Freedom of speech??

[dbapig]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]This is a good example of something that could be handled by an amendment to the constitution.

Unfortunately, you would see opponents to this using their power gained by this ruling to campaign heavily against it.

Remember, we still have not even passed the equal rights amendment. Which seems simple by comparison.
Here are the exact words:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?

** Note: This message funded in part by earnings from evil corporations. opinions are those of FSD and may be reproduced without consent from anyone.[/quote]

I should add less conservatives are more sensitive (hence passionate) about account of sex.

I hope we pass the amendment to ban corporations funding without limit. We should slap the 5 Supreme Court justices with the amendment, like they should be.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]

The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]

The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]

The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]

The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Now if we couldn’t get 38 states to pass this, what are the chances on a campaign finance amendment?[/quote]

The chances are nil. It’s the same as the chicken and egg dilemma. You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[meadandale]

[quote=XBoxBoy]You can’t stop special interests buying influence until you take away campaign contributions. But you can’t take away campaign contributions until you’ve take away special interests buying influence.[/quote]

Note that Obama’s new crackdown on large banks (too big to fail) didn’t include Goldman Sachs or other large investment banks that were as culpable in the economic collapse (and in some cases moreso) than BofA and JPMorgan.

Yeah, no special interest payback there.

[Author]

Posts