Progressive Government Fails

[Derideo_Te]

And nary a fact or argument presented.
Typical.
It's wrong because he says it's wrong. He just knows it is, somehow.

Onus is on you to substantiate your allegations when you have been called on them.

Bullshit.
You have nothing.

Ironic!

You have FAILED to substantiate that Citizens United was a "wonderful decision on 1A rights" ergo you concede that it isn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that "corporations are 'persons' under the 14thA" ergo you concede that it doesn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that it is NOT the "duty of all Americans to uphold the rights of every citizen" ergo you concede that they do have said obligation.

 

[KokomoJojo]

We have had progressive government since 1903 and social market democracy since then as well.

We are the strongest country in the world.

OP fail.

of course you realize that can only exist under a police state environment

 

[The Rabbi]

Onus is on you to substantiate your allegations when you have been called on them.

Bullshit.
You have nothing.

Ironic!

You have FAILED to substantiate that Citizens United was a "wonderful decision on 1A rights" ergo you concede that it isn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that "corporations are 'persons' under the 14thA" ergo you concede that it doesn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that it is NOT the "duty of all Americans to uphold the rights of every citizen" ergo you concede that they do have said obligation.

Wow, are you stupid.
Did Citizens United make it easier or harder for citizens to engage in free speech?
Obviously it expanded free speech, making it easier.

Corporations recognized as persons under the 14thA:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not the duty of all Americans to uphold rights. Where is that spelled out? The federal gov't upholds rights, not all Americans.
Fail.
You are a total and absurd failure. This is because you are a ninny.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The Left and Obama apologists just had another setback
for their radical leftist agenda:


DC appellate court rules against HHS contraception mandate, for religious liberty

The Obama administration said that the requirement is necessary to protect women’s health and abortion rights. The judges were unconvinced that forcing companies to violate their religious rights was appropriate.

Brown wrote that “it is clear the government has failed to demonstrate how such a right — whether described as noninterference, privacy, or autonomy — can extend to the compelled subsidization of a woman’s procreative practices.”

“The provision of these services — even without the contraceptive mandate — by and large fulfills the statutory command for insurers to provide gender-specific preventive care,” she wrote. “At the very least, the statutory scheme will not go to pieces.”​

The HHS mandate burdens their exercise of religion by pressuring them to approve and endorse the inclusion of objectionable coverage in their companies’ health plans. “They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong.” (Slip op. at 20; see generally pp. 17-23.) The government’s supposedly compelling interest is nebulous (slip op. at 23-28), and even if it were compelling, the HHS mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest (slip op. at 28-32.)​

"Religious Liberty" does not exist in commerce. Corporations are not people and do not have 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Obviously this is just another attack on the 1st Amendment and given the current make up of the Supreme Court we might end up with yet another Citizens United travesty of justice. At least that is what this lawsuit is hoping will be the outcome. Should that occur the unintended consequences will be dire. Corporations will be allowed to fire people simply because they don't belong to a particular religion or believe in creation.

in england commerce was handled by the bench religious by the church. in america the church was abolished in government and left to the individual who today has little to no standing since they have limited resources compared to the mob mentality.

hence the meed for all suits concerning government to be free of charge to any party of interest.

What choices you have for religion is granted by government, you do not have freedom of religion. The government can arbitrarily make "laws" using tax payer money and when they appear to violate your rights, you the individual must take your personal savings to defend yourself against the mob.

This sytem as it stands creates mob warfare, the individual is summarily mowed over and does NOT have equal protection under the law.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It is not the duty of all Americans to uphold rights. Where is that spelled out? The federal gov't upholds rights, not all Americans.
Fail.
You are a total and absurd failure. This is because you are a ninny.

its not the duty of the government to protect rights either.

see the deshaney case.

false advertising since they sell it as a duty to protect.

ony when very profitable

 

[Neotrotsky]

Progressive economic ideas come with a 100% Guaranteed Fail rate

The Conservative "free market deregulation" dogma was such a resounding success in 2008. Taken until now for Obama to set a new record for the DOW.

Deregulation? LOL! Seriously??

LOL

Bush made a half-hearted attempt to reign in F&F beofre they collapsed the housing market, remember??

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, -- Democrats 2008

That's just it Frank
We are seeing the end of 19th-20th century Progressivism.

the "the jig is up"; the "party is over"
We have reached that place that Margaret Thatcher spoke of :

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ​

What tools do we have left?
- interest are low as they can go to go any good
- we can't tax anyone enough without crashing the economy
- how much can we debt spend since we are broke
- The Democrats are controlled by the extremeists in their party and they won't allow true reforms to entitlements which limit the state's role

S&P downgrade was just a hint of the problems to come from the failed Progressive
programs.

