Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 Jan '10 20:45
    http://tinyurl.com/y9yjuw2

    I have to admit this one worries me a bit. It's not like special interests don't already dominate Washington.

    Still, I never quite could wrap my mind around the concept that corporations don't have freedom of speech. Corporations are composed or and owned by people, after all.
  2. 21 Jan '10 20:49 / 2 edits
    the following is part of what I just posted in the "Broken Promises" thread. It applies equally to this thread:

    The well-heeled interests will always find a way to get their money through to their representatives of choice...any effort to make beneficial changes will have to work WITH all those wealthy interests, not against them.
  3. 21 Jan '10 22:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://tinyurl.com/y9yjuw2

    I have to admit this one worries me a bit. It's not like special interests don't already dominate Washington.

    Still, I never quite could wrap my mind around the concept that corporations don't have freedom of speech. Corporations are composed or and owned by people, after all.
    All of the progressives have vowed to eliminate this ruling. After all, it is a challenge to the progressive agenda which is punishing those with wealth and favoring those who are not as fortunate. In the mind of the progressive, all men were created equal, but it is up to them to see to it that they stay that way. That is why I guess they favor a health care bill in which they are excluded from having to participate in since they have an exclusive plan all for themselves.
  4. 21 Jan '10 22:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    All of the progressives have vowed to eliminate this ruling. After all, it is a challenge to the progressive agenda which is punishing those with wealth and favoring those who are not as fortunate. In the mind of the progressive, all men were created equal, but it is up to them to see to it that they stay that way. That is why I guess they favor a health c ...[text shortened]... are excluded from having to participate in since they have an exclusive plan all for themselves.
    But the ruling would also apply to unions, groups that progressives generally favor. Ultimately, the wealthy interests on both sides of the aisle will benefit greatly from this.

    What I imagine will happen is that the amount of lousy political advertising we're being deluged with will increase - possibly dramatically. As the elections approach this November, there might be nothing else BUT lousy political advertising.

    It might get so bad that Geico won't have enough space to air all it's lizard ads and cave man ads and "Is Ed Too Tall Jones Too Tall" ads... Wait...that would be a good thing..
  5. 21 Jan '10 23:14
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://tinyurl.com/y9yjuw2

    I have to admit this one worries me a bit. It's not like special interests don't already dominate Washington.

    Still, I never quite could wrap my mind around the concept that corporations don't have freedom of speech. Corporations are composed or and owned by people, after all.
    America is becoming (or even has become) a nation of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

    I think they should just pass a new law requiring senators and congressmen to wear patches on all their suits naming who their corporate donors are so they essentially will look like Nascar driver uniforms.

    Soon we can just abolish the idea of them being representatives of the people and it'll be "Senator Grassley from Blue Cross Blue Shield" and "Senator Dick Durbin representing Bank of America".

    Corporations don't deserve the same rights as people.
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    21 Jan '10 23:49
    American political democracy is a complete sham. It is simply a more effective way of controlling the people than naked totalitarianism is. All it does is to channel all civil unrest into the political sphere where it is guaranteed that nothing will happen to challenge the dominance of the financial elite. The wealthy continue to run the show while they let the riff raff tire themselves out on the meaningless spectacle of election campaigns.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Jan '10 23:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    In the mind of the progressive, all men were created equal, but it is up to them to see to it that they stay that way.
    This is comic book political science. Modern day progressives seek equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.
  8. Standard member Traveling Again
    I'm 1/4 Ninja
    22 Jan '10 00:32
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I think they should just pass a new law requiring senators and congressmen to wear patches on all their suits naming who their corporate donors are so they essentially will look like Nascar driver uniforms.

    Soon we can just abolish the idea of them being representatives of the people and it'll be "Senator Grassley from Blue Cross Blue Shield" and "Senator Dick Durbin representing Bank of America".
    This is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. And make the size of the patch directly related to the amount of a donation.
    Then the real puppets would be more noticeable as they walk around.
  9. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    22 Jan '10 00:45
    Yeah, we should definitely continue cutting back on those 1st amendment rights. Then we can move on to the 2nd....and 3rd.... and...
    Next thing ya know it'll be just like livin' in the good ole EU.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 Jan '10 00:50
    Originally posted by monster truck
    Then we can move on to the 2nd...
    uh... that ship has sailed
  11. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    22 Jan '10 00:52
    Originally posted by sh76
    uh... that ship has sailed
    Still got mine, and you?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Jan '10 01:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    I never quite could wrap my mind around the concept that corporations don't have freedom of speech. Corporations are composed or and owned by people, after all.
    Equating corporate distortion of the political process with 'freedom of speech' dilutes and undermines genuine 'freedom of speech'.
  13. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    22 Jan '10 01:21
    Originally posted by FMF
    Equating corporate distortion of the political process with 'freedom of speech' dilutes and undermines genuine 'freedom of speech'.
    So individual distortion of the political process is perfectly acceptable then?
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Jan '10 01:29
    Originally posted by monster truck
    So individual distortion of the political process is perfectly acceptable then?
    Yes. Of course. I support freedom of speech. A corporation is not an individual.
  15. 22 Jan '10 01:30
    Originally posted by FMF
    Equating corporate distortion of the political process with 'freedom of speech' dilutes and undermines genuine 'freedom of speech'.
    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."
    "There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
    This should be obvious. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." What part about "Congress shall make no law" don't the other justices understand? How can a Congressional ban on political speech, regardless of who pays for the printing press or ad space, especially when it's close to an election, make no "abridgment" upon the people's freedom of speech?
    Justice Kennedy's opinion says it all:

    “When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”



    Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/21/a-victory-for-free-speech/#ixzz0dIgkXQhp


    Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/21/a-victory-for-free-speech/#ixzz0dIgGEZWg