Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 29, 2012, 11:51:50 AM
-
Dem Rep. Hank Johnson: Amend Constitution to Restrict Freedom of Speech
CNSNews.com ^ | Nov 29 2012 | Eric Scheiner
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:44:38 PM
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.
"We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations," said Johnson.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government. They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case,” Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum in Georgia in October.
“They control the patterns of thinking," said Johnson. "They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government--don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
“And these folks," Johnson said, "are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is that corporations have a right to freedom of speech, including the right to speak about politicians and federal officeholders during an election year.
-
Pic or it didn't happen.
Wonder how hank earns a living.
-
Corporations pouring money into elections = Bad
Public and Private Unions pouring money into elections = No problem!
-
Corporations pouring money into elections = Bad
Public and Private Unions pouring money into elections = No problem!
both are bad.
-
Dem Rep. Hank Johnson: Amend Constitution to Restrict Freedom of Speech
CNSNews.com ^ | Nov 29 2012 | Eric Scheiner
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:44:38 PM
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.
"We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations," said Johnson.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government. They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case,” Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum in Georgia in October.
“They control the patterns of thinking," said Johnson. "They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government--don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
“And these folks," Johnson said, "are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is that corporations have a right to freedom of speech, including the right to speak about politicians and federal officeholders during an election year.
Corporations are not people and I see nothing wrong with this. Nice title though, not misleading at all.
-
Corporations are not people and I see nothing wrong with this. Nice title though, not misleading at all.
It just opens the flood gates. I agree, I think that corporations aren't people and shouldn't be protected as such, but I see that once you start limiting aspects of free speech in one area, where does it stop?
-
Notice how there's no call to restrict lobbying or dismantle the Chamber of Commerce. Just political pandering that has zero effect on the root of the issues.
-
It just opens the flood gates. I agree, I think that corporations aren't people and shouldn't be protected as such, but I see that once you start limiting aspects of free speech in one area, where does it stop?
This. He makes good points but severely bad idea, and misguided.
-
the term "corporation" is just that - a term.
"corporations" arent physical entities capable of making decisions and spending money. a "corporation" is a legal entity, and anything a corporation "does" is necessarily performed by PEOPLE.
thus, corporations dont speak. they dont contribute funds. PEOPLE DO. the people who run the corporation.
maybe if corporations were actual physical entities capable of making decisions and performing actions on their own and independant of human involvement would this be a legitamate issue. but they arent.
-
Dem Rep. Hank Johnson: Amend Constitution to Restrict Freedom of Speech
CNSNews.com ^ | Nov 29 2012 | Eric Scheiner
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:44:38 PM
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.
"We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations," said Johnson.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government. They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case,” Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum in Georgia in October.
“They control the patterns of thinking," said Johnson. "They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government--don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
“And these folks," Johnson said, "are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is that corporations have a right to freedom of speech, including the right to speak about politicians and federal officeholders during an election year.
I agree.
No more Romneys.
-
both are bad.
agreed
-
agreed
-
both are bad.
Indeed.
-
Business monopolies can only exist because of government support.
Both groups are afraid of a true free market.
-
Business monopolies can only exist because of government support.
Both groups are afraid of a true free market.
Absolutely correct. Just talk a look at the telecom and cable industries.
-
Absolutely correct. Just talk a look at the telecom and cable industries.
I've never understood why they go after Microsoft, and yet the communications conglomerates can't be touched. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
-
Hahahahahaha! I remember this one. ;D
-
Hahahahahaha! I remember this one. ;D
Yeah, what a buffoon. His "retconned" explanation of what he meant funny despite being so obviously forced. How do people like this get elected to Congress?
-
Yeah, what a buffoon. His "retconned" explanation of what he meant funny despite being so obviously forced. How do people like this get elected to Congress?
It happens too often unfortunately. He's probably from a district that votes along party lines. I've seen a number of people like that elected. :-\
-
Business monopolies can only exist because of government support.
Both groups are afraid of a true free market.
excuse me? monopolies can only exist with government support? are you joking? do people with wealth not have the ability to hire mercenaries and force their will upon the people? are business owners unable to dominate a market by way of price gouging and buying competitors, resources, etc ?
-
The ignorance and stupidity of elected officials who are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution never fails to amaze me.
And Oz-- As much as I find your mindless insistance on trumpeting the tired "money out of politics", "everyone is equally bad" mantra, I have a holistic solution.
The best way to eliminate the rampant culture of corruption in Washington is as follows: (1) Mandatory term limits for both houses of Congress. (2) No more public funding of elections on the state, federal or local level. (3) A Constitutional Balanced budget amendment. (4) Nationalize all Congressional elections. (5) Eliminate all forms of corporate welfare. (6) Eliminate public sector unions completely. (7) Re-institute Glass Stegal
Enacting the above solutions will ensure that the private sector is substantially walled off from Government. It will reduce crony capitalism. It will stop the collapsing yet expanding welfare state; the most egregious example of money-- My money, your money and the wealth of future generations from being stolen before it is earned by the government. It will help reverse course from the impending disaster of unfunded liabilities and municipal bond defaults. It will end too big to fail.
