At Last Something Most Agree On

[faceking]

And fuck... can we stop with these dorky ass acronyms... POTUS, KSM, KFC, Gitmo, OBL, SCOTUS, SCROTAL THROATING... jesus... fucking write out Supreme Court and President...

 

[maxcok]

A typically insightful observation from the OP.

There's a reason people use abbreviations. We'll be happy to translate if anyone's confused.









(Somebody could possibly have some serious anger issues.)

 

[justasimpleguy]

So anyways, corporations shouldn't have any right to free speech because there is no just reason for them to technically be "persons."

Here's a good tongue-in-cheek post on why corporations and organizations should not be people, ever.
Corporate Personhood: Attack of the Immortal, Psychopathic Robot Slaves | WNYmedia.net

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

SCOTUS judges know a hell of a lot more about constitutional law than any of us. I'm willing to defer to their judgement.

And luckily the rest of you just have to. ^_^

 

[maxcok]

Try reading this:Bill of Rights Transcript

Thanks. I am very familiar with this document.

Tossing childish insults around without any substance to support your assertions again.

Fine. Let's take a look:

I would like to see exactly how the question was phrased when it was asked in the poll.

I would guess most of those polled don't really have a good understanding of the issue.

Having free speech means that free speech extends to those who are saying things we disagree with and don't like.

And that means Corporations, Labor Unions and other organizations.

The problem with this legislation is that if is OK to silence one....

I think you're taking quite a leap there. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as the somewhat cliche example of crying 'Fire' in a crowded theater illustrates. As corporations didn't exist even as a concept when the Constitution was written, I hardly think the founding fathers intended to extend individual rights to giant corporate entities.

I'm gonna let B.C. take it from here:

. . . . Therefore one may argue that giving corporations and big business the means to pour unlimited financial resources into support of a candidate or a cause can in fact result in the abridgement of the freedom of speech of those with less financial resources, because they will be significantly disadvantaged in their ability to get their message out, to counter, or to garner political support.

In essence, those with the most financial influence will be in the position to buy their "freedom of speech". And that's fucked.

. . . . It'll be interesting to see who, if anybody, shows up here in support of it.

Surprise, surprise. And just when we were starting to have a reasonable and civil discussion *sigh*.

 

[maxcok]

SCOTUS judges know a hell of a lot more about constitutional law than any of us. I'm willing to defer to their judgement.

And luckily the rest of you just have to. ^_^

I hope you are familiar with the concept of 'Separation of Powers'? There are forms of redress.

. . . . It'll be interesting to see who, if anybody, shows up here in support of it.

Surprise again. The Corporatist NeoCons are out in force.


P.S. Face has asked us not to use acronyms. Please comply with his directive.

 

[maxcok]

A typically insightful observation from the OP.

There's a reason people use abbreviations. We'll be happy to translate if anyone's confused.

(Somebody could possibly have some serious anger issues.)

^ oops, sorry b.c. ^ That was for Face. Temporarily forgot what thread I was on. My bad, you rock.

 

[Pitbull]

The fact that the Bill of Rights exist is acknowledgement that our laws are ever evolving instruments by which our courts are continuously charged with their just and proper interpretation... presumably for the "common good".

Go and read the Federalist Papers and other information regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights exists to put limits on the Federal Government and how to change the Constitution is spelled out in the Constitution.

Therefore one may argue that giving corporations and big business the means to pour unlimited financial resources into support of a candidate or a cause can in fact result in the abridgement of the freedom of speech of those with less financial resources, because they will be significantly disadvantaged in their ability to get their message out, to counter, or to garner political support.

And the corporations that own the New York Times and Washington Post Those of us with less financial resources are at a disadvantage with regards to the message that can be presented via the press.
I guess that part of Amendment I needs fixing too.

In essence, those with the most financial influence will be in the position to buy their "freedom of speech". And that's fucked.

People with more money are able to afford things that people without money cannot. So if you have money you should lose your rights of have them severely curtailed?

Next you will find other reasons to take away some rights.
And THAT'S fucked

 

[Pitbull]

T

I think you're taking quite a leap there. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as the somewhat cliche example of crying 'Fire' in a crowded theater illustrates. As corporations didn't exist even as a concept when the Constitution was written, I hardly think the founding fathers intended to extend individual rights to giant corporate entities.

I think you are taking quite a leap.
You go from crying "Fire" to the conclusion that corporations do not have rights.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

People with more money are able to afford things that people without money cannot. So if you have money you should lose your rights of have them severely curtailed?

Next you will find other reasons to take away some rights.
And THAT'S fucked

Nice distortion geared to victimize the "corporation", but goes completely against actual civilians themselves. You know, the ones that are also protected by the same Constitution that you constantly misinterpret?

 

[maxcok]

I would guess most of those polled don't really have a good understanding of the issue.

Like you, for instance, judging by the rest of your post.

Tossing childish insults around without any substance to support your assertions again.

Fine. Let's take a look:

Having free speech means that free speech extends to those who are saying things we disagree with and don't like.

And that means Corporations, Labor Unions and other organizations.

I think you're taking quite a leap there. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as the somewhat cliche example of crying 'Fire' in a crowded theater illustrates. As corporations didn't exist even as a concept when the Constitution was written, I hardly think the founding fathers intended to extend individual rights to giant corporate entities.

I think you are taking quite a leap.
You go from crying "Fire" to the conclusion that corporations do not have rights.

Riiiiighht . . . . not to mention I said nothing of the sort, it appears I was correct in my first comment.

People with more money are able to afford things that people without money cannot. So if you have money you should lose your rights of have them severely curtailed?
Next you will find other reasons to take away some rights. And THAT'S fucked.

Let's be honest, are you more concerned about losing your 'rights' or losing your 'buying power'?

 

[b.c.]

Go and read the Federalist Papers and other information regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights exists to put limits on the Federal Government and how to change the Constitution is spelled out in the Constitution.

And the corporations that own the New York Times and Washington Post Those of us with less financial resources are at a disadvantage with regards to the message that can be presented via the press.
I guess that part of Amendment I needs fixing too.

People with more money are able to afford things that people without money cannot. So if you have money you should lose your rights of have them severely curtailed?

Next you will find other reasons to take away some rights.
And THAT'S fucked

Not surprising, the usual twisted logic of the far right who are quick to pick and choose pieces of the Bill of Rights and such where it meets their disposal whereas other parts are quickly dismissed (rights to speedy trial, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures for example).

Not to digress, MY point was that the Bill of Rights is proof that the laws of our land (yes, OUR land, though I'd doubt you'd agree) are subject to evolution.

Furthermore, just in case someone tried to use the Constitution to fuck over someone else, they stuck some little something therein that addresses the notion of (certain) "rights" that "deny or disparage others retained by the people", I think?

So in answer to your twisted query, no, people with the money to buy their "rights" should not have them severely curtailed. But nor should they enjoy the unlimited ability to buy their way into power thereby severely curtailing the rights of others.

As indicated in the quoted article at the opening of this thread, most Americans agree on this notion in principle, and we think the Supreme Court's ruling fucking SUCKS... big time. I say most, because THIS is what your Republican representatives (if I may so CALLOUSLY use the word) in Congress think of it:

"The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution..."

 

[Pitbull]

Nice distortion geared to victimize the "corporation", but goes completely against actual civilians themselves. You know, the ones that are also protected by the same Constitution that you constantly misinterpret?

You calling something a distortion does not make it so.

What I stated was a conclusion that one would reasonably draw from reading b.c's arguments

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You calling something a distortion does not make it so.

It's my opinion, just like you have yours.
I already know you'll never agree with me. Let's not assume that I'm trying to convince you to see things any other way. I know you can't... or won't.

What I stated was a conclusion that one would reasonably draw from reading b.c's arguments

Yes... a rather illogical, far stretching, distorted conclusion that brings more meaning to your intolerant beliefs. It's either one way or the other with you, right? No "grey areas" with you, right? Seriously, you should stop thinking for a change and try comprehending.

 

[Pitbull]

Fine. Let's take a look:


Riiiiighht . . . . not to mention I said nothing of the sort, it appears I was correct in my first comment.

Let's be honest, are you more concerned about losing your 'rights' or losing your 'buying power'?

Your comments a based on the asumption that the Founding Fathers would not want corporations to have rights such as free speech.

Since the corporations are a legal entity formed by individuals to engage in commerce the individuals should not lose rights.
The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the rights of the individual.

What might the Founding Fathers think about large corporations and what rights they might have?
Just conjecture.
A reasonable argument could be made that they would view a corporation as an extension of the individual and therefore entitled to the same rights.

So it doesn't appear that you are correct.

And I am more concerned about my rights than my buying power.
I am also concerned about your rights.

 

[Pitbull]

Not surprising, the usual twisted logic of the far right who are quick to pick and choose pieces of the Bill of Rights and such where it meets their disposal whereas other parts are quickly dismissed (rights to speedy trial, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures for example).

Nice try.
But I do not dismiss parts of the Bill of Rights.
I resent and deny the implication.

And since you are trying to twist the First Amendment to suit your desires, may I ask if you choose only the parts you like or do you want to do away with the whole thing?

Not to digress, MY point was that the Bill of Rights is proof that the laws of our land (yes, OUR land, though I'd doubt you'd agree) are subject to evolution.

I do not understand how you can take the existence of the Bill of Rights to support that conclusion.

Furthermore, just in case someone tried to use the Constitution to fuck over someone else, they stuck some little something therein that addresses the notion of (certain) "rights" that "deny or disparage others retained by the people", I think?

So in answer to your twisted query, no, people with the money to buy their "rights" should not have them severely curtailed. But nor should they enjoy the unlimited ability to buy their way into power thereby severely curtailing the rights of others.

Spending money to advance a position and attempting to get legislation passed or a candidate elected is not buying their way into power. If you characterize such actions as such, than the supporters of Barack Obama bought their way into power in the last election, since they spent much more than the Republicans did.
That is just the way the system works.

The "sale" of the Illinois Senate seat is an example of buying into a position of power.

As indicated in the quoted article at the opening of this thread, most Americans agree on this notion in principle, and we think the Supreme Court's ruling fucking SUCKS... big time. I say most, because THIS is what your Republican representatives (if I may so CALLOUSLY use the word) in Congress think of it:

"The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution..."

You thinks it SUCKS.

I think it is a victory for free speech.

 

[Pitbull]

Yes... a rather illogical, far stretching, distorted conclusion that brings more meaning to your intolerant beliefs. It's either one way or the other with you, right? No "grey areas" with you, right?

I haven't seen you making any visits to the gray zone.

Nor have I seen any expressions of tolerance towards anyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I haven't seen you making any visits to the gray zone.

You can't see what you willingly ignore.

Nor have I seen any expressions of tolerance towards anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Then open your eyes once in a while.
Because quite frankly, you're more sectarian than you lead people to believe on this thread. What you say, insinuate and allude to is nothing anyone hasn't seen before. Even without derogatory language, you have one of the most socially vile viewpoints of anyone on the Politics forums. All I do is use a lot of metaphor and curse a lot. Yet, I never once suggested or alluded to practices or political causes that unfairly targeted anyone based on physical characteristics. Yet you're so convinced that I'm the problem?

One day you'll figure it out. Or not. Either way, I don't give a shit anymore.

 

[Pitbull]

Nor have I seen any expressions of tolerance towards anyone who doesn't agree with you.

How do you turn the above into the below?

Yet, I never once suggested or alluded to practices or political causes that unfairly targeted anyone based on physical characteristics.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

How do you turn the above into the below?

By reading in between the lines. Or do you think anyone here, especially me, forgets the underlaying tone of the Birther movement and your umpteen amount of posts on the matter?

You're not clever, dude. Really...
So stop with the bullshit.