SCOTUS judge Thomas received $100k from Citizen United and ruled in their favor

reply to post by Kitilani


Well, for starters, I don't know what you're smoking/drinking but I sure as hell want no part of it.

It's painfully obvious that sarcasm doesn't come across well online. Were you being sarcastic?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Turning corporations into "men" was the works of the courts, perverted lawyers used the 14th ammendment and slowly applied the word person to any association they could.

This is a lie, and your insistence on perpetuating the lie speaks volumes to to the general character of the older generation in the United States.. The courts did not turn corporations into persons, Congress did, and here is the biggest problem with your generation, they can't be spoken to reasonably. For a bunch of old timers it is amazing how the older generation in the United States act like a bunch of spoiled brats, throwing tantrums like little children and pretending that lies can be accepted as truth just as long as they keep screaming the lie long enough and loud enough.

Your own personal ignorance of the law is unacceptable. In fact, regardless of how old you may be, there is an old Chinese proverb that states:

When a wise man argues with a fool, it is hard to tell them apart.

For that reason, I wash my hands of you. Believe what you want to believe, those who are wise will see it for what it is.


I helped defeat Hitler, I was shot on three different occassions and I helped make this country the most

prosperous in the world, what did your generation do? You are wrong and you don't even know it. You said to

Kitilani the UCC makes the person out of a company, to me you say it is was congress. The UCC

was created by lawyers representing private associations, which was used as a set of guidelines, states had the

choice to adopt the code into statutory status, all the states have adopted the template at least once. States

cannot turn companies into people, that would be a Federal question and outside the scope of the states

jurisdiction. You told me it was congress, I would like to

see which peice of legistlation you mean, there is no such legistlation son, the march to the perversion

occurred in the courts, ruling by ruling. The most important ruling, before this current perversion, was Santa

Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the lawyers then used the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of

1875 to appeal their tax dodging all the way up the courts. Then the court held that the 14th ammendment

protected corporations, all due to lawyers and perverts, nothing to due with the founding intent of this nation.

Both the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 and the 14th ammendment were made to help coloreds in their

bad situation, this makes this approach by lawyers even more disgusting.

All big talk and lots of fancy thoughts that twist and press past the boundaries of decent truth, decade to

decade, that one choice back in the days of my grandfather was the seed that created the way to this, it has

taken 140 years, but the companies will pervert each generation's mind. I thought the 5th ammendment was

going to be the next step, you apply the 14th ammendment and now the 1st based on being a person and

pleading the 5th is not very far off. I need to sleep son, I am old and will be dead soon, you better get some

sense about you because this country needs you to question, not obey, buying elections won't do.

I will pray for you.

Originally posted by beefsteaktwin
I helped defeat Hitler, I was shot on three different occassions and I helped make this country the most

prosperous in the world, what did your generation do?

While your past sacrifices are noted and indeed celebrated; what does it have to do with the argument at hand in regards to the Supreme Court case of Citizen United? I can only gather that you are trying to impose some authority upon the subject because you are a WWII vet. It holds no weight in the current debate.

You are wrong and you don't even know it. You said to Kitilani the UCC makes the person out of a company, to me you say it is was congress. The UCC was created by lawyers representing private associations, which was used as a set of guidelines

What? Can you provide factual evidence of this? Private companies, lobbyists and corporations can only try to persuade those that sit in their representative seats, including the Senate and including States.

Personal note on this. The U.S.C is where we find the congressional act in which person hood was defined in regards to a corporation. Mainly

"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"

Given this is Title 1.1.1 of the USC, the recent ruling clearly rules in favor of the First Amendment since Congress has always viewed, in terms of any act committed by it, corporations as holding "person hood". Take this in context with the ruling in which Citizen United was about and we can see the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment.

states had the choice to adopt the code into statutory status, all the states have adopted the template at least once. States cannot turn companies into people, that would be a Federal question and outside the scope of the states jurisdiction.

Can you clarify this for the rest of us? Corporation status is just a legal form that a person or persons take to protect their otherwise private assets and shield themselves from actions taken against their personal lives. They have long before lived prior to the United States and will most likely continue as much under the rule of law.

You told me it was congress, I would like to see which peice of legistlation you mean, there is no such legistlation son, the march to the perversion occurred in the courts, ruling by ruling. The most important ruling, before this current perversion, was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the lawyers then used the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 to appeal their tax dodging all the way up the courts.

Well...the United States Code, in which I quoted, is all the laws enacted by Congress. I will search for you, since it seems you cannot do it for yourself, the legislation in which you seek. Mind you, the USC contains the United States Constitution.

All big talk and lots of fancy thoughts that twist and press past the boundaries of decent truth, decade to decade, that one choice back in the days of my grandfather was the seed that created the way to this, it has taken 140 years, but the companies will pervert each generation's mind.

I make no qualms in regards to the claims you make except you conviently leave out the other party...that being Congress. Lobbyist take a lot of blame and so do corporations and some times, rightly so. But the actions taken by Congress, caving to the petitions of lobbyist, corporations, unions, etc that only serve the purpose of empowering those groups need to be put into the light. Furthermore, since the 17th Amendment, we, the general populace make up all of Congress. So it seems through association you need to start looking at the other three fingers pointing back at you sir.

I thought the 5th ammendment was going to be the next step, you apply the 14th ammendment and now the 1st based on being a person and pleading the 5th is not very far off. I need to sleep son, I am old and will be dead soon, you better get some sense about you because this country needs you to question, not obey, buying elections won't do.

Based on your word usage I am beginning to think you actually are not the age you are and only are trying to insert some time of "authority" into the argument you are making. Future advice; age does not beget wisdom nor authority without merit.

I am going to bat here for Jean Paul. I hope he doesn't mind. If there is anyone that you want on your side to question and not obey it would be he. Instead you are so wrapped up in your argument that you do not see that he in fact is questioning the very knee-jerk reactions that basically 99% of this site did in regards to Citizen United. Relying upon the very media they rail against only to veil it under the guise of "its not MSM" so it must not have an agenda.

I have a simple question for you: Were you okay with the United States Congress limiting your ability to petition your government and speak freely about it? That is exactly what was at hand in terms of Citizen United. The fact that they were a corporation is merely a sidebar that people have used to build up their hatred for all things corporate.