View Poll Results: Is Citizen's United et al ruling compatible with democracy?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    29 65.91%
  • no

    15 34.09%
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 154

Thread: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    So was Plessy v. Ferguson.
    It's the law.

    And while you're busy fighting the right to determine what's balanced, the corporations are making sure everything is imbalanced.
    There is no "right" to determine this.

    And as NGNM85 already pointed out to you, rather explicitly, Americans disagree with you. They don't corporations, and the power they have over the political system. If you want a link, ask NGNM85, I'm sure he'd be happy to provide it for you.
    I disagree with the KKK but it means nothing. They have a right to say what they have to say. Many do disagree with me on this. I'd bet a majority would also say that it should be illegal for the KKK have their say. OPinion does not trump Constitutional Rights.

    What you quoted is hogwash, but I never said that, explicitly or implicitly
    So you believe you are also swayed by the Soros's of the world? If so, fair enough.

    I'm not trying to change the right to Free Speech, I would however like to reverse the SC decision in Citizens United.
    Well it is now set precedent and it's going to be very hard to do.

    Yes, an individual. A corporation, which is a compilation of thousands of people's greed is not an individual.
    Those greedy unions. Yeah, we might agree there.

    As you said, yes on an individual basis.
    That doesn't dissappear, the distortion caused by magnification of their right through a corporation should.
    Sorry, I can not rectify this statement. They have a right to what they want to say but they shouldn't be able to say it together? Why is that? They have to right to associate with like thinking people for a similiar goal?

    You want to determine what people can say together or who they can say it with?

    Absolutely, but allowing them to the level of control and influence they have through corporations fundamentally flaws the system.
    Whether they say it with one voice or 500 voices, they are still going to say the same thing.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    I could abide if you challenegd his claims, or if you brought up something that counters his facts, but no. You acted dishonorably.

    You. Fail.
    You can't even properly quote. NGNM85 never said what you have him quoted as saying. I did. No, I can not address your mucked up post.

  3. #103
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You can't even properly quote. NGNM85 never said what you have him quoted as saying. I did. No, I can not address your mucked up post.


    Check it again. That a little less mucked up?
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    1. Kerry lost the election for several reasons, most of which were his fault, so the idea that one guy "brought him down" is silly.
    LOL, he did a ton of damage. I think you got the point. All of Kerry's money could not overcome it.

    2. To answer your example: Barack Obama raised millions upon millions of dollars and won, Scott Walker was backed by corporate giants the Koch brothers and he's changed his state and perhaps the country significantly, many of the most influential lobbyists in Washington are funded by corporations and many politicians at every level of government have "special" relationships with corporations which is why their corporate friends end up getting contracts with government over others and sometimes to detriment of the public.
    McCain raised millions upon millions and lost. Again, your beef is with political whores.

    In other words, your one or two examples do not affect the general rule. Of course money and power don't always lead to political influence, but it's pretty evident that it leads to such influence more often than not. I know that I couldn't fund a campaign like Koch brothers or get certain contracts in Chicago like Rahm Emmanuel's friends.
    No, but what is cool is that you could join with many people with similiar views and have an equal say. This is what brought this before the USSC. Groups like the NRA, Unions, and other groups being told they could not speak their piece.

  5. #105
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    It's the law.



    There is no "right" to determine this.



    I disagree with the KKK but it means nothing. They have a right to say what they have to say. Many do disagree with me on this. I'd bet a majority would also say that it should be illegal for the KKK have their say. OPinion does not trump Constitutional Rights.



    So you believe you are also swayed by the Soros's of the world? If so, fair enough.



    Well it is now set precedent and it's going to be very hard to do.



    Those greedy unions. Yeah, we might agree there.





    Sorry, I can not rectify this statement. They have a right to what they want to say but they shouldn't be able to say it together? Why is that? They have to right to associate with like thinking people for a similiar goal?

    You want to determine what people can say together or who they can say it with?



    Whether they say it with one voice or 500 voices, they are still going to say the same thing.
    I just can't take anything you say after Post # 102 seriously. You need to grow up, and learn to be accountable for your actions.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post


    Check it again. That a little less mucked up?

    No it isn't. NGNM85 never said this:

    Of course you can find examples of antipathy and even outright hate of a corporation. That is really irrelevant to anything.

    I did. I even reposted it just a few posts above.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    I just can't take anything you say after Post # 102 seriously. You need to grow up, and learn to be accountable for your actions.
    I understand. You've thrown in the towel. It's a simple concept and question. If one person has a Constitutional Right to have his say, what happens that makes it wrong when he gets together with similiar minded people?

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Thinking this over a bit more I'll have to admit that maybe I am partially wrong in part. (not that it will matter substantially). This discussion has revolved around corporations. The USSC was brought on because of McCain/Feingold.

    It also banned groups like unions, planned parenthood, NARAL and the NRA from having a say. That so many seem to gloss over that either means that the loudest voices have swayed them or they have decided to overlook that themselves and just demonize corporations.

    I suppose I'd need to see answers from those against this to determine.

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    LOL, he did a ton of damage. I think you got the point. All of Kerry's money could not overcome it.

    McCain raised millions upon millions and lost. Again, your beef is with political whores.

    No, but what is cool is that you could join with many people with similiar views and have an equal say. This is what brought this before the USSC. Groups like the NRA, Unions, and other groups being told they could not speak their piece.
    You're either missing my point or purposely ignoring it considering that none of your points contradict mine at all. Everything you said is just a supplement or support to the point I've made. Either way, I'm not interested in repeating myself.

  10. #110
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is Citizen's United et al (new rulings) compatible with democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Thinking this over a bit more I'll have to admit that maybe I am partially wrong in part. (not that it will matter substantially). This discussion has revolved around corporations. The USSC was brought on because of McCain/Feingold.

    It also banned groups like unions, planned parenthood, NARAL and the NRA from having a say. That so many seem to gloss over that either means that the loudest voices have swayed them or they have decided to overlook that themselves and just demonize corporations.

    I suppose I'd need to see answers from those against this to determine.
    There's a difference between pointing out the realities of corporate influence + the problems they cause and "demonizing corporations". Learn it and maybe you'll be able to address people's actual arguments instead of making up imaginary ones.

    As to your point about unions, PP, etc. - I don't believe it's good for most organizations to have overwhelming power in politics. Too much power harms in a small group of wealthy organizations harms the public.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •