j_b Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ron Paul is the only Republican who could compete with Obama... Newt Gingrich=Criminal Santorum=Homophobic asshole Bachmann=Racist Christian lunatic Perry=Moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 [video:youtube] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I was wondering why Kev didn't include those two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Ad hominem non response! Liar! What a fucking drone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Stress is very bad for you. Perhaps you should consider another "sabbatical" from spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 GOP hopeful is the favorite of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 And conspiracy theorists. Hence, the Kevworship phenomenon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 When I run for office, I won't know who Tvashtarkatena is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 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????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted December 29, 2011 Author Share Posted December 29, 2011 “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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.