It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Me and others have already explained to you what we believe happened.

1)You refuse to accept that only people have a right to free speach.

2)Corporations are immortal business entities and thus not people.

3)Even if corporations were treated as people, allowing them to bribe politicians may not be criminal by definition, but is highely unethical/immoral.




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Me and others have already explained to you what we believe happened.

1)You refuse to accept that only people have a right to free speach.

2)Corporations are immortal business entities and thus not people.

3)Even if corporations were treated as people, allowing them to bribe politicians may not be criminal by definition, but is highely unethical/immoral.



What you can't do is explain the law that was struck down as unconstitutional, just like the other people who "explained" to me their personal opinion versus the facts. Here's a fact, you don't know the facts. Here's another fact, you haven't read the ruling. Here's a final fact, you have no regard for rights of people, and your fallacious arguments are a pathetic attempt at appearing as if you care for people you have no regard for, just look at all the regard you've shown me. I'm not a corporation, never worked for one, don't like them and still, I hold regard for the law. What do you hold regard for? Marxism?



[edit on 1-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yes I believe in big government and the need for restrictions on business and people. If that makes me a marxist, then so be it! Actuallly, I like to think of myself as a centrist.

If it was up to me I would ban all campaign contributions, regardless of origin. I do not care if its a corporation, a union or joe shmoe. The tax-payers should pay the entire bill!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yes I believe in big government and the need for restrictions on business and people. If that makes me a marxist, then so be it! Actuallly, I like to think of myself as a centrist.

If it was up to me I would ban all campaign contributions, regardless of origin. I do not care if its a corporation, a union or joe shmoe. The tax-payers should pay the entire bill!


Then you must be outraged at Obama's refusal to rely upon public funds for his finance of campaign for Presidency. $750 million dollars and not a single cent of it from tax dollars. All private donations. Ironic, no?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You make a good point. The problem is both democrats and republicans relly on private donations to carry them through the campaign process.

It's not the democrats fault though as they have tried to change the system many times and republicans won't allow it. Much like the healthcare bill although to be fair they shouldn't have to raise additional funds to cover the cost.

Republicans are behind the corporate takeover of america and that is why we have become the laughing stock of the entire world. Way too much corruption.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


For clarification sakes, I am neither Republican nor Democrat and blame is irrelevant. Both parties rely heavily upon corporate funding, and it takes little research to find out how much so. A site known as opensecrets.com is a good start.

Both parties are behind corporatism, and Congress it the culprit for first creating the Federal Reserve, and now bailing out corporations deemed "too big too fail". You realize that there are anti-trust laws that are intended to keep corporations from becoming too big too fail, right?

Both parties have betrayed the American people and worked together to usurp the government of the people, for the people and by the people.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Democrats and republicans differ in theory but essentially they are the same. Thanks for the discussion, I got to log-off because a storm is causing my dsl connection to fail.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Democrats and republicans differ in theory but essentially they are the same. Thanks for the discussion, I got to log-off because a storm is causing my dsl connection to fail.


I will keep a good thought for you and yours, and hope you weather the storm and look forward to future discussions.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


For clarification sakes, I am neither Republican nor Democrat and blame is irrelevant. Both parties rely heavily upon corporate funding, and it takes little research to find out how much so. A site known as opensecrets.com is a good start.

Both parties are behind corporatism, and Congress it the culprit for first creating the Federal Reserve, and now bailing out corporations deemed "too big too fail". You realize that there are anti-trust laws that are intended to keep corporations from becoming too big too fail, right?

Both parties have betrayed the American people and worked together to usurp the government of the people, for the people and by the people.


If people can't tell the difference between freedom of speech and corporate donations then what hope do we have have of changing things for the better?

I am sorry but I will never agree with you on that issue...


[edit on 3-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


For clarification sakes, I am neither Republican nor Democrat and blame is irrelevant. Both parties rely heavily upon corporate funding, and it takes little research to find out how much so. A site known as opensecrets.com is a good start.

