Corporation now control our Government

[Elway777]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkkVFSmBL1d8AZbVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEybHRtaWE 5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGUjVfODE-/SIG=12oq2sudn/EXP=1264688069/**http%3a//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/package/supremecourt/index.html

Corporations now have the right to speed a unlimited amount of money to defeat political canidates. The worst Supreme court decision ever. The Supreme count has turned into a political body with no intregity at all. The Supreme court basily has declared war on the poor and middle class and will futher divide the nation between Democrats and Replublicans.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=88781

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Corporations now have the right to speed a unlimited amount of money to defeat political canidates. The worst Supreme court decision ever. The Supreme count has turned into a political body with no intregity at all.

Yep.

Thanks to the far-right activists appointed to the SCOTUS by Bush, your next POTUS might be selected by China or Saudi Arabia hiding behind a front corporation.



The Supreme court basily has declared war on the poor and middle class and will futher divide the nation between Democrats and Replublicans.

You have to wonder how long it will take the repubs to realize Bush and the GOP f_cked them in the ass?

[Garcia Bronco]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkkVFSmBL1d8AZbVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEybHRtaWE 5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGUjVfODE-/SIG=12oq2sudn/EXP=1264688069/**http%3a//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/package/supremecourt/index.html

Corporations now have the right to speed a unlimited amount of money to defeat political canidates. The worst Supreme court decision ever. The Supreme count has turned into a political body with no intregity at all. The Supreme court basily has declared war on the poor and middle class and will futher divide the nation between Democrats and Replublicans.

Except they made the right ruling based on the rules in play. If it bothers you guys so much...get an amendment passed. That's all that has to happen.

[rastaman]

Except they made the right ruling based on the rules in play. If it bothers you guys so much...get an amendment passed. That's all that has to happen.

Why don't you and your arsonist band of corporate facsist enabling voters get off your ass and us pass an amendment!

[Rohirrim]

Except they made the right ruling based on the rules in play. If it bothers you guys so much...get an amendment passed. That's all that has to happen.

Either you're just a troll, posting crap like this for your own, twisted entertainment, or you really are bereft of critical thinking skills to such an extent that you might qualify for disability.

[TheDave]

Either you're just a troll, posting crap like this for your own, twisted entertainment, or you really are bereft of critical thinking skills to such an extent that you might qualify for disability.

I think we need a poll for this... :thumbs:

[Garcia Bronco]

Why don't you and your arsonist band of corporate facsist enabling voters get off your ass and us pass an amendment!

Spoken like a baby boomer. Somebody else do the work.

[Garcia Bronco]

Either you're just a troll, posting crap like this for your own, twisted entertainment, or you really are bereft of critical thinking skills to such an extent that you might qualify for disability.

It's the right ruling. People have a right to express themselves. Sorry. I am actually suprised the SCOTUS had to make a ruling on this. It's common sense.

[Rohirrim]

Scalia recently argued that if the state executed an innocent man but gave him a fair trial, the system worked. This is the same guy who just said that corporations are people too, and deserving of all the rights of the Constitution.

We are now, officially, in Wonderland. A very, merry unbirthday, to you. ;D

[Garcia Bronco]

Scalia recently argued that if the state executed an innocent man but gave him a fair trial, the system worked. This is the same guy who just said that corporations are people too, and deserving of all the rights of the Constitution.

We are now, officially, in Wonderland. A very, merry unbirthday, to you. ;D

Obviously that dissent issued by scalia takes strict interpretation too far.

[TheDave]

It's the right ruling. People have a right to express themselves. Sorry. I am actually suprised the SCOTUS had to make a ruling on this. It's common sense.

companies are not people... never have been never will be.

[Rohirrim]

It's the right ruling. People have a right to express themselves. Sorry. I am actually suprised the SCOTUS had to make a ruling on this. It's common sense.

If you represent the electorate, I can no longer be surprised at the direction of this country.

[Garcia Bronco]

companies are not people... never have been never will be.

However companies are comprised of what? People.

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.

It says it right there that people have the right to peacably assemble and to petition their government. Spending money to exercise this right is clearly expressed in the 1st amendment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Either you're just a troll, posting crap like this for your own, twisted entertainment, or you really are bereft of critical thinking skills to such an extent that you might qualify for disability.

This.

[TheDave]

However companies are comprised of what? People.

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.

It says it right there that people have the right to peacably assemble and to petition their government. Spending money to exercise this right is clearly expressed int eh 1st amendment.

A corporation is not "comprised of people" it is strictly a legal entity specifically and legally seperated from people... The process of incorporation exists to limit both owners and their capitol from liability.

By definition the entity's existence is considered separate and distinct from that of its members.

[Rohirrim]

However companies are comprised of what? People.

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.

It says it right there that people have the right to peacably assemble and to petition their government. Spending money to exercise this right is clearly expressed in the 1st amendment.

Are you really this thick, or is it just a ploy? The CEO of Exxon Mobil is a person. His secretary is a person. The shareholders are persons.

Exxon Mobil is a legal entity, designed by persons, that exists only on paper for the purpose of conducting business. It is not a ****ing person. Is it really beyond your capacity to grasp that concept?

[TailgateNut]

Are you really this thick, or is it just a ploy? The CEO of Exxon Mobil is a person. His secretary is a person. The shareholders are persons.

Exxon Mobil is a legal entity, designed by persons, that exists only on paper for the purpose of conducting business. It is not a ****ing person. Is it really beyond your capacity to grasp that concept?

It is!!!

[Garcia Bronco]

i apologize. The ceo of exxon mobil is a person. His secretary is a person. The shareholders are persons.

Exxon mobil is a legal entity comprised of people, designed by persons, that does not only exist on paper for the purpose of conducting business but also has living, breathing souls that conduct its business. It is not only a ****ing person, but it is a group of people assembling to exercise political choice.

fyp

[Garcia Bronco]

A corporation is not "comprised of people" it is strictly a legal entity specifically and legally seperated from people... The process of incorporation exists to limit both owners and their capitol from liability.

Do people work at the corporation? Yes they do. That means it's comprised of people. Here's the thing. If you don't think a corproations stance on something...don't buy their products. Persuade others not to buy their products if you like, but don't act like they aren't people with constitutional rights as a group, because they do. The SCOTUS said so. LOL

[TheDave]

Do people work at the corporation? Yes they do. That means it's comprised of people. Here's the thing. If you don't think a corproations stance on something...don't buy their products. Persuade others not to buy their products if you like, but don't act like they aren't people with constitutional rights as a group, because they do. The SCOTUS said so. LOL

Actually, it's very common for corporations to exist without employees.

Ever heard of a shell corp?

Again your argument fails to work past the first couple of basic steps.

[Rohirrim]

Do people work at the corporation? Yes they do. That means it's comprised of people. Here's the thing. If you don't think a corproations stance on something...don't buy their products. Persuade others not to buy their products if you like, but don't act like they aren't people with constitutional rights as a group, because they do. The SCOTUS said so. LOL

My wife and I have a corporation. I guess I should ask it who it wants to vote for in the next election. Oh, that's right. It's just a portfolio full of paper and can't say a thing. LOL

[TheDave]

Here is another little problem with this childish argument.

If a corporation is aforded the same rights as a person then it should have the right to vote.

Do you believe a corp should be able to vote?

[TheDave]

My wife and I have a corporation. I guess I should ask it who it wants to vote for in the next election. Oh, that's right. It's just a portfolio full of paper and can't say a thing. LOL

I have 3 corps... guess that means I get 4 votes ;D

[Rohirrim]

I have 3 corps... guess that means I get 4 votes ;D

Who do your corporations support in the next election?

[TheDave]

Who do your corporations support in the next election?

oddly their opinion follows mine... strange. ;D

[Garcia Bronco]

Actually, it's very common for corporations to exist without employees.

Ever heard of a shell corp?

Again your argument fails to work past the first couple of basic steps.

Ah but typically a shell Corporation is conducting illegal activity. There are laws already in place to investigate these places and remove them. But even in legal circumstances they still have to have some person or group of people working there/for it to make it work even if it's just one person. Further, that corporation has the right to spend it's money where it wants an convey messages as provided in the first amendment of the US Consititution. The solution is simple. Change the Constitution and the rules can be satisfied and the ambiguity elminated.

[Garcia Bronco]

My wife and I have a corporation. I guess I should ask it who it wants to vote for in the next election. Oh, that's right. It's just a portfolio full of paper and can't say a thing. LOL

You and you wife however can. What did you say before? "You can't be this dense" or something to that effect?

[Rohirrim]

Ah but typically a shell Corporation is conducting illegal activity. There are laws already in place to investigate these places and remove them. But even in legal circumstances they still have to have some person or group of people working there/for it to make it work even if it's just one person. Further, that corporation has the right to spend it's money where it wants an convey messages as provided in the first amendment of the US Consititution. The solution is simple. Change the Constitution and the rules can be satisfied and the ambiguity elminated.

LOL "Spend its money where it wants?" So, if Exxon Mobil decides to go to Cancun for the winter, gas prices are going to become unstable?

[Rohirrim]

You and you wife however can. What did you say before? "You can't be this dense" or something to that effect?

Oh, so you're arguing that our corporation has its own separate vote? That's excellent. I'll use that in the next election.

[Garcia Bronco]

Here is another little problem with this childish argument.

If a corporation is aforded the same rights as a person then it should have the right to vote.

Do you believe a corp should be able to vote?

The first amendment does give the people the right to vote. The right to vote is stipulated elsewhere and does not give anyone the right to vote twice. So whether you do so under the guise of your corporate interest or your "personal" interest(as if there is a difference) you only get the right to vote once. You are the one making a "childish argument" here. Not I.

[TheDave]

Ah but typically a shell Corporation is conducting illegal activity. There are laws already in place to investigate these places and remove them. But even in legal circumstances they still have to have some person or group of people working there/for it to make it work even if it's just one person. Further, that corporation has the right to spend it's money where it wants an convey messages as provided in the first amendment of the US Consititution. The solution is simple. Change the Constitution and the rules can be satisfied and the ambiguity elminated.

Your lack of education on this subject is shocking...

A shell corp is simply a company that is incorporated but has no significant assets or operations... and their is nothing illegal about that nor does it have "a person working there for it to make it work"

[Rohirrim]

Your lack of education on this subject is shocking...

A shell corp is simply a company that is incorporated but has no significant assets or operations... and their is nothing illegal about that nor does it have "a person working there for it to make it work"

He says he went to VT. I keep telling him to go back and get a refund.

[Garcia Bronco]

Your lack of education on this subject is shocking...

A shell corp is simply a company that is incorporated but has no significant assets or operations... and their is nothing illegal about that nor does it have "a person working there for it to make it work"

Someone has to go down to the bank and file a corporate resolution at the very least. And yes...typically they are created to escape taxes that should rightfully be paid.

[Rohirrim]

The first amendment does give the people the right to vote. The right to vote is stipulated elsewhere and does not give anyone the right to vote twice. So whether you do so under the guise of your corporate interest or your "personal" interest(as if there is a difference) you only get the right to vote once. You are the one making a "childish argument" here. Not I.

So, now you're saying that the corporation has freedom of speech, but it isn't allowed to vote?

I thought you said the corporation gets all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL. You guys can't refute the argument so you are reduced to **** talking.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your lack of education on this subject is shocking...


:yep:

More and more so every time he reaches for his keyboard. :D

[Garcia Bronco]

So, now you're saying that the corporation has freedom of speech, but it isn't allowed to vote?

I thought you said the corporation gets all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

It's the people within. And you understood it. Perhaps it is you that needs the refund.

[Rohirrim]

LOL. You guys can't refute the argument so you are reduced to **** talking.

I don't blame you for running away. You're toast. :rofl:

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't blame you for running away. You're toast. :rofl:

I am still here.

[Garcia Bronco]

So, now you're saying that the corporation has freedom of speech, but it isn't allowed to vote?

I thought you said the corporation gets all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

One is not dependent on the other

The people within the corporation do

[Rohirrim]

One is not dependent on the other

The people within the corporation do

One is not dependent on the other? What is free speech without a vote?

[TailgateNut]

Do people work at the corporation? Yes they do. That means it's comprised of people. Here's the thing. If you don't think a corproations stance on something...don't buy their products. Persuade others not to buy their products if you like, but don't act like they aren't people with constitutional rights as a group, because they do. The SCOTUS said so. LOL


...all this coming from someone who constantly quotes/ preaches the Constitution.:spit:

The ****ing 5 SCJ should be charged with treason.

[TheDave]

Someone has to go down to the bank and file a corporate resolution at the very least. And yes...typically they are created to escape taxes that should rightfully be paid.

every post you make on this subject is proven false... but you keep posting.

If this is not trolling i don't know what is.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

every post you make on this subject is proven false... but you keep posting.

If this is not trolling i don't know what is.

I believe it's called "just being a typical republican." Ha!

[Garcia Bronco]

...all this coming from someone who constantly quotes/ preaches the Constitution.:spit:

The ****ing 5 SCJ should be charged with treason.

You didn't have a problem when they said abortion isn't murder. You shouldn't have a problem now.

[Garcia Bronco]

every post you make on this subject is proven false... but you keep posting.

If this is not trolling i don't know what is.

No it hasn't and just because you and I disagree on a subject that doesn't make it "trolling" unless you yourself are trolling as well.

[TheDave]

I believe it's called "just being a typical republican." Ha!

In this case it just Garcia and his own brand of crazy.

[Garcia Bronco]

One is not dependent on the other? What is free speech without a vote?

The right to vote and the right to free speech do not exist together from a consititutional perspective. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive either.

[TailgateNut]

You didn't have a problem when they said abortion isn't murder. You shouldn't have a problem now.

WTF does the abortion ruling have to do with them declaring a corporation to be eligible for "personhood"?

The should be impeached and tried for treason.

[TheDave]

WTF does the abortion ruling have to do with them declaring a corporation to be eligible for "personhood"?


Like I said... Garcia's brand of crazy.

[TailgateNut]

Like I said... Garcia's brand of crazy.

He's either lying about his VT degree, that school should rescind his graduation papers, or he should request a refund.

[Garcia Bronco]

WTF does the abortion ruling have to do with them declaring a corporation to be eligible for "personhood"?

The should be impeached and tried for treason.

The appointment is for life and they cannot be removed. They can only decide to retire.

[Garcia Bronco]

He's either lying about his VT degree, that school should rescind his graduation papers, or he should request a refund.

Class of 97, leo.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's been amusing to own you guys once again. Have a blessed day and remember God loves you.

[TheDave]

He's either lying about his VT degree, that school should rescind his graduation papers, or he should request a refund.

He's just ****ing with everyone... eventually people (myself included) will remember that and just ignore his rants.

[Rohirrim]

The right to vote and the right to free speech do not exist together from a consititutional perspective. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive either.

This is gibberish. Without the vote, the right to free speech is meaningless. The vote is speech made into action.

I think corporations should all get together and petition government for the right to vote. Then, my wife and I will sit down and discuss who our corporate vote will go to.

[yavoon]

WTF does the abortion ruling have to do with them declaring a corporation to be eligible for "personhood"?

The should be impeached and tried for treason.

calm your little nutter self down.

[yavoon]

This is gibberish. Without the vote, the right to free speech is meaningless. The vote is speech made into action.

I think corporations should all get together and petition government for the right to vote. Then, my wife and I will sit down and discuss who our corporate vote will go to.

of couse the supreme court decision didn't say any of this. what the supreme court said is all speech is equal. and the constitution doesn't distinguish the source, whether it be unions, corporations, political action committees farmers markets, neighborhood watches. of course I know you don't want to deal with it on that level.

you just want to bleat like some psychotic child CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

[TailgateNut]

Class of 97, leo.

Obviously a very bad "vintage".

I only know one other VT grad, and she moved to Paris. I hear flights are reasonable and everything comes with gravy.

[TailgateNut]

calm your little nutter self down.

Go **** yourself!

It will make you happy and keep you from reproducing.

[Rohirrim]

of couse the supreme court decision didn't say any of this. what the supreme court said is all speech is equal. and the constitution doesn't distinguish the source, whether it be unions, corporations, political action committees farmers markets, neighborhood watches. of course I know you don't want to deal with it on that level.

you just want to bleat like some psychotic child CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

The Constitution most clearly does "distinguish the source" - in its very first three words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's your "source." I don't see "corporations" mentioned there. I suppose we now can't tell corporations what to put on their product labeling? Wouldn't that be an infringement on their free speech rights? We can't regulate them through the SEC? We can't tell them what they must include in a prospectus?

[yavoon]

The Constitution most clearly does "distinguish the source" - in its very first three words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's your "source." I don't see "corporations" mentioned there. I suppose we now can't tell corporations what to put on their product labeling? Wouldn't that be an infringement on their free speech rights? We can't regulate them through the SEC? We can't tell them what they must include in a prospectus?

"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."

I believe that's the relevant part of the constitution for the mentally impaired leftists here. it's funny watching you wind yourself into some little ball of anger and hate and crazy. I wonder what's gna happen when the world doesn't end after this supreme court ruling.

[yavoon]

Go **** yourself!

It will make you happy and keep you from reproducing.

you have the mental abilities of a rock.

[ghwk]

One is not dependent on the other

The people within the corporation do

But the corporation does not communicate based on what it's employees think. The company does what a minority board of directors think, it in fact does not represent it's "people". Often time the company takes a position that may be harmful to its employees.

[TailgateNut]

But the corporation does not communicate based on what it's employees think. The company does what a minority board of directors think, it in fact does not represent it's "people". Often time the company takes a position that may be harmful to its employees.

Arguing with a Hokie is akin to trying to explain to your dog that "licking ones' own ass isn't healthy".

[yavoon]

But the corporation does not communicate based on what it's employees think. The company does what a minority board of directors think, it in fact does not represent it's "people". Often time the company takes a position that may be harmful to its employees.

and often unions back candidates that their union members don't vote for. even though the union itself pushes out enormous propaganda against them with the dues paid by the same union members. of course that's totally ok because union leadership is the most radically leftist place possibly in the united states.

[TheDave]

"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."

I believe that's the relevant part of the constitution for the mentally impaired leftists here. it's funny watching you wind yourself into some little ball of anger and hate and crazy. I wonder what's gna happen when the world doesn't end after this supreme court ruling.

And these rights are only gauranteed to "We the People"... not animals, nor cars, nor corporations. These rights are only gauranteed for "PEOPLE". So for this to be a 1st amendment issue like you claim than a corporation has to be considered a "person"

Watching you and garcia play stupid to make you point is really sad and irrating all at the same time.

[yavoon]

And these rights are only gauranteed to "We the People"... not animals, nor cars, nor corporations. These rights are only gauranteed for "PEOPLE". So for this to be a 1st amendment issue like you claim than a corporation has to be considered a "person"

Watching you and garcia play stupid to make you point is really sad and irrating all at the same time.

no, the supreme court merely said that congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. not freedom of speech of people. I'm curious under this retrograde and extremely limited view of freedom of speech that has come up as response to this supreme court ruling, who the does have freedom of speech? only individuals? that's pretty god damn facsist. of course having to think comprehensively about the angry reactionary drivel people spout might cause their heads to explode.

[TheDave]

no, the supreme court merely said that congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. not freedom of speech of people. I'm curious under this retrograde and extremely limited view of freedom of speech that has come up as response to this supreme court ruling, who the does have freedom of speech? only individuals? that's pretty god damn facsist. of course having to think comprehensively about the angry reactionary drivel people spout might cause their heads to explode.

Actually that is the bill of rights that said that not the supreme court... and yes the bill of rights only applies to "people". The supreme court granted corporations the same rights afforded to "We the People"...and overturned 102 years worth of laws that have correctly limited their political speech.

Sorry to burst you pseudo argument before it got started.

[Arkie]

Maybe we should go back to enforcing the original laws meant to limit this kind of control.


Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

[yavoon]

Actually that is the bill of rights that said that not the supreme court... and yes the bill of rights only applies to "people". The supreme court granted corporations the same rights afforded to "We the People"...and overturned 102 years worth of laws that have correctly limited their political speech.

Sorry to burst you pseudo argument before it got started.

no the bill of rights clearly says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. I notice how in all the reactionary drivel that gets spewed not one person mentions unions. I imagine if this didn't involve the enemy of the socialists on the left(corporations) we could have a much more sane conversation about the concept of freedom of speech. frankly the idea that only an individual has any right at all to free speech is fascist nonsense, though my one hope is that once this calms down, the world doesn't end, and people become a little more mature they will realize how scary a concept they were promoting.

[Rohirrim]

no, the supreme court merely said that congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. not freedom of speech of people. I'm curious under this retrograde and extremely limited view of freedom of speech that has come up as response to this supreme court ruling, who the does have freedom of speech? only individuals? that's pretty god damn facsist. of course having to think comprehensively about the angry reactionary drivel people spout might cause their heads to explode.

So, saying freedom of speech should be restricted to humans is "retrograde and extremely limited." Okay. We'll also give it to rocks, dogs, and motorcycles.

Ha!

[TheDave]

no the bill of rights clearly says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. I notice how in all the reactionary drivel that gets spewed not one person mentions unions. I imagine if this didn't involve the enemy of the socialists on the left(corporations) we could have a much more sane conversation about the concept of freedom of speech. frankly the idea that only an individual has any right at all to free speech is fascist nonsense, though my one hope is that once this calms down, the world doesn't end, and people become a little more mature they will realize how scary a concept they were promoting.

Reactionary drivel... leftist... Blah, Blah, Blah.

Let me know when you have something to add to this discussion.

[TheDave]

So, saying freedom of speech should be restricted to humans is "retrograde and extremely limited." Okay. We'll also give it to rocks, dogs, and motorcycles.

Ha!

Some how some way Bafoon comes in here and within 3 posts actually trumps Garcia's stupidity.

That takes effort.

[yavoon]

So, saying freedom of speech should be restricted to humans is "retrograde and extremely limited." Okay. We'll also give it to rocks, dogs, and motorcycles.

Ha!

just imagine what a government could do with speech limited to only individuals. every single group ever formed wouldn't have free speech. like I said though, all this reactionary drivel isn't built on calm thought out concepts of free speech. it's all anger and fear and hate. which often puts the intellectual bar rather low.

[yavoon]

Reactionary drivel... leftist... Blah, Blah, Blah.

Let me know when you have something to add to this discussion.

I guess that's what passes for a concession speech with you? fine I accept your surrender.

[TheDave]

So, saying freedom of speech should be restricted to humans is "retrograde and extremely limited." Okay. We'll also give it to rocks, dogs, and motorcycles.

Ha!

Add to that freedom of speech is already severely limited.

People can't insight a riot or slander another. Corporations "Speech" is also limited by way of advertising laws.

But suddenly the regulation of their involvement in "Political Speech" is an infringement on one of their inalienable rights.

[Rohirrim]

Reactionary drivel... leftist... Blah, Blah, Blah.

Let me know when you have something to add to this discussion.

I kind of liked the "reactionary drivel" one. The SCOTUS has just created a new idea - that governments are created by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations - and if you are opposed to this revolutionary new political philosphy, then you are a reactionary meat puppet. Somewhere in the future, they'll use this finding to give robots human rights. "Hey, if corporations get them, why not us!"

[TheDave]

I guess that's what passes for a concession speech with you? fine I accept your surrender.

I absolutely do surrender to your stupidity... you win Hilarious!

[yavoon]

I kind of liked the "reactionary drivel" one. The SCOTUS has just created a new idea - that governments are created by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations - and if you are opposed to this revolutionary new political philosphy, then you are a reactionary meat puppet. Somewhere in the future, they'll use this finding to give robots human rights. "Hey, if corporations get them, why not us!"

yes yes fearmonger, let the dystopia commence. I can almost imagine you on top of a cardboard box on some street corner. repent!

[TheDave]

I kind of liked the "reactionary drivel" one. The SCOTUS has just created a new idea - that governments are created by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations - and if you are opposed to this revolutionary new political philosphy, then you are a reactionary meat puppet. Somewhere in the future, they'll use this finding to give robots human rights. "Hey, if corporations get them, why not us!"

You can't just make up that kind of raw stupidity on the spot... I'm sure Bafoon has honed that over many many years.

[yavoon]

You can't just make up that kind of raw stupidity on the spot... I'm sure Bafoon has honed that over many many years.

are you going to spam this entire thread with pure ad hominems in some lame elementary school attempt to flame me? I feel sorry for how pathetic your last several posts have been.

[Rohirrim]

yes yes fearmonger, let the dystopia commence. I can almost imagine you on top of a cardboard box on some street corner. repent!

Speaking of cardboard boxes - What is a corporation but a cardboard box? A box full of papers. A seal on a piece of paper from the state of Delaware accompanied by the requisite legal documents. What do you think a corporation has to say?

[TheDave]

are you going to spam this entire thread with pure ad hominems in some lame elementary school attempt to flame me? I feel sorry for how pathetic your last several posts have been.

Yeah, cause your posts are so above all of that... LOL

[yavoon]

Speaking of cardboard boxes - What is a corporation but a cardboard box? A box full of papers. A seal on a piece of paper from the state of Delaware accompanied by the requisite legal documents. What do you think a corporation has to say?

whatever it wants. which is the consistent view of pretty much everyone save for one tiny period within 30 days of an election. which has now been lifted.

again we can step back and see the lunacy of your side. you're arguing against what corporations have pretty much always had, save one small exemption. and you're arguing against it like free speech needs to be absolutely shutdown immediately based on your fear driven dystopian fantasies.

[Rohirrim]

just imagine what a government could do with speech limited to only individuals. every single group ever formed wouldn't have free speech. like I said though, all this reactionary drivel isn't built on calm thought out concepts of free speech. it's all anger and fear and hate. which often puts the intellectual bar rather low.

A sophomoric argument. So now the Bill of Rights applies to groups? What kind of argument do you foresee this "group" making? What next, a group vote? how about a "group" election. Let's elect some "group" as president. How would a government restict the free speech of a "group?" I am presupposing that the group would elect a spokesperson. If they talked all at once, I doubt their speech would be very effective. I'm guessing the free speech rights of the spokesperson would be protected. Am I wrong? I've never heard of a person being denied their rights because they are a member of a group. Of course, then you have that whole, "...right to peaceably assemble" thing going on. I don't see how they'd get past that one. Of course, this court has shown itself to be pretty activist and revolutionary. Who can guess what new interpretation they'll come up with next?

[Rohirrim]

whatever it wants. which is the consistent view of pretty much everyone save for one tiny period within 30 days of an election. which has now been lifted.

again we can step back and see the lunacy of your side. you're arguing against what corporations have pretty much always had, save one small exemption. and you're arguing against it like free speech needs to be absolutely shutdown immediately based on your fear driven dystopian fantasies.

Oh uh. You've stumbled into the Land of Gibberish. I dare not follow.

BTW, are you opposed to corporations running for office?

[yavoon]

Oh uh. You've stumbled into the Land of Gibberish. I dare not follow.

BTW, are you opposed to corporations running for office?

as much as I'm opposed to neighborhood watches running for office. honestly how can one have a serious conversation about free speech with people as dumb as you? thank god the supreme court justices have a more comprehensive view of our constitutional rights then "omg corporations aren't people! rabble rabble rabble!"

[yavoon]

A sophomoric argument. So now the Bill of Rights applies to groups? What kind of argument do you foresee this "group" making? What next, a group vote? how about a "group" election. Let's elect some "group" as president. How would a government restict the free speech of a "group?" I am presupposing that the group would elect a spokesperson. If they talked all at once, I doubt their speech would be very effective. I'm guessing the free speech rights of the spokesperson would be protected. Am I wrong? I've never heard of a person being denied their rights because they are a member of a group. Of course, then you have that whole, "...right to peaceably assemble" thing going on. I don't see how they'd get past that one. Of course, this court has shown itself to be pretty activist and revolutionary. Who can guess what new interpretation they'll come up with next?

it's difficult to untangle the full scope of your mindless idiocy, but let me take one thing.

"How would a government restict the free speech of a "group?" I am presupposing that the group would elect a spokesperson. If they talked all at once, I doubt their speech would be very effective. I'm guessing the free speech rights of the spokesperson would be protected."

really? so all corporations ever needed to pass your test for free speech is to find a spokesperson? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. I think this is just another nail in the coffin for how incredibly infantile your concept of free speech is.

[Garcia Bronco]

The Constitution most clearly does "distinguish the source" - in its very first three words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's your "source." I don't see "corporations" mentioned there. I suppose we now can't tell corporations what to put on their product labeling? Wouldn't that be an infringement on their free speech rights? We can't regulate them through the SEC? We can't tell them what they must include in a prospectus?

It doesn't say "The States" either so I guess the Constitution does apply to states.

[Garcia Bronco]

And these rights are only gauranteed to "We the People"... not animals, nor cars, nor corporations. These rights are only gauranteed for "PEOPLE". So for this to be a 1st amendment issue like you claim than a corporation has to be considered a "person"



Nor the states.

[Garcia Bronco]

But the corporation does not communicate based on what it's employees think. The company does what a minority board of directors think, it in fact does not represent it's "people". Often time the company takes a position that may be harmful to its employees.

Sure they do. It might not be there personal political agenda, but it is their company agenda which could mean their livelihood

[Garcia Bronco]

Arguing with a Hokie is akin to trying to explain to your dog that "licking ones' own ass isn't healthy".

So the truth comes out. You are jealous of your dogs ability to lick his own arse, aren't you?

[TailgateNut]

just imagine what a government could do with speech limited to only individuals. every single group ever formed wouldn't have free speech. like I said though, all this reactionary drivel isn't built on calm thought out concepts of free speech. it's all anger and fear and hate. which often puts the intellectual bar rather low.

This isn't about "groups of people", this is about giving rights to Corporations, many of which aren't even owned/ controlled by American Citizens. Some are owned by citizens of countries which do not have a stake in the well being of MY COUNTRY.

[Rohirrim]

BTW, strictly on a question of judicial philosophy, this finding violates the basic "originalist" philosophy of Scalia, Roberts, et al. In other words, they are raging hypocrites. The "originalist" philosophy holds that if an enumerated right isn't found in the Constitution, you can't infer its existence. This is the philosophy Scalia travels the country spewing, as its premier mouthpiece. "Personhood" for corporations is not found in the 14th amendment. They used Santa Clara v Union Pacific RR but even that finding did not make that philosophical leap. In fact, the presiding judge, Waites, later wrote that he had no intention of his finding being used as precedent for any such leap of logic. In fact he wrote that they purposely avoided the constitutional question.

It's too bad that Thomas Jefferson didn't get his way. He wanted severe limits put on corporations, parties, and other such entitities written into the Constitution. In a letter to a friend in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Too late now. Scalia, Roberts et al have just written a right for corporations into the Constitution where none existed before. Talk about "activism." Hell, at least you can make a reasoned and logical argument that "privacy" is an unenumerated right. Free speech for corporations? ???

[Garcia Bronco]

This isn't about "groups of people", this is about giving rights to Corporations, many of which aren't even owned/ controlled by American Citizens. Some are owned by citizens of countries which do not have a stake in the well being of MY COUNTRY.

AS yavoon pointed out. All speech is equal. That's what this ruling says. Whether it's Nat Turner, Apple, or Taco John. All speech is equla and we have the freedom to it under the first amendment of the Constitution.

[TailgateNut]

It doesn't say "The States" either so I guess the Constitution does apply to states.

Garcia, there have been times when I thought you were just kidding when you said stupid ****, but this tops them all.

What do you think "United States" implies?

[Rohirrim]

it's difficult to untangle the full scope of your mindless idiocy, but let me take one thing.

"How would a government restict the free speech of a "group?" I am presupposing that the group would elect a spokesperson. If they talked all at once, I doubt their speech would be very effective. I'm guessing the free speech rights of the spokesperson would be protected."

really? so all corporations ever needed to pass your test for free speech is to find a spokesperson? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. I think this is just another nail in the coffin for how incredibly infantile your concept of free speech is.

I guess now you are devolving into ad hominem blather, eh? You can't support your argument at all, obviously, except by spewing garbage in an attempt to create a smokescreen for your embarassing lack of knowledge.

[Rohirrim]

It doesn't say "The States" either so I guess the Constitution does apply to states.

Ooops. Obviously, you have no ****ing idea what you are talking about. I'm shocked!. Shocked, I tell you. Here's the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, find me something in there that gives rights to corporations.

[yavoon]

I guess now you are devolving into ad hominem blather, eh? You can't support your argument at all, obviously, except by spewing garbage in an attempt to create a smokescreen for your embarassing lack of knowledge.

actually I responded to a specific argument you made in that post. I confess your logic was so insanely dumb that I also laughed at you. but who can really blame me? that spokesman line shattered the veneer of mere inadequacy in your arguments and sent it heading devastatingly fast into mindless lunacy.

[Rohirrim]

actually I responded to a specific argument you made in that post. I confess your logic was so insanely dumb that I also laughed at you. but who can really blame me? that spokesman line shattered the veneer of mere inadequacy in your arguments and sent it heading devastatingly fast into mindless lunacy.

And yet, other than a bunch of name calling and some kind of tantrum, you have yet to show how the logic of a single one of my arguments is "insanely dumb." Weird.

Perhaps you could whip out your copy of the Constitution and point out where the rights of corporations are enumerated? Because if it ain't in there, then the SCOTUS just made it up. You think maybe the Founders blew it and didn't conceive that groups of people and corporations might require a separate Bill of Rights somewhere down the road? I don't think so. Maybe they thought that rights were the inalienable province of the individual, bestowed by their creator, (you know, like Jefferson wrote in the Declaration) and that they had no intention of the Bill of Rights referring to anything other than individuals. Gee, ya think?

So, given that logic, it's up to a corporation's creator to bestow rights upon their creation. Right?

[Garcia Bronco]

Ooops. Obviously, you have no ****ing idea what you are talking about. I'm shocked!. Shocked, I tell you. Here's the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, find me something in there that gives rights to corporations.

We were clearly talking about the preamble. It doesn't say "We the States"

But to answer your question. Corporations have a right to freedom of speech just like any other collection or groups of people. All speech is equal

[yavoon]

And yet, other than a bunch of name calling and some kind of tantrum, you have yet to show how the logic of a single one of my arguments is "insanely dumb." Weird.

Perhaps you could whip out your copy of the Constitution and point out where the rights of corporations are enumerated? Because if it ain't in there, then the SCOTUS just made it up. You think maybe the Founders blew it and didn't conceive that groups of people and corporations might require a separate Bill of Rights somewhere down the road? I don't think so. Maybe they thought that rights were the inalienable province of the individual, bestowed by their creator, (you know, like Jefferson wrote in the Declaration) and that they had no intention of the Bill of Rights referring to anything other than individuals. Gee, ya think?

So, given that logic, it's up to a corporation's creator to bestow rights upon their creation. Right?

the supreme court said all speech is equal. once again your insane reactionary drivel kind of leaves that point out a lot. unions were also impacted by the supreme court decision, yet you haven't said one word about them. nor have any of your other mindless fearmongering dystopian cohorts.

[Rohirrim]

We were clearly talking about the preamble. It doesn't say "We the States"

But to answer your question. Corporations have a right to freedom of speech just like any other collection or groups of people. All speech is equal

If there is one thing this thread proves, it is this: All speech is not equal. Or at least, some speech is more equal than others.

I think what you meant to say is that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't think you can argue that all corporations are created equal.

[TheDave]

the supreme court said all speech is equal. once again your insane reactionary drivel kind of leaves that point out a lot. unions were also impacted by the supreme court decision, yet you haven't said one word about them. nor have any of your other mindless fearmongering dystopian cohorts.

neither corporations NOR unions should be allowed the benefits decided in this case. The reason Corporations are mentioned over unions is because they already spend nearly 10X what unions do.

Were simply attacking and discussing the biggest fish in this pond.


BUT FWIW... I'm impressed how you can use the phrase "insane reactionary drivel" and "dystopian" in every single post.

[Garcia Bronco]

If there is one thing this thread proves, it is this: All speech is not equal. Or at least, some speech is more equal than others.


LOL. Now you sound like a Klucker.

[TailgateNut]

If there is one thing this thread proves, it is this: All speech is not equal. Or at least, some speech is more equal than others.

I think what you meant to say is that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't think you can argue that all corporations are created equal.


....nor can he argue that they are owned by the citizens of this country which are guaranteed the rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Rohirrim]

the supreme court said all speech is equal. once again your insane reactionary drivel kind of leaves that point out a lot. unions were also impacted by the supreme court decision, yet you haven't said one word about them. nor have any of your other mindless fearmongering dystopian cohorts.

Sure. All speech is equal. Walmart can just buy a whole lot more speech than I can. Hilarious!

In practical, legal, and theoretical terms, this finding by the five "originalists" on the court is just pure silliness. I think they should check the place for a gas leak.

If you would like to stop all the name calling and stupidity and actually learn something about the damage this ruling will do, I suggest you start with Justice Stevens' dissent. It makes very interesting reading.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

Let us start from the beginning. The Court invokes “ancient First Amendment principles,” ante , at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted), and original understandings, ante , at 37–38, to defend today’s ruling, yet it makes only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment. Perhaps this is because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed it would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form. To the extent that the Framers’ views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majority’s position.
(in other words, Scalia, Roberts et al, just made **** up)

Or how about this?
The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. (read that line a couple of times) Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. 55 While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends. Even “the notion that business corporations could invoke the First Amendment would probably have been quite a novelty,” given that “at the time, the legitimacy of every corporate activity was thought to rest entirely in a concession of the sovereign.” Shelledy, Autonomy, Debate, and Corporate Speech, 18 Hastings Const. L. Q. 541, 578 (1991); cf. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.) (“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it”); Eule, Promoting Speaker Diversity: Austin and Metro Broadcasting, 1990 S. Ct. Rev. 105, 129 (“The framers of the First Amendment could scarcely have anticipated its application to the corporation form. That, of course, ought not to be dispositive. What is compelling, however, is an understanding of who was supposed to be the beneficiary of the free speech guaranty—the individual”). In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed “the freedom of speech” would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.
(in other words, Scalia, Roberts et al, just made **** up)

I'm still trying to find a right winger who isn't appalled by this judicial activism.

Anyway, yavoon, feel free to go to that site and call Stevens a bunch of names. I'm sure he'll be amused to find himself a member of a "...mindless fearmongering dystopian cohort(s)."

