Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

page: 4
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
So you would rather a Chinese corporation make decisions for out government than say...any AMERICAN?

Chinese corporations don't make decisions for our government.

When the Communist Chinese wanted to influence our elections, their military intelligence just handed the money to Bill Clinton, or their "Buddhist Monks" just handed the money to Al Gore.

The Communist Chinese have really great connections on the Left in America, they don't need to go through such legal channels as donating through a corporation.

— Doc Velocity




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
So how soon before the next logical extension of this very flawed argument?

Why won't the corporations demand a vote, too? If the corporations have a "right" to speech, why shouldn't they have right to vote, too, just as any other person does? Or perhaps they should have a seat in the Senate or House?

But a corporation isn't a person, it is a collection of persons who have every right in the world as individuals to express their opinions and support their candidates. But to do it as a corporate "person" entitles them to double-dip in the political well, or triple-dip, or quadruple dip, since many corporations having interlocking directorships. The same individual can and does sit on many different corporate boards, allowing one person to amplify their political voice many times over the common citizen.

The difference between a corporation and a union is that unions are composed of members who vote for their leadership, one member, one vote. Union members have a say in what their unions do...not perfect, and subject to corruption, yes, but still far more democratic and less corrupt than a corporation ever will be. Shareholders in a corporation don't have the same rights, most can't vote at all, and those who can vote, can only vote their shares, usually an insignificant number compared to the votes of the board. So unions and corporations aren't the same beast.

Corporations are also way for a few individuals who wouldn't otherwise be qualified to speak politically to drown out those who do have a right. Most major corporations are multinational, with citizens of other countries sitting on their boards. How long before they open the floodgates and ballooon the H1B, H2B and similar programs to bring in workers for the jobs they can't find "suitably qualified" Americans for. Of course, by "suitably qualified" they mean willing to work for slave wages and unschooled in democratic traditions.

The justices should be impeached, and the Congress needs to write a law that very simply requires citizenship for access political speech and define citizenship as residing in a single, real person, and that should keep the corporations out of the pool.

For the foolish idiots defending this destruction of the nation: please pull your heads out and perhaps we can yet save it. But if this decision stands, the US of A is over, welcome the UC of A.

I swore an oath when I returned home from war that never again would I take up arms, save in defense of my own land and my own people. It seems the time I've feared has finally arrived. This must changed, or it will mean civil war.





[edit on 23-1-2010 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Lillydale
So you would rather a Chinese corporation make decisions for out government than say...any AMERICAN?

Chinese corporations don't make decisions for our government.

When the Communist Chinese wanted to influence our elections, their military intelligence just handed the money to Bill Clinton, or their "Buddhist Monks" just handed the money to Al Gore.

The Communist Chinese have really great connections on the Left in America, they don't need to go through such legal channels as donating through a corporation.

— Doc Velocity


Well I guess the right wanted a piece of that pie as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Why won't the corporations demand a vote, too? If the corporations have a "right" to speech, why shouldn't they have right to vote, too, just as any other person does? Or perhaps they should have a seat in the Senate or House?

They do vote. Corporations, through their lobbyists, buy elected officials, and the officials vote on their behalf. Weren't you paying attention in Marxism class?



— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican



and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime?


This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

I find it confusing that people would rather have government control on election funding. I say let the people, fund it. And it is the people who make up the corporations and unions.

This is one step ahead toward a more perfect Union.


Finally, the voice of reason.
I knew if i kept scrolling a good post would show up.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo5842


I have posted this mainly because I dont understand how a judge can override a decision made by government. Does this happen in the states a lot? and is it legal? and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime? Not being in the US, i do find some some things that go on in the legal system there very confusing.

www.veteranstoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


The US Supreme Court's job is to make sure that the Government does not pass laws that violate the US Constitution, which outlines the Rights of the People. The government has been overstepping citizen's rights in their grab for power wanting to regulate every aspect of a citizen's life.

Corporations are nothing but a group of people who come together for a joint cause, for profit or non-profit. The Corporation has always been treated as an Individual and provides legal protection to it's individual members.

Corporations, just like labor unions, have every right to donate to to candidates under this Supreme Court ruling. If there is a future law, then both corporations and labor unions should be banned for donating to candidates, and only US citizens can donate coupled with the US Government providing funding itself. This will stop the vote buying.

Obama spent about $1 Billion US dollars in getting elected in 2008, and funds came mainly from labor unions and various communist and leftist organizations. That's why Obama is pushing the stupid spending agenda in order to pay back the Unions.

The California Teachers Union used up their entire bank account and then borrowed about $10 million and spent that on election donations, now is that not wrong too?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I meant openly, not through lobbyists or other influence peddlers. I can see an argument that the corporation should have the right to vote, plus one vote per subsidiary. It won't be any more valid than the current decision, but it would probably be passed.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The government is people, too, so your argument is sublimely ridiculous. Unfortunately, the government youj seem to dislike so much was mainly put in place by corporations, so be prepared for it to get much weaker and far worse.

Most corporatists are really closet royalists in drag: each thinks of himself as running an empire, none have any love of democracy or their fellow citizens, they much prefer subjects to equals. Each would far prefer a nationless world subject to their whims, like the Sultan of Brunei. Why do you think they support dictatorships so fervently?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Bush Jr appointee Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that this case could not be resolved on narrower grounds and therefore the need to overturn nearly a century of legal precendent! In other words this decision did not need to be made but was pushed through because he had the votes.

Why the rush?? Could it be the fear of a liberal justice appointee or maybe the NWO is moving into high gear?

The conservative majority hypocritically ignores their usual complaints about activist courts overruling precedent based on their preferences knowing this ruling will ensure a lock in the 2012 elections. Seems shortsighted to me...because that sword cuts both ways.

This is corporatocracy, corporatism, Fascism plain and simple.
Does anyone really believe that corporations are "persons' entitled to free speech?
Corporations live forever and have access to nearly unlimited funds.

The solution is simple but requires "We the people" to act.

Public funding for all elections!
Revoke corporate personhood!

Please take time to research "corporate personhood" and why it must be revoked!! Google it... there is lot's of info.

This is a very dark day in US history and is the final blow to our democratic republic and individual rights. If there was any doubt before... all that is gone now as, sadly, we are officially a Fascist state.


Mussolini Text


After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....





[edit on 23-1-2010 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
It took a few days but the right wingers on ATS finally got their talking points. I just want to know who you got them from. Where were you two days ago? Couldn't think for yourself, could you?


First off, I am not a right winger, so I hope you'll forgive me, a mere independent, from responding. I take it you consider anyone that disagrees with you on this ruling to be a "right winger". Que sera sera. Now as to "where I was two days ago"...



This was the correct decision. Without this only corporations owning mass media outlets would have a voice. - excerpt from Hemisphere post on 21-1-2010 @ 07:10 PM


The entire thread: Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

"Lighten up Francis!" If you review that thread you will see a number of those posting here, against your wishes, were on this story from the start. And not that any explanation to you was needed as free speech is still alive in the US as bothersome as that might be. But I'm a giver and so the response. Keep in mind that some members list "respond to ATS threads" significantly lower on their "to do" lists than you apparently do. At present this is not a prosecutable offense in most states and surely not worthy of belittlement by another "Internet poster". But of course that's typically how these threads unfold. More often than not ATS threads morph into Internet versions of "Jersey Shore". And so in that spirit and being from "Jersey" myself, allow me to pose a question. Where did you get your "brown shirt"? Very stylish!

Oh you wanted to know who I got my talking points from? Just me, all mine. But you want more than that don't you? Most everyone has family, friends, teachers and mentors of various sorts. So, yes, I have had some influences in my life. Jealous? I would hope not but the question you posed makes me wonder. Or were you being accusational? Or simply curious? Hard to tell over the Internet. I'll go with accusational.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Well I guess the right wanted a piece of that pie as well.

The Right wanted their power back. It was taken away by McCain/Feingold, or at least hindered. But that's not the unconstitutional aspect of McCain/Feingold — the illegal part of McCain/Feingold is that it outlawed YOUR right to wage a negative campaign against a candidate for two whole months before a general election.

Not a big bad corporation's right to wage a negative campaign, but YOUR right. Under McCain/Feingold, even grassroots organizations and non-profit organizations cannot run negative campaign ads against a candidate for the entire TWO MONTHS before a general election.

THAT's the anti-free-speech reality of McCain/Feingold.

I don't care what sort of rotten crap you want to say about a candidate, you should STILL have the right to SAY IT until the election ends. Right?

And that is why McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. It SILENCES dissent.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


You obviously have yourself convinced that this is somehow a good thing or that the status of other things being bad makes this just fine with you. This is not about right/left but you want it to be. Enjoy your delusion.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
All this bickering here makes me wonder why we even have a Congress that convenes only to create more law and spend more money they confiscate from citizens.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


It is more about who owns the the people that hold office. You may have to be an American to hold office but it has been proven that that people that hold office can be bought and sold.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Duplicate post

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Its been done before, why not again... THomas Jefferson had several judges removed if I recall correctly
www.u-s-history.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Why the rush?? Could it be the fear of a liberal justice appointee or maybe the NWO is moving into high gear?

What rush? The American people have been screwed in the ass by McCain/Feingold for the last 9 years, and it's taken this long to get this unconstitutional piece of legislation before the SCOTUS.

See, liberals don't understand the concept of "rush"... When you take 18 months to decide on invading another country, that is NOT a "rush to war"... When you take 9 years to defeat an unconstitutional piece of legislation, that is NOT a "rush" to defeat the legislation.

However, when you ramrod through "economic stimulus" and "bailout" and "healthcare reform" legislation in LESS THAN A YEAR and BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, and WITHOUT allowing the American People to say "yay" or "nay" on the matter, THEN you are RUSHING.

That's what un-American cowards do, see? Understand now?

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The government is people, too, so your argument is sublimely ridiculous. Unfortunately, the government youj seem to dislike so much was mainly put in place by corporations, so be prepared for it to get much weaker and far worse.

Most corporatists are really closet royalists in drag: each thinks of himself as running an empire, none have any love of democracy or their fellow citizens, they much prefer subjects to equals. Each would far prefer a nationless world subject to their whims, like the Sultan of Brunei. Why do you think they support dictatorships so fervently?


----------------------------------------------------
I'm with Ross Perot.
Government should be smaller.
I love capitalism.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican



and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime?


This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

I find it confusing that people would rather have government control on election funding. I say let the people, fund it. And it is the people who make up the corporations and unions.

This is one step ahead toward a more perfect Union.



This law cuts the people with two edges!
The Supreme Court just rammed a double edged sword up the Americans rectum.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Enjoy your delusion.

I'm going to enjoy it right up until November, and then I'm gonna PARTY LIKE HELL when the majority of Socialists in the Senate are kicked out on their asses.

Oh, yeah, baby. I'm gonna ENJOY my delusion. You have a nice year thinking about November.



— Doc Velocity






top topics



 
87
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join