As I said before, when a corporation says something, it is really someone withing the corporation saying it.
I still have a voice in the election. If I wanted to, I could start a website and post my opinions on it, just as CITGO can. I am able to say what I want, and they are able to say what they want. Neither one of us can force people to agree or even listen. Corporations will not suddenly have more power because of this.
xp9375 … As I said, yes, those individuals within corporations have every right to express their opinions. …
Do you think the Venezuelan corporation CITGO, which has American subsidiaries, should have more of a voice in our elections than you as an individual?
Corporations are made of individuals, therefore they have the rights of those individuals that make them up. When a corporation says something, it is really a statement of someone within the corporation.
Remember, many corporations are charities and humanitarian causes, and most business corporations are not going to alienate half of their customers to get their opinions out.
@MueX … Go back and read it really slowly. Nowhere did I “equate yelling fire in a theater with political speech.”
You said “There is no getting around ‘Congress shall make no law.’” (free speech is absolute). I proceeded to demonstrate a case in which that is false. That’s not a straw man. It’s called logic.
And you people have no room to talk about “that constitution thing.” Remember how respectful your boy Bush was of the Const? Of course not. “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”
I guess the conned-servatives aren’t pretending to be patriotic anymore. Now it’s OK for foreigners to be sticking their noses in our elections … “well, they’re corporations, so they’ve got to be on our side, right?”
@MueX … You really need to get a dictionary. Never made a straw-man argument, and never used an ad hominem one either. Now you’re just trying to use big terms in an attempt to impress me. Flattering, but that’s OK. You can speak at your level. I have no problem with it.
Furthermore, can you honestly say that all of the shareholders of a particular corporation would share the views being expressed by campaign ads purchased by that corporation?
” …. do not lose their … right to free speech simply because they have exercised their … right to assembly.”
Would employees and executives of corporations still have free speech rights if the “speech” of those corporations (“speech” as in “money”)? You bet. So under current law, they have the freedom of speech as individuals, in addition to the extra power that comes with being part of a corporation that can now freely spend money drowning out individuals who aren’t part of corporations.
@MueX … Didn’t say I’m a lawyer, moron, and I didn’t make a straw-man argument, either. You said you believe that “there is no getting around ‘Congress shall make no law,’” and I simply demonstrated a case in which that is false, therefore proving your absolutist statement wrong.
Oh so now you’re suddenly a constitutional lawyer…with silly oxycodone pictures probably grabbed from moveon (ohh another evil corporation with foreign funding from george soros) plastered all over his page.
So tell me, how does a constitutional lawyer end up making an obvious straw-man argument? Yelling fire in a theater, and political speech are a far cry from each other.
“I hope we shall … crush in (its) birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Does that sound like something off of a “looney liberal blog” to you? I’m sure it does, given that you’re a FOX “News” dupe. No, in fact, those are the words of Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Tom Logan, Nov. 12, 1816.
@MueX … Um, I have extensively studied constitutional law… You’re in way over your head here. “You can’t get around ’shall make no law.” Ah … but the SCOTUS has disagreed with you throughout the course of history. Ever heard that bit about how the free speech clause doesn’t protect your right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater? Guess not.
Legally, corporations are given the same status as people. I understand this concept; however, it is deeply wrong, IMO.
@xp19375 … You nailed it. “Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can.” Just as the founders would never have dreamed of giving corporations the right to vote, they never would have dreamed of giving any other fundamental rights to corporations. Of course the people that make up corporations have the right to free speech, but why should corporations, as entities, have the same rights as individuals?
Silly goose. Corporations don’t have the same rights as a person. They have the same rights de-facto. That meaning, the people who choose to assemble into a corporation, or a partnership, or a union, or a social club…do not lose their constitutional right to free speech simply because they have exercised their constitutional right to assembly.
Try reading the constitution instead of your loony liberal blogs.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You can’t get around ’shall make no law.’ We are free to assemble, yes even into corporations, and are free to say what we wish.
It is still one man, one vote. Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can. All this decision says is that corporations can say whatever they want about a candidate.
Seriously, how is this different than before? And how is this different than a commentator voicing his opinion?
@xp19375 … “Every person gets one vote, so when it comes time for the election, the people decide.”
Do you even have a clue how the American electoral system works? Are you new to my country? And do you really think masses of gullible FOX “News”-watching dupes are capable of distinguishing fact from fiction. FOX is “the most trusted ‘news’ network,” so that pretty much takes care of that question, huh?
@MueX … No, no you didn’t. Corporations, as non-human entities, do not (or should not) have the same rights as individuals. You obviously fail to grasp the possible repercussions of corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns … do you realize that the Venezuelan corporation CITGO will now have more of a voice in our elections than you? I know, I know, FOX “News” told you this was all about “free speech,” so you’ll accept no arguments to the contrary.
I don’t see any mention of Corporations being granted same rights as a person in the Constitution or Bil of Rights. It’s a very dangerous precedent that will set the stage for corporations to be able to buy elections and eventually control our government.
The only tragedy about the supreme court’s decision is that 4 justices ignored the US Constitution. The idea that terrorists have US rights and American companies do not? Yeah that’s fair! Liberals are jackass’s. They think the constitution says what it wants to.
Posted in Videos
@waydownNMway
As I said before, when a corporation says something, it is really someone withing the corporation saying it.
I still have a voice in the election. If I wanted to, I could start a website and post my opinions on it, just as CITGO can. I am able to say what I want, and they are able to say what they want. Neither one of us can force people to agree or even listen. Corporations will not suddenly have more power because of this.
xp9375 … As I said, yes, those individuals within corporations have every right to express their opinions. …
Do you think the Venezuelan corporation CITGO, which has American subsidiaries, should have more of a voice in our elections than you as an individual?
@waydownNMway
Corporations are made of individuals, therefore they have the rights of those individuals that make them up. When a corporation says something, it is really a statement of someone within the corporation.
Remember, many corporations are charities and humanitarian causes, and most business corporations are not going to alienate half of their customers to get their opinions out.
@MueX … Go back and read it really slowly. Nowhere did I “equate yelling fire in a theater with political speech.”
You said “There is no getting around ‘Congress shall make no law.’” (free speech is absolute). I proceeded to demonstrate a case in which that is false. That’s not a straw man. It’s called logic.
And you people have no room to talk about “that constitution thing.” Remember how respectful your boy Bush was of the Const? Of course not. “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”
Sorry, but equating yelling fire in a theater with political speech is certainly a straw man argument.
Claiming, “I have studied constitutional law and I art uber and you art therefore a moron” is certainly an argument by appeal to authority.
And your last statement, if that isn’t an ad-hominem then I don’t know what is.
Epic fail on your part. It’s understandable though. Always that constitution thing getting in the way, so let’s call people names instead!
I guess the conned-servatives aren’t pretending to be patriotic anymore. Now it’s OK for foreigners to be sticking their noses in our elections … “well, they’re corporations, so they’ve got to be on our side, right?”
And all that after I explained to you why my argument wasn’t a straw man. Sheesh. Paaa-thetic.
@MueX … You really need to get a dictionary. Never made a straw-man argument, and never used an ad hominem one either. Now you’re just trying to use big terms in an attempt to impress me. Flattering, but that’s OK. You can speak at your level. I have no problem with it.
Furthermore, can you honestly say that all of the shareholders of a particular corporation would share the views being expressed by campaign ads purchased by that corporation?
Oh how quaint. First a strawman with a touch of the old appeal to authority then you move on to the ad-hominem!
Got to love liberals. See you in november, with millions of other morons who actually have read that pesky constitution.
Excuse me … I meant … “if the ’speech’ of those corporations … was banned?”
” …. do not lose their … right to free speech simply because they have exercised their … right to assembly.”
Would employees and executives of corporations still have free speech rights if the “speech” of those corporations (“speech” as in “money”)? You bet. So under current law, they have the freedom of speech as individuals, in addition to the extra power that comes with being part of a corporation that can now freely spend money drowning out individuals who aren’t part of corporations.
@MueX … Didn’t say I’m a lawyer, moron, and I didn’t make a straw-man argument, either. You said you believe that “there is no getting around ‘Congress shall make no law,’” and I simply demonstrated a case in which that is false, therefore proving your absolutist statement wrong.
Oh so now you’re suddenly a constitutional lawyer…with silly oxycodone pictures probably grabbed from moveon (ohh another evil corporation with foreign funding from george soros) plastered all over his page.
So tell me, how does a constitutional lawyer end up making an obvious straw-man argument? Yelling fire in a theater, and political speech are a far cry from each other.
“I hope we shall … crush in (its) birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Does that sound like something off of a “looney liberal blog” to you? I’m sure it does, given that you’re a FOX “News” dupe. No, in fact, those are the words of Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Tom Logan, Nov. 12, 1816.
@MueX … Um, I have extensively studied constitutional law… You’re in way over your head here. “You can’t get around ’shall make no law.” Ah … but the SCOTUS has disagreed with you throughout the course of history. Ever heard that bit about how the free speech clause doesn’t protect your right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater? Guess not.
Legally, corporations are given the same status as people. I understand this concept; however, it is deeply wrong, IMO.
@xp19375 … You nailed it. “Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can.” Just as the founders would never have dreamed of giving corporations the right to vote, they never would have dreamed of giving any other fundamental rights to corporations. Of course the people that make up corporations have the right to free speech, but why should corporations, as entities, have the same rights as individuals?
Silly goose. Corporations don’t have the same rights as a person. They have the same rights de-facto. That meaning, the people who choose to assemble into a corporation, or a partnership, or a union, or a social club…do not lose their constitutional right to free speech simply because they have exercised their constitutional right to assembly.
Try reading the constitution instead of your loony liberal blogs.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You can’t get around ’shall make no law.’ We are free to assemble, yes even into corporations, and are free to say what we wish.
@waydownNMway
It is still one man, one vote. Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can. All this decision says is that corporations can say whatever they want about a candidate.
Seriously, how is this different than before? And how is this different than a commentator voicing his opinion?
@xp19375 … “Every person gets one vote, so when it comes time for the election, the people decide.”
Do you even have a clue how the American electoral system works? Are you new to my country? And do you really think masses of gullible FOX “News”-watching dupes are capable of distinguishing fact from fiction. FOX is “the most trusted ‘news’ network,” so that pretty much takes care of that question, huh?
@MueX … No, no you didn’t. Corporations, as non-human entities, do not (or should not) have the same rights as individuals. You obviously fail to grasp the possible repercussions of corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns … do you realize that the Venezuelan corporation CITGO will now have more of a voice in our elections than you? I know, I know, FOX “News” told you this was all about “free speech,” so you’ll accept no arguments to the contrary.
this guy has NO credibility…..
I don’t see any mention of Corporations being granted same rights as a person in the Constitution or Bil of Rights. It’s a very dangerous precedent that will set the stage for corporations to be able to buy elections and eventually control our government.
The only tragedy about the supreme court’s decision is that 4 justices ignored the US Constitution. The idea that terrorists have US rights and American companies do not? Yeah that’s fair! Liberals are jackass’s. They think the constitution says what it wants to.