[Rohirrim]

In 1938, here is what Justice Hugo Black wrote about using the 14th Amendment to somehow infer the "personhood" of corporations:

If the people of this nation wish to deprive the states of their sovereign rights to determine what is a fair and just tax upon corporations doing a purely local business within their own state boundaries, there is a way provided by the Constitution to accomplish this purpose. That way does not lie along the course of judicial amendment to that fundamental charter. An amendment having that purpose could be submitted by Congress as provided by the Constitution. I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment had that purpose, nor that the people believed it had that purpose, nor that it should be construed as having that purpose.

He's absolutely right, of course. The entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overturn Dred Scott and clarify the rules of citizenship and the rights of freed blacks. To find some kind of "corporate personhood" in this amendment is judicial activism at its worst.

[yavoon]

neither corporations NOR unions should be allowed the benefits decided in this case. The reason Corporations are mentioned over unions is because they already spend nearly 10X what unions do.

Were simply attacking and discussing the biggest fish in this pond.


BUT FWIW... I'm impressed how you can use the phrase "insane reactionary drivel" and "dystopian" in every single post.

no, you're simply attacking whatever you hate. and I'm glad you're impressed by my consistency. why switch it up too much? you guys are using the same arguments, I should use the same descriptive measures to categorize your arguments.

[TheDave]

no, you're simply attacking whatever you hate. and I'm glad you're impressed by my consistency. why switch it up too much? you guys are using the same arguments, I should use the same descriptive measures to categorize your arguments.

Blah, Blah, Blah...

I swear one of these days I'm going to learn to ignore you.

[yavoon]

Blah, Blah, Blah...

I swear one of these days I'm going to learn to ignore you.

just do it baby. it'll save me the trouble of your assinine pure ad hominem posts. also crying about ignoring a person instead of just ignoring them is a pretty pussy thing to do. so man the hell up, you giant whining baby.

[TheDave]

just do it baby. it'll save me the trouble of your assinine pure ad hominem posts. also crying about ignoring a person instead of just ignoring them is a pretty p***Y thing to do. so man the hell up, you giant whining baby.

"your assinine pure ad hominem posts"

Did you really just stick that one in the middle of another of your name calling tirades?

Awesome... pure awesome.

[yavoon]

"your assinine pure ad hominem posts"

Did you really just stick that one in the middle of another of your name calling tirades?

Awesome... pure awesome.

how am I suppose to respond w/ substance to something that has none? you wanna start talking about the incredibly morally and intellectually bankrupt version of free speech that passes for "omg I hate corporations" in this thread? go for it. we already had rohirrim and his brilliant insight of "well if they have a spokesman..."(that still makes me chuckle).

[TailgateNut]

how am I suppose to respond w/ substance to something that has none? you wanna start talking about the incredibly morally and intellectually bankrupt version of free speech that passes for "omg I hate corporations" in this thread? go for it. we already had rohirrim and his brilliant insight of "well if they have a spokesman..."(that still makes me chuckle).


So in your eyes free speech is guaranteed to any foreign person by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights applies to anyone across the globe.

NICE!

[Garcia Bronco]

So in your eyes free speech is guaranteed to any foreign person by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights applies to anyone across the globe.

NICE!

The SCOTUS has ruled that as well..basically. Illegals have rights under the Constitution according to the SCOTUS. Why not?

[yavoon]

So in your eyes free speech is guaranteed to any foreign person by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights applies to anyone across the globe.

NICE!

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has already given rights to illegals. so you're kinda late to the party on that issue nutter.

[TheDave]

how am I suppose to respond w/ substance to something that has none? you wanna start talking about the incredibly morally and intellectually bankrupt version of free speech that passes for "omg I hate corporations" in this thread? go for it. we already had rohirrim and his brilliant insight of "well if they have a spokesman..."(that still makes me chuckle).

I'm just laughing at you and your massive contradictions...

all while trying to play the logical sane person in the argument.

It's fun to watch...keep it up. :thumbs:

[TailgateNut]

Can't wait for the first Citco ad........and the outcry from those who think this ruling is sane.

[yavoon]

I'm just laughing at you and your massive contradictions...

all while trying to play the logical sane person in the argument.

It's fun to watch...keep it up. :thumbs:

declarative statement, ad hominem, dismissive. blah blah blah. I don't know man, do you have any substance to you at all?

[TheDave]

declarative statement, ad hominem, dismissive. blah blah blah. I don't know man...

You just summed up your involvement in this thread perfectly... thank you :thanku:

[Garcia Bronco]

Can't wait for the first Citco ad........and the outcry from those who think this ruling is sane.

See...you see this as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. An opportunity on where to spend my money. So if comcast starts up on something I don't like...I'll stop doing business with them. Of course they won't do these ads on their name and most people don't listen to them anyway making all this crying by you guys pointless. The SCOTUS actuall followed the rules. You don't like the rules....we can change the rules.

[yavoon]

You just summed up your involvement in this thread perfectly... thank you :thanku:

I've pointed out the theoretical basis for the supreme court decision numerous times. pointed out the philosophical idiocy of "only individuals have free speech" and generally shown how vapid, reactionary and insane the "corporations aren't people rabble rabble rabble" is.

but I guess since you have the reading comprehension skills of a rock, that would all be too far above you.

[TailgateNut]

See...you see this as a problem, I see it as an opportunity. An opportunity on where to spend my money. So if comcast starts up on something I don't like...I'll stop doing business with them. Of course they won't do these ads on their name and most people don't listen to them anyway making all this crying by you guys pointless. The SCOTUS actuall followed the rules. You don't like the rules....we can change the rules.


Yes, I do see this as a problem due to the gullibility of the high percentage of the general public. The same people who bought into BushCo's lies. If you say something often enough and loud enough it must be true.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes, I do see this as a problem due to the gullibility of the high percentage of the general public.

Then you underestimate your countrymen.

[TheDave]

I've pointed out the theoretical basis for the supreme court decision numerous times. pointed out the philosophical idiocy of "only individuals have free speech" and generally shown how vapid, reactionary and insane the "corporations aren't people rabble rabble rabble" is.

but I guess since you have the reading comprehension skills of a rock, that would all be too far above you.

Watching you "wind yourself into some little ball of anger and hate and crazy" is just too much fun.


Well...that and answering you with your own posts is just too easy.


See you said it perfectly yourself... "declarative statement, ad hominem, dismissive. blah blah blah." It's all you've got, so clowning you is all I've got.

[TailgateNut]

Then you underestimate your countrymen.

No, I don't underestimate them, but I've seen the reaction of the lemmings, and although they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, they are allowed to vote.
And their vote affects my life!

[Rohirrim]

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.) “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it”

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Some how some way Bafoon comes in here and within 3 posts actually trumps Garcia's stupidity.

That takes effort.

Ha!

Never would have thought it possible, but he pulled it off.

[yavoon]

Watching you "wind yourself into some little ball of anger and hate and crazy" is just too much fun.


Well...that and answering you with your own posts is just too easy.


See you said it perfectly yourself... "declarative statement, ad hominem, dismissive. blah blah blah." It's all you've got, so clowning you is all I've got.

again you're a liar, I've explained numerous times, obviously to people too stupid to notice, that the supreme court ruled that all speech is equal. which is of course why this ruling also effects unions. in all this breatheless fanaticism that has passed for a philosophical understanding of free speech in this thread, that point seems to not only be missed but be willfully ignored.

you are right though, ad hominem is all you've got. a pathetic display of flaming and emoticons. I sort of pity you.

[TheDave]

again you're a liar, I've explained numerous times, obviously to people too stupid to notice, that the supreme court ruled that all speech is equal. which is of course why this ruling also effects unions. in all this breatheless fanaticism that has passed for a philosophical understanding of free speech in this thread, that point seems to not only be missed but be willfully ignored.

you are right though, ad hominem is all you've got. a pathetic display of flaming and emoticons. I sort of pity you.


Hilarious! You're too much...

[Rohirrim]

Hilarious! You're too much...

It's like arguing with a pissed off toddler.

[yavoon]

Hilarious! You're too much...

yet another meaningless post by you.

[TheDave]

It's like arguing with a pissed off toddler.

and he just doesn't get it...


http://health.utah.gov/mihp/images/babycry.jpg

[yavoon]

and he just doesn't get it...


http://health.utah.gov/mihp/images/babycry.jpg

honestly you can make 1000 posts like this as insults. they're the most random meaningless posts I've ever read on orangemane. why not introduce pictures into it. I mean you couldn't have possibly degraded the argument any further. go find some really clever gifs that'll show me.

[TheDave]

honestly you can make 1000 posts like this as insults. they're the most random meaningless posts I've ever read on orangemane. why not introduce pictures into it. I mean you couldn't have possibly degraded the argument any further. go find some really clever gifs that'll show me.

Projection: is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. Projection functions to allow the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety.

Hope this helps.

[yavoon]

Projection: is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. Projection functions to allow the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety.

Hope this helps.

I've already explained how I've tried to remind the fanatics in this thread that this is about all speech being equal. and as such this ruling effects unions, even though that fact, and truth and essential to understanding the philosophy of free speech is being willfully ignored. but hey if you want to hear it again. I'm proud to put up actual argument against your meaningless drivel and sad attempts at insults.

bring the next insult. watching you drown in a sea spittle.

[TheDave]

I've already explained how I've tried to remind the fanatics in this thread that this is about all speech being equal. and as such this ruling effects unions, even though that fact, and truth and essential to understanding the philosophy of free speech is being willfully ignored. but hey if you want to hear it again. I'm proud to put up actual argument against your meaningless drivel and sad attempts at insults.
bring the next insult. watching you drown in a sea spittle.

and he does it again LOL... Seriously man you need help.

[yavoon]

and he does it again LOL... Seriously man you need help.

keep em coming man. 1000 meaningless insults should be your goal. no substantiative argument for dave. we can fill pages of you doing this.

[Bronco Yoda]

I wonder who ARAMCO will buy as our next President now?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder who ARAMCO will buy as our next President now?

And will Dubya hold hands with him and give him a peck on the cheek too?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/corp-vote-dollar.jpg

[MplsBronco]

AS yavoon pointed out. All speech is equal. That's what this ruling says. Whether it's Nat Turner, Apple, or Taco John. All speech is equla and we have the freedom to it under the first amendment of the Constitution.

This very ruling makes it UNEQUAL. Really, reading people like Garcia and Yavoon rationalize what is detrimental to themselves is both sad and irritating. All in the name of your idealogy I guess. It's people like this that are at the core of this country swirling the drain.

[Rohirrim]

This very ruling makes it UNEQUAL. Really, reading people like Garcia and Yavoon rationalize what is detrimental to themselves is both sad and irritating. All in the name of your idealogy I guess. It's people like this that are at the core of this country swirling the drain.

It's easy for them. They just cling to their cocoon of ignorance and refuse to accept any input that is contrary to what they already believe. It's called "republicanism." Note that they didn't read a single article I posted or comment on a single challenge.

[yavoon]

This very ruling makes it UNEQUAL. Really, reading people like Garcia and Yavoon rationalize what is detrimental to themselves is both sad and irritating. All in the name of your idealogy I guess. It's people like this that are at the core of this country swirling the drain.

common complaint of liberals is that people don't behave the way they demand them to behave. you see this with liberal screeds against poor people for not voting for the party that hands them money.

[yavoon]

It's easy for them. They just cling to their cocoon of ignorance and refuse to accept any input that is contrary to what they already believe. It's called "republicanism." Note that they didn't read a single article I posted or comment on a single challenge.

retarded lies, your articles were about people freaking out about "corporate personhood" when it's pretty clear the supreme court ruling effects more than corporations and deals with the first amendment on a different level. breathless fanaticism about the left's total and complete hatred for corporations is par for the course, and this was just set up on a tee for the socialists to wack out of the park.

[rastaman]

Yavoon, you need to come out of your ECHO CHAMBER.

[Rohirrim]

retarded lies, your articles were about people freaking out about "corporate personhood" when it's pretty clear the supreme court ruling effects more than corporations and deals with the first amendment on a different level. breathless fanaticism about the left's total and complete hatred for corporations is par for the course, and this was just set up on a tee for the socialists to wack out of the park.

Like I said, you don't read anything that doesn't agree with what you already believe to be true. That is the definition of "ignorance." What I posted was the dissent of Justice Stevens. It's one thing to be ignorant of the facts, but another to choose to be ignorant when the facts are available.

[yavoon]

Like I said, you don't read anything that doesn't agree with what you already believe to be true. That is the definition of "ignorance." What I posted was the dissent of Justice Stevens. It's one thing to be ignorant of the facts, but another to choose to be ignorant when the facts are available.

omg you posted the dissent! the facts seemed to lead the supreme court to rule in favor of eliminating the restriction on advocacy advertising. but I guess that was only the 5 corporatist super fascist judges, so it probably don't count.

[TailgateNut]

common complaint of liberals is that people don't behave the way they demand them to behave. you see this with liberal screeds against poor people for not voting for the party that hands them money.


You sat in the corner in grade school on a daily basis, didn't you?

All people are born dumb, some just opt to stay dumb for the remainder of their lives.

I feel sorry for you!

BTW: I've never taken any handouts. PERIOD!