A few lobbyists trying to convince politicians to do this or that isn't the real problem. The government has no money of its own. It can only function through money confiscated from the productive members of society. Take a sledge hammer to these multidecade, beltway insider, career political hacks and it will go a long way through re-establishing a representative government that acts for the good of the people.
-
The ignorance and stupidity of elected officials who are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution never fails to amaze me.
And Oz-- As much as I find your mindless insistance on trumpeting the tired "money out of politics", "everyone is equally bad" mantra, I have a holistic solution.
The best way to eliminate the rampant culture of corruption in Washington is as follows: (1) Mandatory term limits for both houses of Congress. (2) No more public funding of elections on the state, federal or local level. (3) A Constitutional Balanced budget amendment. (4) Nationalize all Congressional elections. (5) Eliminate all forms of corporate welfare. (6) Eliminate public sector unions completely. (7) Re-institute Glass Stegal
Enacting the above solutions will ensure that the private sector is substantially walled off from Government. It will reduce crony capitalism. It will stop the collapsing yet expanding welfare state; the most egregious example of money-- My money, your money and the wealth of future generations from being stolen before it is earned by the government. It will help reverse course from the impending disaster of unfunded liabilities and municipal bond defaults. It will end too big to fail.
A few lobbyists trying to convince politicians to do this or that isn't the real problem. The government has no money of its own. It can only function through money confiscated from the productive members of society. Take a sledge hammer to these multidecade, beltway insider, career political hacks and it will go a long way through re-establishing a representative government that acts for the good of the people.
Everyone is not equally bad. Each side is compromised of good and bad people some worse than others some better than others....some very much in someone's pocket some not.
However, can we agree the system the way its stands isn't working well and isn't truly representative government?
-
george whorewell .. some of my opinions on your plan=
arbitrary term limits are, by definition, undemocratic! as such, i whole-heartedly reject the idea.
balanced budget amendment? forcing congress to pass a balanced budget? DEPENDS! what happens if they dont pass a balanced budget? some people advocate taking away the salaries of the representatives. I dont support that idea! sounds like a good way to increase corruption. Instead i would rather support a penalty of being banned from re-election. that is to say, if a balanced budget isnt passed then all the representatives are prohibited from running for re-election after their current term expires.
nationalize congressional elections? define this for me.
ban public sector unions? absolutely not!! the right of individuals to organize and campaign is essential to personal freedom and the preservation of liberty!
end corporate welfaree? absolutely!
no more public funding of elections? not sure why you would recommend that! although im not necessarily opposed! explain , if you will.
repeal glass stegal? no thank you! personal financial decisions are personal financial decisions and the government should stay the fuck out !
-
Public sector unions are able to help select (through elections) the people with whom they must negotiate, and who will approve, or deny, their salary increases. Can you imagine private sector employees being able to elect the people who call the shots (for the management side) during their contract negotiations, and eventually approve their contract?
-
Dem Rep. Hank Johnson: Amend Constitution to Restrict Freedom of Speech
CNSNews.com ^ | Nov 29 2012 | Eric Scheiner
Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:44:38 PM
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says, “corporations control the patterns of thinking” in the United States and that the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.
"We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations," said Johnson.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government. They’re stealing the government and the U.S. Supreme Court was a big enabler with the Citizens United case,” Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum in Georgia in October.
“They control the patterns of thinking," said Johnson. "They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government--don’t want government, but keep your hands off of my Medicare by the way. I mean, we are all confused people and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
“And these folks," Johnson said, "are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission is that corporations have a right to freedom of speech, including the right to speak about politicians and federal officeholders during an election year.
This is so absurdly being taken out of context it's fucking sad beyond repair. You have got to be fucking kidding me. ::)
-
Even FDR was vehemently opposed to Public Sector Unions. Employees subsidized by taxpayer money should be barred from exerting undue influence over the political process period. Private sector unions are fine with me. They are involved in labor with a private entity and as such can negotiate, bargain and attempt to influence the terms of their employment through any legal avenues available. Public Sector Employees are a cancer on this Nation and should be banned.
And I didn't write repeal glass stegal. The operative provisions of the law were repealed decades ago. It needs to be re-enacted.
Term limits will prevent power hungry political hacks from cementing permanent seats in the legislature. It will end the concept of "safe districts". It is extremely difficult to unseat incumbent politicians for obvious reasons. Often incumbents use every dirty trick in the book to hold onto their seat and often succeed in doing so. Term limits will break up the status quo, business as usual cronism that is part and parcel of Washington DC.
Ending the public funding of elections= No taxpayer money will be used to fund candidates for public office.
-
Even FDR was vehemently opposed to Public Sector Unions. Employees subsidized by taxpayer money should be barred from exerting undue influence over the political process period. Private sector unions are fine with me. They are involved in labor with a private entity and as such can negotiate, bargain and attempt to influence the terms of their employment through any legal avenues available. Public Sector Employees are a cancer on this Nation and should be banned.
And I didn't write repeal glass stegal. The operative provisions of the law were repealed decades ago. It needs to be re-enacted.
Term limits will prevent power hungry political hacks from cementing permanent seats in the legislature. It will end the concept of "safe districts". It is extremely difficult to unseat incumbent politicians for obvious reasons. Often incumbents use every dirty trick in the book to hold onto their seat and often succeed in doing so. Term limits will break up the status quo, business as usual cronism that is part and parcel of Washington DC.
Ending the public funding of elections= No taxpayer money will be used to fund candidates for public office.
Great post.
-
Even FDR was vehemently opposed to Public Sector Unions. Employees subsidized by taxpayer money should be barred from exerting undue influence over the political process period. Private sector unions are fine with me. They are involved in labor with a private entity and as such can negotiate, bargain and attempt to influence the terms of their employment through any legal avenues available. Public Sector Employees are a cancer on this Nation and should be banned.
your being an authoritarian; an oppressive, freedom killing, authoritarian. it doesnt matter who employs a person, that person ought to be able to organize with whomever they so wish and campaign for whatever cause they so wish. in my opinion the only legitamate justification for the use of force is to prevent someone from oppressing the freedom of another. using force to prevent peaceful people from doing peaceful things is just plain contradictory to the idea of FREEDOM.
And I didn't write repeal glass stegal. The operative provisions of the law were repealed decades ago. It needs to be re-enacted.
the government really shouldnt be getting inbetween two consenting individuals in any dealings they wish to engage in so long as their dealing doesnt involve oppressing the freedom of others. as such, allowing the merger of savings and investment banks is essential to preserving freedom.
Term limits will prevent power hungry political hacks from cementing permanent seats in the legislature. It will end the concept of "safe districts". It is extremely difficult to unseat incumbent politicians for obvious reasons. Often incumbents use every dirty trick in the book to hold onto their seat and often succeed in doing so. Term limits will break up the status quo, business as usual cronism that is part and parcel of Washington DC.
telling people they can not vote for whom they wish to vote for is dy definition undemocratic. its my vote and i can shhould be able to vote for whomever i so wish. also, i do not think term limits would be the most effective solution to combating "safe districts". i think the gerrymandering that occurs during redistricting is much more of the issue in that regards.
Ending the public funding of elections= No taxpayer money will be used to fund candidates for public office.
i still dont see how this could help achieve your objective. if anything i would think that public funding of elections would decrease the power of special interests, not increase.
:)
-
No offense, but it is tiresome explaining these things to you. You literally know nothing about the topics being discussed, yet you have a very rigid point of view. Why do so many ignorant people have opinions on political matters they don't comprehend and don't bother to investigate for themselves? You don't know what Glass Stegal's legislative purpose or effect was. You don't know when it was repealed, why it was repealed or what has happened since. You can't comprehend the difference between public and private sector unions. You don't know how budgets are passed in Congress. This is like trying to describe the colors of the rainbow to someone who was born blind.
You need to educate yourself before we can have an intelligent discussion.
Until then, engaging you on political matters is pointless. You lack the knowledge and understanding to formulate a coherent point of view.
-
No offense, but it is tiresome explaining these things to you. You literally know nothing about the topics being discussed, yet you have a very rigid point of view. Why do so many ignorant people have opinions on political matters they don't comprehend and don't bother to investigate for themselves? You don't know what Glass Stegal's legislative purpose or effect was. You don't know when it was repealed, why it was repealed or what has happened since. You can't comprehend the difference between public and private sector unions. You don't know how budgets are passed in Congress. This is like trying to describe the colors of the rainbow to someone who was born blind.
You need to educate yourself before we can have an intelligent discussion.
Until then, engaging you on political matters is pointless. You lack the knowledge and understanding to formulate a coherent point of view.
-
well, let me try to help clarify my understandings for you..
glass stegal, havent researched it extensively but i know it was, at least in part, having to do with keeping investment and savings banks from merging. i believe it was repealed in the late 90's to allow the merger of two such banks, and at the epicenter of the 2008 crisis stood those two same banks and the crisis was much worse because of their codependance/intermingling.
public sector unions are unions made up of government employees while private sector unions are made up of workers employed by private industry.
budgets are passed when both the house and senate come to an agreement and have the necessary votes.
now, if you feel that i am mistaken about something, please do let me know.
otherwise, how about you address the last points i made? :)
-
hank = typical craxk head