80% of Americans against the Freedom of Speech

[Avatar4321]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

Now that's scary.

 

[Darkwind]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

Now that's scary.

I guess that is why we don't have a Democracy.

 

[Charles Stucker]

So now bribing politicians is an element of free speech?
Who woulda thunk it.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Money isn't speech. Simple as that.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

In the economic relm it is. My checkbook is the way I express my opinion that peanut butter cups are superior to broccoli, and Snow leopard is better than Vista.

 

[jillian]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

Now that's scary.

They're not opposed to free speech. They're opposed to corporate takeover of our government.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

In the economic relm it is. My checkbook is the way I express my opinion that peanut butter cups are superior to broccoli, and Snow leopard is better than Vista.

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

 

[Modbert]

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

You figure when 80% of people come out against it, the other 20% wouldn't have the balls to actually make such a ignorant statement like "80% of Americans against Freedom of Speech."

But that's USMB and the internet for you.

 

[Vast LWC]

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

You figure when 80% of people come out against it, the other 20% wouldn't have the balls to actually make such a ignorant statement like "80% of Americans against Freedom of Speech."

But that's USMB and the internet for you.

LOL.

You got to love the numbers when they're broken down too:

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

EVERYONE thinks this court decision is bullshit.

The folks on the USMB are gonna be shocked at how far outside the mainstream they are on this issue.

 

[Avatar4321]

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

You figure when 80% of people come out against it, the other 20% wouldn't have the balls to actually make such a ignorant statement like "80% of Americans against Freedom of Speech."

But that's USMB and the internet for you.

You cant tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say before an election. It's against the First amendment. It doesnt matter if 99.99% of people support it. It's still against Freedom of Speech.

Again, people still havent read the decision.

 

[Vast LWC]

You cant tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say before an election. It's against the First amendment. It doesnt matter if 99.99% of people support it. It's still against Freedom of Speech.

Again, people still havent read the decision.

All of the people that hold stock in said corporations have the ability to do the same thing as any other individual as far as their freedom of speech rights go.

The laws simply involved the use of a corporation to do so.

People know exactly what the decision says, and they are quite definitely in opposition.

Face it, most people don't consider a corporation to be a person.

 

[Modbert]

You cant tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say before an election. It's against the First amendment. It doesnt matter if 99.99% of people support it. It's still against Freedom of Speech.

Again, people still havent read the decision.

Careful, you may of missed a opportunity in that post to be arrogant and ignorant a little more. People have read the decision. It's a small amount of people like you who like it.

 

[beowolfe]

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

You figure when 80% of people come out against it, the other 20% wouldn't have the balls to actually make such a ignorant statement like "80% of Americans against Freedom of Speech."

But that's USMB and the internet for you.

You cant tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say before an election. It's against the First amendment. It doesnt matter if 99.99% of people support it. It's still against Freedom of Speech.

Again, people still havent read the decision.

But you can tell corporations that they can't use their huge bank accounts to directly pay for political ads. We did it for decades. And the idiotic activist conservative judges on the SCOTUS just tossed out decades and decades of precedent. But hey, that's what you get with activist judges.

 

[rdean]

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

You figure when 80% of people come out against it, the other 20% wouldn't have the balls to actually make such a ignorant statement like "80% of Americans against Freedom of Speech."

But that's USMB and the internet for you.

You cant tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say before an election. It's against the First amendment. It doesnt matter if 99.99% of people support it. It's still against Freedom of Speech.

Again, people still havent read the decision.

If American corporations, such as CITGO, can be owned by someone such as "Hugo Chavez", which it is, and is granted all the rights of an American Citizen, which is what the Supreme Court did, why not the terrorists at Gitmo? Not only are they people, but they hate the US as much as Hugo Chavez does. Isn't it all about "free speech"?

USATODAY.com - Has Citgo become a political tool for Hugo Chvez?

 

[Conspiracist]

Why would anyone want corporations with any foreign interests on the inside to have a say in United States politics? As said earlier, each person in the corporation that is a United states citizen has the freedom of speech that everyone else has.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

What I am interested in seeing is how the opponents of the candidates who get corporate sponsors will react. These campaign commericals that are being allowed will be required to show who paid for them. The opponent can simply point out who is backing the candidate.

If people don't like the idea of someone backed by big pharma, oil, healthcare...well, if they see that one candidate is supported by them, it's easy enough to vote for the other candidate.

I have never had issue with this ruling, but I think it may backfire on some corps, and eventually they will not back candidates with campaign ads once it helps their candidate lose an election or two.

Too many people are assuming that if a candidate gets backed by a big corporation they will win.

-TSO

 

[rdean]

What I am interested in seeing is how the opponents of the candidates who get corporate sponsors will react. These campaign commericals that are being allowed will be required to show who paid for them. The opponent can simply point out who is backing the candidate.

If people don't like the idea of someone backed by big pharma, oil, healthcare...well, if they see that one candidate is supported by them, it's easy enough to vote for the other candidate.

I have never had issue with this ruling, but I think it may backfire on some corps, and eventually they will not back candidates with campaign ads once it helps their candidate lose an election or two.

Too many people are assuming that if a candidate gets backed by a big corporation they will win.

-TSO

If a corporation floods the airways with a certain message, who cares who pays for it? How many people know who CITGO is?

You know, that is the "Republican" position. That somehow, if people know who paid for a message, they will somehow "know" to ignore that message.

Everyone knows "Freddie/Fannie" gave money to Obama and McCain. But the details are vastly different.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

That is complete bullshit, but it sounds good.

You figure when 80% of people come out against it, the other 20% wouldn't have the balls to actually make such a ignorant statement like "80% of Americans against Freedom of Speech."

But that's USMB and the internet for you.

You cant tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say before an election. It's against the First amendment. It doesnt matter if 99.99% of people support it. It's still against Freedom of Speech.

Again, people still havent read the decision.

Oh I read it and tell me how a corporation is considered a "group of people." Does everyone employed by that corporation get approval over what money goes where? How about every stock holder? I'll answer that for you. No. So therefore, how is a corporation donating money from the general fund anything other than potentially thousands of people paying for the political ideals of a few?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

If a corporation floods the airways with a certain message, who cares who pays for it? How many people know who CITGO is?

Personally, if they don't, they should have their voters card taken from them. Personally, I refuse to use CITGO and have ever since Chavez nationalized US company holdings in his country. If a candidate is backed by them, the candidate will have no chance of ever getting my vote.

-TSO

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Oh I read it and tell me how a corporation is considered a "group of people." Does everyone employed by that corporation get approval over what money goes where? How about every stock holder? I'll answer that for you. No. So therefore, how is a corporation donating money from the general fund anything other than potentially thousands of people paying for the political ideals of a few?

The same can be said of unions, but then again unions have been using their "voice" for decades without anyone batting an eye (at least nobody that is a union supporter).

-TSO