[Rohirrim]

omg you posted the dissent! the facts seemed to lead the supreme court to rule in favor of eliminating the restriction on advocacy advertising. but I guess that was only the 5 corporatist super fascist judges, so it probably don't count.

And what "facts" would those be?

[yavoon]

And what "facts" would those be?

I believe this is what you asked for.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.pdf

[yavoon]

You sat in the corner in grade school on a daily basis, didn't you?

All people are born dumb, some just opt to stay dumb for the remainder of their lives.

I feel sorry for you!

BTW: I've never taken any handouts. PERIOD!

of all the nutter incomprehensibly inane things you've said, I'm still fascinated by this:

"BTW: I'm also guaranteed freedom of speech, and I don't want some religious fruitcake pushing their agenda down my throat. Keep your crap on CBN."

such a true leftist conception of freedom. anything you don't like, gtfo.

[Rohirrim]

I believe this is what you asked for.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.pdf

That's just the opinion of activist judges Roberts, Scalia, et al.

Here's an opinion from Chief Justice John Marshall, perhaps the greatest Chief Justice in American history:
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”

I still have to wonder where Roberts, Scalia et al came up with their "facts" to support their finding. Of course, I don't think they referred to any facts or precedent at all. Simply their political ideology.

[yavoon]

That's just the opinion of activist judges Roberts, Scalia, et al.

Here's an opinion from Chief Justice John Marshall, perhaps the greatest Chief Justice in American history:
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”

I still have to wonder where Roberts, Scalia et al came up with their "facts" to support their finding. Of course, I don't think they referred to any facts or precedent at all. Simply their political ideology.

you mean it's JUST the opinion of the majority of the supreme court. and yes of course they're all corporate fascists who wrote an opinion that says "cuz we said so, lol" someone has an ideological block. of course your fanaticism probably would never allow you to consider anything else.

[ghwk]

of all the nutter incomprehensibly inane things you've said, I'm still fascinated by this:

"BTW: I'm also guaranteed freedom of speech, and I don't want some religious fruitcake pushing their agenda down my throat. Keep your crap on CBN."

such a true leftist conception of freedom. anything you don't like, gtfo.

In the Tebow thread you consistently espoused the value, sanctity and dignity of protecting and saving human life and yet here you advocate that corporations have the same rights to speech EVEN IF IT IS DETRIMENTAL to those very humans you sought to protect.

So how about if the abortion company decides to influence an election, is that ok?

You were a hypocrate in the other thread and you are here as well.

Also like others have pointed out I'm sure you won't understand this post and the irony of your position.

[Rohirrim]

you mean it's JUST the opinion of the majority of the supreme court. and yes of course they're all corporate fascists who wrote an opinion that says "cuz we said so, lol" someone has an ideological block. of course your fanaticism probably would never allow you to consider anything else.

When did the supreme court become infallible? Ever hear of Dred Scott?

[yavoon]

In the Tebow thread you consistently espoused the value, sanctity and dignity of protecting and saving human life and yet here you advocate that corporations have the same rights to speech EVEN IF IT IS DETRIMENTAL to those very humans you sought to protect.

So how about if the abortion company decides to influence an election, is that ok?

You were a hypocrate in the other thread and you are here as well.

Also like others have pointed out I'm sure you won't understand this post and the irony of your position.

once again, and for the 70th time to the incredibly ignorant. this supreme court ruling effects more than corporations, it is about the first amendment, not "declaring corporations to be people." if all your tiny mind can come up with is "OMG CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE" then you really really really don't belong in the conversation.

and yes all sorts of people are allowed to decide to try and influence an election, that's the god damn point of free speech. I don't have the retrograde view of free speech that you socialists have, where speech has to be considered good by the politbureau to be allowed.

[yavoon]

When did the supreme court become infallible? Ever hear of Dred Scott?

so there's no distance between infallible and has an argument with facts? wow you are a seriously hardcore radical.

[Rohirrim]

once again, and for the 70th time to the incredibly ignorant. this supreme court ruling effects more than corporations, it is about the first amendment, not "declaring corporations to be people." if all your tiny mind can come up with is "OMG CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE" then you really really really don't belong in the conversation.

and yes all sorts of people are allowed to decide to try and influence an election, that's the god damn point of free speech. I don't have the retrograde view of free speech that you socialists have, where speech has to be considered good by the politbureau to be allowed.

The sad thing is that you don't even realize that you just wrote two paragraphs that disagree with each other. :pity:

[Rohirrim]

so there's no distance between infallible and has an argument with facts? wow you are a seriously hardcore radical.

I asked for facts, you presented opinions.

[yavoon]

I asked for facts, you presented opinions.

I gave you a link to the actual supreme court decision for christsakes. lol. this is just the damn comedy hour.

[yavoon]

The sad thing is that you don't even realize that you just wrote two paragraphs that disagree with each other. :pity:

horse****. what is with this forum and single line declarative statements? what idiot taught you people that those were good argumentative tools? if you have an argument make it you radical pussy.

[TailgateNut]

horse****. What is with this forum and single line declarative statements? What idiot taught you people that those were good argumentative tools? If you have an argument make it you radical p***y.


lol

[yavoon]

lol

BTW: I'm also guaranteed freedom of speech, and I don't want some religious fruitcake pushing their agenda down my throat. Keep your crap on CBN
BTW: I'm also guaranteed freedom of speech, and I don't want some religious fruitcake pushing their agenda down my throat. Keep your crap on CBN
-tailgatenut's conception of free speech

I love me some retrograde leftist views of free speech.

[yavoon]

btw here's an interesting tidbit, if it is possible to get away from the fanatics for a second.

"However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9 after issuing briefs on larger issues.[11] One issue in particular that likely contributed to the Court's desire to have the case reargued was the statement by then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, that the government would have the power to ban books, if those books constituted express advocacy and were published by a corporation or union."

the supreme court had the case re-argued and expanded because the obama administration decided it should be allowed to ban books.

[Rohirrim]

horse****. what is with this forum and single line declarative statements? what idiot taught you people that those were good argumentative tools? if you have an argument make it you radical p***Y.

A rare combination of stupidity PLUS asshole. Well done. :thumbsup:

[yavoon]

A rare combination of stupidity PLUS a-hole. Well done. :thumbsup:

yep no argument. shocka.

[Garcia Bronco]

This very ruling makes it UNEQUAL.

No it doesn't.

I mean if you want to get owned too, but all means.,.....step up to the plate.

[ghwk]

yep no argument. shocka.

Arguing with you is like having a conversation with a chimp--despite having a whole basket of fruit in front of you all you can see is the banana.

[yavoon]

Arguing with you is like having a conversation with a chimp--despite having a whole basket of fruit in front of you all you can see is the banana.

and no argument again. the one tiny argument you had I answered, but I guess it's back to meaningless insults.

[rastaman]

lol

Yavoooooon = Deeply confused! :thumbs:

[TailgateNut]

Yavoooooon = Deeply confused! :thumbs:

He was one of the first to make it onto my iggy list and then I made the mistake a few days ago of opening some of his posts. Years later and he's still as bright as a burnt out bulb.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yavoon has owned all of you up to this point, again. It's amusing that you no longer wish to debate the issue with him.

[TailgateNut]

Yavoon has owned all of you up to this point, again. It's amusing that you no longer wish to debate the issue with him.

That's akin to you owning anyone, which has yet to occur.

[yavoon]

He was one of the first to make it onto my iggy list and then I made the mistake a few days ago of opening some of his posts. Years later and he's still as bright as a burnt out bulb.

"BTW: I'm also guaranteed freedom of speech, and I don't want some religious fruitcake pushing their agenda down my throat. Keep your crap on CBN"
-tailgatenuts view of free speech

sometimes I'm amused by your nutter views, other times it's depressing.

[Tombstone RJ]

I think people are arguing two different things here. Yavoon is defending free speech and the SC's decision to allow corporations to contribute as much as they want to a campaign based on the latest ruling by the SC which yavoon interprets as protecting free speech.

Others (I have not read all the posts) are basically saying that corporations are not people and therefore are not protected by the first amendment. In essence, limiting a corporations ability to finance a campaign has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with protecting the "people" for whom which the first amendment was written. In other words, corporations (though their immense spending power) overshadowing or squash the voice of the average citizen because corporations wield so much more power to enfluence the political process.

Correct me if I'm wrong on all of the above...

Personally, I think the SC needs to define who EXACTLY they are trying to protect by this latest ruling. I have not read the ruling. If the SC is lumping the protection of free speech for the average citizen in with the protection of free speech for huge business entities then I think the SC is making a mistake. Again, I have not read the ruling...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Some comments criticizing the Right Wing majority ruling...

"The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics." ^{<small>[39]</small>}3. 2. 1. Politicians and political parties (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hillary:_The_Movie)

President Barack Obama (http://wapedia.mobi/en/President_Barack_Obama) stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington - while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." ^{<small>[28]</small>} Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest". ^{<small>[29]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Democratic senator Russ Feingold (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Russ_Feingold) and co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act) stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president." ^{<small>[30]</small>}


Rep. (http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_States_representative) Alan Grayson (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Alan_Grayson) stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dred_Scott_v._Sanford)" and accused the court of opening the door to political bribery and corruption. ^{<small>[31]</small>} Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Donna_Edwards), along with constitutional law professor and Democrat Jamie Raskin (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jamie_Raskin) have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment. ^{<small>[32]</small>} Rep. Leonard Boswell (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Leonard_Boswell) has formally introduced legislation to amend the constitution, and is currently seeking co-sponsors. ^{<small>[33]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain (http://wapedia.mobi/en/John_McCain), co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act), said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns". ^{<small>[34]</small>} McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act)." ^{<small>[30]</small>} He pointed out that "Justice Rehnquist (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Justice_Rehnquist) and Justice O'Connor (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor), who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience, while Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none." ^{<small>[34]</small>} Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Olympia_Snowe) opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country." ^{<small>[35]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that "The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don't accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete." Rich Whitney (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Rich_Whitney) stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech." David Cobb (http://wapedia.mobi/en/David_Cobb) stated "The Court has literally legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials." Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party, stated "The decision will cement the Democratic and Republican parties' status as subsidiaries of Wall Street, oil companies, defense contractors, insurance firms, media conglomerates, and other top corporations. It cancels the idea that candidates run for public office to serve the public interest. The ruling will help block government measures to curb global warming, regulation of financial firms, health care reform, consumer rights, and all other protections for 'We the People' against corporate power." Farheen Hakeem, co-chair of the Green Party, commented "Restoring democracy and the idea that constitutional rights should only apply to humans will now require a citizens' effort as strong as the Civil Rights Movement." ^{<small>[36]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Ralph Nader (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Ralph_Nader), a lawyer and advocate of individual rights, who took the third place in three presidential elections, condemned the ruling, ^{<small>[37]</small>} saying that "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars." He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates. ^{<small>[38]</small>} Pat Choate (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pat_Choate), Reform Party (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America) candidate stated, "The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics." ^{<small>[39]</small>}
3. 2. 2. Advocacy groups

The American Civil Liberties Union (http://wapedia.mobi/en/American_Civil_Liberties_Union) announced that the ruling has prompted reconsideration of its position on campaign finance limits. ^{<small>[40]</small>}
In response to the court's decision, two discreet nongovernmental campaigns have emerged to petition for an amendment to the United States Constitution (http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_States_Constitution#Amendments). ^{<small>[36]</small>} Organizations advocating the campaigns include Voter Action (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Voter_Action), Public Citizen (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Public_Citizen), the Center for Corporate Policy (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Center_for_Corporate_Policy), and the American Independent Business Alliance (http://wapedia.mobi/en/American_Independent_Business_Alliance). ^{<small>[41]</small>}
3. 2. 2. 1. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Ambassador Janez Lenarčič (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Janez_Lenar%C4%8Di%C4%8D), speaking for the OSCE (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe)'s election body (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Office_for_Democratic_Institutions_and_Human_Right s), which has overseen over 150 elections, stated that the ruling may adversely affect the organization's two commitments of "giving voters a genuine choice and giving candidates a fair chance" in that "it threatens to further marginalize candidates without strong financial backing or extensive personal resources, thereby in effect narrowing the political arena." ^{<small>[42]</small>}
3. 2. 3. Academics and attorneys

The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Laurence_H._Tribe) wrote that the decision "marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent" and pointed out that "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people’s money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose." ^{<small>[43]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Former supreme court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Sandra_Day_O%E2%80%99Connor) criticized the decision only obliquely, but warned that “In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.” ^{<small>[44]</small>}
3. 2. 4. Journalists

The New York Times (http://wapedia.mobi/en/New_York_Times) stated in an editorial, "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election." ^{<small>[45]</small>} Jonathan Alter (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jonathan_Alter) called it the "most serious threat to American democracy in a generation." ^{<small>[46]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Some journalists and politicians reacted strongly to the decision with online media journal Veterans Today (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Veterans_Today) calling for the "immediate arrest" of the justices voting in the majority for treason (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Treason). ^{<small>[47]</small>} Keith Olbermann (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Keith_Olbermann) of MSNBC (http://wapedia.mobi/en/MSNBC) said that with this decision "within ten years every politician in this country will be a prostitute (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Prostitute)" and compared it to the case Dred Scott v. Sanford (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dred_Scott_v._Sanford). ^{<small>[48]</small>}
4. Effects

The New York Times (http://wapedia.mobi/en/New_York_Times) reported that 24 states with laws prohibiting independent expenditures by unions and corporations will have to change their campaign finance laws because of the ruling. It also will affect pending trials under those laws. ^{<small>[49]</small>}
The decision has prompted critics to search for ways to restrict the power of corporations in the election process. Among the proposals are the creation of an amendment that, in essence, would say that the first amendment right is for persons not corporations. ^{<small>[50]</small>} ^{<small>[45]</small>} Jonathan Alter (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jonathan_Alter) sees the campaign reform as proposed by Dick Durbin (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dick_Durbin) as more practical; Durbin's proposal rewards candidates who sign up small donors with public money. ^{<small>[45]</small>} Further, laws that govern corporate governance can be amended to assure that shareholders vote on political expenditures as is the case in the United Kingdom. ^{<small>[45]</small>}
5. See also



Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce) (1990)
Buckley v. Valeo (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Buckley_v._Valeo) (1976)
Citizens United (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Citizens_United)
Corporate personhood debate (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Corporate_personhood_debate)
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward) (1819)
David Bossie (http://wapedia.mobi/en/David_Bossie)
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 558 (http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_ 558)
2009 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (http://wapedia.mobi/en/2009_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Uni ted_States#2009_term_opinions)

[yavoon]

I think people are arguing two different things here. Yavoon is defending free speech and the SC's decision to allow corporations to contribute as much as they want to a campaign based on the latest ruling by the SC which yavoon interprets as protecting free speech.

Others (I have not read all the posts) are basically saying that corporations are not people and therefore are not protected by the first amendment. In essence, limiting a corporations ability to finance a campaign has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with protecting the "people" for whom which the first amendment was written. In other words, corporations (though their immense spending power) overshadowing or squash the voice of the average citizen because corporations wield so much more power to enfluence the political process.

Correct me if I'm wrong on all of the above...

Personally, I think the SC needs to define who EXACTLY they are trying to protect by this latest ruling. I have not read the ruling. If the SC is lumping the protection of free speech for the average citizen in with the protection of free speech for huge business entities then I think the SC is making a mistake. Again, I have not read the ruling...

corporations still can't contribute directly to campaigns, they can now engage in advocacy speech in the leadup to an election.

also, and for the umpteenth time. the ruling is not limited to corporations, but dealt with larger free speech issues, which is why for instance it also effects unions.

[TailgateNut]

Some comments criticizing the Right Wing majority ruling...
3. 2. 1. Politicians and political parties (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hillary:_The_Movie)

President Barack Obama (http://wapedia.mobi/en/President_Barack_Obama) stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington - while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." ^{<small>[28]</small>} Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest". ^{<small>[29]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Democratic senator Russ Feingold (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Russ_Feingold) and co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act) stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president." ^{<small>[30]</small>}


Rep. (http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_States_representative) Alan Grayson (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Alan_Grayson) stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dred_Scott_v._Sanford)" and accused the court of opening the door to political bribery and corruption. ^{<small>[31]</small>} Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Donna_Edwards), along with constitutional law professor and Democrat Jamie Raskin (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jamie_Raskin) have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment. ^{<small>[32]</small>} Rep. Leonard Boswell (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Leonard_Boswell) has formally introduced legislation to amend the constitution, and is currently seeking co-sponsors. ^{<small>[33]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain (http://wapedia.mobi/en/John_McCain), co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act), said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns". ^{<small>[34]</small>} McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act)." ^{<small>[30]</small>} He pointed out that "Justice Rehnquist (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Justice_Rehnquist) and Justice O'Connor (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor), who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience, while Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none." ^{<small>[34]</small>} Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Olympia_Snowe) opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country." ^{<small>[35]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that "The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don't accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete." Rich Whitney (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Rich_Whitney) stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech." David Cobb (http://wapedia.mobi/en/David_Cobb) stated "The Court has literally legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials." Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party, stated "The decision will cement the Democratic and Republican parties' status as subsidiaries of Wall Street, oil companies, defense contractors, insurance firms, media conglomerates, and other top corporations. It cancels the idea that candidates run for public office to serve the public interest. The ruling will help block government measures to curb global warming, regulation of financial firms, health care reform, consumer rights, and all other protections for 'We the People' against corporate power." Farheen Hakeem, co-chair of the Green Party, commented "Restoring democracy and the idea that constitutional rights should only apply to humans will now require a citizens' effort as strong as the Civil Rights Movement." ^{<small>[36]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Ralph Nader (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Ralph_Nader), a lawyer and advocate of individual rights, who took the third place in three presidential elections, condemned the ruling, ^{<small>[37]</small>} saying that "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars." He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates. ^{<small>[38]</small>} Pat Choate (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pat_Choate), Reform Party (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America) candidate stated, "The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics." ^{<small>[39]</small>}
3. 2. 2. Advocacy groups

The American Civil Liberties Union (http://wapedia.mobi/en/American_Civil_Liberties_Union) announced that the ruling has prompted reconsideration of its position on campaign finance limits. ^{<small>[40]</small>}
In response to the court's decision, two discreet nongovernmental campaigns have emerged to petition for an amendment to the United States Constitution (http://wapedia.mobi/en/United_States_Constitution#Amendments). ^{<small>[36]</small>} Organizations advocating the campaigns include Voter Action (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Voter_Action), Public Citizen (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Public_Citizen), the Center for Corporate Policy (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Center_for_Corporate_Policy), and the American Independent Business Alliance (http://wapedia.mobi/en/American_Independent_Business_Alliance). ^{<small>[41]</small>}
3. 2. 2. 1. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Ambassador Janez Lenarčič (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Janez_Lenar%C4%8Di%C4%8D), speaking for the OSCE (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe)'s election body (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Office_for_Democratic_Institutions_and_Human_Right s), which has overseen over 150 elections, stated that the ruling may adversely affect the organization's two commitments of "giving voters a genuine choice and giving candidates a fair chance" in that "it threatens to further marginalize candidates without strong financial backing or extensive personal resources, thereby in effect narrowing the political arena." ^{<small>[42]</small>}
3. 2. 3. Academics and attorneys

The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Laurence_H._Tribe) wrote that the decision "marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent" and pointed out that "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people’s money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose." ^{<small>[43]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Former supreme court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Sandra_Day_O%E2%80%99Connor) criticized the decision only obliquely, but warned that “In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.” ^{<small>[44]</small>}
3. 2. 4. Journalists

The New York Times (http://wapedia.mobi/en/New_York_Times) stated in an editorial, "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election." ^{<small>[45]</small>} Jonathan Alter (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jonathan_Alter) called it the "most serious threat to American democracy in a generation." ^{<small>[46]</small>}
^{<small>
</small>}
Some journalists and politicians reacted strongly to the decision with online media journal Veterans Today (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Veterans_Today) calling for the "immediate arrest" of the justices voting in the majority for treason (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Treason). ^{<small>[47]</small>} Keith Olbermann (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Keith_Olbermann) of MSNBC (http://wapedia.mobi/en/MSNBC) said that with this decision "within ten years every politician in this country will be a prostitute (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Prostitute)" and compared it to the case Dred Scott v. Sanford (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dred_Scott_v._Sanford). ^{<small>[48]</small>}
4. Effects

The New York Times (http://wapedia.mobi/en/New_York_Times) reported that 24 states with laws prohibiting independent expenditures by unions and corporations will have to change their campaign finance laws because of the ruling. It also will affect pending trials under those laws. ^{<small>[49]</small>}
The decision has prompted critics to search for ways to restrict the power of corporations in the election process. Among the proposals are the creation of an amendment that, in essence, would say that the first amendment right is for persons not corporations. ^{<small>[50]</small>} ^{<small>[45]</small>} Jonathan Alter (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Jonathan_Alter) sees the campaign reform as proposed by Dick Durbin (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dick_Durbin) as more practical; Durbin's proposal rewards candidates who sign up small donors with public money. ^{<small>[45]</small>} Further, laws that govern corporate governance can be amended to assure that shareholders vote on political expenditures as is the case in the United Kingdom. ^{<small>[45]</small>}
5. See also



Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce) (1990)
Buckley v. Valeo (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Buckley_v._Valeo) (1976)
Citizens United (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Citizens_United)
Corporate personhood debate (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Corporate_personhood_debate)
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward) (1819)
David Bossie (http://wapedia.mobi/en/David_Bossie)
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 558 (http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_ 558)
2009 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (http://wapedia.mobi/en/2009_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Uni ted_States#2009_term_opinions)



Don't allow Yavoon to see this. He still believes this ruling was/ is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that there couldn't/wouldn't be anything wrong with allowing corporations to effectively shape elections for years to come.

I'm beginning to wonder what the **** those SCjustices were smoking when they ruled on this crock of crap.

[yavoon]

Don't allow Yavoon to see this. He still believes this ruling was/ is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that there couldn't/wouldn't be anything wrong with allowing corporations to effectively shape elections for years to come.

I'm beginning to wonder what the **** those SCjustices were smoking when they ruled on this crock of crap.

you are so hilariously petty


"BTW: I'm also guaranteed freedom of speech, and I don't want some religious fruitcake pushing their agenda down my throat. Keep your crap on CBN"
-tailgatenuts view of free speech

love that view of free speech from a true leftist.

[Arkie]

http://jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/clip_image001_thumb12.jpg

[Arkie]

http://www.grimmy.com/images/MP_Archive/MP_2010/MP0122.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.grimmy.com/images/MP_Archive/MP_2010/MP0122.gif

:laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Don't allow Yavoon to see this. He still believes this ruling was/ is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that there couldn't/wouldn't be anything wrong with allowing corporations to effectively shape elections for years to come.

YaLoon is a corporatist shill and a brownie hound of the lowest order.

He just knows that if he blows enough billionaires and CEOs he'll get a reward.

[watermock]

I have to say, this ruling is troubling to me, as it might require an amendment to the constitution.

While we are at it, might as well abolish the fed too.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/roberts-money-is-speech.jpg

[Tombstone RJ]

corporations still can't contribute directly to campaigns, they can now engage in advocacy speech in the leadup to an election.

also, and for the umpteenth time. the ruling is not limited to corporations, but dealt with larger free speech issues, which is why for instance it also effects unions.

I understand.

My point is that the SC should not lumb together corporations and unions with the average person. It's akin to saying that an entire ant colony has the same voice as one ant. However, common sense says that one ant's voice is much smaller and much less powerful than an entire ant colony's voice.

In other words, the SC is flawed in this ruling because it's flawed in it's logic...

[Rohirrim]

I'm still trying to get somebody on the Right to show me the place in the U.S. Constitution where the rights of corporations are enumerated. I have already posted what Chief Justice John Marshall had to say about them:

A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about them:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Here's what Justice Hugo Black had to say about using the 14th amendment to somehow infer the "personhood" of corporations:

I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment had that purpose, nor that the people believed it had that purpose, nor that it should be construed as having that purpose.

And here's what Justice Stevens said in his dissent:

In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed “the freedom of speech” would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.


So where did Scalia, Roberts, Alito, et al find this new "right" enumerated?

Or did they just make it up?

And why is the Right so silent about this blatant judicial activism? Isn't this exactly what they have been howling about for decades since Roe v Wade?

I'll tell you one thing, it's a whole lot easier to reasonably argue for an implied right to privacy in the Constitution than it is to find personhood for corporations.

And freedom of speech for corporations is completely made up out of thin air.

[Garcia Bronco]

It was the right ruling. All speech is equal. Don't like the rules? Change the rules.

[TheDave]

It was the right ruling. All speech is equal. Don't like the rules? Change the rules.

How?

Religion is still barred from political speech...

Teachers (at least in the districts I've worked) are not allowed to advocate for a candidate...

It is illegal to advertise tobacco on TV...

Yelling fire in a theatre is not legal...

for better or worse "all speech" is not equal... never has been.

[Rohirrim]

It was the right ruling. All speech is equal. Don't like the rules? Change the rules.

Translation: I can't defend it. I can't explain it. My team did it. Ergo, it's right.

Ha!

[Arkie]

It was the right ruling. All speech is equal. Don't like the rules? Change the rules.

I think when interpreting the Constitution, individual liberties should be the first priorty. Did we already change the following rules, or did we just quit enforcing them?


Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.


It'll only get worse. The corporations will rule. The people will become slaves.

http://jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/clip_image00144.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Translation: I can't defend it. I can't explain it. My team did it. Ergo, it's right.

Ha!

Yep. :yep:

That's been GB's only defensive scheme for the last 10 years.

[Play2win]

Translation: I can't defend it. I can't explain it. My team did it. Ergo, it's right.

Ha!

Ahhhh, the sarah palin defense.

[Tombstone RJ]

It was the right ruling. All speech is equal. Don't like the rules? Change the rules.

Again, this is flawed logic.

All speech is not equal because all speech is NOT the same. The individual who speaks for himself/herself is one voice. Corporations who represent stock holders and a vast network of employees and subsidiaries speak with a much stronger voice and that voice represents a vast network of people/power/money/etc./etc./etc...

I'll try another analogy: One person sitting in the upper decks at Mile High Stadium can clap and yell at the top of his/her lungs and still not be heard by the players on the field. However, fill MHS with 70,000 people all clapping and yelling the same thing at the same time and the players on the field most definitely hear a resounding noise. Now, lets say that 69,999 people in MHS are all yelling "Lets go Broncos!" and 1 person is yelling "Lets go Elway!" do you think that the one person yelling "Lets go Elway!" is going to be heard?

All speech is not necessarily equal because all voices are not equal.

[yavoon]

Again, this is flawed logic.

All speech is not equal because all speech is NOT the same. The individual who speaks for himself/herself is one voice. Corporations who represent stock holders and a vast network of employees and subsidiaries speak with a much stronger voice and that voice represents a vast network of people/power/money/etc./etc./etc...

I'll try another analogy: One person sitting in the upper decks at Mile High Stadium can clap and yell at the top of his/her lungs and still not be heard by the players on the field. However, fill MHS with 70,000 people all clapping and yelling the same thing at the same time and the players on the field most definitely hear a resounding noise. Now, lets say that 69,999 people in MHS are all yelling "Lets go Broncos!" and 1 person is yelling "Lets go Elway!" do you think that the one person yelling "Lets go Elway!" is going to be heard?

All speech is not necessarily equal because all voices are not equal.

maybe you just don't like free speech.

"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."

[Rohirrim]

Again, this is flawed logic.

All speech is not equal because all speech is NOT the same. The individual who speaks for himself/herself is one voice. Corporations who represent stock holders and a vast network of employees and subsidiaries speak with a much stronger voice and that voice represents a vast network of people/power/money/etc./etc./etc...

I'll try another analogy: One person sitting in the upper decks at Mile High Stadium can clap and yell at the top of his/her lungs and still not be heard by the players on the field. However, fill MHS with 70,000 people all clapping and yelling the same thing at the same time and the players on the field most definitely hear a resounding noise. Now, lets say that 69,999 people in MHS are all yelling "Lets go Broncos!" and 1 person is yelling "Lets go Elway!" do you think that the one person yelling "Lets go Elway!" is going to be heard?

All speech is not necessarily equal because all voices are not equal.

And what if some of the shareholders disagree with the political speech of the corporation WHICH THEY PARTIALLY ****ING OWN?

[Rohirrim]

maybe you just don't like free speech.

"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."

Thick.

[JJJ]

And what if some of the shareholders disagree with the political speech of the corporation WHICH THEY PARTIALLY ****ING OWN?

Sell their shares, elect new directors, or don't buy their products.

[Bronco Yoda]

Sell their shares, elect new directors, or don't buy their products.

Even if there to happen in fantasy land, the damage would already be done. No?

I prefer to lock my doors BEFORE the burglary happens. Not after. But that's just me.

[JJJ]

Thick.

One could make a good argument that a corporation is a peaceful assembly of people.

[JJJ]

Even if there to happen in fantasy land, the damage would already be done. No?

I prefer to lock my doors BEFORE the burglary happens. Not after. But that's just me.

What you wrote makes very little sense and and even if it did is a severely stretched analogy. Don't buy the stock in the first place then.

Look the bottomline the government can't tell a corporation what it can say and what it can't say anymore than it can tell an individual. So yes, a corporation does have the right to exercise its free speech but no of course has no right to vote. The silly arguments at the beginning of this thread were just that.

[cutthemdown]

Just form a corporation and become part of the club. It's super easy.

[JJJ]

How?

Religion is still barred from political speech...

Teachers (at least in the districts I've worked) are not allowed to advocate for a candidate...

It is illegal to advertise tobacco on TV...

Yelling fire in a theatre is not legal...

for better or worse "all speech" is not equal... never has been.

Not relevant examples.

The first one is a just simply false.

Teachers are working and an employer has a right to regulate behaviour of this type while on the job.

As long as tobacco is a legal product I think this law could be challenged on a constitutional basis. The intent of the law nonetheless is to protect children, not grown adults.

Yelling fire is interpreted as inciting a riot with intent to do harm.

[JJJ]

Can't wait for the first Citco ad........and the outcry from those who think this ruling is sane.

An outcry, yes. A call for changing the laws of the land so they can't advertise, no.

Look if tree huggers can have polar bears dropping from the sky and PETA can run its crazy ads what is the issue with a business choosing to take a political position and alienate itself from half of its potential customers?

It probably is not good business but definitely should not be illegal.

[Rohirrim]

One could make a good argument that a corporation is a peaceful assembly of people.

Forgive me if I consult an expert:

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it."
Chief Justice John Marshall

[Rohirrim]

What you wrote makes very little sense and and even if it did is a severely stretched analogy. Don't buy the stock in the first place then.

Look the bottomline the government can't tell a corporation what it can say and what it can't say anymore than it can tell an individual. So yes, a corporation does have the right to exercise its free speech but no of course has no right to vote. The silly arguments at the beginning of this thread were just that.

Wrong. Talk about silly arguments. Nowhere in the Constitution is a corporation assured freedom of speech. In reality, the states and federal government were given broad powers to control and regulate corporations. As Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the Roberts, Scalia, Alito et al majority cannot come up with an example of one the Framers agreeing with their concept of corporate rights. They just made it up. They legislated it from the bench.

[Rohirrim]

Just form a corporation and become part of the club. It's super easy.

Sure. What the heck. What does Exxon rake in, $3 billion a month? Hell, I ought to be doing that well in no time. The Rights' silliness is reaching new levels of absurdity.

[Rohirrim]

Every American should familiarize themselves with this quote of Mussolini's provided by LABF:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini

No wonder the Rightards love this ruling.

[JJJ]

Wrong. Talk about silly arguments. Nowhere in the Constitution is a corporation assured freedom of speech. In reality, the states and federal government were given broad powers to control and regulate corporations. As Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the Roberts, Scalia, Alito et al majority cannot come up with an example of one the Framers agreeing with their concept of corporate rights. They just made it up. They legislated it from the bench.

"It will make no law abridging the freedom of speech...""

Really it cannot get much more clearer than that.

Perhaps you can remember Hustler vs. Jerry Falwell case. It seems this court saw that corporations have free speech rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

I rest my case counselor.

[Rohirrim]

"It will make no law abridging the freedom of speech...""

Really it cannot get much more clearer than that.

Perhaps you can remember Hustler vs. Jerry Falwell case. It seems this court saw that corporations have free speech rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

I rest my case counselor.

Sorry. I'll stick with Justice Stevens's take on this one:

"The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind."

(The case you cited has nothing to do with corporate rights)

[JJJ]

Sorry. I'll stick with Justice Stevens's take on this one:

"The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind."

(The case you cited has nothing to do with corporate rights)

You didn't even read the link I presume.

It was an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court and it included Justice Stevens.

Keep wiggling but you are clearly on the hook.

[Rohirrim]

You didn't even read the link I presume.

It was an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court and it included Justice Stevens.

Keep wiggling but you are clearly on the hook.

Read the whole thing. Had nothing to do with corporate "rights."

I notice that, just like the majority on the court that made this ruling, the Right believes that words mean whatever they want them to mean.

[TheDave]

Not relevant examples.

The first one is a just simply false.

Teachers are working and an employer has a right to regulate behaviour of this type while on the job.

As long as tobacco is a legal product I think this law could be challenged on a constitutional basis. The intent of the law nonetheless is to protect children, not grown adults.

Yelling fire is interpreted as inciting a riot with intent to do harm.

You are wrong about relegion... to maintain their tax exempt status they are not allowed to identify and support a specific candidate.

As for the rest of your post. Your missing the point of my response... GB said that all speech was equal and free. I gave obvious example of speech not being equal and free.


Speech has always been limited in our country. The supreme court just removed particular limits that have been in place for over 100 years.

[JJJ]

Read the whole thing. Had nothing to do with corporate "rights."

I notice that, just like the majority on the court that made this ruling, the Right believes that words mean whatever they want them to mean.

Hustler Magazine Inc., a corporation, won the case based on its inherent right of free speech. Your favorite judge agreed with the decision.

I am sure you and your liberal buddies were applauding for Larry at the end of the film seeing that justice had been won. The magazine had its abiity to practice free speech affirmed. You go Larry.

Now you want to take the polar opposite view because the outcome doesn't fit your agenda in this particular case.

If Hustler can bash Falwell openly with many negative inuendos, why can't GE openly support their good buddy Obama with an ad campaign?

It simply is not American to restrict this form of basic freedom. Does the government have the right to restrict Corporations from issuing press releases or to dictate the content of those releases? Of course not.

[JJJ]

You are wrong about relegion... to maintain their tax exempt status they are not allowed to identify and support a specific candidate.

As for the rest of your post. Your missing the point of my response... GB said that all speech was equal and free. I gave obvious example of speech not being equal and free.


Speech has always been limited in our country. The supreme court just removed particular limits that have been in place for over 100 years.

You said religion is barred from political speech which of course is not true as politician cite religion daily in their speeches.

It seems you meant something other than what you wrote.

I will agree that there are restrictions on churches supporting a candidate to maintain tax status. But keep in mind it is still legal for those churches to support a specific candidate, the only consequence being their tax exempt status. They still have a constitutional right to say whatever the hell they want.

[TheDave]

Hustler Magazine Inc., a corporation, won the case based on its inherent right of free speech. Your favorite judge agreed with the decision.

I am sure you and your liberal buddies were applauding for Larry at the end of the film seeing that justice had been won. The magazine had its abiity to practice free speech affirmed. You go Larry.

Now you want to take the polar opposite view because the outcome doesn't fit your agenda in this particular case.

If Hustler can bash Falwell openly with many negative inuendos, why can't GE openly support their good buddy Obama with an ad campaign?

It simply is not American to restrict this form of basic freedom. Does the government have the right to restrict Corporations from issuing press releases or to dictate the content of those releases? Of course not.

It has been "American" for more than 100 years... Why the sudden change?

Do you really want corporations and unions influencing our elections more than they already do? Not to mentions that, once our elected officials get into office, do you really want lobbyist to be able to say that they have millions of dollars that will support the candidate that votes with them? Rember that over the last few years the banking and insurance giants have spent almost $4 billion lobbying for the relaxed regulations that we have now. Imagine how easy their job becomes when they can outright influence the vote.

Trust me, I understand that this stuff already goes on to some degree, but this opens the flood gates more than ever.

IMO this has nothing to do with left vs right. This is about our voice vs theirs, and theirs is 100X louder.

[Rohirrim]

Hustler Magazine Inc., a corporation, won the case based on its inherent right of free speech. Your favorite judge agreed with the decision.

I am sure you and your liberal buddies were applauding for Larry at the end of the film seeing that justice had been won. The magazine had its abiity to practice free speech affirmed. You go Larry.

Now you want to take the polar opposite view because the outcome doesn't fit your agenda in this particular case.

If Hustler can bash Falwell openly with many negative inuendos, why can't GE openly support their good buddy Obama with an ad campaign?

It simply is not American to restrict this form of basic freedom. Does the government have the right to restrict Corporations from issuing press releases or to dictate the content of those releases? Of course not.

:bs: Hustler is a publication. A garbage publication I wouldn't wrap fish in, but a publication nonetheless. The case involved their right to publish a parody.

BTW, yes, as a matter of fact, the government does regulate (via the SEC) what corporations can put in their releases, especially when they concern prospectus.

I don't see why you, and some members of the court, are having such a difficult time grasping this: Corporations are not people.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Does the government have the right to restrict Corporations from issuing press releases or to dictate the content of those releases? Of course not.Uh, yeah, of course they DO. They control specific content in a vast arena of corporate writings, postings, media events, etc...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Published in the WSJ, no less...

Corporate interests and their lobbyists have hamstrung our politics, making it difficult or impossible to make the change our country needs. Unless we confront this oversized influence directly, it will stymie our best chance in a generation for progress and reform. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652302347556392.html)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From the Archives: The Roberts Court, Allowing Corporations to Buy Our Government One Election at a Time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402276.html)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lobbyists For Foreign Corporations Begin Fight To Ensure Foreign Money Can Influence American Elections (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/27/foreign-lobbying-elections/)


(http://www.buzzflash.net/user.php?login=PHred42)[snip] McLernon — who previously worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a stealth “grassroots” corporate lobbying group now known as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — is wrong to assert that the danger of foreign lobbying is simply a distraction. For instance, Saudi Arabia has already signaled that the progressive effort to build a clean energy American economy is its “biggest threat”:

[Tombstone RJ]

maybe you just don't like free speech.

"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."

I love free speech! I just think that congress and the SC need to define more clearly who is being protected under the first amendment. If the Founding Fathers intended for corporations to be protected under the First Amendment then why did they not spell that out?

Are corporations people? If so, then has the SC not just redefined humanity and what a "person" is? If a corporation has the same rights as your average citizen when it comes to free speech, then are corporations not subject to all the same laws as the average citizen?

You can't have it both ways.

My contention is that corporations are not people and vice versa. Corporations are business entities who's primary objective is to make money. Last time I checked the Constitution says nothing about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and oh yah, Big Business...."

[yavoon]

I love free speech! I just think that congress and the SC need to define more clearly who is being protected under the first amendment. If the Founding Fathers intended for corporations to be protected under the First Amendment then why did they not spell that out?

Are corporations people? If so, then has the SC not just redefined humanity and what a "person" is? If a corporation has the same rights as your average citizen when it comes to free speech, then are corporations not subject to all the same laws as the average citizen?

You can't have it both ways.

My contention is that corporations are not people and vice versa. Corporations are business entities who's primary objective is to make money. Last time I checked the Constitution says nothing about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and oh yah, Big Business...."

the supreme court decision, and I'm saying this for the 805th time, isn't "corporations are people so now they have free speech." the supreme court decision effects more than just corporations(for example also unions) and deals with free speech as a concept.

[Garcia Bronco]

the supreme court decision, and I'm saying this for the 805th time, isn't "corporations are people so now they have free speech." the supreme court decision effects more than just corporations(for example also unions) and deals with free speech as a concept.

12 pages and they still haven't gotten it.

[Rohirrim]

Clean up when you're done, guys. :wiggle:

[TailgateNut]

12 pages and they still haven't gotten it.

...and you and the other dumbass will need a few years to realize how horrible this ruling is, and the detrimental effect it will have on our election process which will go to the highest bidder ever moreso than it is currently.

[Garcia Bronco]

...and you and the other dumbass will need a few years to realize how horrible this ruling is, and the detrimental effect it will have on our election process which will go to the highest bidder ever moreso than it is currently.

Bull****, L. It's the right ruling. You don't like the rules...lobby to change the rules.

[rastaman]

Bull****, L. It's the right ruling. You don't like the rules...lobby to change the rules.

Meh! The German citizens were falling over themselves when a peaceful Hitler came into power in 30's. Germany had no idea how dictatorial and destructive a genocidal war criminal Hitler would later become as he did in the 40's.....oh well I guess the rest is history.

The same will be said about the Supreme Court ruling having given corporations person hood. It may seem harmless (as was Hitler's raise to power in the 30's) by all you pro-corporate supporters right now.

However, lets just say should the SC ruling stand and its not amended, just consider giving corporations person hood is also in its 1930's Germany incubation period.

The unintended consequences of allowing Corporations their money and interest will usher in Corporate facsism ruling over the American populist.

Remember, these same groups of conservative corporate facsist sat idly by and allowed the SC to select GW Bush into the WH back in 2000. Again we saw the Laws of Unintended consequences. Now 8 years later the U.S. is in an economic, financial mess. And is bogged down by endless debt and deficits.

Just a thought for all you pro-facsist Corporatist out there.

[Tombstone RJ]

the supreme court decision, and I'm saying this for the 805th time, isn't "corporations are people so now they have free speech." the supreme court decision effects more than just corporations(for example also unions) and deals with free speech as a concept.

And I'm saying this is why the decision is flawed. What don't YOU UNDERSTAND?

What Tombstone is saying: The SC has made a fundamental flaw in this ruling because it is saying corporations have the same rights as people. The Constitution and the First Amendment protects PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

What yavoon is saying: The SC court is making an all encompassing ruling on the First Amendment and how it applies not only to people but to all facets of our society.

What Tombstone is saying: All facets of our society are not EQUAL. Therefore, this ruling is flawed because it was put in place to protect THE PEOPLE and corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.

What yavoon is saying: The SC is not saying corporations are people.

What Tombstone is saying: Yes, the SC is saying corporations are people because the SC is granting corporations the same First Amendment rights as THE PEOPLE.

What yavoon is saying: This ruling protects many different entities, not just corporations.

What Tombstone is saying: The First Amendment was set up for THE PEOPLE and if you start granting Constitutiona Rights to other entities besides THE PEOPLE then you are TWISTING THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

[yavoon]

And I'm saying this is why the decision is flawed. What don't YOU UNDERSTAND?

What Tombstone is saying: The SC has made a fundamental flaw in this ruling because it is saying corporations have the same rights as people. The Constitution and the First Amendment protects PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

What yavoon is saying: The SC court is making an all encompassing ruling on the First Amendment and how it applies not only to people but to all facets of our society.

What Tombstone is saying: All facets of our society are not EQUAL. Therefore, this ruling is flawed because it was put in place to protect THE PEOPLE and corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.

What yavoon is saying: The SC is not saying corporations are people.

What Tombstone is saying: Yes, the SC is saying corporations are people because the SC is granting corporations the same First Amendment rights as THE PEOPLE.

What yavoon is saying: This ruling protects many different entities, not just corporations.

What Tombstone is saying: The First Amendment was set up for THE PEOPLE and if you start granting Constitutiona Rights to other entities besides THE PEOPLE then you are TWISTING THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

why not, if you really think the decision is flawed, address WHAT THE DECISION ACTUALLY SAYS. instead of "corporations...rabble rabble rabble." for instance you had the word corporation what? a dozen times in your post, and you had the word union not once. or how about this:

"owever, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9 after issuing briefs on larger issues.[12] One issue in particular that likely contributed to the Court's desire to have the case reargued was the statement by then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, that the government would have the power to ban books, if those books constituted express advocacy and were published by a corporation or union."

how about you address that? the obama administration taking upon itself the authority to ban books. that is an actually relevant aspect of the supreme courts decision process. not "omg corporations are evil and are not people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[TailgateNut]

And I'm saying this is why the decision is flawed. What don't YOU UNDERSTAND?

What Tombstone is saying: The SC has made a fundamental flaw in this ruling because it is saying corporations have the same rights as people. The Constitution and the First Amendment protects PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

What yavoon is saying: The SC court is making an all encompassing ruling on the First Amendment and how it applies not only to people but to all facets of our society.

What Tombstone is saying: All facets of our society are not EQUAL. Therefore, this ruling is flawed because it was put in place to protect THE PEOPLE and corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.

What yavoon is saying: The SC is not saying corporations are people.

What Tombstone is saying: Yes, the SC is saying corporations are people because the SC is granting corporations the same First Amendment rights as THE PEOPLE.

What yavoon is saying: This ruling protects many different entities, not just corporations.

What Tombstone is saying: The First Amendment was set up for THE PEOPLE and if you start granting Constitutiona Rights to other entities besides THE PEOPLE then you are TWISTING THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

...and to finish it off: what Yavoon is saying "**** the people, corporations have been abused for so long they deserve the same rights a people used to enjoy":wiggle:

[yavoon]

...and to finish it off: what Yavoon is saying "**** the people, corporations have been abused for so long they deserve the same rights a people used to enjoy":wiggle:

so incredibly ignorant, and so incredibly wrong. how about this. I AM AGAINST BANNING BOOKS.

"However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9 after issuing briefs on larger issues.[12] One issue in particular that likely contributed to the Court's desire to have the case reargued was the statement by then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, that the government would have the power to ban books, if those books constituted express advocacy and were published by a corporation or union."

the obama administration is obviously not against banning books, and neither are wannabe fascists like you, since we already know your retrograde and destructive opinions against free speech.

[Tombstone RJ]

why not, if you really think the decision is flawed, address WHAT THE DECISION ACTUALLY SAYS. instead of "corporations...rabble rabble rabble." for instance you had the word corporation what? a dozen times in your post, and you had the word union not once. or how about this:

"owever, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9 after issuing briefs on larger issues.[12] One issue in particular that likely contributed to the Court's desire to have the case reargued was the statement by then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, that the government would have the power to ban books, if those books constituted express advocacy and were published by a corporation or union."

how about you address that? the obama administration taking upon itself the authority to ban books. that is an actually relevant aspect of the supreme courts decision process. not "omg corporations are evil and are not people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This is a total hypothetical. This is what happens when lawyers start twisting things around.

If a corporation ever printed a book that the government wanted to ban, THEN THE CORPORATION CAN TAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COURT ON THE ISSUE.

If it's found out that the goverment is overstepping it's power, then a court like the SC can make a decision at that time, based on all the evidence.

Common sense. Please try it sometime.

[Rohirrim]

Might as well talk to a rock, for all the good it will do ya.

[TailgateNut]

Might as well talk to a rock, for all the good it will do ya.


anyone who thinks this ruling is a positive move by the SCOTUS is sadly mistaken and will eventually realize how horrible it is. It will rear it's ugle head right before the mid term elections and surely will be a deciding factor in the next presidential election.

The US is now for sale to the highest biddder regardless of nationality.

[yavoon]

This is a total hypothetical. This is what happens when lawyers start twisting things around.

If a corporation ever printed a book that the government wanted to ban, THEN THE CORPORATION CAN TAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COURT ON THE ISSUE.

If it's found out that the goverment is overstepping it's power, then a court like the SC can make a decision at that time, based on all the evidence.

Common sense. Please try it sometime.

what book ISN'T published by a corporation? and it was a hypothetical that the obama administration argued in FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. obviously though to hardcore leftists merely banning books is not only unimpressive, they probably want books banned anyway.

[TailgateNut]

what book ISN'T published by a corporation? and it was a hypothetical that the obama administration argued in FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. obviously though to hardcore leftists merely banning books is not only unimpressive, they probably want books banned anyway.


:rofl:

Yep, the left is the one who generally wants to censor and control..:rofl:

You are without a doubt, the dumbest MF on the mane.

[Tombstone RJ]

what book ISN'T published by a corporation? and it was a hypothetical that the obama administration argued in FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. obviously though to hardcore leftists merely banning books is not only unimpressive, they probably want books banned anyway.

I'd say about 90% of all published material in the US is probably already published by a corporation. With that in mind, has the government ever tried to ban a book it didn't agree with?

I'll guess that answer: NO

Again, if the US government ever tried to ban a book, the corporation has due process and the court system to protect its rights, if it ever got that far.

Seriously, don't you think the corporations already have access to due process?

[Garcia Bronco]

I'd say about 90% of all published material in the US is probably already published by a corporation. With that in mind, has the government ever tried to ban a book it didn't agree with?


Yes.

[Garcia Bronco]

Meh! The German citizens were falling over themselves when a peaceful Hitler came into power in 30's.

Hitler was not peaceful. Geesus H...what did that teach you in grade school...think back to your early childhood 11, 8, 1923.

[Garcia Bronco]

What Tombstone is saying: The SC has made a fundamental flaw in this ruling because it is saying corporations have the same rights as people. The Constitution and the First Amendment protects PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.



This ruling does NOT say that.

Corporations and unions are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians. Since I as an individual have that right...it would seem that your first argument is lacking in detail. What they did get was the right to exercise political speech in ads...which they already had...and now they can run more from a dollar perspective...BFD. Think about it....during election time they are running all the time anyway.



this post here really displays the way I feel about the whole thing and why I think it's the right ruling.


01-29-2010, 12:05 PM #49
FishingRod
Starter


Join Date: Mar 2006


"I have no doubt that whenever an opening is created, someone or some group of people will find a way to use it in a manner that is self serving and not in the overall best interests of society as a whole. Much like it being legal for Illinois Nazis to march and protest. But just like that, I believe it best to error on the side of freedom of speech and to error against the side of Government control over our daily lives. I would rather risk the fact that my fellow citizens may not have the intellectual ability discern the truth about our political candidates, than to allow the Government to ban advertisements, politically motivated slanted documentaries and eventually books. This was a rare example of the Supreme Court letting the other branches know they had overstepped their authority regardless if their intentions were good or less than pure."

[yavoon]

I'd say about 90% of all published material in the US is probably already published by a corporation. With that in mind, has the government ever tried to ban a book it didn't agree with?

I'll guess that answer: NO

Again, if the US government ever tried to ban a book, the corporation has due process and the court system to protect its rights, if it ever got that far.

Seriously, don't you think the corporations already have access to due process?

well considering the law the obama administration cited was in 2003, and it was the very first year they were in power, having never faced an election after bush being in power the rest of the time.

tell me why the obama administration asserted its right to ban books in front of the supreme court if they never ever intended to do it? and explain to me how it's totally ok for a government to think it can ban books and we'll just wait till they actually trample our constitution to do anything about it, even though they said in front of the highest court in the land that they had the power to do it long before?

[Tombstone RJ]

Yes.

and, how'd that work out?

[Garcia Bronco]

and, how'd that work out?

It didn't. I still keep a Bible next to my bed. :)

[TailgateNut]

It didn't. I still keep a Bible next to my bed. :)

:spit:

Are you referring to the Bible in the Hotel room "thingy"?

[ghwk]

Might as well talk to a rock, for all the good it will do ya.

Yavoon is an idiot savant but without the savant part. :notworthy

[rastaman]

It didn't. I still keep a Bible next to my bed. :)

Are you sure thats not a comic book! :rofl: