery lists, etc. Yet when asked to be willing to give the election process transparency.... no way.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

And *I* Don't think it's government's damned business whom I donate to...or their business whom ANYONE donates to. It's a matter of free speech...

*PERIOD*

You might like your rights abridged...the majority of us do NOT.

I'd be pretty curious how you feel about the Fed's expanded powers to go after financial records, electronic communication, and travel records... all in the name of fighting terrorism of course.