Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 160

Thread: Justices strike down political donor limits

  1. #131
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,080

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    In which post did you say that Corporations shouldn't have a bigger voice? I've looked through your back posts; there's nothing even remotely resembling that statement.

    Look. You made an extremely unfortunate statement; that corporations deserve the right to political speech more than a 5th grade dropout. We've all gone too far when making a point, it's understandable. However, instead of acknowledging your mistake you resort to personal insults and outright fabrications. So to answer your question, yes: I think I'm following what you're trying to do and no, it's not working.
    How about the one you quoted in #127?

  2. #132
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    No they shouldn't. In a free market, anyone should be allowed to give any amount of $$ to any candidate without having to disclose it.

    The current problem w/political donations is that those who have the connections to launder funds or transfer them directly via Swiss bank accounts have an unfair advantage over other donors.

    And that needs to end.
    Democracy is not a market.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Don't you think a partisan hack is one who is denying that your team has had 50 repeals?
    You mean stating a fact makes you a hack? There have not been 50 votes to repeal Obamacare.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    No, I don't want any ads at all. Ads don't inform the voters anyway, quite the contrary.
    Ad's do inform of positions. It is stupid to not allow candidate to use what is available in order to get them out.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  5. #135
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Any financing should be public.
    I don't agree with that. Though it does have some advantages it still think a candidate should be allowed to raise their own money. I think limits on what can be spent by a candidate on an election are fine (this could limit how much fund raising was needed) and I think that a candidate should not be allowed to keep any unspent funds in a 'slush' fund to be used at their discretion. Anything not spent on that election should be returned to the donors not be shuffled to other candidate or to the national party or held for use in the future.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  6. #136
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The corporation is property, it has no rights nor representation as it is property.
    So how come they can be sued if they are just 'property'? Can you sue a chair or a swing set or any other piece of property?
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  7. #137
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    How about the one you quoted in #127?
    You mean this one?
    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    I didn't say a bigger voice. You did.
    The post in which you denied saying that corporations are more deserving of political speech than a 5th grade dropout? (which would be here)
    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

    Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.
    What bothers me the most is that you spend so much time calling everyone else a liar, and yet seem to do it compulsively.

  8. #138
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    So how come they can be sued if they are just 'property'? Can you sue a chair or a swing set or any other piece of property?
    A corporation is a liability buffer created by the state to insulate and pool investors to promote economic growth. When you form a company you're making a pact with the state. You're getting liability protection in return for a slight loss of control. But those protections really only extend to functions related to conducting business.

    Lets do a thought experiment. Say you and your parter own a small business. There's a competitor which you don't like. So you form a third company, independent of you and your partner's first, which you use to release libellous statements against your competitor. Who's responsible for that speech? Obviously you are. The business is an entity for limited liability which only seeks to maximize profits. It doesn't have a voice, nor should it.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,080

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You mean this one?


    The post in which you denied saying that corporations are more deserving of political speech than a 5th grade dropout? (which would be here)


    What bothers me the most is that you spend so much time calling everyone else a liar, and yet seem to do it compulsively.
    Can you not see the point within? I'm emphasizing that a significant tax paying corporation that employs hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people should have a voice (right to donate politically) in a system, and that it's qualifications of doing so on paper are more deserving on point than simply being a person born in the U.S.

    I didn't say a corporation should be able to vote, or that the know-nothing citizen shouldn't. I'm saying it should have a voice by these means.

    Lots of people are more deserving than others in all matters of things. Doesn't mean fundamental rights change, however.

    It's hard to debate with box checkers.

  10. #140
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Can you not see the point within? I'm emphasizing that a significant tax paying corporation that employs hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people should have a voice (right to donate politically) in a system, and that it's qualifications of doing so on paper are more deserving on point than simply being a person born in the U.S.

    I didn't say a corporation should be able to vote, or that the know-nothing citizen shouldn't. I'm saying it should have a voice by these means.

    Lots of people are more deserving than others in all matters of things. Doesn't mean fundamental rights change, however.

    It's hard to debate with box checkers.
    Much better, bravo.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •