Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[Kirby]

So how do you search farther back? I tried and couldn't but i know you defended and deflected for him previous to that.

I would really like to shove some of those words down your throat you lying POS.

Who took a bloody shit in your Cheerios? Just because you're not smart enough to search doesn't mean Fern's a liar. And how would you know what he defended before that if you joined in Sept. 2008? WWYBYWB?

 

[JayhaVVKU]

That's why it says they shall make no law. Same with religion and press.

How about when newpapers actively endorse a candidate, print glowing stories about said endorsed candidate, highlighting why they're better than the opponents, trashing the opponents - is that not also electioneering?

But yet it's ok, because it would be unconstitutional for any law to be made against it. As it should be.

Maybe to you this is a simple issue of "freedom of speech," but to some of us there's a lot more implicit in this decision, which has been stated in this thread. To me, the majority ruling that this is even a first amendment issue is pretty off base, as the minority opinion eloquently wrote.

The idea that Unions, or anyone else, are even in the same ballpark of spending as corporations is totally ridiculous. Corporations have the power and money to effectively drown out anybody else. If you thought unions were bad about electioneering, this is going to be 10 times that.

And newspapers have always enjoyed first amendment rights but I agree that when it comes to influcening federal elections maybe that should be looked at.

 

[nobodyknows]

The union leadership gives money to candidates, whether-or-not given union members want to support that candidate. The money comes from union dues. Unions can also buy advertising for a given candidate/issue. So, in the above respect, I see no difference between unions and corporations in this regard as they are functioning as an 'entity'.

Aren't union leaders elected democratically with one vote per union member? It's not like the "good old boy" club of coporations where they are all board members of multiple coporations and they have all the say.

Hell, a CEO or other high ranking member of a coporation can bankrupt a company in his greed. Do we need litereally thousands of these kinds of people running politcal ads?

All one needs to do is exercise a little common sense and the answer is clearly a resounding NO.

 

[nobodyknows]

Who took a bloody shit in your Cheerios? Just because you're not smart enough to search doesn't mean Fern's a liar. And how would you know what he defended before that if you joined in Sept. 2008? WWYBYWB?

I tried to search and couldn't get ANYTHING. I was never banned by the way so unless you can help me use the search engine, fuck off and let fern speak for himself.

 

[spidey07]

Maybe to you this is a simple issue of "freedom of speech," but to some of us there's a lot more implicit in this decision, which has been stated in this thread. To me, the majority ruling that this is even a first amendment issue is pretty off base, as the minority opinion eloquently wrote.

The idea that Unions, or anyone else, are even in the same ballpark of spending as corporations is totally ridiculous. Corporations have the power and money to effectively drown out anybody else. If you thought unions were bad about electioneering, this is going to be 10 times that.

And newspapers have always enjoyed first amendment rights but I agree that when it comes to influcening federal elections maybe that should be looked at.

Go google PAC contributions. Unions are FAR and AWAY the largest contributors to campaigns and have MUCH more influence than corporations. I know apples and oranges PAC donations vs. free speech and advertising. But follow the money.

-edit-
look here, look at top 20 and the breakdown dem/repub
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Go google PAC contributions. Unions are FAR and AWAY the largest contributors to campaigns and have MUCH more influence than corporations. I know apples and oranges PAC donations vs. free speech and advertising. But follow the money.

Right now? Maybe. The mid-term elections? No.

 

[Kirby]

I tried to search and couldn't get ANYTHING. I was never banned by the way so unless you can help me use the search engine, fuck off and let fern speak for himself.

Then how the fuck do you know what he said prior to May 2007? And if think you've got the balls to call someone a POS liar, at least make sure you can back it up or your allegations are just hot air staining your panties.

 

[sandorski]

Unions and Corporations are basically the same thing. Only Individual Voters should be given de facto Free Speech in the area of Elections. Unions don't Vote, Corporations don't Vote. Individual Voters Vote.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Aren't union leaders elected democratically with one vote per union member? It's not like the "good old boy" club of coporations where they are all board members of multiple coporations and they have all the say.

Hell, a CEO or other high ranking member of a coporation can bankrupt a company in his greed. Do we need litereally thousands of these kinds of people running politcal ads?

All one needs to do is exercise a little common sense and the answer is clearly a resounding NO.

There are good old boy networks in any organization. And sorry, size should be irrelavent. If coprs shouldn't have this right, neither should unions. Peace out, mate. Like your avatar.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Unions and Corporations are basically the same thing. Only Individual Voters should be given de facto Free Speech in the area of Elections. Unions don't Vote, Corporations don't Vote. Individual Voters Vote.

Pretty much says it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Then how the fuck do you know what he said prior to May 2007? And if think you've got the balls to call someone a POS liar, at least make sure you can back it up or your allegations are just hot air staining your panties.

You should learn to follow your own advice, because I know. I read ferns words in multiple threads with my own two eyes. As the evidence continued to amass as to what a hack Gonzales was fern was defelcting for the Bush admin and it's polices as much as possible.

ANybody who did some backround checking on Gonzales/Bush should have been able to read between the lines.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/15/BU132842.DTL

 

[nobodyknows]

There are good old boy networks in any organization. And sorry, size should be irrelavent. If coprs shouldn't have this right, neither should unions. Peace out, mate. Like your avatar.

I have one last thing to say......


ENRON.

 

[HumblePie]

After all of this I still can not believe someone has not said this...

Money talks and bullshit walks.

 

[Ozoned]

Who took a bloody shit in your Cheerios? Just because you're not smart enough to search doesn't mean Fern's a liar. And how would you know what he defended before that if you joined in Sept. 2008? WWYBYWB?

BBond

 

[Ozoned]

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It would appear that the top 1% held the most wealth when clinton was president. It also appears that the top 1% lost a lot of ground when Bush was in office. BTW that was after the Bush Tax cuts.

Wow. I am really surprised that the shrill self-proclaimed voice of the downtroden little people never comented on this.

 

[nobodyknows]

BBond

I remember him. He was a pretty radical lefty. Me, I just tell the truth and that seems radical to all the kool-aid drinkers, but it's just the truth.

Did you order the Code Red?

 

[Ozoned]

I remember him. He was a pretty radical lefty. Me, I just tell the truth and that seems radical to all the kool-aid drinkers, but it's just the truth.

Did you order the Code Red?

Heh. You, of all people, know that I don't like to drink, I like to stir.

 

[Craig234]

Yes it is. Remember it says "congress shall make no law abrdiging the freedom of speech".

No mention of people, money or all these other duhversions leftists are bringing up and still confusing donations/contributions/PACs and not understanding the issue whatsoever. I've explained it in very detail. Leftists are upset because their union PACs had free reign and now that reign is over thanks to the 1st amendment.

Companies CANNOT DONATE to politicians, it's illegal! So stop confusing the issue. It's about the government squelching free speech and it was rightfully overturned and deemed unconstitutional - because congress shall make no law, etc.

Is Congress allowed to make rules limiting foreign nations' free spech to run ads for candidates?

 

[werepossum]

Unions and Corporations are basically the same thing. Only Individual Voters should be given de facto Free Speech in the area of Elections. Unions don't Vote, Corporations don't Vote. Individual Voters Vote.

That's a valid theory. If the Dems had been able to resist allowing unions from running ads whilst denying corporations to do the same, that might still be the law of the land.

 

[Craig234]

Regardless of personal "wants", this feels like the right decision based on how the country was founded. And the more rulings that lead us in that direction than another is a good thing.

Yes, our country's beginning, with 95% agriculture, practically no corporations in comparison to now when big corporations dwarf most countries' GNP and the corporatocracy runs the world -

Our founding fathers founded this country ore than anything out of opposition to the one big corporation of the day, the East India corporation owned by the British crown and nobility.

The reasons were complaints that apply today - such as their size giving the political clout to unfair advantage in things like taxes (25% of the largest corporations paid no income tax).

We've been on a steady shift that direction - as CEO pay has risen from 45 times the average worker in 1979 to over a thousand today, as 94% of the national growth has gone to the top 20%, as the share of income taxes paid by corporations has fallen by half (from 22% to 11%; if I recall it was even higher bacn around the 50's) among many other things.

WIth this change look forward to corporations getting even more preferential political treatment, to politicians serving them over the people much more than even now.

Hint: A corporation with billions is far, far more organizaed and can donate more to make more money than many thousands of citizens, disorganized and donating much less out of just 'citizenship'.

Our country was founded to give individuals the political power to ru the country over any organized concentrated power. This ruling spits in the face of our founding fathers.

 

[Craig234]

That's a valid theory. If the Dems had been able to resist allowing unions from running ads whilst denying corporations to do the same, that might still be the law of the land.

Your post is dishonest again. This ruling, driven by four radical right-wing Federalsit Society justices, has nothig to do with your attempt to attack Democrats for union donations.

 

[Craig234]

Who took a bloody shit in your Cheerios?

It's very rude to ruin peoples' breakfast eating cheerios, if not any breakfast cereal, this way.

 

[nobodyknows]

It's very rude to ruin peoples' breakfast eating cheerios, if not any breakfast cereal, this way.

Ahh, but he was THIS close. My bloody shit WAS my Cherrios!!

 

[nobodyknows]

Unions and Corporations are basically the same thing.

Yeah, they both stand up for the little people's rights. Oh, wait..... this just in, no they aren't basically alike, not even remotely alike. If fact they were created to fight the bloody coporations. Gee whiz, imagine that.

 

[nobodyknows]

Heh. You, of all people, know that I don't like to drink, I like to stir.

So did BBond as I recall.