Obama says US court ruling a blow to democracy

One question for all of you out there my friend, that knows more about the law behind the ruling,

What will keep now corporations from registering as voters with the ruling if they are considered personhood.

How about corporations running for positions of govenrment?

[edit on 25-1-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by ziggystrange

I'm not "incorrect", our ELECTION process is Democratic, our form of government is a REPUBLIC. Don't confuse the two, if our form of government was a Democracy then majority would rule on all things. In a Republic, the rights of the few are guaranteed by a Constitution.

Check out Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

"Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

/discussion

reply to post by marg6043

What will keep now corporations from registering as voters with the ruling if they are considered personhood.

How about corporations running for positions of govenrment?

Thankfully, if such an event occurred, the vote would only be 1 vote.

Course worst case scenario. Robocop. (OCP, basically buys the city of Detroit and starts running it like a business.)

During the 15th century right up to the 18th century Poland had been ruled by the magnets - rich land owners and commerce. They had kept the poles in serfdom, and even though there was a king, he was only a puppet, and an ineffective one.

They had a parliament, the first of its kind in the world back in the 15th century, had touted it as 'Golden Freedom' that even the monarchies of it were jealous of, or so it was told the poles.

But the parliament were a sham and never could agree to anything. It was nothing more than a stage show, a vaudville act, where only the magnets could send their puppet representatves and any motions were ultimately defeated with vetoes.

The magnets never allowed any freedom whatsoever, because each has his own interest to look after, and to either either align themselves or were paid by other nations. They cared not for the people, nor the country, but their own wallets and ego, and yet shirk from the responsibility of being king, and prefer puppets to rule.

As such, Poland was dismembered piecemeal by its neighbours, and gradually swallowed up by them. The poles were no more by then of USSR's commie conquest.

Even thought the age of magnets and barons had died out today, they still exist in other forms. Today, its reincarnation is the NWO, who thinks that they alone know better and should have the right to rule but no take the RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY to/from the masses, using puppets and the sham of democracy.

What SCOTUS had done is to allow this insidious Class of depraved humans to once again reign and wrecked havoc upon humanity, as they had done throughout civilisation.

President Obama had been voted and funded by the people, not by the Corporations. He MUST not be alone to confront these animals and the powerful plays set up by them. Let the destruction of past Poland be a reminder to us freedom loving people.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


President Barack Obama was first major party candidate to ever reject tax dollars and the limitations that came with accepting public financing. Of the close to $750 million Obama raised, here is a partial list of corporate donors that contributed to his campaign:

1.) Goldman Sachs...$994,795
2.) Microsoft Corp...$833,617
3.) Google Inc...$803,436
4.) Citigroup Inc...$701,290
5.) J.P. Morgan Chase and Co...$695,132
6.) Time Warner...$590,084
7.) National Amusements Inc...$551,683
8.) IBM Corp...$528,822
9.) Morgan Stanley...$514,881
10.) General Electric...$499,130

To name just a few of the major multinational corporations that contributed to Obama's campaign. It is not at all true that Obama was not funded by the corporations. But don't take my word for it, check out the link provided below and don't take their word for it, find independent sources that either confirm or deny this. Good luck in finding any source that will confirm your claim that Obama was "funded by the people not corporations".

Opensecrets.org

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I already tried posting proof Jean Paul. They do not even respond.

They keep just spouting the rhetoric. I think either on this thread or another, I already posted that info.

I would also like to see the list of people he got all of those donations under $200. That is the cut off for required submission of the info.

McCain submitted everyone, but I guess the One does not need to be transparent.

Fact right in their faces and they still deny deny deny.

Partisan blinders.

edit to add-How much money was raised by these UNDOCUMENTED people you ask?

Donations from individuals giving $200 or less represented nearly a quarter ($178 million) of Obama's fundraising total

$178 Million came from WHERE?

[edit on 1/26/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


I understand that it can be frustrating endisnighe, but as it is with any child hell bent on temper tantrums, the best you can do is show love and compassion, and plenty of patience, while continuing to repeat what needs to be repeated. As they mature, those children learn and begin to understand that screaming and attacking others does nothing to resolve a conflict, and they learn to use rational discourse, or at least put their best foot forward in doing so.

Just take a look at that "new member" who began posting in a faux "Dude, I was a conservative until this ruling and check this out dude, the socialists were right all along!", and now has abandoned that silly pretense and has begun to engage in a much more civil tone and effort to behave rationally.

All people are basically good and we all aim towards the greater good, and sometimes it is necessary to disagree in order to better understand how we can achieve ethical aims. Keep on posting the truth and keep showing patience and compassion and we will all be okay.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Alright, I will try again to tone it down.

The proof is right there and it just gets glossed over. I know, I know.

I will try.

reply to post by endisnighe


Just keep putting the facts out there and those inclined to see the truth will do so and those not so inclined to see the truth will come to see it in their own good time. Your efforts to present the truth as best you understand it are appreciated by many more than just me.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by endisnighe

 

Just keep putting the facts out there and those inclined to see the truth will do so and those not so inclined to see the truth will come to see it in their own good time. Your efforts to present the truth as best you understand it are appreciated by many more than just me.

Unfortunately for me guys, I do not see a positive in this...
What you guys are encountering is a reaction based upon views, I understand for you guys you may enjoy such a ruling as it augments business a bit higher than it was prior to the ruling, legally speaking. I cannot argue the finer points, less the little contract law I learned in school. But I can speculate upon the future implications based upon my opinion.

I FEEL in the long run this is detrimental, of corse this is based upon my individual view of the world as I feel this will only increase the dance between politicians and special interests. This is urgent for me because, I do not think the current politicians have time in the day to address their constituency because they are kept very busy dealing with front and center/PRESENT agents of various entities.

I initially thought everyone would be upset by this ruling, because these campaigns can be used in trade for political favors as is the norm in Washington. But this assumes that everyone thinks political favors are of detriment to the legislative process and ultimately the common desires of the greater constituency. I suppose I am wrong in that speculation...

At the end of the day, I think and feel this verdict has far greater implications than I can currently fathom, implications that do not coincide with my individual vision of
a better nation. Further more this appears to me to be a fine technical implement to
degrade the spirit of this nation and it's initial conception. I will pay taxes and have even less of a voice because I do not possess the capital necessary to illicit a favor or an ear from my elected official.

Instead, firm and true marketing methods will become the benchmark of success. Results will be less of a concern for politicians as any message can be pitched, regardless of validity, via a straight injection into the basic
brain of any audience member. Anyone with money can make a claim, utilizing great
timing and a false message at will as a way to manipulate voters. Such a financial requisite, in a very practical way excludes my practical participation because I am busy maintaining my livelihood possessing limited time and very limit pre requisite.

This is free speech, but can be used as a tool of deceit, of which might have a very real impact on everyones PRACTICAL LIVES. AS A MAN, this bothers me even if the results are a bi product of a great idea and fundamental right. In this instance I am asked to forego my individual reaction and assume my societal associations and its prescribed ideals. NOT ALWAYS EASY TOO DO...

The majority of common folks who do not have the time to practice excessive diligence will LIKELY be swayed by the most effective
and convincing message. As it is one can almost find a fact to refute a completely contrary fact on almost any subject.
My frustration is based largely because our rightful consumer minded society will be susceptible to what ever mirrors a good product pitch, in the sense of a PRODUCT.
To my detriment I hopped our very electoral process was separate from this aspect
of modern life.

Unfortunately I do not need facts to achieve any of this, my mind is equipped enough to
extrapolate and distill down concepts in order to provide a realistic notion of the implications. I cannot be stripped of my opinion or belief as it is something that is individual to me. Just as true; no amount of logic, theory, technical knowledge
is able to quench the fire that this has been produced. I am only a man and what guides my sensibilities is a sort of alchemy of the mind and heart, neither completely control every aspect of my reality at any given.

The only thing that perplexes me is that others are not as aware to the implications based upon observing our modern world. I then wonder do some feel that my imagined
implications are positive or just not likely? I must admit it is the first that strikes me firmly, as this post may strike you the same.



[edit on 26-1-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


Janky your opinions are always a most welcome read for me and I find it rare to read someones thoughts and opinions of whom I disagree with that I so thoroughly enjoy reading. Indeed, there are few people in this site that I disagree with of whom I will star their posts, and yet, I find myself compelled to star many of yours in spite of my disagreement just because they are so well written and so passionately communicated in an honesty that comes straight from the heart. In that regard, just as I assured endisnighe, I assure you that there are many more than just I who appreciate your efforts.

Your feelings are valid and I suspect that endisnighe would not want to callously disregard them anymore than I would. That you have taken the time to express those feelings in such a thoughtful way engenders more respect from me than you can ever know. If your feelings on this turn out to be justified, here is what I say of the matter and in fact have all ready addressed in a previous post speaking directly to you. Congress' hands are not tied on this matter and they can act in ways to address yours and others concerns about the consequences of this ruling.

Of course, I would prefer it if Congress would wait until said consequences actually happen and then deal with it in a Constitutional manner rather than legislate "positive law" that is intended to prevent imagined crimes. What is imperative is that all three branches of government act in ways that have been mandated by the Constitution and not attempt to dismiss that Constitution when it becomes an inconvenient truth.

I think political favors are indeed a detriment to the legislative process but as you readily admit they are all ready the norm and this ruling is not what created that norm. Yet, once again your simple and concise language that is only too willing to speak honestly also speaks to the problem with reacting to this ruling imprudently. Because, as you say, what ever implications this ruling hath wrought, it is far greater than you can fathom at this moment and this is a beautiful truth as it is also far greater than I can fathom and I suspect is true for most of us in this site whether we agree with the ruling or not.

I would dare to argue with you that your voice has not been diminished because of this ruling and would suggest that instead this ruling only upheld just how valuable your voice is! Why should you or I even have to illicit a favor from an elected official? Are we not all equal under the law? As a point of law we are and it should not, nay I say must not require favors in order to hold true.

As to your concern about false messages, there is no corporation more guilty of putting out false messages than the corporation known as The United States of America. That corporations gleeful march towards unrestrained expansion and growth is exactly what has people like me so concerned. It is a corporation that has in effect become "too big to fail" and if governments can't be allowed the room to fail then they will surely become tyrannical.

Your valid concerns about lacking the necessary time to be effectively involved in the political process only expresses why I so passionately argue that government should be small and greatly limited. A small and limited government is a government that has little to offer multi-national corporations and yet has plenty to offer the individual. A small and limited government can still establish justice, can still provide for the common defense, can still ensure domestic tranquility and assuming that government is restrained in its ambition, still promote the general welfare of the people.

Free speech can and is often used as a tool of deceit, yet look at you and look at our brother endisnighe and look at the friendship the both of you have forged even though you two rarely agree with each other. Neither one of you engage in falsehoods in order to gain an upper hand, and while at sometimes either one of you and for that myself can make arguments that are wrong and put out information that is a mistake of fact or misinterpretation of law, it is the honesty between us, that keeps this discourse so worthy of respect.

People will lie Janky, this is the sad and tragic truth of humanity. This does not mean that you and I and our brother endisnighe can't keep debating the issues in an attempt to find just what the damn truth is. Keep on putting out the facts as you understand them, keep speaking as honestly as you have been and we will all be okay, I remain certain that this is true.

Whether we be common men or uncommonly good and souls of a different nature, we are all connected to each other, and we all seek the greater good. Excessive diligence is no different than all things excessive, which is to say, excessive behavior is what it is, and all that is required of any one us is that we do our due diligence. All the more reason to keep our government limited and small, to insure that our due diligence does not become excessive.

Electoral processes are nothing more than a mechanism by which we choose representatives to government. Voting is not by any stretch of the imagination the mark of liberty. Our rights and our willingness to defend them is that mark of freedom, and this is why freedom of speech should be respected, even revered in spite of the fact that there will be many who use this freedom to lie.

God forbid that any logic or reasonable debate would quench the most excellent fire that rages in your soul! Do not despair Janky Red! Do not imagine for a single solitary second that these corporate elites who concern you so could ever extinguish your light. They may be able to blow out candles but they can't put out the fire!

Whatever implications you imagine, however it is you observe this modern world, be not perplexed and do not concern yourself with who can or can not see the world as you do. Whether these implications you imagine are likely or not, together we will all handle the problems as they come.





[edit on 26-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by whatukno


Thanks for responding, I know corporations had the right to person hood it was given to them a long time ago, but now that their status that was controversial until recently as how much involvement in politics they would have, is not stopping now, we know that it only takes one small step for some to take a whole yard when money talks BS walk, I see corporations buying into politics and even run as entities for political positions, one step at a time, why stop just with buying political whores, right?