Both parties are behind corporatism, and Congress it the culprit for first creating the Federal Reserve, and now bailing out corporations deemed "too big too fail". You realize that there are anti-trust laws that are intended to keep corporations from becoming too big too fail, right?

Both parties have betrayed the American people and worked together to usurp the government of the people, for the people and by the people.


If people can't tell the difference between freedom of speech and corporate donations then what hope do we have have of changing things for the better?

I am sorry but I will never agree with you on that issue...


[edit on 3-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]


The title of this thread is Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps. It is titled as such because it is attempting to, just as you are, to portray the Citizens United ruling as a ruling that gave some sort of privilege or power to corporations. The ruling did nothing of the sort. The ruling struck down section 441b, and by extension 203 of the BCFR. It did not strike down the entirety of the BCFR, and the same restrictions to individuals in terms of donations to campaigns still applies to corporations. Your emotional and ignorant reaction to this ruling, is because you haven't bother to read the ruling itself. I don't care if you agree with me or not, you have insisted on remaining willfully ignorant, and have reveled in the fact that others agree with your willful ignorance as if it is something worthy of praise.

I will never praise nor agree with foolishness and willful ignorance. If you don't want to read the ruling, that is your choice, but you have attempted to frame me as some kind of corporate cheerleader when nothing can be further from the truth. It is you who are playing into their hands by dismissing the very real restrictions the Bill of Rights places on governments. Corporations would love for this country to be a democracy so ignoramuses like you could vote away the 1st Amendment, thereby allowing Congress to silence your speech. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this, as you have demonstrated how ignorant you insist on remaining.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporations would love for this country to be a democracy so ignoramuses like you could vote away the 1st Amendment, thereby allowing Congress to silence your speech. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this, as you have demonstrated how ignorant you insist on remaining.


Yeah corporations love democracies


What zulu planet do you live on?

As for "freedom of speech" who needs it after the treasonous PATRIOT ACT and DHS? I mean really we are one step away from nazi germany but it won't be a socialist dicatorship "my friend", it will be A WORLD CORPORATE DICTATORSHIP!

Wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late. I am sure that is exactly what you want despite all the "For the record I am neither democrat or republican" bs! At least I have the balls to admit I am a democrat only because it is the lesser of two evils.

I have travelled the world and know the difference between conservatives and liberals and no amount of hodge-podge disinfo(the kind your serving) can change the truth.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporations would love for this country to be a democracy so ignoramuses like you could vote away the 1st Amendment, thereby allowing Congress to silence your speech. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this, as you have demonstrated how ignorant you insist on remaining.


Yeah corporations love democracies


What zulu planet do you live on?

As for "freedom of speech" who needs it after the treasonous PATRIOT ACT and DHS? I mean really we are one step away from nazi germany but it won't be a socialist dicatorship "my friend", it will be A WORLD CORPORATE DICTATORSHIP!

Wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late. I am sure that is exactly what you want despite all the "For the record I am neither democrat or republican" bs! At least I have the balls to admit I am a democrat only because it is the lesser of two evils.

I have travelled the world and know the difference between conservatives and liberals and no amount of hodge-podge disinfo(the kind your serving) can change the truth.



A man who would vote for the "lesser of two evils" has no balls at all, and is merely a coward who justifies his cowardice with pretzel logic. Your own cowardice is revealed by first placing quotation marks around freedom of speech, then asking who needs it after the treasonous Patriot Act and DHS, which is typical language of a coward. Why try, why even bother, asks the coward. Then he pats himself on the back for voting for the very people who brought him the Patriot Act and DHS. All of which has nothing to do with this thread, and is merely a distraction from the reality that you haven't read the ruling to Citizens United and that you have no idea what 441b of the BCFR says, because you are Democrat, and it would be no different if you were a Republican, or even a so called "Libertarian" or "Green Party" or "Peace and Freedom", regardless you would be the same mindless robot, waiting for your corporate masters to program you.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


A lot of hot air with no meaning! You even went as far as saying "the same people who brought you the patriot act and department of homeland security".

Guess what "pal", I didn't vote for bush/cheney! Maybe you did? So who exactly is the coward? You even pretend to be neutral as though that is possible. If you truely were neutral then you would not be stalking posters who disagree with you thread after thread.

"Thanks" for wasting my time and your going on my "respected" foes list as of now.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If it was up to me I would ban all campaign contributions, regardless of origin. I do not care if its a corporation, a union or joe shmoe.


Wait....this ruling has nothing to do with campaign contributions.

As for your above quote, you cannot ban contribution as they are a tool of political speech. It would set a dangerous p residence as politicians would have an in-road to banning speech that is in connection with money.

Since 99.9% of the time it takes money to produce books, pamphlets, newspaper ads, OpEds, or commercials. Your idea would be the greatest idea to a politician as it would further take away power from the people.

---

There was no sellout to corporations. Show where the sellout is. Read the ruling and find the spot that rescinds the laws that prohibit direct contributions to candidates by corporations and/or foreign entities. You will not be able to as that was not touched.

The ruling removed the covert censorship that was placed upon political speech under the guise of reform. To produce some types of speech, a monetary transaction takes place. That monetary transaction facilitates that speech.

Under 441b, that speech was hindered because it made some ridiculous window on when you were not allowed to speak out for or against a candidate. If you decided to do so, as Citizen United tried, you end up in court fighting for your free speech right.

That movie was 2 years ago and they finally are able to exercise their free-speech but since 441b was in effect, their speech was censored.

The rule was struck down as Congress is to make no law abridging speech.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


A lot of hot air with no meaning! You even went as far as saying "the same people who brought you the patriot act and department of homeland security".

Guess what "pal", I didn't vote for bush/cheney! Maybe you did? So who exactly is the coward? You even pretend to be neutral as though that is possible. If you truely were neutral then you would not be stalking posters who disagree with you thread after thread.

"Thanks" for wasting my time and your going on my "respected" foes list as of now.


Let's be clear, you took up this issue with me. Before you began ranting and raving in a reply to me, in this thread, I didn't even know who you were. You chose to single me out to vent your emotions, it is disingenuous of you now, to claim I am stalking you. As to Bush/Cheney, I did not vote for those clowns, so unlike you, I do not have to take any blame for the Patriot Act or DHS, and given the overwhelming support in Congress by both parties on that issue, you have plenty to answer for hot shot.

Further, I have not claimed any neutrality, that was your own ignorant assumption. I simply asserted I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but you being as ignorant as you are, foolishly assume those two parties are the only choices a voter can make. Nice to know such ignorance is getting its vote. You must be very proud.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As for your above quote, you cannot ban contribution as they are a tool of political speech. It would set a dangerous p residence as politicians would have an in-road to banning speech that is in connection with money.


Only far-right conservatives interpret monetary contributions as "a tool of political speech". A pure definition of money and speech reveals the two are different words with different meanings. It's really simple, I don't understand why some people have such a hard time comprehending the difference.

Further removing the restrictions of 441b will only worsten the corporate influence upon government, as though it wasn't bad to begin with. No one should be allowed to donate/contribute anything to a political campaign. This happens only in the "good ole" usa with its so called freedom, justice and liberty for all.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


EDIT: I know each word has their own definitions. They are separate in their own right, but one is used to help facilitate the other. That is how they are connected.

--

How then, is it not a tool in the facilitation of free speech? Does it not take money to run this website? Print a newspaper? Hell, even drive down to your local town square and getting on a soap box requires some type of monetary amount to do so.

The Supreme Court rightly connects the two because if they didn't, some politician would draft up some legislation that states money is not part of your First Amendment and thus we can regulate and restrict speech that is connected with said monies.

By striking out the electioneering clauses within 441b, the Supreme Court dutifully defended the First Amendment. Regardless of how one sees a corporation or union, they are still made up of people. Those people have every right of free association. That free association allows a group of individuals to bargain collectively via their union or corporation.





[edit on 4-2-2010 by ownbestenemy]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Yay! more power in the hands of the corporations. Like they don't already have enough?

For those of you who would prefer the power in the hands of the people, here's a solution: Ban all campaign contributions. Allow the candidates television access instead. Television access is free. The majority of Americans watch television. It is a win/win scenario.

Each candidate could be allotted a certain amount of time on air. Each candidate could present their platform in the time that they are allotted. The people could then form their decision from their.

There would be no need for advertising. There would be no need for trips throughout the country in order to speak to constituents face to face. The majority of people don't even turn up for those events anyway, so what is the point?

Campaigning over the airwaves would all but eliminate the need for financial contributions. Thus eliminating corruption, bribery, and lobbying all in one shot.

This may be slightly simplistic, however I have thought a great deal about this topic.

Perhaps others could expound upon this idea.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As for your above quote, you cannot ban contribution as they are a tool of political speech. It would set a dangerous p residence as politicians would have an in-road to banning speech that is in connection with money.


Only far-right conservatives interpret monetary contributions as "a tool of political speech". A pure definition of money and speech reveals the two are different words with different meanings. It's really simple, I don't understand why some people have such a hard time comprehending the difference.

Further removing the restrictions of 441b will only worsten the corporate influence upon government, as though it wasn't bad to begin with. No one should be allowed to donate/contribute anything to a political campaign. This happens only in the "good ole" usa with its so called freedom, justice and liberty for all.


Before I even begin to address your ludicrous assertions on what "pure defintion" of money is, let me first speak to your clear and undeniable ignorance about 441b. All the sections of BCFR that limit campaign donations have remained intact. 441b went beyond money donated to campaigns and sought to limit or restrict what a person could say politically if that person were part of a corporate structure. Citizens United was not attempting to expand its ability to donate more money to candidates, it was attempting to release a film they made about Hillary Clinton, but the FEC was claiming that 441b did not allow such a thing. Sheesh, how long are you going to insist on exposing your own ignorance and then defending it/\

Now, as to your assertion that a "pure definition" of money necessarily separates money from speech just goes to show how fully indoctrinate you've been by American Marxists. Money is simply defined as the most common medium of exchange that functions as legal tender. Medium of exchange. Now lets look at the definition of speech: Websters Dictionary offers several definitions for speech. Of the many definitions provided, one of them is: Language! Looking at the definition of language: a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings.

In other words language is a medium of exchange and money is the most common medium of exchange, and even simpletons understand that. When a person boycotts a business they are using the language of money to express their profound dissatisfaction with that company. Conversely, money can be used to express satisfaction or advocacy. It is really just that simple!



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by purple23
Yay! more power in the hands of the corporations. Like they don't already have enough?

For those of you who would prefer the power in the hands of the people, here's a solution: Ban all campaign contributions. Allow the candidates television access instead. Television access is free. The majority of Americans watch television. It is a win/win scenario.

Each candidate could be allotted a certain amount of time on air. Each candidate could present their platform in the time that they are allotted. The people could then form their decision from their.

There would be no need for advertising. There would be no need for trips throughout the country in order to speak to constituents face to face. The majority of people don't even turn up for those events anyway, so what is the point?

Campaigning over the airwaves would all but eliminate the need for financial contributions. Thus eliminating corruption, bribery, and lobbying all in one shot.

This may be slightly simplistic, however I have thought a great deal about this topic.

Perhaps others could expound upon this idea.


Since you have asked for an expansion of your idea, allow me to do so. Television is not free. In order to have no or limited advertising on TV, then those that broadcast it rely upon subscriber support. That is how they raise the revenues to pay to broadcast. For the so called "free" TV, this is paid for by advertising.

A ban on political contributions is a ban on speech. (See the above post)

Besides, not everyone relies upon TV in order to get their information. Your idea does nothing to solve any of the problems and only creates a whole new set of problems, the greatest being the ban on speech you would impose by eliminating campaign contributions.




top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join