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: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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.

I think and believe that this administration is the CONSUMMATE joke, but a joke so poorly conceived and so badly delivered that the ENTIRE NATION (including former supporters of Barack Hussein Obama) stopped laughing about 7 months ago and started seriously considering how to banish this bungling POTUS and his court of brain-damaged Congressional jesters from the land forthwith.

Again, join Zigs in lamenting the demise of your Marxist masturbatory fantasy, I love the sound of it, it's like an especially cheerful funeral dirge.

Incidentally, I never lamented the end of America, I knew it would return in full force once the American public regurgitated the socialist poison upon which they were gagging.



See you clowns in November.


— Doc Velocity




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
...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.


You guys all seem to be seizing on conservatives and corporations and conveniently not talking about unions and liberals. Additionally, traditionally corporate donations and political endorsements are just about split 50/50 between democrats and republicans. Why all the wrath and assumption this somehow only supports Republicans? Why willfully ignoring the unions?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


Fantastic post and welcome.

On one item I would disagree, "Yet, these persons cannot die."

Die maybe not; however we can bleed them into extinction with
selective spending. And that is exactly what we will need to do.

I applaud you sir.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Hi Johnnie2127,

Z - Now we converge.

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

Z - Thank you.

J - 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.

Z - I don't, but I understand how it happens. The media is inextricable from freedom of speech, we agree on this.

The conundrum is how to separate the media from lies instead of opinion. Opinion is no problem and is a tenet of Liberty. Discernment or lack of it got the media to a place where it became a propaganda machine.

How we fix that is another problem, and a big one.
I think you get my point that we threw out the house and the property, never mind the baby with the bath water.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I always know when I score the big points — when a raft of socialists suddenly add me as "a respected foe"... LOL.

Choke on it, you Marxist dweebs.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


I like how your defense is to deflect attention and blame others. "Yeah I may have killed a guy, buy why aren't you getting mad at the guy who slapped another?"

Like I said, see you on the plantation slave. I'm sure you'll be one of the master's favorites.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
...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.


You guys all seem to be seizing on conservatives and corporations and conveniently not talking about unions and liberals. Additionally, traditionally corporate donations and political endorsements are just about split 50/50 between democrats and republicans. Why all the wrath and assumption this somehow only supports Republicans? Why willfully ignoring the unions?


2 wrongs don't make a right but it's important to realize just exactly "who" sold out the Nation.

The unions should not have the power to buy elections either. In this case, it's a fortunate thing it includes them, at least they represent Americans and will lobby against foreign interests. But it's still wrong and counter American. The ruling is the worst decision by The SCOTUS in history.


Zigggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I always know when I score the big points — when a raft of socialists suddenly add me as "a respected foe"... LOL.

Choke on it, you Marxist dweebs.


— Doc Velocity


The laments of a fool can only be relevant to other fools.

Wobble on Doc. Use your Velocity.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Hi Johnnie2127,

Z - Now we converge.

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

Z - Thank you.

J - 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.

Z - I don't, but I understand how it happens. The media is inextricable from freedom of speech, we agree on this.

The conundrum is how to separate the media from lies instead of opinion. Opinion is no problem and is a tenet of Liberty. Discernment or lack of it got the media to a place where it became a propaganda machine.

How we fix that is another problem, and a big one.
I think you get my point that we threw out the house and the property, never mind the baby with the bath water.


Ziggy Strange


Oh ya, I understand. And I do agree that we threw the whole thing out, and that is regrettable. Where you and I disagree is that I think it is unfortunately necessary since the legislation itself was unconstitutional and chalked full of legal inconsistencies.

So the question becomes, how do we restrict the influence or control of corporations while not trampling on freedom of speech? Limits on donation and spending amounts of all entities, whether people or corporations or unions? Set limits and allocations of airtime political ads? (this last one is unconstitutional as well I think) So how do we achieve what myself as a conservative, and you as a moderate or liberal both agree needs to happen, without trampling on the constitution?

[edit on 22-1-2010 by johnny2127]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I'd say the evidence shows that Doc has been played and indoctrinated so well by the Right pundits that he is not able to reason beyond his irrational hatred. One only has to read his posts to see how effective the Right has been in sowing hatred on one's neighbors who might happen to have different views. It is attitudes like this that over time lead to blind ethnic cleansing. Hate is a powerful emotion; it sends adrenaline coursing through the brain. and seductive. Doc is an addict of hate.

There was time not so long ago when people of opposing political views could still be friends. There were reasoned Republicans like the Dick Lugars of the world and respected conservative democrats like San Nunn. Even hard liberals worked often together with center right politicians to craft legislation all knew really was in the public interest. Those days are long gone. The scorched earth philosophy was arguably founded and taught by the late Lee Atwater (whose disciples Rove). Truth no longer mattered at all, up was made to be down. Hate, it was learned, could martialize and manifest into eager voters. Things that were politically taboo are now the norm. Those on the right literally pray for the deaths of those on the left (e.g. Byrd) and the ONLY goal of one party is the total destruction of the other. Country? Who cares. Party first. And if you can morph and dumb down Christianity just enough, you can make the electorate exceptionally ignorant and obediant. And voila! here was are today and thus we find Doc.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by johnny2127
 


I like how your defense is to deflect attention and blame others. "Yeah I may have killed a guy, buy why aren't you getting mad at the guy who slapped another?"

Like I said, see you on the plantation slave. I'm sure you'll be one of the master's favorites.


I never once deflected. I never once said this was the fault of liberals. I pointed out facts.

FACT: Traditionally corporate donations and endorsements have been split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans.

FACT: You guys are ignoring that unions are helped in this ruling, and unions traditionally donate and endorse 70% Democrat. Where is the outcry there?

I am not trying to put blame on anyone else here. I am just trying to point out that factually, this does not help conservatives more the liberals. And factually, for some reason many of you seem to ignore liberal and union impact here. The ruling is unfortunate but it is also constitutionally correct. Most constitutional scholars regretfully agree.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Worrying about liberals and unions now is a lot like a canoer worrying about the wake of a big boat so much so he fails to see the tsunami speeding in him on the horizon.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   


Oh ya, I understand. And I do agree that we threw the whole thing out, and that is regrettable. Where you and I disagree is that I think it is unfortunately necessary since the legislation itself was unconstitutional and chalked full of legal inconsistencies.


Please explain where in the constitution it addresses corporations having rights? If I remember my history correctly, it was written before corporations were offered ANY rights at all. In fact, the founding fathers were very concerned with most corporations at the time because of their colonial ties. They were seen as a means for forign interests to threaten the forming union. It was not until many years later that law began granting limited rights to corporations. Like property rights, and the like. They never intended for corporations to have equal rights to people, never. Unconstitutional, not in the least.

This is bad on all sides left, right, and center. If you think lobbyists screwed this country up,
you better get strapped in because we are now mute passengers.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


J - Oh ya, I understand. And I do agree that we threw the whole thing out, and that is regrettable. Where you and I disagree is that I think it is unfortunately necessary since the legislation itself was unconstitutional and chalked full of legal inconsistencies.

Z - While we disagree, the problem is the ruling opened Pandoras box.
We have to put aside our disagreement of causation, and focus on effect.

J - So the question becomes, how do we restrict the influence or control of corporations while not trampling on freedom of speech? Limits on donation and spending amounts of all entities, whether people or corporations or unions? Set limits and allocations of airtime political ads? (this last one is unconstitutional as well I think) So how do we achieve what myself as a conservative, and you as a moderate or liberal both agree needs to happen, without trampling on the constitution?

Z - I agree it needs to be fixed. The remedy right now has put the patient in a coma. We need to save the patient, wake it up, and fire the doctors. If we argue about what caused the surgery for too long, the patient will be dead.

But we should look always remember how we got here, or we will be here again, as soon as the enemies of Liberty get another crack at the system.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


Wow, are you joking? I don't even know where to begin with that ridiculous post. So to you, someone that is conservative like Doc or myself has been played and indoctrinated by the right, but those like you haven't been played by the left..... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Also you say the right is the side praying for the deaths of the other side? You joking? Go to democratic underground forums sometime..... tell me who many of them talk about killing and wanting to die.

Partisan politics are on both sides, and the symptoms look the exact same. But you only see the effects of those on the right because it is you that have the blinders on my friend. If you are not intellectually honest enough to admit to yourself, that is your fault and your ignorance will continue. I could care less what your politics are, but you're just another person playing the whole team sport of 'Republicans vs democrats'. Blame everything on one side. Ya real intellectually honest buddy.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!


Oh ya, I understand. And I do agree that we threw the whole thing out, and that is regrettable. Where you and I disagree is that I think it is unfortunately necessary since the legislation itself was unconstitutional and chalked full of legal inconsistencies.


Please explain where in the constitution it addresses corporations having rights? If I remember my history correctly, it was written before corporations were offered ANY rights at all. In fact, the founding fathers were very concerned with most corporations at the time because of their colonial ties. They were seen as a means for forign interests to threaten the forming union. It was not until many years later that law began granting limited rights to corporations. Like property rights, and the like. They never intended for corporations to have equal rights to people, never. Unconstitutional, not in the least.

This is bad on all sides left, right, and center. If you think lobbyists screwed this country up,
you better get strapped in because we are now mute passengers.


The constitution does not expressedly discuss corporate rights. What it does discuss is the rights of the individual, and as crappy as it is, legal rulings and precedent have corporation defined as an individual as well.

Legally speaking, this is how it works; when you are given a social security number (yes even though you are an infant), legally speaking you are agreeing the the rules, laws, regulations and corresponding penalties of the United States govt. Additionally, at that point you are also afforded the rights and benefits of the Constitution and the US legal system's subsequent legal rulings. Same is true when a Corporation is incorporated and gets its tax ID number. Legally speaking to the govt, people and corporations are just account numbers with the treasury, and afforded the same rights. Yes I know this is insane and makes no sense rationally, but that is what the law is now and what legal precedent has established.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by johnny2127]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Me? Left? I voted for Reagan (first presidential vote I was eligible to cast), Bush 41, Clinton once and Bush 43 twice (embarrassed I am by that 2004 vote).

I am also a military veteran (enlisted).

I am hardly your poster child for liberalism.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by johnny2127
 


I like how your defense is to deflect attention and blame others. "Yeah I may have killed a guy, buy why aren't you getting mad at the guy who slapped another?"

Like I said, see you on the plantation slave. I'm sure you'll be one of the master's favorites.


I never once deflected. I never once said this was the fault of liberals. I pointed out facts.

FACT: Traditionally corporate donations and endorsements have been split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans.

FACT: You guys are ignoring that unions are helped in this ruling, and unions traditionally donate and endorse 70% Democrat. Where is the outcry there?

I am not trying to put blame on anyone else here. I am just trying to point out that factually, this does not help conservatives more the liberals. And factually, for some reason many of you seem to ignore liberal and union impact here. The ruling is unfortunate but it is also constitutionally correct. Most constitutional scholars regretfully agree.


The difference being Unions represent American workers! Corporations do not. I'm not saying it's right that now Unions can also shovel money into the pockets of politicians, but at least they would be doing it to help American citizens.

Corporations don't give a crap about the US citizen. They are only about maintaining an acceptable profit. And now that they have been given free reign to play open politics, they can now act as a conduit between foreign governments and the US government.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pajoly
 


...by the way, I also campaigned hard for Ron Paul. (Ran booths at farmer's markets, donated the maximum, etc.). To me, John McCain disqualified himself and proved to be nearly traitorous to his country (in my view) when he plucked the ignorant, intellectually-vapid and grossly unqualified Palin to be his VP choice.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Me? Left? I voted for Reagan (first presidential vote I was eligible to cast), Bush 41, Clinton once and Bush 43 twice (embarrassed I am by that 2004 vote).

I am also a military veteran (enlisted).

I am hardly your poster child for liberalism.


Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. Or were you really trying to say that the right is the only side that you think indoctrinates and brain washes people? Blaming all one side? Is that what you meant?

Thanks for your service to your nation by the way.




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join