Page 72 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 1049

Thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

  1. #711
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    I'm not holding my breath though ...
    He's probably too busy watching TV, being influenced by evil corporate ads.

  2. #712
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by U.S. Army Retired View Post
    This is great news indeed. This means if Palin runs for Pres the Oil Companies can endorse her and donate big to her campaign which I will support and donate to. The 1st Ammendment prevails. Now if the SCOTUS would enforce Article 2 Sec 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution requiring you have to be a Natural Born Citizen to be President reflecting on the usurper Obama, everything would be ok.
    Yes, imagine Palin with a billion in her war chest, and from only one company. She could go ahead and buy CNN and we could watch her all day.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #713
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Really? Who is selling?

    Seriously, buying votes is illegal. If a voter freely chooses to vote for someone based on the ads he or she saw on TV, that's democracy. You have no right to tell voters they are too dumb to hear certain speech just because you don't like it or think it's too much. Pretty simple concept.
    Pretty simple if you don't give a !*%$ about the democratic process. Inevitably, no one who is independent of corporate money will be able to rise and run for office. So what difference does it make to have a vote?

  4. #714
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Pretty simple if you don't give a !*%$ about the democratic process. Inevitably, no one who is independent of corporate money will be able to rise and run for office. So what difference does it make to have a vote?
    Um, if everyone is voting for those who have corporate money, then the voters must be happy with those who have corporate money. They watch the ads, and they respond to them. Nothing is forcing them to do that. Nothing is preventing them from learning plenty about the other candidates by reading a newspaper or looking them up on the internet.

    The voters choose. They have all the power. They are making choices based on certain information, and you don't like those choices but that's too bad. They are not brainwashed idiots. If you think they are, you're the one with a problem with democracy.

    I don't know how to put it any more bluntly - you lose, get over it. The voters choose candidates with corporate money. It's their choice.
    Last edited by misterman; 01-29-10 at 12:24 AM.

  5. #715
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Um, if everyone is voting for those who have corporate money, then the voters must be happy with those who have corporate money. They watch the ads, and they respond to them. Nothing is forcing them to do that. Nothing is preventing them from learning plenty about the other candidates by reading a newspaper or looking them up on the internet.

    The voters choose. They have all the power. They are making choices based on certain information, and you don't like those choices but that's too bad. They are not brainwashed idiots. If you think they are, you're the one with a problem with democracy.



    I don't know how to put it any more bluntly - you lose, get over it. The voters choose candidates with corporate money. It's their choice.
    They don't have a choice to begin with. The have democrats and republicans! They have faux choices most of the time. Unlike you, I would like the voters to have real choices.

  6. #716
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    They don't have a choice to begin with. The have democrats and republicans! They have faux choices most of the time. Unlike you, I would like the voters to have real choices.
    That is much more the fault of ballot access laws than corporations.

  7. #717
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    All of them are non-absolute. Legal absolutes are virtually impracticable. Something always goes wrong. Like:

    1. Random stranger comes into your house, steps on top of your living room table, and begins a monologue on the importance of saving white tigers, then vigorously protests when the police come to drag him off on the grounds he is being physically prevented from performing his free speech right. If the free speech right were absolute, then the property right would have to give and be the temporal right that gets trumped.
    This doesn't make any sense. You say rights aren't absolute, and use this as an example, but breaking into someone's house and blabbering about white tigers is not a right, so how have you've demonstrated that rights are not absolute?

    2. Guy cites privacy right when police have compelling evidence items incriminating him in a murder are hidden in his house. Search warrants would not exist if the privacy right was being practiced as an absolute.
    Again, you say rights aren't absolute, and use this as an example, but refusing a lawful search warrant is not a right, so how have you demonstrated that rights are not absolute?

    And so on. Material necessity compels us to interpret and practice our constitutional rights as non-absolutes. This has had the unfortunate side effect of diluting their potency, but there's not much we can do if we want to have both property rights and free speech rights, for example.
    We can violate rights, but we cannot take them away. You don't seem to understand the difference.

  8. #718
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Actually, it's not fascist at all. Corporations are not people. People have rights in this country; big business does not.

    I know your righties don't like anything that limits big busineses corrupting influence... but that is, as you so nicely put it, of little consequence.
    Corporations are made up of people. Those people can pool their resources and endorse whatever candidate or position they want. They can even do so in the name of their business. I'm not sure why this is so confusing to you.

  9. #719
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    That is much more the fault of ballot access laws than corporations.
    Sure, I favor instant run-off and other measures to expand choices but I don't know how you can deny that money is not a major factor in limiting choices.

  10. #720
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Sure, I favor instant run-off and other measures to expand choices but I don't know how you can deny that money is not a major factor in limiting choices.
    Money can not prevent someone from going into the polling booth and flipping the switch for the candidate of his choice.

Page 72 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... 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
  •