This is what the End of a functioning democracy looks like

[The One Man Gang]

Why is it that when the Left agrees with a ruling (i.e.: Roe vs Wade) that overturns an existing law they don't like, we are told that the issue is now "settled law" and those of us who disagree with it are to STFU and get jiggy with it?

Well, OK, I'll go along with Roe vs Wade as "settled law" if the Left will agree that Citizens United vs. FEC is now "settled law."

Deal?

[Dementia_Madness]

I wouldn't go that far....even though the SC can be right sometimes they can be wrong as well, we can illustrate that Roe V Wade is wrong because it infringes on an the right to life of the unborn child being taken away without due process of law, that is plain to see, yet NCvol has yet to show us where there is constitutional merit in limiting liberties not because of the amount of money someone might have.

I will concede that the supreme court can be wrong sometimes....but have yet to see just how they are wrong here. It would be just as foolish to argue they are always right as it would be to argue they are always wrong...but in order to show either one must at least be willing to offer evidence of such a belief, something more than "this could be dangerous!"

[NCVol]

Yes NC I am a coward because I want you to tell us exactly where the Constitution allows the government to limit peoples rights based on how much they have. Like I said the Supreme court ruled this was unconstitutional because the constitution explicitly is against such discrimination. That is the true issue here no matter how much you try and muddy the water. You might think we have to agree with you, but we do not, and until you show us exactly where the constitution stipulates this you will not change anyone's mind.

For 200 years democracy thrived before McCain-Feingold....and with it gutted we are closer to conserving the true principals this nation was founded on...even if liberals (funny they cal themselves that because liberty is the last thing on your minds) hate that, that is exactly why our forefathers founded this nation so that we could have LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL, not some, not the people you support, not just the poor, but ALL Americans regardless of social status or any other distinguishing differences.

The supreme court was right in this ruling...and they did a very good thing.

We're arguing in circles.  You cannot demonstrate that corporations have "rights" any more than you can demonstrate my dog Sally has a right to bark, or be fed white meat chicken for dinner.  The constitution says Congress can't abridge the right of free speech, which a LIMIT on buying a TeeVee ad does not do.  Can "Goldman Sachs" whoever or whatever that is "speak?"  Yes, and their officers have a dozen ways or more to express their opinion, as I pointed out.  Their rights are identical to mine and to yours.  What they are limited in doing is purchasing political advertising.  I can't demonstrate that the constitution allows that to be limited just like I can't show where it allows for speed limits or cocaine sales or tobacco sales to children. 

The idea is since later COURTS have determined corporations=persons and money=speech that a corporate person has the right to spend unlimited amounts of MONEY in BROADCASTING their speech.  The part of corporations=persons and money=speech are both Supreme Court inventions, like the right of privacy and abortion.  None of those are in the constitution, so arguing down those lines is dishonest.  It appears to be the only hook you have since you refuse to deal with the real world OUTCOME of the decision.  The OUTCOME is those with the most money have the most speech, if in fact money=speech.  I don't think any sane person debates it.

I'll ask OMG.  Who gets the most attention - a donor who gives $10 or a donor seven states over who gives $10 million to 40 different candidates.  If an issue comes up before the politician, whose opinion matters most?  The question answers itself.  I suppose if the corporation who commits to spending .01 percent aka several hundred MILLION dollars to influence a key vote that makes even a 1% difference in their cost structure works for you, then that's good.  If not, well say hello to your corporate overlord, since that is the result that will occur.

My gosh, we saw it in action like never before with the bailouts of Wall Street.  If you like that, you should LOVE this decision.  If you like Max Baucus hiring a VP from Wellpoint to write YOUR health care system, three cheers for Citizens United!!!!  Hip, hip, hooraah!!  Because those type situations will get worse and OMG if he's honest at all will either admit it, since he's actually involved in how this shiate works, or deny reality. 

[Dementia_Madness]

yes I can demonstrate it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[4]

http://www.answers.com/topic/corporation

corporation

A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

corporation

the corporation itself as a fictive "person" has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, make contracts, and hold property

So YES indeed despite your lies we can demonstrate that corporates have rights...

Denying the rights of others is the historic evil that all who are for civil liberties should abhor, If you were in Nazi Germany you could just as easily be arguing that I could not demonstrate that JEWS have rights, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that they have rights. This it is a circular argument, because you are nnot willing to move past your hatred.

In the end it comes down to this you are unwilling to accept the fact that yes others have rights and yes even rich people and poor people deserve the same protections, to discriminate from one eventually discriminates against the other. So when you can show us where the constitution gives the government the right to discriminate against people because of how much money they have then we can move on in this discussion. Until then this is what you get.

[NCVol]

That's actually offensive, mondo, comparing the rights of a corporation to a Jew.  Seriously, you've gone way off the deep end with that post. 

Wow!  I have a feeling you did it for shock value, but that's really pathetic even if that was your goal.  It's not actually funny bringing up the deaths of millions of human beings in an argument about whether a company worth billions gets to buy their own congressman aboveboard or below it.  Gosh.  What's next, comparing a speeding ticket to getting a limb sawn off without anesthesia (what's happening in Haiti this evening).  A headache to having your jeep blown up by an IED in Iraq. 

But let's review one more time.  This is what Goldman Sachs could do before Citizens United, which is, per you, just like how Hitler treated the Jews in Nazi Germany: 
- call their congressman
- go on talk shows
- write articles
- give speeches
- hold debates
- talk with their neighbors and their church members
- lobby congress
- hire an entire ARMY of lobbyists to magnify their influence
- talk to the President, the VP, the Treasury Secretary, all the key Congressional leaders
- they could access their mailing list and send letters to each of them, detailing their views
- could form a PAC and bundle contributions from like minded folks
- they could give up to 115,000 per banker in each cycle

In other words, anything at all me or you can do, anyone at all in Goldman Sachs can do.  And much more, since I cannot afford lobbyists or to give $115,000 each cycle.  Maybe you can.  I also can't get Timmy Geithner on the line, or even Rahm Emmanuel.  I tried and Lamar! won't take my call and neither will Bob.  They will ALL talk to Lloyd and many of his colleagues.  So EVERYTHING that you and me can do, they can, PLUS a lot more that really matters.  Before the ruling. 

The ONLY think not available to them was to BUY their influence with UNLIMITED amounts of money.  And THAT is like the Jews butchered by Hitler and the Nazis. 

Seriously, can't you find a better argument than that. 

BTW, what is with quoting wikipedia and answers.com.  That's exactly like quoting the Constitution, but different. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Really, you are the one saying that persons who form a corporation have no rights, it is YOU who are offensive YOU are the one denying rights of a group of people  (after all Judaism is a group of people too) and you are practicing the same tactics of the Nazis to deny others YOU see as less worthy due to some aspect of their existence the same liberty you desire for people YOU deem worthy. You are right it is offensive...it is just as offensive for you to discriminate because of how much people own, as it was for nazis to discriminate against Jews, after all the truth behind that was the poor Germans hated and feared the "rich" Jews as they saw them, it was, after all, the relative success of the Jewish people that rallied the populace against them.

Still you skirt the issue of constitutionality...why is it you cannot show us how this is constitutional? because it is not, just as the SC ruled.....

If it is okay to deny people rights because they have too much money (in your eyes)...is it right to deny people rights because they do not have enough money? What is the difference? you would be using wealth as a factor to discriminate... is it right to "disenfranchise" people you hate? Apparently so.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth is the hatred of Jews due to their wealth is even still common today, even among some leading liberals and one leading atheist liberal of note:

http://www.rense.com/general78/jcontrol.htm

Do Jews Control
The World?
By Henry Makow PhD
10-10-7

This question is the proverbial elephant in the room, the dysfunction that members of the human family dare not mention.
 
So when Richard Dawkins recently remarked that the Israel Lobby controls American foreign policy, Daniel Finkelstein, a Jewish editor of the London Times "Comments" section heard Nazi storm troopers banging on his door.
 
"So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power." Finkelstein sighed. "And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened. All I can manage is, Oh My God."

Even your fears shown here, that wealth somehow gives the rich more power that they do not deserve, power that wil keep them rich...and others poor.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Why_Do_People_Hate_The_Jews.htm

It has been said that the history of almost all of the Jewish holidays can be summed up succinctly: "They wanted to kill us; we won. Let's eat." Why has anti-Semitism been so pervasive in so many countries, in so many time periods and for so many reasons? (One begins to wonder. Perhaps there is something wrong with the Jews and Judaism? After all, there is an old Yiddish saying -- "If one person calls you a donkey, ignore him; if two people call you a donkey, buy a saddle.")

Between the years 250 CE and 1948 CE - a period of 1,700 years - Jews have experienced more than eighty expulsions from various countries in Europe - an average of nearly one expulsion every twenty-one years. Jews were expelled from England, France, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Bohemia, Moravia and seventy-one other countries.

Historians have classified six explanations as to why people hate the Jews:

   1. Economic -- "We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and power."
   2. Chosen People -- "We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people."
   3. Scapegoat -- "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles."
   4. Deicide -- "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus."
   5. Outsiders, -- "We hate Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.)
   6. Racial Theory -- "We hate Jews because they are an inferior race."

Ncvol hates the American corporate world because they have too much wealth and power...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
corporation - the corporation itself as a fictive "person" has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, make contracts, and hold property

Investment Dictionary:
Corporation - A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

Business Dictionary:
Corporation - Legal entity, chartered by a state or the federal government, and separate and distinct from the persons who own it, giving rise to a jurist's remark that it has ‘neither a soul to damn nor a body to kick.' Nonetheless, it is regarded by the courts as an artificial person; it may own property, incur debts, sue, or be sued.

Real Estate Dictionary:
Corporation - A legal entity properly registered with the secretary of state. Can haveLimited Liability perpetual life, freely transferable shares, and centralized management.

Business Encyclopedia:
Corporations - A business corporation is a legal entity permitted by law in every state to exist for the purpose of engaging in lawful activities of a business nature. It is an artificial person created by law, with many of the same rights and responsibilities possessed by humans. Corporations are widely prevalent in the United States; today, virtually every large enterprise is a corporation.

Political Dictionary:
corporation - A group of people legally authorized to act as if it were a single person.

US History Encyclopedia:
Corporations - corporation is an independent entity: it exists separately from its owners, the shareholders. Most corporations are businesses for profit that raise capital for corporate activities by selling shares of stock, which represent ownership and are transferable. There are also charitable, cooperative, municipal, and religious corporations, all of which have distinctive features. A corporation's shareholders elect the board of directors that hires the corporation's officers, who run the day-to-day business. For many purposes, the corporation is treated as if it were a person. The corporation can sue or be sued, enter into legally binding agreements, and own property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” - Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought, This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” - Justice Kennedy

[NCVol]

Well, bringing up Jews on this two posts in a row is reason enough to end the topic. 

If you like the ruling and the extra influence it gives to those with the most wealth, and diminishes the influence (as if we weren't marginalized already on Capitol Hill) of ordinary voters, go for it.  Celebrate!! I'm quite sure your interests are right in line with the CEO class, so whatever they decide is good for them will trickle down to you just like it is doing now.  So  Citizens United!!!  Thank goodness the oppressed business interests FINALLY have a say in politics.  Their voice had practically been snuffed out before the activist conservatives took the right steps and gave them that voice back. 

It's the most pathetic example of being a republican lemming that I've seen in some time, but hey, maybe I'm wrong and what is good for the CEO class will eventually trickle down to the middle class.  If so this ruling will be GREAT for America. 

[Dementia_Madness]

lol Ncvol runs with his tail between his legs because he doesnt want to answer to his Nazi like denial that others have rights even if he hates them...He cannot show that this decision was wrong, only offers his imagined fears of how the evil rich greedy corporations will lie cheat and steal the democracy right out from under our noses....In the end this argument could have nedned by his simple showing of here the constitution gave the government the power to deny people of their liberty based on what or how much they own....in the end continued to deny that organizations, more specifically corporations had any rights...and blindly held on until the bitter end, hoping to use the charge of race to give him an excuse to get him out of a very deep hole he got himself in...a hole that was dark dirty and nasty...filled with his hatred of those rich corporations and people of wealth that are not liberals in general...and ultimately us poor conservative lemmings.

I am happy with my choice to stand up for the rights of people, be they rich or poor, I do not have to like them, I do not have to agree with them, but I do feel that we ALL are deserving of the same liberties and protections.

so we cannot forget we will remember this first idiotic post that started his spral into the realm of lunacy and hate filled rhetoric

Do me a favor and take a piece of paper and make it talk on video for me, and post in on Youtube.  Freedom of speech for a type of organization is lunacy.  It's like saying a contract has freedom of speech.  A corporation sets out the rules of how a group of individuals pool their resources and invests.  It's made up of, ultimately, PEOPLE, and PEOPLE have rights, not a contract.  
 
It would be like referring to the free speech rights of a MARRIAGE.  No, my wife and I have rights as individuals and our responsibilities to each other are spelled out by our marriage contract and state law.  It's idiotic to contend that our MARRIAGE has rights.  
 
That's what a corporation is, the statement of rights and responsibilities.  It's not an entity that can have rights.  It doesn't die, can't be arrested, cannot be defined, can't even be seen.  Draw me a picture of this corporate person called GE, what does this corporate person look like and how does the it feel about climate change.  What is GE's opinion on torture?  Which district does GE reside, who is GE's congressman?  Where does GE set out the corporate person GE's beliefs.  Can I write the GE or just some person that works for the real GE?  What if different people that work for GE have different opinions, how does the GE decide which opinion it should spend money pushing.  Does GE favor the opinions of executives, the office maid in the satellite office in Jersey, or the engineer in India?  Or maybe it's the majority shareholder who is better off with lower marginal rates on the last $100 million of personal income and a bump up in the SS tax rate that actually is not the best option for the 401(k) investor with 10 shares of the GE.  Which position does THE GE support and how doe THE GE decide?  

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” - Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought, This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” - Justice Kennedy

[NCVol]

mondo, I'm just tired of arguing with a brick wall.  I'm expected to cite the Constitution, you give ME cites from the answer.com.  Then you compare the poor victim corporate interests whose voices clearly were nearly snuffed out in our political system post McCain-Feingold to the Jews in Nazi Germany.  Why didn't you bring up the blacks in the American South in the 1950s?  Similar.  Same kind of horrible, state sponsored oppression there too. 

Anyway, I'm glad Citizens United finally freed corporations from their oppressive state shackles. 

[Dementia_Madness]

YOU are the one arguing this ruling was wrong, and then using some imagined fear you have based on your irrational hatred...You have yet to show that the supreme court ruling was wrong...that is all it would take it would seem to be a simple thing to do if like you say it is within the limits of the governments power. EVEN the ACLU disagrees with you, and ultimately your arguments are the same as those used by slave owners, wife beaters, serial killers, and Nazis...what more needs to be said?

When it comes to LIBERTY I am indeed a brick wall...for your freedoms as well as mine..for rich people as well as poor, for the enlightened as well as the uninformed.

The fact is for 200 years democracy has NEVER been threatened by FREEDOM...it is the denial of liberty itself that destroys Democracy.

This ruling represents a win for Civil Liberties...and the people who believe that the constitution was not made to limit the power of the people, but the power of the government.


Ncvol - "with liberty and justice for some."

[NCVol]

mondo, in this and many other topics, what you argue are talking points and platitudes.  Unfortunately, we live in a reality based world where "freedom" for Goldman Sachs to spend an unlimited amount of it's $5 BILLION in profits last quarter to influence the political system has consequences.  If you like those entirely predictable consequences, go lick a boot for me.  I'll be doing something else, I think. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Really....hmmmm

 Imagine that, this is not about the supreme court decision and the constitutionality of McCain/Feingold...nor the fact that democracy is based not on infringing on liberties but acknowledging and protecting them...talking points you say...


interesting.

If anyone really wants to know why "conservative" Supreme Court justices are such a big deal, this is it.

Talking point?

the biggest money can purchase the right to do what they want.

Talking point?

In this case, to buy an election.

Talking point?

The thought that they give one damn about abortion is such a joke - THIS is what the money boys care about.

talking point?

They just officially got the permission to buy the WH and Congress.

Talking Point?

Congratulations, conservatives.  This is what you all have been fighting for.  

Talking Point?

The "right" for a GD piece of PAPER to advocate for individual candidates using unlimited sums.

Talking Point?

What do you think a favorable decision on health care is worth to UNH over a five year period?

Talking Point?

They have a net worth of about $35 billion, so each percentage point of their stock price is worth 350 million.  You think they might spend $100 million to get a 350% return on their money?  Hell, what kind of actual investment can beat it?  There's your new "business" strategy thanks to "conservative" justices.

Talking Points?

I will throw up next time I hear someone explain that being conservative means standing with tradition, and that what they want from their SC is not to MAKE new law but to stay true to original intent.  These respecters of tradition just overturned a century of settled law.

Talking Points?

I also hope this is the last time we ever have to respond to the question, 'Where is the right to healthcare in the Constitution?'  Yeah, where is it that a piece of paper has the RIGHT to any damn thing.  A corporation is not a person, it's a legal document, a fiction, evidence of an association of people.  But now this document has rights.  What a sad, pathetic joke.

Talking Points?

And that was just your first post.

I rest my case.

"The First Amendment is overrated"- Rahm Emmanuel (and apparently NcVol (and apparently LTC))

This is what the End of a functioning democracy looks like? More like this is what the end of unconstitutional government tyranny looks like!