Again....
The issue is one of statism- which can come from both sides.
Socialism, communism, fascism, crony capitalism are all forms of some level of CPE's
and share little with a true free market system. Fascism depends on and thrives on a large and intrusive gov't or "big gov't", not small.

The issue is the power and scope of the gov't and the problems that
a large gov't can have on individual liberty. While many different groups
may use different reasons/causes for statism- it tends to never work out well and
they tend to end up at the same failed point in history.

Sadly, for the US
many still chase this "illusion"-
Fed on part ignorance and delusions of utopia

So true-
The road to hell is paved with good intentions

No doubt, this won't be the last we have heard from these
apologists of failed statism

Probably the best thing to happen is the lies of Papa Obama and the left on
healthcare.

The American people want to trust their president.
Papa Obama' s lies will impact millions- that trust has been broken.
Really, how can anyone trust anything they say, now.

As such, this will allow the GOP to take over the Senate, push out more of the extreme
leftist element and with the House still in GOP hands, they will be able to offer Papa
Obama real plans with real solutions.

Until then, one will see the extreme left and Obama apologists try hard to cover for
the lies and desperately try to hold on to the failed Progressive programs.


Obama lied
American Trust and Healthcare plans died

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals drag out the successes of liberalism in the distant past. They don't realize that liberalism passed the point of diminishing returns years ago.

It is a good thing to donate to charity. The government has decided that it isn't up to you to donate to charity, you don't give enough, so the government will take your earnings by force and support the entitlement state. However, since it was at one time noble to donate to charity, liberals think that taking a "fair share" according to them, and giving it on your behalf.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Before the Great Society, poverty was decreasing at quick rate.
Since the Great Society, the levels have remained, relatively the same.
There is no benefit in that... creating a dependent class and stratifying society.

Programs that increase real growth and free market competition
to create jobs would do more for people and the US in the long run

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bullshit.
You have nothing.

Ironic!

You have FAILED to substantiate that Citizens United was a "wonderful decision on 1A rights" ergo you concede that it isn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that "corporations are 'persons' under the 14thA" ergo you concede that it doesn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that it is NOT the "duty of all Americans to uphold the rights of every citizen" ergo you concede that they do have said obligation.

Wow, are you stupid.
Did Citizens United make it easier or harder for citizens to engage in free speech?
Obviously it expanded free speech, making it easier.

Corporations are NOT citizens!

You obviously don't understand the definition of a corporation as opposed to a natural born citizen ergo you erroneously equate money as "free speech".

Corporations recognized as persons under the 14thA:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not the duty of all Americans to uphold rights. Where is that spelled out? The federal gov't upholds rights, not all Americans.
Fail.
You are a total and absurd failure. This is because you are a ninny.

You are also woefully uninformed as to your obligations as a citizen;

Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities | USCIS

Responsibilities

• Support and defend the Constitution.
• Stay informed of the issues affecting your community.
• Participate in the democratic process.
• Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
• Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.
• Participate in your local community.
• Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities.
• Serve on a jury when called upon.
• Defend the country if the need should arise.

Defending the Constitution means defending the rights of others.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before the Great Society, poverty was decreasing at quick rate.
Since the Great Society, the levels have remained, relatively the same.
There is no benefit in that... creating a dependent class and stratifying society.

Programs that increase real growth and free market competition
to create jobs would do more for people and the US in the long run

"Before the Great Society, poverty was decreasing at quick rate.
Since the Great Society, the levels have remained, relatively the same."


Excellent!


And....the reason: increased welfare, and folks stopped working.



1. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

a. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.


2. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.
Covered in chapter five of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”


3. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year. ]Overview of the Final Report of the SIME/DIME: Report

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before the Great Society, poverty was decreasing at quick rate.
Since the Great Society, the levels have remained, relatively the same.
There is no benefit in that... creating a dependent class and stratifying society.

Programs that increase real growth and free market competition
to create jobs would do more for people and the US in the long run

Ironically that chart leveling off coincides with the onset of international free market competition siphoning off millions of good paying US jobs to other countries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before the Great Society, poverty was decreasing at quick rate.
Since the Great Society, the levels have remained, relatively the same.
There is no benefit in that... creating a dependent class and stratifying society.

Programs that increase real growth and free market competition
to create jobs would do more for people and the US in the long run

I could have sworn that the old rightwing line was that FDR started the war on poverty with his infamous New Deal, Social Security, etc.

I get the chart doesn't work as well if you use that old talking point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It sure was promoted by them.
A lot did favor sterilization or what was called "negative eugenics"
stopping those with "undesirable traits" from passing them on.

Actually, eugenics was totally Progressive in origin, aim, and design.


Also telling was the fact that the only vote against the state in the Buck case, in an 8-1 decision, was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.”
Pierce Butler


1. The most revered of liberal icons, Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes..." Pierce Butler

2. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to contraception and abortion for population control. In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

Eugenics was primarily supported by racist, anti-immigration conservatives.

Margaret Sanger was a conservative, btw.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ironic!

You have FAILED to substantiate that Citizens United was a "wonderful decision on 1A rights" ergo you concede that it isn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that "corporations are 'persons' under the 14thA" ergo you concede that it doesn't!

You have FAILED to substantiate that it is NOT the "duty of all Americans to uphold the rights of every citizen" ergo you concede that they do have said obligation.

Wow, are you stupid.
Did Citizens United make it easier or harder for citizens to engage in free speech?
Obviously it expanded free speech, making it easier.

Corporations are NOT citizens!

You obviously don't understand the definition of a corporation as opposed to a natural born citizen ergo you erroneously equate money as "free speech".

Corporations recognized as persons under the 14thA:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not the duty of all Americans to uphold rights. Where is that spelled out? The federal gov't upholds rights, not all Americans.
Fail.
You are a total and absurd failure. This is because you are a ninny.

You are also woefully uninformed as to your obligations as a citizen;

Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities | USCIS

Responsibilities

• Support and defend the Constitution.
• Stay informed of the issues affecting your community.
• Participate in the democratic process.
• Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
• Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.
• Participate in your local community.
• Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities.
• Serve on a jury when called upon.
• Defend the country if the need should arise.

Defending the Constitution means defending the rights of others.

You fail. Epically.
Corporations are people under the 14thA. I've shown that. You've thrown crap around.
CU was an excellent decision that expanded free speech. The Court held that the ability to spend money is part of free speech. You fail on that count.
Your link is absurd. There is no law or regulation that obligates me as a private citizen to defend the COnstitution. That is why sworn LE and military must take an oath to that effect. You fail.
Another absurd failure from the Failure in Chief of USMB.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It sure was promoted by them.
A lot did favor sterilization or what was called "negative eugenics"
stopping those with "undesirable traits" from passing them on.

Actually, eugenics was totally Progressive in origin, aim, and design.


Also telling was the fact that the only vote against the state in the Buck case, in an 8-1 decision, was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.”
Pierce Butler


1. The most revered of liberal icons, Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes..." Pierce Butler

2. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to contraception and abortion for population control. In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

Eugenics was primarily supported by racist, anti-immigration conservatives.

Margaret Sanger was a conservative, btw.

Progressives are the biggest liars on the planet bar none.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It sure was promoted by them.
A lot did favor sterilization or what was called "negative eugenics"
stopping those with "undesirable traits" from passing them on.

Actually, eugenics was totally Progressive in origin, aim, and design.


Also telling was the fact that the only vote against the state in the Buck case, in an 8-1 decision, was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.”
Pierce Butler


1. The most revered of liberal icons, Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes..." Pierce Butler

2. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to contraception and abortion for population control. In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

Eugenics was primarily supported by racist, anti-immigration conservatives.

Margaret Sanger was a conservative, btw.

Return when truth becomes important to you.

Now, get lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, eugenics was totally Progressive in origin, aim, and design.


Also telling was the fact that the only vote against the state in the Buck case, in an 8-1 decision, was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.”
Pierce Butler


1. The most revered of liberal icons, Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes..." Pierce Butler

2. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to contraception and abortion for population control. In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

Eugenics was primarily supported by racist, anti-immigration conservatives.

Margaret Sanger was a conservative, btw.

Return when truth becomes important to you.

Now, get lost.

I see you don't want to lose this argument twice.

Let's ask Margaret Sanger her position on abortion, to see if she was liberal or conservative:

What say you, Mags?

"while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

from her book "Woman and the New Race"

Does that sound like the liberal position on abortion to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, eugenics was totally Progressive in origin, aim, and design.


Also telling was the fact that the only vote against the state in the Buck case, in an 8-1 decision, was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.”
Pierce Butler


1. The most revered of liberal icons, Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes..." Pierce Butler

2. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to contraception and abortion for population control. In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

Eugenics was primarily supported by racist, anti-immigration conservatives.

Margaret Sanger was a conservative, btw.

Progressives are the biggest liars on the planet bar none.

Oh, really?

"The sheer number of new arrivals [of immigrants] troubled many U.S. citizens. In the late 1870's, the annual average number of immigrants fell just short of 150,000. By the turn of the century, that number had increased to almost 800,000, and in 1907 it passed 11/4 million.

As the numbers of immigrants increased, eugenicists allied themselves with other interest groups to provide biological arguments to support immigration restriction.

In 1911, Immigration Restriction League President Prescott Hall asked his former Harvard classmate Charles Davenport of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) for assistance to influence Congressional debate on immigration. Davenport recommended a survey to determine the national origins of "hereditary defectives" in American prisons, mental hospitals and other charitable institutions. Davenport appointed ERO colleague Harry Laughlin to manage the research program."

Try some research next time before you make a fool of yourself, AGAIN.

Social Origins of Eugenics

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, eugenics was totally Progressive in origin, aim, and design.


Also telling was the fact that the only vote against the state in the Buck case, in an 8-1 decision, was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.”
Pierce Butler


1. The most revered of liberal icons, Oliver Wendell Holmes, concurred with eugenics, to the extent that he attempted to write it into the Constitution. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision (Buck v. Bell) written by Oliver Wendell Holmes..." Pierce Butler

2. After eugenics was discredited by Nazi use, leading American eugenicists turned to contraception and abortion for population control. In 1953 they issued a document entitled "Freedom of Choice for Parenthood: A Program of Positive Eugenics," in which they linked so-called "voluntary parenthood" to natural selection. CSC - The Darwinian Basis for Eugenics

a. Obama's 'science czar' John Holdren went further...he wanted poison in the water supply!

Eugenics was primarily supported by racist, anti-immigration conservatives.

Margaret Sanger was a conservative, btw.

Return when truth becomes important to you.

Now, get lost.

Indeed.

In 1920, Harry Laughlin appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Using data for the U.S. Census Bureau and a survey of the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons and reformatories, he argued that the "American" gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe. Sympathetic to Laughlin's message, Committee Chairman Albert Johnson of Washington State appointed Laughlin as "expert eugenics agent."

In this capacity, Laughlin conducted research from 1921 to 1931. He took a fact-finding trip to Europe, used free postage to conduct large-scale surveys of charitable institutions and mental hospitals, and had his results published by the Government Printing Office. His research culminated in his 1924 testimony to Congress in support of a eugenically-crafted immigration restriction bill. The Eugenics Research Association displayed a chart beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol building in Washington showing the cost to taxpayers of supporting Laughlin's "social inadequates."

The resulting law, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, was designed consciously to halt the immigration of supposedly "dysgenic" Italians and eastern European Jews, whose numbers had mushroomed during the period from 1900 to 1920. The method was simply to scale the number of immigrants from each country in proportion to their percentage of the U.S. population in the 1890 census – when northern and western Europeans were the dominant immigrants. Under the new law, the quota of southern and eastern Europeans was reduced from 45% to 15%. The 1924 Act ended the greatest era of immigration in U.S. history.

Upon signing the Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, "America must remain American."

...and it was repealed in 1965, when you know who was president.

Social Origins of Eugenics

You see, it's amazing what you can find with a little research when you're looking for the truth,

and not just looking for a mutated version of the truth that makes you feel good.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow, are you stupid.
Did Citizens United make it easier or harder for citizens to engage in free speech?
Obviously it expanded free speech, making it easier.

Corporations are NOT citizens!

You obviously don't understand the definition of a corporation as opposed to a natural born citizen ergo you erroneously equate money as "free speech".



You are also woefully uninformed as to your obligations as a citizen;

Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities | USCIS

Responsibilities

• Support and defend the Constitution.
• Stay informed of the issues affecting your community.
• Participate in the democratic process.
• Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
• Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.
• Participate in your local community.
• Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities.
• Serve on a jury when called upon.
• Defend the country if the need should arise.

Defending the Constitution means defending the rights of others.

You fail. Epically.
Corporations are people under the 14thA. I've shown that. You've thrown crap around.
CU was an excellent decision that expanded free speech. The Court held that the ability to spend money is part of free speech. You fail on that count.
Your link is absurd. There is no law or regulation that obligates me as a private citizen to defend the COnstitution. That is why sworn LE and military must take an oath to that effect. You fail.
Another absurd failure from the Failure in Chief of USMB.

Corporations cannot vote. Corporations cannot bear arms. Corporations cannot worship. Corporations cannot be elected to office. You have failed to proved that corporations are entitled to any of those rights that persons have under the Constitution.

As far as the US government being "absurd" you will need to take that up with them. Any legal immigrant applying for citizenship is required to know what the rights and responsibilities of citizenship entail. Judging from your response you would fail the citizenship test.