• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Winnb said:
Well I admit that over the last 2 days I've changed my mind. My original reading of this decision was that the flood gates are wide open now for more money to pour in. But I was wrong. The flood gates are already wide open. They've been wide open for years.

The court just gave the green light for corporations, unions, etc to do whatever they want right up until election day. The situation is just the same ol crazy spending spree it has always been.
Click to expand...

Freedom is messy sometimes.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

The ACLU is often, not always, on the wrong side of an issue.

When it's on the wrong side, I will point it out.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm not asking you not to point out when it's on the wrong side. Just notice when it's on the right side. Which is probably alot more often than you realize.
 
misterman said:
Sure, I'm not asking you not to point out when it's on the wrong side. Just notice when it's on the right side. Which is probably alot more often than you realize.
Click to expand...


Yep, they are cunning. Adopt a position you know will be a popular one on the opposition side, therefore claiming that you are middle of the road. We know better.


Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

"I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."


The ACLU's shocking legacy
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Sure, I'm not asking you not to point out when it's on the wrong side. Just notice when it's on the right side. Which is probably alot more often than you realize.
Click to expand...

No, I pay attention, and when it's on the right side, I say so.

Overall, they do more harm than good, though.
 
j-mac said:
Yep, they are cunning. Adopt a position you know will be a popular one on the opposition side, therefore claiming that you are middle of the road. We know better.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake, cut it out. This is as lame as it gets.

The ACLU doesn't give a damn what you think of them. They don't take positions just to make themselves look middle of the road, or whatever. Think whatever you want of them, just base it on reality, not the lies and distortions and incomplete picture you here about them on the interwebz.

I'll bet you agree with them more often than you realize. If you don't, fine. I don't care and they don't care.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, I pay attention, and when it's on the right side, I say so.

Overall, they do more harm than good, though.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to provide details. I'll bet you are mistaken about a few.
 
apdst said:
When ACORN has the right to get involved in politics and Exxon doesn't, then Exxon has been stripped of the same rights that ACORN has been given.

Let everybody do it, or let nobody do it. There can't be an in between.
Click to expand...

if acorn has been provided rights is is not entitled to, the cure is not to magnify the wrong and extend it to others
 
misterman said:
Um, yes it does. Read it more carefully. You do know who the group is, right?
Click to expand...

the group is not the citizens
that is my point exactly
not one citizen, including those who happen to be memebers of the group, have been deprived of their right of free speech
 
misterman said:
Oh for God's sake, cut it out. This is as lame as it gets.

The ACLU doesn't give a damn what you think of them. They don't take positions just to make themselves look middle of the road, or whatever. Think whatever you want of them, just base it on reality, not the lies and distortions and incomplete picture you here about them on the interwebz.

I'll bet you agree with them more often than you realize. If you don't, fine. I don't care and they don't care.
Click to expand...


yeah, :roll: Here is the real ugly face of the ACLU:


OpEdNews - Article: The Next Civil War is About to Begin


name calling, trash talking, cry baby progressives that wish the destruction of this nation as it exists now.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
yeah, :roll: Here is the real ugly face of the ACLU:


OpEdNews - Article: The Next Civil War is About to Begin


name calling, trash talking, cry baby progressives that wish the destruction of this nation as it exists now.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The author is not a leader or spokesman for the ACLU. Nor does this article contain any discussion of ACLU positions as far as I can tell.

The fact that you would think this is the least bit relevant proves my suspicions about your ability to separate relevant fact from worthless, pointless, or inaccurate information.

If you want to know what they ACLU really thinks and does, it's very easy to find out at www.aclu.org.
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
You are exactly right, Tony! The whining and carrying on by the Left here is completely unfounded. We are a nation of laws, Ladies and Gentlemen. Our Government governs at the consent of the governed...whether those governed choose to incorporate...or not.

DO NOT lose the larger perspective either, let's look at the split on the High Court. It has been held that a President's legacy includes nominated Supreme Court Justice decisions. This one is landmark. Massive. Many observers had predicted Bush's legacy would improve and grow by the day. They now expotentially grow by the hour.

And you are exactly correct Supreme Court. And now.....Exxon.......GM.......all carbon burning industries...gear up. We choose candidates in two to three months, the Congressional elections are this November, and then stand by...it's on in 2012. Obama collected a war chest of monumental and unprecedented mass, his defeat will cost some bucks. And now we know exactly where to go for it.

Thank you Sammy Alito. Scalia and Thomas, you are the backbone of the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts....the oh so young Chief Justice proves his merit and shows why Bush put him there. And Tony Kennedy...not always my favorite....you are the man. You are exactly dead on balls accurate here, your lesson in rule of law staggering and eye popping:shock:.....and a dagger to Democrat chances in November. The Dems already fuming plan immediate Congressional action, they've just been rolled in Massachusetts, Obama looks like he needs another vacation.

But vacations are over. It's on. The Bush legacy denied by many causing tsunamis to this day and as we roll into 2010 elections for the fate of Obama's Presidency. Gotta go, Exxon's calling.:2wave:
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that President Bush oversaw (and partially subsidized) the worse financial meltdown in recent history and took us into a war with bad intelligence and no plan for the subsequent occupation.
 
Vader said:
The individuals can speak for themselves; however, they CANNOT speak on behalf of the corporations with the same protections given an individual speaking his own (not owned by corporate bribery) opinion.
Click to expand...

That is just your fascist opinion. In the real world, individuals have a right to speak on behalf of whatever group, idea, movement, or interest they please. The fact that it displeases you is of little consequence.
 
Vader said:
The individuals can speak for themselves; however, they CANNOT speak on behalf of the corporations with the same protections given an individual speaking his own (not owned by corporate bribery) opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, yes they can.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I would have said ""Activist right wing court corrodes seperation of powers"
Click to expand...

How does this affect separation of powers?

The power of courts to overturn laws as unconstitutional was established 200 years ago and used many times since then, often for the most noble liberal reasons such as civil rights.
 
misterman said:
Yes. So the claim that groups can't have rights is silly.
Click to expand...

Groups do not have rights as groups do not actually exist, instead, they are abstractions. Several individuals standing in the same location do not somehow constitute an entity which retains rights. However, the individuals in the "group" do retain rights, which means their being in a group should not preclude them from exercising their rights in unison with one another, as Vader has suggested.
 
misterman said:
How does this affect separation of powers?

The power of courts to overturn laws as unconstitutional was established 200 years ago and used many times since then, often for the most noble liberal reasons such as civil rights.
Click to expand...

It's judicial activism. It's as if the court had made a new law concerning the right of free speech. I think it is up to congress to decide what "is" free speech.

Corporations are granted special privileges and immunities by corporate law.

For example. If you are a corporation and you break a law, you as a person running the corporation can not be tried for certain crimes. The corporations are tried, not individual people, even though they are the actual ones who caused the crime. Why should they get special privileges?

If a small business owner owns a company he can usually get sued for his own personal wealth. This is against the basic american principle of equality.

Also, the stockholders, who are people, are not permitted to exercise their free speech when it comes to running the corporation. So, in this case free speech for an entity [corporation], trumps the free speech of people [stock holders.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Groups do not have rights as groups do not actually exist, instead, they are abstractions. Several individuals standing in the same location do not somehow constitute an entity which retains rights. However, the individuals in the "group" do retain rights, which means their being in a group should not preclude them from exercising their rights in unison with one another, as Vader has suggested.
Click to expand...

And I say again, it is irrelevant to freedom of speech, as restrictions on it are illegal regardless of who is speaking. And anyway, the First Amendment recognizes rights that it would be awful hard not to apply to groups, such as churches or newspapers.

But however you want to think about it is fine with me. I accept your statement.
 
:crazy3:
LiberalAvenger said:
It's judicial activism. It's as if the court had made a new law concerning the right of free speech. I think it is up to congress to decide what "is" free speech.
Click to expand...
No, actually it is the court's job to interpret law and the Constitution.

LiberalAvenger said:
Corporations are granted special privileges and immunities by corporate law.

For example. If you are a corporation and you break a law, you as a person running the corporation can not be tried for certain crimes. The corporations are tried, not individual people, even though they are the actual ones who caused the crime. Why should they get special privileges?

If a small business owner owns a company he can usually get sued for his own personal wealth. This is against the basic american principle of equality.
Click to expand...
If the small business owner is a sole proprietorship, that is true. But any small business owner with two brain cells to rub together incorporates his business and keeps separate books for the exact reason that it protects their personal property from being forfeited in any action against the business.

LiberalAvenger said:
Also, the stockholders, who are people, are not permitted to exercise their free speech when it comes to running the corporation. So, in this case free speech for an entity [corporation], trumps the free speech of people [stock holders.
Click to expand...
They exercise their speech every year at election time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom