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: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!
reply to post by ziggystrange
 
But there are Republicans, and Conservative saying this is freedom.

There may be critical response from the right when they realize that this opens the process
to International business influence (ie China) into the USA. Not to belittle giving the
banks more controll the process too?

This is an attack on the very fabric of our nation.
I am stunned, shocked, and angry.


Hi Absum,

Thank you for posting.

I hope they wake up soon, there is no time to waste on this. It's the biggest blow we have ever taken.

People are reacting like it's a bee sting, not a Nuke.

Go tell them.

Ziggy Strange




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
AllexxisF1 sez:
Moreover, what part of a CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON do you not get through your thick skulls?

Off_the_Street sez:
Of course not. But the courts have held for many years that a corporation is an entity which has some of the same rights as a person.

AllexxisF1 sez:
What language do we have to write in that you would understand that MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.

Off_the_Street sez:
Au contraire, chez ami, the courts have held that, in the case of political contributions, that money IS speech.

AllexxisF1 sez:
A corporation is nothing more than a piece of paper that absolves shareholders from company expenses.

Off_the_Street sez:
Perhaps a few courses in business law may help resolve your views.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I'm so livid I can barely type, but kudos to you for starting this thread.


I thought the decision that corporations enjoyed the same rights as citizens was narrowed down to the error of a court recorder and never corrected. The simple fact is that corporations enjoy many more rights and benefits than the American citizen, and the current ruling ensures that the inequity will not be countered any time soon. I can't wait to read the dissenting opinions.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


Really ziggy who cares about this? Obamas middle name is hussein and he sounds like a muslim, thats what we should really worrying about. What about that modified AP article with the "kenyan born" Obama title?? What about the fact we dont have compulsory christian religous celebrations in our schools??? Who gives a damn about this? Freedom works said nothing about this, fox news told me to celebrate this ruling and Rush Limbaugh said this was a great ruling as well! Who gives a damn???



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Screw the Unions, the SCOTUS just gave China and Russia the ability to pick our leaders. That is what your deluded interpretation of the Constitution gave is.

Ziggy Strange


So are you saying that the American populace is that naive and easy to manipulate? You don't seem to be giving much credit to Americans, while giving a ton of credit to Russia and China.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127



J - Buddy I am a conservative and there is no conspiracy. Conservatives don't want corporations and unions dictating elections either.

Z - Then act like it.

J - But we also do not want, and are very fearful and judicial activism. Only one branch writes and passes laws, and that is the legislature. If they are not constitutional, no matter the ramifications, they should be overturned. No exceptions. You have to keep constitutional standards rigid my friend, for if you don't things can get very slippery and very dangerous quickly.

Z - This was the epitome of Judicial activism. No matter? Wrong again. It matters what the consequences are. Slippery? Too late, we're in the water Buddy.

J - Like I said, they need to start pressing for a constitutional amendment if they want corporations and unions locked out again. But when you have a corporation like media that can spew its policy wishes and advocate for a candidate, it is very difficult legally to then restrict other corporations. This needs to be spelled out in constitutional amendment that is clearly worded to not infringe on freedom of speech.

Z - I agree it should have been an amendment, but how is hell could that have been done in this Country given the Conservative revolution cemented by Reagan? No freaking way. Beside the fact that the ruling undid 100 years of good regulations, and gave the Pilot's seat to the rest of the world.

Snap out of it.

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
his quote from Justice Stevens say it all.


Corporations "are not human beings" and "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." He insists that "they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."


The common man has just been further marginalized;
Corporations are the puppets of wealthy individuals.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange
So go back to your little fantasy world, and try and figure out just exactly how it is that being run by Corporations affords you an extra ration of Liberty. It's doesn't you ignorant clown. How dense can you be Doc.

If I'm dense, then your head must be composed of the seventh layer of granite rock — utterly impenetrable.

The only "fantasy world" I'm living in is the vaudevillian nightmare that placed a Marxist imbecile (Barack Hussein Oblah-blah) in the nation's highest office, a fantasy world of redistributing wealth, bailing-out corrupt banks and money lenders, and placing socialist morons in charge of the demolition of this country's economic engine.

How's that fantasy working out for you, Zigs?

Still, the demise of McCain/Feingold doesn't herald the beginning of the demise of your socialist phantasm. It began when your Marxist hood ornament for "Hope & Change" entered office last year — it began when our socialist-infested Congress began its war against the will of the American people, ramrodding through one piece of unconstitutional, anti-American legislation after another, and doing so against public outcry.

It's okay, sing your lamentations here, sing them long and loud... Sing them even louder this coming November, when your "perfect world" of social engineering comes crashing down like the house of cards we all know it is.



(audience ROARS in agreement)

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Screw the Unions, the SCOTUS just gave China and Russia the ability to pick our leaders. That is what your deluded interpretation of the Constitution gave is.

Ziggy Strange


So are you saying that the American populace is that naive and easy to manipulate? You don't seem to be giving much credit to Americans, while giving a ton of credit to Russia and China.


Now that is completely absurd, and shows where you are willing to go to make a baseless point.

What I said is 100 percent accurate.

Come on man, at least live up to your Avatar.

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ziggystrange
So go back to your little fantasy world, and try and figure out just exactly how it is that being run by Corporations affords you an extra ration of Liberty. It's doesn't you ignorant clown. How dense can you be Doc.

If I'm dense, then your head must be composed of the seventh layer of granite rock — utterly impenetrable.

The only "fantasy world" I'm living in is the vaudevillian nightmare that placed a Marxist imbecile (Barack Hussein Oblah-blah) in the nation's highest office, a fantasy world of redistributing wealth, bailing-out corrupt banks and money lenders, and placing socialist morons in charge of the demolition of this country's economic engine.

How's that fantasy working out for you, Zigs?

Still, the demise of McCain/Feingold doesn't herald the beginning of the demise of your socialist phantasm. It began when your Marxist hood ornament for "Hope & Change" entered office last year — it began when our socialist-infested Congress began its war against the will of the American people, ramrodding through one piece of unconstitutional, anti-American legislation after another, and doing so against public outcry.

It's okay, sing your lamentations here, sing them long and loud... Sing them even louder this coming November, when your "perfect world" of social engineering comes crashing down like the house of cards we all know it is.



(audience ROARS in agreement)

— Doc Velocity


Well Doc,

Your are still free to be a buffoon, enjoy it while you can.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Originally posted by johnny2127




J - But we also do not want, and are very fearful and judicial activism. Only one branch writes and passes laws, and that is the legislature. If they are not constitutional, no matter the ramifications, they should be overturned. No exceptions. You have to keep constitutional standards rigid my friend, for if you don't things can get very slippery and very dangerous quickly.

Z - This was the epitome of Judicial activism. No matter? Wrong again. It matters what the consequences are. Slippery? Too late, we're in the water Buddy.



So are you really saying that if a ruling would be constitutional, they should change to the unconstitutional one, because of the repercussions the constitutional one would have? Is that what you are saying or did I misunderstand that?


[edit on 22-1-2010 by johnny2127]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Of course not. But the courts have held for many years that a corporation is an entity which has some of the same rights as a person.


If a corporation is an entity, not a person, it doesnt deserve the rights as a person. You know, this ruling is rather ironic. It was in the mid-19th century that the supreme court ruled that blacks were not really people. Funny that.


the courts have held that, in the case of political contributions, that money IS speech.


For the american citizen. Not for an entire corporate entity.


Perhaps a few courses in business law may help resolve your views.


You dont have to study law to understand the founding fathers only intended those rights to the american citizen.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

(audience ROARS in agreement)

— Doc Velocity


It wasnt so long ago folks like you marched down the streets crying your america was at an end. Now we have serious case here where the sale of representitives has basically been assured to the corporations and you play this as a joke?? For all the crys about the lobbyists from you and others here Doc, that you had been whining over Obama for, you seem to think this is some joke.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Though a newish member to ATS, I have had as one of my "Favorites" for a few years and I enter frequently (am an avid cryptozoology fan, also Ancient Civilizations).

I've been urked over the years by what I regard as looney conspiracies claiming takeover by the left. Basic logic always seems to elude this crowd, such as the fact that fascism and the ultra left are 180 degrees different. And while certainly Obama has been Wall Street's best buddy this past year and his hiring of the serial disaster Summers, the apologist Giethner and the timid intellectual Bernake, I have never been fooled to be dissuaded into the simple, historical fact that the hard right has always been and always will be the best friends of Fascism (Big Business controlled society).

Today we woke up to Judicial Terrorism, plain and simple. What occured dwarfs 9/11. It reveals as mockery the simpleton conspiracy theories. What happened struck the lifeblood of our country and left almost no legal recourse. Even a Constitutional Amendment won't work, as corporations -- to include foreign-owned ones -- can poor money even into local and state elections to embed their friendlies to vote down the Amendment.

What occured was judicial activism of the most extreme and executed by the very group who were most righteous in decrying judicial activism -- conservatives. No amount of spinning can lay this on the doorstep of progressives or liberals, exept to the extent their senators -- out of fear or cowardice of the Right -- voted to seat these conservative judges among side those on the Right.

What occured has me yelling at the new topics on ATS about this new liberal scheme or that. Are people truly so dense as to not see that the coup happened yesterday? Your country was taken from you yesterday. Are you foolish enought to think that all coups run blood in the streets? Folks, the most successful coups happen insidiously, with stealth, not with troops running the streets shooting at rock-throwing citizens.

You are now a subordinate citizen, as the Corporation rises to the status of Super citizen. They can support or threaten -- right out in the open -- politicians of all stripes in any election at any election and at any time (before, during and after) elections with as much money as they want. They can buy up all the advertising so no slots might be left for opposing views. They bid up the costs beyond the ability of any good government group to compete. They can enlist, legally, an army of paid canvassers, fund shuttles to the polls...near anything, under the guise of exercising their "free speech rights" as "persons." Yet, these persons cannot die.

The tyranny is real, and we all let it happen while they manipulated "conservatives" with mock fears. Conservatives for years have recoiled and posted about the New World order and saw evidence of it in every move by liberals. Today, the New World Order is here for real, given birth 100% by those same conservatives so many here have revered.

Are you awake now or are you still their little pawns?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Originally posted by johnny2127




J - But we also do not want, and are very fearful and judicial activism. Only one branch writes and passes laws, and that is the legislature. If they are not constitutional, no matter the ramifications, they should be overturned. No exceptions. You have to keep constitutional standards rigid my friend, for if you don't things can get very slippery and very dangerous quickly.

Z - This was the epitome of Judicial activism. No matter? Wrong again. It matters what the consequences are. Slippery? Too late, we're in the water Buddy.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by johnny2127]



J - So are you really saying that if a ruling would be constitutional, they should change to the unconstitutional one, because of the repercussions the constitutional one would have? Is that what you are saying or did I misunderstand that?

Z - You misunderstand the whole point. Let me explain.

According to you the rulings they erased were unconstitutional. I say they were. The ruling made yesterday is unconstitutional, it gives foreign powers the ability to completely control our destiny. If some ambiguity in some interpretation leads Justices to rule them away, but causes the situation I mention, the remedy has to be one that does not destroy the sovereignty of the United States.

That is plain commons sense, the foundation of the Constitution.

Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

If a corporation is an entity, not a person, it doesnt deserve the rights as a person. You know, this ruling is rather ironic. It was in the mid-19th century that the supreme court ruled that blacks were not really people. Funny that.


Argue with the courts, not me. I did not write the Constitution, I just swore an Oath to preserve, protect, and defend it.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian

the courts have held that, in the case of political contributions, that money IS speech.


For the american citizen. Not for an entire corporate entity.


Actually, the ruling about political contributions being "free speech" did not mention either American citizens, other individuals, unions, corporations, or the Thursday Evening Bridge Club.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Perhaps a few courses in business law may help resolve your views.


You dont have to study law to understand the founding fathers only intended those rights to the american citizen.


Well, you are free to interpret the Constitution the way you want, and I -- even though I may disagree with them -- tend to go along with Marbury v Madison and let those nine people in the black bathrobes do what they are paid to do.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Argue with the courts, not me. I did not write the Constitution.


But your arguing about it, so maybe you should get it right.



Actually, the ruling about political contributions being "free speech" did not mention either American citizens,


The constitution was written for the people by the people. That title should have been clue enough.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
...So I guess the brain washing really doesn't lift. Oh well, I guess these conservatives enjoy slavery and miss their masters. See you in the cotton fields, I'll be the one who isn't smiling.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by ziggystrange

Originally posted by johnny2127




J - But we also do not want, and are very fearful and judicial activism. Only one branch writes and passes laws, and that is the legislature. If they are not constitutional, no matter the ramifications, they should be overturned. No exceptions. You have to keep constitutional standards rigid my friend, for if you don't things can get very slippery and very dangerous quickly.

Z - This was the epitome of Judicial activism. No matter? Wrong again. It matters what the consequences are. Slippery? Too late, we're in the water Buddy.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by johnny2127]



J - So are you really saying that if a ruling would be constitutional, they should change to the unconstitutional one, because of the repercussions the constitutional one would have? Is that what you are saying or did I misunderstand that?

Z - You misunderstand the whole point. Let me explain.

According to you the rulings they erased were unconstitutional. I say they were. The ruling made yesterday is unconstitutional, it gives foreign powers the ability to completely control our destiny. If some ambiguity in some interpretation leads Justices to rule them away, but causes the situation I mention, the remedy has to be one that does not destroy the sovereignty of the United States.

That is plain commons sense, the foundation of the Constitution.

Ziggy Strange




Ok. I can understand where you are coming from on that. I don't agree but I see where you are coming from.

How do you rationalize the idea that a corporation such as media has the right to state its policy beliefs and political ideologies and campaign on their behalf, yet other corporations were told they shouldn't? How is that justified? I just want to hear your rationalization on this one, not trying to ask rhetorical questions or trying to be a jerk.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by johnny2127]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
O.K I may be new but here's my 2 cents. Rather then engage in endless partisan bickering and name calling, et al, perhaps we should be looking for a solution. let's say, no private money for campaigns. At all. Campaigns must be totally self financed. Well that won't work because then only the wealthy could afford to run for office. Unfetter the entire process and let people give as much as they want to candidates with no caps. That may not be so good either. While it may be for fun to insult one another and point out each other flaws, we may be better served to look for some answers. Or it's just going to be business as usual in D.C.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join