Freedom of speech??

[Casca]

It’s disconcerting to see how many people comment here without actually understanding what this decision was about. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. If you want to rule out specific organizations of individuals, where do you stop? Unions are OK, but corporations are bad? What kind of whacko thinking is that?

Whomever observed that the real problem is the size and scope of government is right. Return to the days when our constitution meant something, and the problem will resolve itself.

[patb]

[quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.

It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

And I find it funny that so many of you are insinuating that foreigners are not covered by our constitution when that is exactly what people have been saying in support of the civil trials of the Guantanamo prisoners…who are clearly foreigners.

Finally, let’s not forget…is it right that Fox or MSNBC gets free reign as a corporation to spout whatever viewpoint on their ‘news’ programs they want while non news corporations are essentially neutered with respect to the political process?

Admit it, you have no problem with corporate involvement in elections if it helps YOUR guy. You’re just worried that it is going to help the OTHER guy.

Frankly, we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable to make sure that they aren’t favoring corporate constituents at the expense of the populace. This influence already exists. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for people to get off their asses.[/quote]

The Constitution refers to the (People.persons,citizens) 115 times,
to the states 135 times and to corporations?

Zero times.

The founders knew what joint stock companies were

they gave them nothing for good reasons
The States 25 times

[patb]

[quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.

It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

And I find it funny that so many of you are insinuating that foreigners are not covered by our constitution when that is exactly what people have been saying in support of the civil trials of the Guantanamo prisoners…who are clearly foreigners.

Finally, let’s not forget…is it right that Fox or MSNBC gets free reign as a corporation to spout whatever viewpoint on their ‘news’ programs they want while non news corporations are essentially neutered with respect to the political process?

Admit it, you have no problem with corporate involvement in elections if it helps YOUR guy. You’re just worried that it is going to help the OTHER guy.

Frankly, we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable to make sure that they aren’t favoring corporate constituents at the expense of the populace. This influence already exists. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for people to get off their asses.[/quote]

The Constitution refers to the (People.persons,citizens) 115 times,
to the states 135 times and to corporations?

Zero times.

The founders knew what joint stock companies were

they gave them nothing for good reasons
The States 25 times

[patb]

[quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.

It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

And I find it funny that so many of you are insinuating that foreigners are not covered by our constitution when that is exactly what people have been saying in support of the civil trials of the Guantanamo prisoners…who are clearly foreigners.

Finally, let’s not forget…is it right that Fox or MSNBC gets free reign as a corporation to spout whatever viewpoint on their ‘news’ programs they want while non news corporations are essentially neutered with respect to the political process?

Admit it, you have no problem with corporate involvement in elections if it helps YOUR guy. You’re just worried that it is going to help the OTHER guy.

Frankly, we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable to make sure that they aren’t favoring corporate constituents at the expense of the populace. This influence already exists. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for people to get off their asses.[/quote]

The Constitution refers to the (People.persons,citizens) 115 times,
to the states 135 times and to corporations?

Zero times.

The founders knew what joint stock companies were

they gave them nothing for good reasons
The States 25 times

[patb]

[quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.

It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

And I find it funny that so many of you are insinuating that foreigners are not covered by our constitution when that is exactly what people have been saying in support of the civil trials of the Guantanamo prisoners…who are clearly foreigners.

Finally, let’s not forget…is it right that Fox or MSNBC gets free reign as a corporation to spout whatever viewpoint on their ‘news’ programs they want while non news corporations are essentially neutered with respect to the political process?

Admit it, you have no problem with corporate involvement in elections if it helps YOUR guy. You’re just worried that it is going to help the OTHER guy.

Frankly, we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable to make sure that they aren’t favoring corporate constituents at the expense of the populace. This influence already exists. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for people to get off their asses.[/quote]

The Constitution refers to the (People.persons,citizens) 115 times,
to the states 135 times and to corporations?

Zero times.

The founders knew what joint stock companies were

they gave them nothing for good reasons
The States 25 times

[patb]

[quote=meadandale]Funny, the first amendment says nothing about the first amendment right to free speech applying to ‘humans’ as opposed to corporations.

It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

And I find it funny that so many of you are insinuating that foreigners are not covered by our constitution when that is exactly what people have been saying in support of the civil trials of the Guantanamo prisoners…who are clearly foreigners.

Finally, let’s not forget…is it right that Fox or MSNBC gets free reign as a corporation to spout whatever viewpoint on their ‘news’ programs they want while non news corporations are essentially neutered with respect to the political process?

Admit it, you have no problem with corporate involvement in elections if it helps YOUR guy. You’re just worried that it is going to help the OTHER guy.

Frankly, we need to hold ALL of our representatives accountable to make sure that they aren’t favoring corporate constituents at the expense of the populace. This influence already exists. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for people to get off their asses.[/quote]

The Constitution refers to the (People.persons,citizens) 115 times,
to the states 135 times and to corporations?

Zero times.

The founders knew what joint stock companies were

they gave them nothing for good reasons
The States 25 times

[Noob]

I am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.

This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.

Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.

As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?

As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.

[Noob]

I am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.

This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.

Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.

As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?

As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.

[Noob]

I am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.

This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.

Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.

As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?

As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.

[Noob]

I am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.

This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.

Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.

As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?

As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.

[Noob]

I am very surprised by the outrage and concern that is directed at corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of owners who have under a legal entity joined together to achieve a common (economic) goal. They have political interests to achieve these goals.

This is no different that a labor union, also covered under this finding, yet there is no outrage directed at them.

Its the same as a political party. Its nothing more than collection of citizens who have a common (political) goal. Why not prevent them from advertising for a candidate or political cause? I believe that political parties are very similar to corporations.

As far a non-citizens (foreigners) influencing an election, it cuts both ways. Why do you think B.O. spoke before a German audience in Germany during his election campaign?

As long as Americans have the right to free association, they will band together to promote common interests, even at the expense of others outside of their cause. Political speech should be free for everyone; unionists, political parties, ethnic groups, and yes corporations who have economic interests.

[Arraya]

Everybody’s seen the Alien movies correct? (If not, run now to your video store and view with all this subject matter in mind.) If so:

Recall, that the Corporation handled everything. There was no government. The corp sent the marines, the corp sent the mining gear, the corp ran the prisons. Note also how titles were largely military–Flight Lt, corporal, etc. The science side of things was hand n glove with both resource extraction and security to include assaults. The interesting thing about the ‘Alien’ itself is usually lost on even smart viewers, but the thing to take away is that while humanity under the controls of a single super-corporation seeks to expand it’s sphere of control out to the farthest reaches of the known universe, the Alien is admired by the corporation for it’s anti-human and anti-social nature.

[Arraya]

Everybody’s seen the Alien movies correct? (If not, run now to your video store and view with all this subject matter in mind.) If so:

Recall, that the Corporation handled everything. There was no government. The corp sent the marines, the corp sent the mining gear, the corp ran the prisons. Note also how titles were largely military–Flight Lt, corporal, etc. The science side of things was hand n glove with both resource extraction and security to include assaults. The interesting thing about the ‘Alien’ itself is usually lost on even smart viewers, but the thing to take away is that while humanity under the controls of a single super-corporation seeks to expand it’s sphere of control out to the farthest reaches of the known universe, the Alien is admired by the corporation for it’s anti-human and anti-social nature.

[Arraya]

Everybody’s seen the Alien movies correct? (If not, run now to your video store and view with all this subject matter in mind.) If so:

Recall, that the Corporation handled everything. There was no government. The corp sent the marines, the corp sent the mining gear, the corp ran the prisons. Note also how titles were largely military–Flight Lt, corporal, etc. The science side of things was hand n glove with both resource extraction and security to include assaults. The interesting thing about the ‘Alien’ itself is usually lost on even smart viewers, but the thing to take away is that while humanity under the controls of a single super-corporation seeks to expand it’s sphere of control out to the farthest reaches of the known universe, the Alien is admired by the corporation for it’s anti-human and anti-social nature.

[Arraya]

Everybody’s seen the Alien movies correct? (If not, run now to your video store and view with all this subject matter in mind.) If so:

Recall, that the Corporation handled everything. There was no government. The corp sent the marines, the corp sent the mining gear, the corp ran the prisons. Note also how titles were largely military–Flight Lt, corporal, etc. The science side of things was hand n glove with both resource extraction and security to include assaults. The interesting thing about the ‘Alien’ itself is usually lost on even smart viewers, but the thing to take away is that while humanity under the controls of a single super-corporation seeks to expand it’s sphere of control out to the farthest reaches of the known universe, the Alien is admired by the corporation for it’s anti-human and anti-social nature.

[Author]

Posts