Very powerful.

[j_b]

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice?

 

Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

 

 

[kevbone]

Ron Paul is the only Republican who could compete with Obama...

Newt Gingrich=Criminal

Santorum=Homophobic asshole

Bachmann=Racist Christian lunatic

Perry=Moron

[kevbone]

[video:youtube]

[kevbone]

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice?

 

Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

 

 

My wife is an attorney but I am not. Do you expect me to read that document and understand it?

[Fairweather]

Ron Paul is the only Republican who could compete with Obama...

Newt Gingrich=Criminal

Santorum=Homophobic asshole

Bachmann=Racist Christian lunatic

Perry=Moron

 

What about Romney or that other Mormon?

[AlpineK]

I was wondering why Kev didn't include those two.

[tvashtarkatena]

While you are at it, can you tell us about Ron Paul's position on Citizens United? Or is it one one of those topics that Ron Paul refuses to address publicly because it'd show that his rhetoric about corporocracy is 180deg opposite to his practice?

 

Ron Paul's role in the Citizens United decision: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/election/Witness/Boos.pdf

 

 

SCOTUS supported the showing of the Citizen's United anti-Hilary movie within 90 days of an election because a) it constituted political speech - the most protected form under the 1st Amendment, b) restrictions to political speech requires strict scrutiny, ie, the govt. must show substantial harm will result from the speech and c) McCain Feingold provided NO evidence of ANY harm that might result from the Citizens United movie.

 

The ruling applies only to speech independent and uncoordinated by any campaign.

 

What part of this classic upholding of the 1st Amendment do you disagree with? Would you prefer that the govt. limit political speech without showing any harm? If so, who gets to make that call, and how would that power be limited?

[j_b]

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

[j_b]

Ron Paul is the only Republican who could compete with Obama...

 

why should you care whether or not anybody competes with Obama from the right when there are candidates competing with him from the left. Example:

 

[video:youtube]v=tYQfgMt3jws

[ivan]

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu?

[tvashtarkatena]

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

 

Corporations are aggregations of people, who certainly do have 1st Amendment rights. Furthermore, 1st Amendment rights are not 'granted' by government - quite the opposite. The government (thankfully) must make a case for restricting such rights. It must prove a harm when doing so.

 

Any time the Congress wants to show a substantial harm for allowing a corporation to show a politically oriented movie independent of any campaign just before an election, it's free to do just that. SCOTUS left that avenue wide open. So far, however, it has not done so, and therefore has no case for restricting political speech.

[tvashtarkatena]

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu?

 

YUP. Shut down Citizens United and without requiring the government to show a harm from its political speech and you've given your government the ability to silence political speech from any non-profit corporation, including the ACLU.

 

I'll take the Citizens United decision, thanks. I'd prefer not allowing the idiots in Congress to decide what the advocacy organizations I support can and cannot say.

[j_b]

Corporations aren't a part of "we, the people" so restricting corporate expenditures meant to skew the political process isn't limiting ANYBODY's free speech.

don't folks form corporations for the purpose of political speech/action? such as, say.....the aclu?

 

Right, but there is a difference between corporations for profit (and only profit despite whatever claim they may have that whatever they do is to improve our lives ) and non-profit corporations meant to improve the collective good.

[j_b]

Corporations are aggregations of people, who certainly do have 1st Amendment rights.

 

I don't follow the logic. The people retain their 1st amendment rights, while corporations are a construct enabled by the government of the people.

 

Furthermore, 1st Amendment rights are not 'granted' by government - quite the opposite. The government (thankfully) must make a case for restricting such rights. It must prove a harm when doing so.

 

government is in the business of providing equal protection for people, not corporations.

[Fairweather]

j_bot's words in a nutshell: "Your speech bad, my speech good. Your speech needs restrictions, my speech should be unrestricted. Corporate speech evil, union and grass-roots speech wonderful. Except, of course those grass-roots orgs with whom I disagree. Their speech should be restricted."

[j_b]

troll

[Fairweather]

Ad hominem non response! Liar!

 

What a fucking drone.

[j_b]

Stress is very bad for you. Perhaps you should consider another "sabbatical" from spray.

[tvashtarkatena]

The super PACs that are currently outspending the campaigns 3:1 in Iowa are all non profit corporations. Should it be OK for Soros or Murdoch to run ads as individuals while gagging less financially powerful folks who wish to pool their resources to get their message out? I don't believe so.

 

The post citizens united world is turning out to be a big yawn. More $ is being spent on media, providing jobs, but it's the same ole attack ad environment that favors no particular viewpoint. Free speech is no longer restricted by the unsupported whims of Congress.

 

Despite all the whining about CU, I've yet to meet one complainant who is sdvacating for congress to produce evidence of substantial harm for independent ads - a path left wide open by SCOTUS.

Edited December 29, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Choada_Boy]

GOP hopeful is the favorite of white supremacists and anti-Semites.

[tvashtarkatena]

And conspiracy theorists. Hence, the Kevworship phenomenon.

[rob]

One day I'm gonna start my own newsletter and hire people to ghostwrite it for 12 years and then later claim that I had no idea what people were writing on the letters that I put my signature on.

[tvashtarkatena]

When I run for office, I won't know who Tvashtarkatena is.

[rob]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/5-occupy-protesters-arrested-outside-of-ron-paul-campaign-headquarters-in-suburban-des-moines/2011/12/29/gIQAcvYgOP_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

 

The protest at the Paul headquarters was aimed at his proposal to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency if elected.

 

 

BUT DON'T THEY KNOW RON PAUL IS OUR PERFECT WHITE CHRISTIAN BABY?????

[kevbone]

“It would be great if we could show up, issue our concerns and have the candidates acknowledge us and change their platform,” she said.

 

hahahah. If only it were that simple.