Corporations already outspend both partys

[Truthmatters]

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.

This is all anyone needs to realise they did not intend corporations to have special rights to have their right to speak defended.

The founders singled out ONE industry for obvious reasons.

They could have said all corporations in all fields if that was the intenet.

They did not.

they mentioned ONLY one industry.

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.


Now ask yourself why they did not say corporations in genral if that was the intent?

You skipped over freedom of speech and again, not the first time, how can the NY Times Company enjoy First Amendment protection?

 

[theHawk]

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.


Now ask yourself why they did not say corporations in genral if that was the intent?

They didn't say unions either. Guess that means they don't have freedom of speech either?


All of television is funded by corporations buying airtime to run their ads. You're actually suggesting that corporations shouldn't have the right to run television commercials.

 

[Truthmatters]

It takes the government all of 4 fucking seconds to spend what corporations and individual spend all year in political advertising

Apples and oranges. Keep up. The subject is spending on political advertising. The government spends zero on purely political advertising. You're muddying the waters. Is that intentional?

Show me in the Constitution where the government can limit political spending.

Thank you in advance for your evasive answer.

Comments on the PROOF of the founders intent asswink?

 

[theHawk]

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

What are corporations made of? Llamas?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

What are corporations made of? Llamas?

It's known as a distinction without a difference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

What are corporations made of? Llamas?

Just as long as no Indians own any stock in the Company...

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did the founders mention ONE industry as the exception to people?

Why did they feel it was nesessary to mention ANY industry if they concidered ALL corporations as people?

 

[uscitizen]

Freedom of the press was the only exception to Human Beings they intended.

What are corporations made of? Llamas?

Skinks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

lol only the government can insure a free press that isn't spending too much in political advertising..lol librulism is 180 degrees inverted from our founding principals and common sense

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did the founders mention ONE industry as the exception to people?

Why did they feel it was nesessary to mention ANY industry if they concidered ALL corporations as people?

You have no answer huh frank.

 

[del]

Why did the founders mention ONE industry as the exception to people?

Why did they feel it was nesessary to mention ANY industry if they concidered ALL corporations as people?

franklin owned a newspaper and wanted to get in on the ground floor.

it's called blackwater now.

quiffwicket.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why did the founders mention ONE industry as the exception to people?

Why did they feel it was nesessary to mention ANY industry if they concidered ALL corporations as people?

You have no answer huh frank.

You're flailing and incoherent and I have to leave soon.

The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law..." and you're saying that Congress can make laws usurping their founding document (as long as they don't apply to NY Times Company) and ignoring their limitations.

Your position make no sense whatsoever especially since you realize that the NY Times and CBS should be stripped of their protection under your Bizzaroland interpretations

 

[Truthmatters]

You dont have an answer either do you.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did the founders mention ONE industry as the exception to people?

Why did they feel it was nesessary to mention ANY industry if they concidered ALL corporations as people?

You have no answer huh frank.

You're flailing and incoherent and I have to leave soon.

The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law..." and you're saying that Congress can make laws usurping their founding document (as long as they don't apply to NY Times Company) and ignoring their limitations.

Your position make no sense whatsoever especially since you realize that the NY Times and CBS should be stripped of their protection under your Bizzaroland interpretations

Pretending I'm saying something other than the founders never intended corporations to have the right to freedom of speach is just more lying.

I'm saying the founders clearly only intended the press to be included in the freedom of speach rights.

They singled out NO other industry to be included in the right.


What the republicans and their fellow fools are now defending is directly opposed to the intentions of the founders.

 

[theHawk]

Why did the founders mention ONE industry as the exception to people?

Why did they feel it was nesessary to mention ANY industry if they concidered ALL corporations as people?

You have no answer huh frank.

You're flailing and incoherent and I have to leave soon.

The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law..." and you're saying that Congress can make laws usurping their founding document (as long as they don't apply to NY Times Company) and ignoring their limitations.

Your position make no sense whatsoever especially since you realize that the NY Times and CBS should be stripped of their protection under your Bizzaroland interpretations

Pretending I'm saying something other than the founders never intended corporations to have the right to freedom of speach is just more lying.

I'm saying the founders clearly only intended the press to be included in the freedom of speach rights.

They singled out NO other industry to be included in the right.


What the republicans and their fellow fools are now defending is directly opposed to the intentions of the founders.

Then lets pass laws that forbid Corporations from buying television ads. You know, because we can.

 

[theHawk]

In fact, lets pass laws that forbids all business from advertising in any way, to include putting up a sign on their establishment. You know, because they don't have the right of freedom of speech.

 

[Truthmatters]

You also have NO response to the obvious intentions of the founders either huh T Heha?

 

[theHawk]

You also have NO response to the obvious intentions of the founders either huh T Heha?

I'm on your side buddy, you convinced me. Corporations have no rights whatsoever.

So lets go buddy, lets write our representatives to pass laws that forbid corporations from any advertisements. They should be using that money to feed Hatian childrens.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would that be nesessary?