FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

corporations are special interests with the primary objective of extracting wealth
from the collective, which is not a worthy endeavor. They should not be afforded constitutional rights.

Each of us owes it to himself to extract MAXIMUM wealth from the collective.

Unselfishness is perversity.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

"the good of the many out weights the good of the few, or the one"

Spock, Star Trek

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
nor should it be, but we will put down into the Constitution that corporations are not people,
and are not afforded constitutional rights.
The special interest groups must be stoutly protected or we shud just FORGET about democracy.

Indeed. A democracy without protections for minority interests would be a shitty place for anyone to live. JFK hit the nail on the head when he said "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." The anti-corporation attitudes on display here betray profound ignorance. Ask any former Soviet how great it is when the government rules private profit as an unworthy endeavor.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

A democracy without protections for minority interests would be a shitty place for anyone to live.

Corporate America as a minority interest??!! Now that is funny. Educate yourself on American history post Reagan and then say that with a straight face.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
nor should it be, but we will put down into the Constitution that corporations are not people,
and are not afforded constitutional rights.
The special interest groups must be stoutly protected or we shud just FORGET about democracy.
Indeed. A democracy without protections for minority interests would be a shitty place for anyone to live. JFK hit the nail on the head when he said "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." The anti-corporation attitudes on display here betray profound ignorance. Ask any former Soviet how great it is when the government rules private profit as an unworthy endeavor.

To that, I will add that the relationship between government
and the individual citizen is ADVERSARIAL.
Government power, the ability to re-shape the polity
according to the tastes of the politicians, is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to personal freedom.

The ordinary citizen works, comes home tired, wants to eat,
& sleep. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for him to defend his interests
from government interference and curtailment by himself.
He CANNOT look over the shoulder of all the politicians
in the US Senate, the House, the Presidency and all of its
administrative agencies, each house of his State legislature,
his State Governor, and a variety of local governments,
county, city, boro, villiage, hamlet; its HOPELESS.
The only possible way for him to keep those politicians in line
is to have special interest groups who r dedicated to that
(be thay labor union, small business owners, Sierra Club, NRA,
investment opportunity clubs, tax interest groups, retirement finance groups,
educational groups, near ad infinitum).

The citizens shoud not find out TOO LATE about issues of controversy
having been disposed of before he can render his input,
calling or writing his representatives. Without special interest groups:
the citizen is SCREWED, and the politicians just do
whatever thay damn please with the country, or the county
and his rights are at their discretion. The citizen NEEDS
to find out to enable his democratic participation
in telling the politician: vote my way, or I'll remember next November.

Yesterday, the USSC put the citizen back in charge,
rescuing democracy from oligarchy.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yesterday, the USSC put the citizen back in charge,
rescuing democracy from oligarchy.

I think it did the opposite. By allowing corporations (with very limited responsibility back to citizens) the same rights as citizens, it allowed the oligarchy to have significantly more weight than citizens. Suppose that Exxon decided to campaign for Obama. Exxon can drop $1 billion on an election without batting an eye, more than the vaulted Obama machine raised over the entire campaign. After all, its 2008 profit was $45 billion. Compare that to the overall cost of the 2008 Presidential election - $1.6 billion for both sides combined. That included record donations by citizens both by number and by amount. That means that Exxon could easily spend as much as the best funded campaign in history. A few oligarchs can outspend the entire politically active population of the US. Heck, Exxon can spend $2 billion and beat both camps. They could spend $6 billion and outspend both Presidential candidates as well as every congressional candidate. When one US corporation using 15% of their yearly profits can completely control the airwaves for every congressional seat and the Presidency, how do you feel that supports the little guy?

2 Replies

@engineer,

Your post proceeds from the unwarranted assumption that David thinks about what he writes before he posts it.

0 Replies

@engineer,

It woud not have mattered if TRILLIONS of $$ had been spent:
I still woud not have voted for Obama.

Is that how YOU decide how to vote ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You're ducking the argument. It's a proven fact that if you have dramatically more money, you can get your argument out, you can smother the other candidates' arguments, you can control the spin, etc. Yes, a certain percentage of the voting public will not be swayed regardless of how much money is spent, but clearly if you spend enough money, you can influence enough of the vote to get a majority. Corporations control insane amounts of money, are controlled by a very few people (oligarchs to use your term), have very limited accountability to the general public and have a driving interest in affecting the results of elections. Why do you feel this ruling empowers the little guy?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Well, Bill..

