• 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

LiberalAvenger said:
Who do you think the republicans will run for president then, sir? Who would you like to see run?
Click to expand...

theduke.jpg


this image comes to mind.:2wave:
 
I just goggled him. Wow, kkk, anti semite. Surely charles martel is not the kind of person who would vote for david duke.:confused:
 
Wow, I just goggled the user name, charles martell and it turns out that there is a white supremest group by that name. I guess it's just a coincidence. May someone should tell him that or it may be his actual name. I am really confused now?:confused:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
My opponent was a freemason also. The case was a minor civil case. When I first went to court there was a black judge who was sympathetic to me but the mason judge, who was the chief judge delayed the trial and replaced the original judge with himself.
Click to expand...
Please come off the Freemason angle. That has nothing to do with anything.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
I provided you with one of Jeffersons many quotes on the subject as a means of pointing out why that industry was the only industry constitutionally afforded protection explicitly.
Click to expand...

But that quote doesn't prove what you're claiming, it simply proves that he liked the institutional press. There's nothing in it to indicate that he believed the press clause only applied to the formally organized and chartered press, or that the other clauses only applied to individuals.

Because you can leave a union without effecting your livelyhood if you disagree with it. You can't do the same with a job.
Click to expand...

But I just don't see how that's at all relevant. This isn't about what each individual who works there thinks, it's about what the leaders of the corporation are doing for the advancement of the corporation as a whole.

You aren't reading all of the opinions on it.

They are granted protection based on the provision, the purpose etc of theat amendment. In some cases free speach may be covered, illegal search and seizure is always covered etc.
However the same restirictions do not apply to an individual.
Click to expand...

The reason they cited to the 14th Amendment is because the 14th Amendment is what incorporates the other Amendments against the states. If they're holding that the 14th's incorporates the 1st in order to limit the states to X degree, then by implication the 1st obviously limits the federal government to X degree as well.

Cassandra said:
???!! You are describing some other person, perhaps? Its funny to me that there is so much bitter partisanship - at the end of the day the results are nearly identical no matter which party is in control. I voted for Nader when I had the opportunity. But why do you suppose Repub/Dem administrations perform similarly? I would say that it is due to corporate $$$. What is wrong with the health care bills? - The effort to make all of the corporate stakeholders happy. Why did Clinton sign bills that allowed media consolidation and bank deregulation?? Corporate money.
Click to expand...

I would say it's because a large majority of the population falls near the middle of a bell curve of ideology.
 
Coronado said:
Please come off the Freemason angle. That has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Most of them are cool and there are many of our founding fathers were freemasons, but if you came to Portsmouth virginia, you might change your mind.

These guys were stone cracker masons.
 
RightinNYC said:
And now you're just throwing out every snippet you've ever heard that tangentially relates to free speech or terrorism.
Click to expand...

I guess so. It's called debating. I have the free speach right to use snippits any time I want. It sure saves a lot of gibberish and screed to make a point.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
For example the supremes ruled that religious fanatics could not get in your face when you were on the street and bother people because the fanatics were trying to foist their opinions on others.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that case. But it sounds like it has nothing to do with speech.

People can't get in your face and bother you even if they aren't saying a word. The fact that the fanatics claimed it was a speech issue doesn't mean it was. The court probably ruled that it wasn't. That doesn't mean they made an exception to freedom of speech, it means they decided it wasn't an infringement on freedom of speech in the first place.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I disagree. Most of them are cool and there are many of our founding fathers were freemasons, but if you came to Portsmouth virginia, you might change your mind.

These guys were stone cracker masons.
Click to expand...
"Stone cracker masons"? Please elaborate.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I did not say that. You are using an implication to say that I was implying something else totally different than what I said. You think you are a mind reader. You are a legend in your own mind. You are saying that. Poly wanna cracker.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's try this again. Which Rights are not absolute? Be specific.

Also, you didn't answer my question: Why do you think the Rights in the DoI are different from the Rights in the BoR?

Whenever you want to support your position, feel free to back up the numerous claims you've made.
 
Okay. Let's try this again. Which Rights are not absolute? Be specific.
Click to expand...

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.

Or:

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we should confuse the inalienability of rights with exercise of rights. One innately and inalienably has the rights to life, liberty, and property. It doesn't mean that the exercise of those rights cannot in some way be infringed upon. Force can be applied to infringe upon the free exercise of our rights. It can come through some just means such as due process of law, or unjust means. But you can't take the rights away, a personal always has right to life, liberty, and property; that's innate. You can stop someone from practicing it, but you can't actually take the right away.
 
RightinNYC said:
I would say it's because a large majority of the population falls near the middle of a bell curve of ideology.
Click to expand...

You think corporate interests = the interests of most voters?? That's a pretty startling statement when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
 
Cassandra said:
You think corporate interests = the interests of most voters?? That's a pretty startling statement when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
How many votes does a corporation get in an election?
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vader said:
As many is it can afford to pay for?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vader said:
Actually, it's not fascist at all. Corporations are not people. People have rights in this country; big business does not.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as has been amply demonstrated.

And irrelevant. The first amendment simply says there shall be no abridgement of speech. Nothing about the source of the speech.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm a lefty. I like Supreme Court decisions that make sense. If it makes you feel better, this decision will apply to unions too.
 
misterman said:
Wrong, as has been amply demonstrated.

And irrelevant. The first amendment simply says there shall be no abridgement of speech. Nothing about the source of the speech.
Click to expand...

The constitution was intended to protect people... not big business.

misterman said:
I'm a lefty. I like Supreme Court decisions that make sense. If it makes you feel better, this decision will apply to unions too.
Click to expand...

I suppose it will at that. I just do not like business having the ability to buy off politicians. It just bothers me. Business and government should never be bedfellows. The result of this is ugly, corrupt, unscrupulous children who seek profit and nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom