Originally posted by badmoonDid you read it?
The Supreme Court made a rediculous opinion. Outside of that it was odd for our President to point it out at that speech.
But, once again, dispairing the top officer of our country dispairs all of us. This continued petty sniping only serves to weaken the USA.
Do you know what the legal issues are?
What specifically was ridiculous about it?
Please elucidate what exactly was ridiculous about it.
Originally posted by sh76Ka-Zing.....you got all of them.
Did you read it?
Do you know what the legal issues are?
What specifically was ridiculous about it?
Please elucidate what exactly was ridiculous about it.
Anyone who claims they even knew what Obama was refering to is lying.
Originally posted by sh76Their finding that corporations have "rights" as if man-made entities qualify as individual citizens is a bit ridiculous.
Did you read it?
Do you know what the legal issues are?
What specifically was ridiculous about it?
Please elucidate what exactly was ridiculous about it.
I support laws placing limits on the money flow from corporate American into our political system. Others may disagree and I think it's a reasonable source of debate. But for the Supreme Court to rule that such laws are unconstitutional is ridiculous. Where in the constitution do *companies* have rights?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBecause the Supreme Court decision was over 180 pages long and I doubt you're as aware of it as you claim.
I did and do. Why do you assume that because you're unaware of an issue that everyone else must be?
You sure have a lot of time in Afghanistan to keep up with the news.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think they were aware of the possibilities of non-human persons, but not in the sense of a group of people being itself a person (e.g. corporations). They'd have been unsurprised by the current debates about whether dolphins and chimpanzees (or aliens, angels, etc) are people I think.
Given that the Framers were overwhelmingly believers in Natural Law theory and Lockean Fundamental Rights, it's rather difficult to believe that they would have thought that non-human entities had a right to "freedom of speech".
Locke pairs the examples of a rational talking parrot with a creature that has the shape of a man but cannot engage in rational discourse as a thought experiment which demonstrates that rational discourse is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for being a man. If man is a living body, an animal of a certain shape, then what is a person? A person is an intelligent thinking being that can know itself as itself the same thinking thing in different times and places.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/supplement.html
Originally posted by monster truckIt goes toward the definitions of words and phrases. What did they really mean by Persons with Natural Rights? You study the sources that came up with these ideas in a modern sense - e.g. John Locke.
As quoted, the speaker is irrelevant.
Feel free to provide proof to the contrary.
Originally posted by whodeyBusinesses are defined as organizations dedicated to making money - period. Individuals do not feel that same obligation to making money in their individual decisions as they do collectively as a business. This is why channelling their politics through businesses is a bad idea.
Anyone who involves themselves in the political process has something to gain/lose or, at least, feels they do. Just because a corporation involves themselves is a nonsequitor. In fact, you could start a corporation in your basement if you want and have no employees. The fact of the matter is that citizens are being censored with the premise they are doin ...[text shortened]... is time. Somehow big corporations should be slighted for big media. This is proposterous!! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI've never been to Afghanistan. I was in Iraq, and I've been home for a couple months now.
Because the Supreme Court decision was over 180 pages long and I doubt you're as aware of it as you claim.
You sure have a lot of time in Afghanistan to keep up with the news.
I guess your snark just crashed and burned.
I am aware enough to form an informed opinion.
Next up Sony, Ikea or any number of foreign companies with locations in the US deciding to pump money into adds and commercials to affect the outcome of our elections.
So now companies have First Amendment rights, do they have all of the other constitutional protections as well? Can companies now vote?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAfghanistan...Iraq.....is it that big a deal? I recall you claiming to be in one or the other, if I guessed wrong so what?
I've never been to Afghanistan. I was in Iraq, and I've been home for a couple months now.
I guess your snark just crashed and burned.
I am aware enough to form an informed opinion.
I don't know what a snark is.
I'm glad you're so aware.