Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

[mdn2000]

Corporations are NOT people.

A corporate board is NOT made up of ordinary people. Corporations do not vote.

The media does NOT get to define what (not who) is a corporation. Straw man alert!!!!

No individual is restricted to speaking as a corporation. Individuals have rights, they get to vote.


Corporations have historically sheltered criminals, not exposed them.

no thanks, I've seen that movie.

Marxism alert, Marxism alert

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming (1966) - IMDb​

Strawman

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

In the Senate, John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have both gotten behind the effort. "Max Baucus and I, probably, if we had to serve in the same body, we probably don't agree on a whole bunch of stuff. But on this, he really gets it," said Edwards.

"Max is always willing to work with anyone toward the common goal of making sure Montanans' voices don't get drowned out by out-of-control corporate campaign donations," said Kate Downen, a Baucus spokeswoman.

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Marxism alert, Marxism alert

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming (1966) - IMDb​

Strawman

The Scarecrow was a Marxist?

Did the Wizard know?

 

[The Infidel]

FlailGomer must need another batch of hormone shots to keep his boobs.... and HuffyPuffy must be paying $0.01 per link again

Exactly why I wont open anything that idiot links.

Dante is a democrat drone.

 

[mdn2000]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

What a lazy thread, no quote from the article, I guess you dont have time when its more important to start endless threads according to the Marxist/Liberal agenda.

I dont follow the link unless the person who links quotes the article.

After all, the article is irrelevant, its all about the topic title being seen in the forum index.

lazy?

The context is there. Look around at other threads that have a premise you may agree with. Stop feigning outrage.

Your still smarting after the "Kennedy" thread, I have been browsing your responses to my post and I can not find one post of Dante's that does not deflect. Dante all you seem capable of is nothing more than, nothing. Outrage, I have no outrage, its just weak and lame, linking without a quote is weak, lame.

Dante, I wish you could offer a bit of substance, it would be fun to show how easy the strawman falls.

 

[jillian]

It shouldn't have needed amending. Corporations aren't people for purposes of the first amendment... well, they weren't..

but where are all those "originalist" pretend constitutionalists complaining about it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your still smarting after the "Kennedy" thread...

delusional thinking is another sign of Right World Lunacy taking over a fragile mind.

 

[WillowTree]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

Where do these rightwing trollbots come from? I thought the shat that Rush Limbaugh squeezes out into the toilet gets flushed, not making posts on USMB.

We know who shat you into the toilet don't we?

 

[mdn2000]

Your still smarting after the "Kennedy" thread...

delusional thinking is another sign of Right World Lunacy taking over a fragile mind.

Go back and pick up were you disappeared, thats all, your smart are you not, you can support your posts, go ahead, do it, who is stopping you.

Is this all you got, name calling, is that it. Let me try.

Old Crock, I must apologize to, Old Crock tries and does present and support Old Crock's post, Old Crock, in light of Dante's lack of substance I must state I wish there were more Old Crocks on the boards. Dante, go read Old Crock's posts, that will teach you how to attempt to present your argument or idea.

Anyone who has seen me attack Old Crock will know this post to be about the biggest insult based on fact posted on the threads. I had to state that to help Dante understand how little Dante adds to any discussion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

Where do these rightwing trollbots come from? I thought the shat that Rush Limbaugh squeezes out into the toilet gets flushed, not making posts on USMB.

We know who shat you into the toilet don't we?

Willow-twee-dee-dumb!!!!


run, run away....it's alive...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your still smarting after the "Kennedy" thread...

delusional thinking is another sign of Right World Lunacy taking over a fragile mind.

Go back and pick up were you...

snore...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

go back and bash a dead man because in your deluded state you imagine it what --- upsets Dante? great way to debate.

 

[kyzr]

Wow, high-end debates here. I haven't heard this kind of name calling since the 3rd grade...

What matters is what the USSC said is free speech. Period. Besides, it would be unenforceable, unless you outlaw brown bags and money in freezers.
Does anyone else remember what the Chinese referred to as "money bag politics" during the Clinton admin??

 

[Sallow]

I would like to see amendments that bestow rights on to single human beings..not collections that form an abstract with limited liability.

And an explicit right to privacy.

 

[antagon]

Why should government be able to tell you how much advertising you can buy?

the government regulates speech. there are extensive limitations to the freedom of speech, especially on tv and radio.

what country do you live in?

 

[rdean]

Sounds prejudicial and probably Unconstitutional. This will have to be studied and debated much more. Sometimes ideas that are popular are also Unconstitutional. They'll have to go slow on this one.

Because according to the Constitution, corporations are also citizens.

From the Article:

Both parties rely on corporate spending, though Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. Some of the difference is made up by union spending on the Democratic side, but dwindling union dues can never compete in the long run with corporate spending that can come directly from the company's treasury. In the first quarter of 2010, for instance, one company, Goldman Sachs, recorded a profit of $3.5 billion. That's roughly what both parties and all outside groups combined spent on the 2010 elections - and Goldman Sachs made that in just three months.

This is because the people that work at corporations send money to Democrats because they believe Democrats work for the people.

The Corporate leadership gives to the Republicans. Because they know Republicans will ALWAYS care about corporations over people. It's simply part of their parties philosophy. You can see this in the apology to BP, the defense of insurance companies, the insistence in deregulating clean air and clean water.

 

[antagon]

Wow, high-end debates here. I haven't heard this kind of name calling since the 3rd grade...

What matters is what the USSC said is free speech. Period. Besides, it would be unenforceable, unless you outlaw brown bags and money in freezers.
Does anyone else remember what the Chinese referred to as "money bag politics" during the Clinton admin??

its not rocket science. political ads would just require registration of their cost or something.

the real question revolves around whether it is prudent to curtail the expression of corporations and groups of individuals at the behest of unorganized groups. do the right to free speech and the right to assemble compound to support annoying adds funded by corps? i think they do.

the constitution would have to be changed with an amendment that creates exceptions with specific regard to election adds or something if they aim to have such a block imposed.

 

[rdean]

Why should government be able to tell you how much advertising you can buy?

the government regulates speech. there are extensive limitations to the freedom of speech, especially on tv and radio.

what country do you live in?

You know that's misleading. You can't get on air and say, "fuck you fuck you fuck you".

But you can get on air and say, "Our president pals around with terrorists".

Surely, you can see the difference. It shouldn't have to be explained.

 

[Intense]

Voters Strongly Back Amending Constitution To Restrict Corporate Political Spending

There you go again, trying to restrict free speech, you disingenuous Fuck!

We see through you.

Sock Puppet!

 

[snjmom]

Because according to the Constitution, corporations are also citizens.

Really? Where in the constitution does it bestow citizenship on a corporation? What articles of incorporation do I need to file with the state before it recognizes my personhood?

Legal definition of corporation.

corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.


Now, in the artificial person gaining rights arguments, I am much more favorable to granting them to clones than I am legal constructs.

 

[kyzr]

Wow, high-end debates here. I haven't heard this kind of name calling since the 3rd grade...

What matters is what the USSC said is free speech. Period. Besides, it would be unenforceable, unless you outlaw brown bags and money in freezers.
Does anyone else remember what the Chinese referred to as "money bag politics" during the Clinton admin??

its not rocket science. political ads would just require registration of their cost or something.

the real question revolves around whether it is prudent to curtail the expression of corporations and groups of individuals at the behest of unorganized groups. do the right to free speech and the right to assemble compound to support annoying adds funded by corps? i think they do.

the constitution would have to be changed with an amendment that creates exceptions with specific regard to election adds or something if they aim to have such a block imposed.

IMHO we should not tinker with the Constitution. The Supremes said that Obama was flat wrong about his take on their decision. So I'm not sure what the Left is whining about. The Left was very happy when they had the big money in 2008, now they're whining.

I still have not seen the absolute correlation between money and winning elections, just ask Whitman the un-governor of CA. Voters generally see thru bullshit ads put up by Corporations or bullshit pols like Rangel, or Reid, or McMahon (against the VN liar)...maybe with better candidates it wouldn't matter.