Congress can give corporations personhood rights to conduct business and restrict their ability to interfere in politics if my amendment is passed. What part do you have a problem with? Why should corporations have the same political rights as an American citizen? Are they citizens?

0 Replies

The ruling cuts both ways since it allows any entity to electioneer with unlimited funds, including private citizens who just happen to be billionaires, big business, big labor and special interest groups.

The Left will howl about big business and the Right will howl about the unions and we'll all howl about a politician we just know has been bought by big (fill in the blank). (Some of them are anyway through shadow PACs, but of course don't tell us. Heck, even the government can buy them off -- think Nebraska and Louisiana for a recent example, special rebates for special states anyone?)

I'll put fresh batteries in the remote and use the mute button often, I'm sure, but the alternative, restricting free speech, isn't all that palatable to me either. My mind isn't 100% made up; I've yet to read Justice Stevens' 90 page dissent.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Such an amendment would be unconstitutionally vague on its face, and therefore be unenforceable anyway.

How can an amendment to the constitution be "unconstitutionally vague"? If something is in the constitution it can't be "unconstitutional".

There is little question that parts of the current constitution are vague... this part for example.

Quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Quote:

The idea of revisiting mountains of case law with an insistence that no opinion involving a natural person should be interpreted to include a “corporate person” is really pretty silly.

Who said anything about needing to revisit case law? Congress can decide to grant whatever they want to corporations. What case law are you specifically referring to where corporations are granted constitutional rights?

1 Reply

the campaign ads are gonna be spectacular now that the sky is the limit, i'm betting on 3D Imax

Libratard: The Movie - blue skinned citizens defeat the evil corporations and army to live in a world of peace and enlightenment, until the sequel in november 2010 and 2012, Repulitard: The Movie - evil corporations and the army kill everybody who doesn't look like them and then exploit all the resources for their own purposes

1 Reply

@djjd62,

LOL!

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

1. Corporate Personhood is not a figment of his imagination. (Research a little before digging deeper.)

Bill, I understand that 'corporate personhood' is a real concept and has many legal meanings; but that phrase was never intended to grant corporations ALL the rights of a person. And it's easy to understand why: they don't have the RESPONSIBILITIES of a person.

Quote:

2. Celebrating the defense of the very first item on the Bill of Rights is hardly unpatriotic. (What an absurd conclusion, that.)

This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment at all, really; nothing barred ACTUAL PERSONS from expressing themselves as much as they liked, before this terrible ruling. It only allows corporations to exert ever-growing influence over our system. I can't believe that you'd be for that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
corporations are special interests with the primary objective of extracting wealth
from the collective, which is not a worthy endeavor. They should not be afforded constitutional rights.
Each of us owes it to himself to extract MAXIMUM wealth from the collective.

Unselfishness is perversity.

What an unbelievable attitude. As I thought, your answers to these questions have been quite revealing; you truly believe this, that the maximum good is found in maximum greed?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Quote:

The Left will howl about big business and the Right will howl about the unions

This is a false canard - 'big business' has exponentially more money to spend on this stuff than the unions do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
corporations are special interests with the primary objective of extracting wealth
from the collective, which is not a worthy endeavor. They should not be afforded constitutional rights.
Each of us owes it to himself to extract MAXIMUM wealth from the collective.

Unselfishness is perversity.

What an unbelievable attitude. As I thought, your answers to these questions have been quite revealing;
you truly believe this, that the maximum good is found in maximum greed?

Cycloptichorn

Yes; each of us owes it to himself
to be as greedy as possible (not stingy, but greedy)
thus to promote a hedonic maximum !

Anyone who is unselfish is a misfitted weirdo freak; gross !

Its very rong, unnatural and unAmerican.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Its very rong, unnatural and unAmerican.

You are simply incorrect, and I submit that you understand little about 'being American.' You are appealing to the worst of humanity's nature, pretending it is a virtue. It is not.

Greed is a vice, not a virtue. It leads humans to abandon their humanity in pursuit of crass material goods.

I am filled with pity for you, sir.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

I forgot to point out, that this ruling allows foreign companies to use their money to influence our elections, and how anyone can think this is a positive thing, I don't know.

viz:

http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

FREEDOM IS RESTORED: 1st AMENDMENT WINS!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know