Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Stifles Free Speech at Fox News

It's also bad that foreign powers can now donate unlimited amounts of political campaigns.

100% PURE BULLSHIT. You're just making shit up now.

Probably not understanding the facts. Since American Corporations now have "human rights status" as "American Citizens", under "free speech", they have the right to run as many political ads as they want.

For instance, The Swift-boaters spending huge amounts of money to discredit John Kerry, or Moveon.org spending money to discredit John McCain. These organizations didn't give money to Obama or Bush directly, but they certainly had influence in the election process.

For instance, CITGO Petroleum Company is an American Company. It was founded in this country, it's chartered as an American company and employs Americans. However, it was "purchased" by Hugo Chavez, but it's still based in America and the government here recognizes it as an "American Company". They can spend 100% of their profits here in our political campaigns, but it has to be money made here, not, "flown in from overseas".

So "yes", in a roundabout way, foreigners (see Hugo Chavez) can indeed spend unlimited money in our elections. Well, now they can. That was what the Supreme Court allowed.

I hope that helped.

Nice try, but no. That is not what happened. The court merely overturned portions of McCain-Feingold that were unconstitutional. The existing laws prohibiting foreign contributions have not changed. You're wrong.

I hope that helped.
 
This is very very very bad.

This is an interesting factoid I didnt know about before, and it just isnt good that a foreign power can dictate the content of our news

It's also bad that foreign powers can now donate unlimited amounts of political campaigns.

100% PURE BULLSHIT. You're just making shit up now.

All they have to do is funnel it through a corporation, and thanks to Citizens United, that corporation can then spend an unlimited amount on behalf of the candidate.
 
It's also bad that foreign powers can now donate unlimited amounts of political campaigns.

100% PURE BULLSHIT. You're just making shit up now.

All they have to do is funnel it through a corporation, and thanks to Citizens United, that corporation can then spend an unlimited amount on behalf of the candidate.

Yeah, that's why prior to McCain/Feingold all sorts of foreign corporations were controlling our elections....:cuckoo: Do you get all your news from the kooks at DailyKos? The SCOTUS did not open the door to illegal contributions from foreign entities.

The SCOTUS ruling is a ringing endorsement of the core principles of First Amendment and a victory for all AMERICANS. The Court recognized that the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow individuals and Americans to speak out as loudly and as robustly as they please. Even when that pisses off the entrenched powers. The First ammendment applies whether an individual chooses to speak out alone or whether he chooses to associate with others and speak out as a group - whether that group is a corporation, an unincorporated association, a non-profit or any other sort of group. You liberals apparently only support "free speech" when it agrees with your failed ideology.
 
There is no fucking way that you can tell me that corporations deserve the same rights as humans.

Not a fucking chance. Remember a couple years back? What about the Teapot Dome Scandal?

And........considering that a LOT of companies here in America are foreign owned, what makes you think that they WON'T eventually start buying politicians?

We've got the best government money can buy.
 
100% PURE BULLSHIT. You're just making shit up now.

Probably not understanding the facts. Since American Corporations now have "human rights status" as "American Citizens", under "free speech", they have the right to run as many political ads as they want.

For instance, The Swift-boaters spending huge amounts of money to discredit John Kerry, or Moveon.org spending money to discredit John McCain. These organizations didn't give money to Obama or Bush directly, but they certainly had influence in the election process.

For instance, CITGO Petroleum Company is an American Company. It was founded in this country, it's chartered as an American company and employs Americans. However, it was "purchased" by Hugo Chavez, but it's still based in America and the government here recognizes it as an "American Company". They can spend 100% of their profits here in our political campaigns, but it has to be money made here, not, "flown in from overseas".

So "yes", in a roundabout way, foreigners (see Hugo Chavez) can indeed spend unlimited money in our elections. Well, now they can. That was what the Supreme Court allowed.

I hope that helped.

Nice try, but no. That is not what happened. The court merely overturned portions of McCain-Feingold that were unconstitutional. The existing laws prohibiting foreign contributions have not changed. You're wrong.

I hope that helped.

No, it didn't help much.

The first law against corporate spending was passed over a hundred years ago and was called the "Tillman Act". But the act didn't make a distinction between "direct contributions" and "independent spending".

Direct contributions are still considered illegal, but "independent spending" is not. That means a company can spend unlimited amounts against a candidate they don't like as long as they don't make "direct contributions". That means Hugo Chavez can become intimately involved in our elections.

Is that what you support? Really?

Hope this helped.
 
Probably not understanding the facts. Since American Corporations now have "human rights status" as "American Citizens", under "free speech", they have the right to run as many political ads as they want.

For instance, The Swift-boaters spending huge amounts of money to discredit John Kerry, or Moveon.org spending money to discredit John McCain. These organizations didn't give money to Obama or Bush directly, but they certainly had influence in the election process.

For instance, CITGO Petroleum Company is an American Company. It was founded in this country, it's chartered as an American company and employs Americans. However, it was "purchased" by Hugo Chavez, but it's still based in America and the government here recognizes it as an "American Company". They can spend 100% of their profits here in our political campaigns, but it has to be money made here, not, "flown in from overseas".

So "yes", in a roundabout way, foreigners (see Hugo Chavez) can indeed spend unlimited money in our elections. Well, now they can. That was what the Supreme Court allowed.

I hope that helped.

Nice try, but no. That is not what happened. The court merely overturned portions of McCain-Feingold that were unconstitutional. The existing laws prohibiting foreign contributions have not changed. You're wrong.

I hope that helped.

No, it didn't help much.

The first law against corporate spending was passed over a hundred years ago and was called the "Tillman Act". But the act didn't make a distinction between "direct contributions" and "independent spending".

Direct contributions are still considered illegal, but "independent spending" is not. That means a company can spend unlimited amounts against a candidate they don't like as long as they don't make "direct contributions". That means Hugo Chavez can become intimately involved in our elections.

Is that what you support? Really?

Hope this helped.

You obviously have not read the ruling. If you did you'd admit you were wrong and move on. Let me help you out - You're wrong. Here is a link to the text of the decision.

This is a huge victory for the Constitution and for the essential notion that if there is a “problem” with certain types of speech, the solution is more speech, not censorship!

Hope you use our brain for more than a hat rack next time.
 
100% PURE BULLSHIT. You're just making shit up now.

All they have to do is funnel it through a corporation, and thanks to Citizens United, that corporation can then spend an unlimited amount on behalf of the candidate.

Yeah, that's why prior to McCain/Feingold all sorts of foreign corporations were controlling our elections....:cuckoo: Do you get all your news from the kooks at DailyKos? The SCOTUS did not open the door to illegal contributions from foreign entities.

The SCOTUS ruling is a ringing endorsement of the core principles of First Amendment and a victory for all AMERICANS. The Court recognized that the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow individuals and Americans to speak out as loudly and as robustly as they please. Even when that pisses off the entrenched powers. The First ammendment applies whether an individual chooses to speak out alone or whether he chooses to associate with others and speak out as a group - whether that group is a corporation, an unincorporated association, a non-profit or any other sort of group. You liberals apparently only support "free speech" when it agrees with your failed ideology.

The decision didn't simply overturn McCain-Feingold. It overturned over a century of election laws. The ban on corporations being able to buy candidates dates back to 1903, for example.
 
Nice try, but no. That is not what happened. The court merely overturned portions of McCain-Feingold that were unconstitutional. The existing laws prohibiting foreign contributions have not changed. You're wrong.

I hope that helped.

No, it didn't help much.

The first law against corporate spending was passed over a hundred years ago and was called the "Tillman Act". But the act didn't make a distinction between "direct contributions" and "independent spending".

Direct contributions are still considered illegal, but "independent spending" is not. That means a company can spend unlimited amounts against a candidate they don't like as long as they don't make "direct contributions". That means Hugo Chavez can become intimately involved in our elections.

Is that what you support? Really?

Hope this helped.

You obviously have not read the ruling. If you did you'd admit you were wrong and move on. Let me help you out - You're wrong. Here is a link to the text of the decision.

This is a huge victory for the Constitution and for the essential notion that if there is a “problem” with certain types of speech, the solution is more speech, not censorship!

Hope you use our brain for more than a hat rack next time.

Read the 50+ pages of the ruling itself and scary as it is must agree with Zander on this. :eek:

This ruling has nothing to do with "quid pro quo" bribery or the appearance of bribery, it also upholds the requirement that political ads from corporations must show who paid for the ad both verbally and clearly marked on the screen for four seconds.

This ruling DOES NOT speak to direct contributions to candidates so the argument that corporations are now paying off candidates is effectively voided (as they are still bound by bribery statutes). It does speak for the right of corporations to spend money as they please even if it is to sway voters.

Long story short the movie Hillary should have been allowed to be shown as long as the funding disclaimers were in place.
 
No, it didn't help much.

The first law against corporate spending was passed over a hundred years ago and was called the "Tillman Act". But the act didn't make a distinction between "direct contributions" and "independent spending".

Direct contributions are still considered illegal, but "independent spending" is not. That means a company can spend unlimited amounts against a candidate they don't like as long as they don't make "direct contributions". That means Hugo Chavez can become intimately involved in our elections.

Is that what you support? Really?

Hope this helped.

You obviously have not read the ruling. If you did you'd admit you were wrong and move on. Let me help you out - You're wrong. Here is a link to the text of the decision.

This is a huge victory for the Constitution and for the essential notion that if there is a “problem” with certain types of speech, the solution is more speech, not censorship!

Hope you use our brain for more than a hat rack next time.

Read the 50+ pages of the ruling itself and scary as it is must agree with Zander on this. :eek:

This ruling has nothing to do with "quid pro quo" bribery or the appearance of bribery, it also upholds the requirement that political ads from corporations must show who paid for the ad both verbally and clearly marked on the screen for four seconds.

This ruling DOES NOT speak to direct contributions to candidates so the argument that corporations are now paying off candidates is effectively voided (as they are still bound by bribery statutes). It does speak for the right of corporations to spend money as they please even if it is to sway voters.

Long story short the movie Hillary should have been allowed to be shown as long as the funding disclaimers were in place.

Both you and him "MISSED THE POINT". No one is talking about "direct contributions".

When Moveon.org made anti McCain commercials to sway voters, they gave nothing to Obama as contributions and no one cared who paid for the that message.

When the "Swiftboat Vets" made commercials against Kerry, they didn't give a cent to Bush. No one cared who paid for the ads.

Now imagine being able to do the same thing, but with a billion dollars.

Is that clear now?????
 
You obviously have not read the ruling. If you did you'd admit you were wrong and move on. Let me help you out - You're wrong. Here is a link to the text of the decision.

This is a huge victory for the Constitution and for the essential notion that if there is a “problem” with certain types of speech, the solution is more speech, not censorship!

Hope you use our brain for more than a hat rack next time.

Read the 50+ pages of the ruling itself and scary as it is must agree with Zander on this. :eek:

This ruling has nothing to do with "quid pro quo" bribery or the appearance of bribery, it also upholds the requirement that political ads from corporations must show who paid for the ad both verbally and clearly marked on the screen for four seconds.

This ruling DOES NOT speak to direct contributions to candidates so the argument that corporations are now paying off candidates is effectively voided (as they are still bound by bribery statutes). It does speak for the right of corporations to spend money as they please even if it is to sway voters.

Long story short the movie Hillary should have been allowed to be shown as long as the funding disclaimers were in place.

Both you and him "MISSED THE POINT". No one is talking about "direct contributions".

When Moveon.org made anti McCain commercials to sway voters, they gave nothing to Obama as contributions and no one cared who paid for the that message.

When the "Swiftboat Vets" made commercials against Kerry, they didn't give a cent to Bush. No one cared who paid for the ads.

Now imagine being able to do the same thing, but with a billion dollars.

Is that clear now?????

NO, it isn't and YOU are wrong, again. THe ruling specificaly invaldiates one part of the McCain Feingold law. That's it. We have had 200+ yrs of succesful elections prior to McCain Feingold and we will continue to have succesful elections now. The Republic will continue, only freer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top