Author Topic: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'  (Read 6837 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39909
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #50 on: March 11, 2010, 12:09:06 PM »
Can you appreciate the difference between an individual citizen donating (their own money) and corporations advancing causes/candidates to advance their own greed? Making that corporation an individual essentially renders you voiceless.

Despite whatever people wish to hope or think, this ruling essentially says Americans only have whatever rights they can afford. Small government republicans (if there are any left) should be mortified at handing elections over to big business.

The NRA in of itself is a corporation, as is PETA, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, etc.

   

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2010, 12:15:11 PM »
The NRA in of itself is a corporation, as is PETA, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, etc.

   

Don't let semantics get in the way of common sense, LOL! There's a difference between corporations directly funded by citizen intent and those who divert profits to specific interests that advance corporate goals.

I wouldn't really want Heineken directly lobbying congressmen to lower the drinking age or drug companies deciding what side-effects are OK.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39909
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2010, 12:18:33 PM »
Don't let semantics get in the way of common sense, LOL! There's a difference between corporations directly funded by citizen intent and those who divert profits to specific interests that advance corporate goals.

I wouldn't really want Heineken directly lobbying congressmen to lower the drinking age or drug companies deciding what side-effects are OK.

Why not?  They pay taxes and have as much a stake in the electoral process and outcome as anyone? 


drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2010, 12:25:49 PM »
Why not?  They pay taxes and have as much a stake in the electoral process and outcome as anyone? 



You'd have no problem with Cap & Trade being solely decided by political contribution?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39909
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2010, 12:28:23 PM »
You'd have no problem with Cap & Trade being solely decided by political contribution?

I agree with 100% full disclosure immediately on the internet and seeing who is donating to who. 

Crap & Tax so far has been halted by people through a lot of non-profits like CATO and Heritage Foundation, and other people getting involved, despite the monet spent by GE, NBC, GS, etc. 


drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2010, 12:51:03 PM »
I agree with 100% full disclosure immediately on the internet and seeing who is donating to who. 

Crap & Tax so far has been halted by people through a lot of non-profits like CATO and Heritage Foundation, and other people getting involved, despite the monet spent by GE, NBC, GS, etc. 



What if NAMBLA (with full disclosure, of course) donated enough money to have consent laws changed?

This gives foxes keys to the hen house and will do more harm than good.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39909
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #56 on: March 11, 2010, 12:54:07 PM »
What if NAMBLA (with full disclosure, of course) donated enough money to have consent laws changed?

This gives foxes keys to the hen house and will do more harm than good.

If NAMBLA is supporting people, the bad press would grossly outweigh the effect of their donations to the legislators.   

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2010, 12:54:50 PM »
What if NAMBLA (with full disclosure, of course) donated enough money to have consent laws changed?

This gives foxes keys to the hen house and will do more harm than good.

Do you really believe that the average American citizen would stand by and let something like that happen? I don't have much faith in the public at large but when it comes to something like this, it would not stand.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #58 on: March 11, 2010, 01:03:54 PM »
Do you really believe that the average American citizen would stand by and let something like that happen? I don't have much faith in the public at large but when it comes to something like this, it would not stand.

People stand by and let many things happen. Obviously I was using an extreme example, LOL!

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2010, 03:13:28 PM »
Wow,incredible!!!Hey jerkoff there are THREE EQUAL branches of government.Three EQUAL branches.You obviously are an idiot.Obama is a filthy liitle #### crying like a bitch that the supreme court took money out of the scum bag unions hand and put it back into Americans hands in elections!!!Roberts bitch slapped that #### and ass raped him with that decision.By the way,notice the courts TRUMP the president BITCH!!!!!!!!


at the prez of
wow...I am speechless...only a dumbass like you would have taken what I said literally!!!!...what I meant by the king of the world statement is the prez of the U.S. is the most powerful man in the world...without question...every decision he makes has global implications and affects people in other countries...as such he can criticize whomever he wants to...he's the bully on the block in this regard...if he can criticize world leaders why cant he criticize a judge???...Don't be stupid

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2010, 03:31:51 PM »
 I'm in total agreement with John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion

Corporations .... "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. "... They are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #61 on: March 13, 2010, 03:36:15 PM »
Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer:

And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.


Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:


And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63982
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #62 on: March 13, 2010, 06:10:52 PM »
I'm in total agreement with John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion

Corporations .... "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. "... They are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

Except a corporation is treated like a person under federal law: 

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals . . . ."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000001----000-.html

Note how the words take on no added meaning if I fail to use supersize font.   :)

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #63 on: March 13, 2010, 06:15:52 PM »
People will be fine with this until someone with enough money buys away some of their rights.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63982
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #64 on: March 13, 2010, 06:18:55 PM »
People will be fine with this until someone with enough money buys away some of their rights.

Dude.  Money already controls the system.  It gets people a seat at the table.  It determines legislative priorities.  It has already corrupted the system.   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #65 on: March 13, 2010, 06:30:25 PM »
Except a corporation is treated like a person under federal law:  

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals . . . ."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000001----000-.html

Note how the words take on no added meaning if I fail to use supersize font.   :)

I'm well aware that a corporation is treated like a person under federal law and I'm sure that Justice Stevens does too

when did I say otherwise.

I don't agree with it just like you probably don't agree with legal abortion

I say if corporations are people then why can't they vote, why can't they run for office, why can they have lifespans longer than any human on the planet, why can't they get cancer or or have their health affected by polution, etc...

If corporations are "people" then they are the new master race

btw - this is what supersize font looks like

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39909
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2010, 06:52:00 AM »
I'm well aware that a corporation is treated like a person under federal law and I'm sure that Justice Stevens does too

when did I say otherwise.

I don't agree with it just like you probably don't agree with legal abortion

I say if corporations are people then why can't they vote, why can't they run for office, why can they have lifespans longer than any human on the planet, why can't they get cancer or or have their health affected by polution, etc...

If corporations are "people" then they are the new master race

btw - this is what supersize font looks like

More nonsense. 

Like I keep saying and I cant get an answer for, if Obama chooses to demonize my small Sub S. Corp. consisting of below 75 shareholders 60 days prior to an election, why should the entity be prohibited from defending itself publicly by donating money to his competitor and/or running television ads on TV against him?