Americans: Supreme Court got it wrong! 80 Percent oppose ruling!

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Count me among the 20% who love freedom of speech.

I have a problem with government telling me that I can't write a book about, or make a documentary about a politician during a campaign. God forbid making a political ad.


The last thing politicians want during a campaign is people being critical of them.

Screw the politicians, hurray for free speech!




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
The SC did their job. Was it a correct decision? Maybe not, but their job is to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

In this case, by a narrow decision, they decided it wasn't.

Now the ball is in Congresses court. They can either give up or use many of the government resources(LAWYERS) to figure out how they can pass a bill that will stand up to the SC scrutiny.

DC and Congress is full of lawyers. IMO, this isn't a daunting task.

As far as the poll, I have to ask how many of those polled truly know what the hell they are talking about.

Did they really do research into the subject to arrive at their decision or are they merely basing their opinion on what they have heard?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
The SC did their job.


And Im pritty sure the DC lobbyists are just doing their jobs as well.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Count me among the 20% who love freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech for the foreign shareholders of this company? Freedom of speech for giant multi-national corporations? How does the constitution grant them rights? If a chinese man buys majority shares of GM, is he still entitled to freedom of speech?

The fact is, the corporations have always had a stronghold over this nation. This ruling just opened the flood gates wider. But thankfully we have fox news to tell em' folks exactly what they wanna hear.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 





I have a problem with government telling me that I can't write a book about, or make a documentary about a politician during a campaign. God forbid making a political ad.


How much money do you have? Millions? You must if you plan on running some ads on corporate television.

I'm glad that you think wealth dictates how much actual "freedom" in speech a person should have.

This is about corporate personhood and the influence of money in our government. This ruling made it a helluva lot worse than it already was. The government is already corrupted in large part...but now even the "good" ones have gigantic targets on them.

Anyway, I plan on voting for CITGO's candidates..since I think Hugo Chavez has the best interest of the US at heart...since he loves us so much. I'm also a huge fan of Chairman Mao...so it doesn't bother me that a Chinese corporation can buy off politicians.

Freedom of speech in government? Right. For international corporations who don't give a damn about anyone in this country.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


SCOTUS, i believe, made a HUGE mistake. So bad that we may not get it fixed.

Their job is to interpret the constitution. Now, perhaps the first amendment reads that way, perhaps not. I don't interpret it as such. but the system we have is set up so that Congress can clarify the law by creating the law.

We may "blame" them for bad decisions, but it is congresses job to correct it, not theirs.

problem is, this opens the flood gates for 2010 and 2012 to infuse massive amounts of special interest cheddar into the belly's of our favorite pigs in washington. i would expect them to be loathe to act once the lobbyists start feeding the pigs.

SCOTUS should have punted. Seriously. This is an important matter, and allowing congress to address the issue before damage can be done would have been the patriotic act. even though it would not be "legal", i guarantee is wouldn't be the first time such was done.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
How does the constitution grant them rights?


Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution: Section 1.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Subsection 1
US CODE


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals


I'm not saying I agree that a corporation is a "person" under the constitution. I'm just posting up the law. I don't make the law.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Count me among the 20% who love freedom of speech.

I have a problem with government telling me that I can't write a book about, or make a documentary about a politician during a campaign. God forbid making a political ad.


The last thing politicians want during a campaign is people being critical of them.

Screw the politicians, hurray for free speech!


as long as you aren't a registered member of a political group, then i agree. It shouldn't matter.

But members of political groups are "employees" and their actions promoting the group is, IMO, "work". There is a financial value on this work, as it promotes the aims and objectives of the goup. At this point, you should not be able to do this without the results (moneys generated) being counted into that groups contribution to the political cause.

Is it perfect? No, but in a world of people like Soros, we have to do something. Our nations highest seats should not be made for sale. It is not what our constitution is about. It is unAmerican to allow 1 person with more money to speak louder than "The People", who are blue collar and hard working. It should be "1 man, 1 voice", period. That is what "all men are created equal" means.

edit to add: to clarify, a corporation is "1 man", and should get only 1 voice. All political groups should be the same. It fits nicely with the legal definition of a corporation being a sole entity.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Something to keep in mind:

there is a louder and louder beating of a drum out there in America. A strong nationalist bent is starting to take root and spread. The economy tanking was the tipping point. But it has been bulding and building, the more jobs that went overseas.

If this law remains, we will see a major issue happen in our nation. I am not talking about taking up arms. I don't see that happening (or being successful...the military would crush any uprising and then cover it up). The change that will happen will be a change in the people who make it to Washington.

Consider what happens as a nation becomes nationalist. There are past examples, with the nazi's being the best example, and my real fear. With the influx of Nazi influence post WWII it would not surprise me to see a move from any elements related to nazism. Of course, it would be packaged under a conservative movement. not the GOP, that is tainted. Maybe a "Tea Party", or some other grass roots untraconservative movement. I mean, 10% unemployment sucks, and we can't pay unemployment benefits forever.

If the blue collars and middle class get pinched much more, you can expect a massive and wild swing back to the right. Possibly ending in the "red zone" of conservatism: facist nationalism.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





Our nations highest seats should not be made for sale. It is not what our constitution is about. It is unAmerican to allow 1 person with more money to speak louder than "The People", who are blue collar and hard working. It should be "1 man, 1 voice", period. That is what "all men are created equal" means.


Well stated.

Things are going to have to change soon. Eventually the tide will have to turn.

I haven't had a raise in 2 years. I have one week of vacation. Of course...this is after I lost my former job to OUTSOURCING thanks to greedy stockholders who wanted an increase in stock prices.

In the meantime prices are exploding, deficits are exploding, corruption is exploding, yet

We've bailed out ALL OF WALLSTREET....the banks...the big companies....ALL OF IT. We were forced to. We had no choice as it was done against the will of the people.

Now we give those same entities EVEN MORE POWER to influence our country. This is madness.

People losing jobs, homes, frozen wages, diminishing benefits, increased energy prices, increased interest from banks, increased food prices, endless wars...

I'm sick of it. ENOUGH ALREADY.

The middle class has been beaten to a pulp. It's time we fight back.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





If the blue collars and middle class get pinched much more, you can expect a massive and wild swing back to the right. Possibly ending in the "red zone" of conservatism: facist nationalism.


Well I believe what we are headed towards is corporate fascism.

If this does not change the middle class is as good as gone...it's already on fumes/life support.

IMO.....we are going to be headed towards more a french revolution. The wealthy control our country. I"m not talking about small businesses and small time millionares...I'm talking about billionares. I'm talking about bankers who just received 150 billion in bonuses last year which could have paid off countless mortgages and kept people in their homes.

What could 150 billion do spent elsewhere? Made a thread here...mostly ignored.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the rich are unwilling to pay more taxes...and no one else has money to pay more in taxes...then we are headed towards financial collapse. End of story.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Can we all agree that our representatives are AT LEAST at much at fault for taking the money, as the corporations are for giving it?

Especially since our representatives make the laws which not only allow this to happen (see US code above, amended in 2009) but in return make laws FOR the corporations... but only in return for a fat bribe of course.

If it is wrong for corporations to give their earned money to our representatives, is it not also wrong for the representatives to then steal money from us, and give it to corporations?

Our legislature is to blame, if anyone is. They make the laws, they bailed out the banks, they take the money.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by METACOMET]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


I agree. But if you want to place real blame it would be the corporate media. There are those in Washington who speak against Corporatism but you'll rarely ever see anyone on television speaking about it.

They are blackballed. They will get no money in campaign contributions and therefore have their chances of getting elected severely hurt.

You can have the best message/platform in the world...but if no one is able to hear it or see it...then it does not matter.

That is the problem. The media is supposed to be the watchdog for the people as the average joe cannot set up camp in Washington. We have little choice but to rely on the media to know what is going on. Unfortunately, they have failed...miserably...mostly to their own interests.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
They are blackballed. They will get no money in campaign contributions and therefore have their chances of getting elected severely hurt.


So in other words, its not the police officers fault for taking the bribe, its the gangsters fault for offering it?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 




I operate under the principle of "Don't fix the blame, fix the problem".

Funny thing is, in this case, they merge and both pretty much end up in the same corner. Yes, corporate America is to blame for taking the risks, and looting the companies coffers with outrageous bonuses (don't tell me investors are 'talent"...they aren't. They are creative theives that are occasionally lucky in the markets).

Yes, our officials are guilty for giving it. The Bush's concocted the plan, the Obama's expanded it. Blood on all hands here, I'm afraid.

But, if you get right down to it, if our leaders and corporations are guilty, then that means we are guilty.

First, we elect those b-stards. Without our votes, they are back to chasing ambulances and bilking people out of insurance claims as consultant attorneys.

But, beyond that, we support the corporations. Yes, they are large, and yes they have purchasing power. This provides you the cheap crap. Many operate directly in China as the manufacturer, with kickbacks to the Chinese government. So, despite the horror that "The People" may feign, it will elicit no marked change in behavior. In 2010, there will be a bunch of Democrats and Republicans elected (likely Republicans, which will NEVER overturn the SCOTUS decision about freedom of speech). Tomorrow "The People" will go to Wal Mart and buy the cheap crap, probably driving a GM vehicle using heavily subsidized gasoline.

It is The People that are to blame. The People took out loans that couldn't be repaid. The People knew that they weren't saving, but were running up debt. The People like to show off their IPhones, and post pictures of themselves in Cancun wearing that $400 bikini. The People financed their way into a collapse, and the drug dealers on Wall Street were only to happy to be complicit.

And The People will sit at home, saying to themselves, "Oh well, at least i still have my digital cable, and my 60" HDTV. I can 'sacrifice' my vacation for a 'staycation' this year. No need to do anything yet, maybe it the boat will right itself and start sailing again." Never once will they realize that that nagging pain is the sand getting in their eyes as they bury their heads deeper. In the end, The People will still be to blame.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
So which one is right in your opinion Meta?

You posted that we should not think about this in an emotional way, but in a logical way.

Tell that to the homeless that lost everything.

Tell that to every unemployed family in the united states.

Tell that me.

I've been unemployed since January 2008.

Do you know what it's like eating out of a dumpster? I do.

Do you know what it's like spending your nights in a box on the street? I do.

Lose everything you have and everything you've worked so hard for over the past thirty years, THEN and only then, come back here and post comments like that.

At this very moment, I live in the basement of a house owned by a very dear friend of mine. A friend that has taught me that there is no more powerful thing in the world than human kindness.

Money has corrupted this world for FAR too long.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Semus
 


Non-violent political action. You have a vote, you have a voice. Use it. You have influence over others, you can influence their voice. Do it.

Check out Get Out Of Our House!. There are grass roots efforts under way, most with the aim of restoring the constitution.

God help them, God save us.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Corporate masters? have a knack at corporate 'hostile' takeovers. They are now attempting the government version. Same MO different strategy.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Excellent post. Well said. Also, I've been following GOOOH for a few weeks now and I think it has potential.


I operate under the principle of "Don't fix the blame, fix the problem".

Any ideas?



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


I have lots of ideas. Making them work may take smarter people than me, though. I would have to actually have a problem presented for me to consider a solution (i just don't sit around and think up platforms and stuff, so wouldn't speak "off the cuff" very well).

It is all common sense. What is lacking is honesty. We either aren't honest with ourselves because we realize we ARE part of the problem, or we have bought so deeply into the "us vs. them" mentality in Washington that any other avenues seem unsafe and unusual.

Consider, however:

- first, nullify the SCOTUS. Free speech does not = money. They MUST uphold the concept that 1 voice = 1 vote, and corporations are a single voice. Without this, we are slaves to corporate overlords.

- ban political parties. Some laws needs to be created, no doubt. Political parties should be viewed as conspiracies to subvert the government. That is what they are: people who put group affiliation before national interest. But simple things like not allowing "party platforms", voting the party line, campaign finance restrictions, disolving legal protections, open balloting (with reasonable costs). Just doing these things would remove the "gatekeepers" who run state level party politics and can prevent people from appearing on ballots and debates. They bury the non party competition, and it has to stop.

- limits on moneys allowed. Limit the money raised/donated. Kill all forms of "soft money". No more bought elections. I want to elect people without flashy PR, and who have fresh ideas and strong leadership. Give them a mic and an audience, and let them win the election.

- institute the line item veto

- do not allow government to take over industries it has a proven failur rate with. Health care is a good example. If you want free health care, fix Medicare fraud (you don't have to be a genius to see where the holes are, and i could go into great detail about that topic) and then use the Medicare system to administer this health care. But i would rather we find another solution.

- Limit all bonuses paid to employees of publically traded companies to 50% of their annual wages. Annual wages should be set by the shareholders for the top 1% in the company.

- do not allow high risk ventures in companies who recieve federal business, or federally insured business. Let the high risk stuff be done by private companies with endowments and insurance backing their assets.

- limit Federal interaction to companies that are headquartered in the US, and maintain 90% of its employee base in America, employing American citizens. When i say "federal interaction", I refer to things like research and development, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. In the end, Uncle Sam still has the worlds top technology, and any company in the world would kill to have a chance to peek behind that curtain. Leverage that. We bend over backwards to keep companies on shore, only to have them send production off shore. They get the best of both worlds.

I could go on and on. We make key mistakes in so many ways. Sometimes it is greed, sometimes hubris. One major thing to help the economy is to make all government actions transparent, unless it would directly threaten the lives of people in position with our enemies (spies, soldiers, etc). Disband the CIA. If you could make that happen, you would solve 70% of the worlds problems.





new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join