Conservative Justices Sell The Nation to Corps

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

EDIT: I know each word has their own definitions. They are separate in their own right, but one is used to help facilitate the other. That is how they are connected.
---

Money and free speach are not directly connected.

Casting A VOTE equates to freedom of speech!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
How then, is it not a tool in the facilitation of free speech? Does it not take money to run this website? Print a newspaper? Hell, even drive down to your local town square and getting on a soap box requires some type of monetary amount to do so.

Yes campaigning for "public office" costs money but the money should come from a pre-allocated budget in the form of taxation. A voting tax for citizens, corporations, labor unions, lobby groups, etc. The amount each person or group will be taxed should be pre-determined.

Each candidate and each party will have the same spending budget thus guaranteeing an equal opportunity of exposure. It will come down to which candidate is better qualified for the job rather than who had more to spend.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The Supreme Court rightly connects the two because if they didn't, some politician would draft up some legislation that states money is not part of your First Amendment and thus we can regulate and restrict speech that is connected with said monies.

Your basically saying: Whomever gets the most bribe money will likely win and he who gave the most to the winning party will guarantee his future success.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
By striking out the electioneering clauses within 441b, the Supreme Court dutifully defended the First Amendment. Regardless of how one sees a corporation or union, they are still made up of people. Those people have every right of free association. That free association allows a group of individuals to bargain collectively via their union or corporation.

Corporations are immensely more powerful than labor unions will ever be.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by purple23
.

Since you have asked for an expansion of your idea, allow me to do so. Television is not free. In order to have no or limited advertising on TV, then those that broadcast it rely upon subscriber support. That is how they raise the revenues to pay to broadcast. For the so called "free" TV, this is paid for by advertising.

A ban on political contributions is a ban on speech. (See the above post)

Besides, not everyone relies upon TV in order to get their information. Your idea does nothing to solve any of the problems and only creates a whole new set of problems, the greatest being the ban on speech you would impose by eliminating campaign contributions.

Yet the current fiasco is better? I may have over simplified by claiming TV is completely free, yet it doesn't change the fact that it would be far less costly than what tranpires today.

How about an allotment of half an hour a night for each candidate during the evening news?

Nearly a hundred million plus Americans tune in and vote for American Idol. Therefore, if they were truly concerned about the state of their country and its governance, then I'm sure they wouldn't mind listening to candidates speak for a half an hour during the evening news broadcast.

Here in Canada I watched many candidates speak for ten or so minutes during the daily news hours. Obviously there is more to their campaigns than that even here, however, I was still able to get a taste of what each candidate stood for.

So why is an Idea like this not possible down there? Most of you want change. Most of you want less government intrusion in to your day to day lives. Most of you want a government that stands for the people rather than the corporations who really couldn't give two craps about the freedom and liberty of the American citizenry, and yet you refuse to even offer up alternative solutions. You are more concerned about the corporation and their right to free speech. I'm surprised that you would defend the right to buy free speech. The majority of American's unfortunately do not possess that luxury.

reply to post by purple23


I understand that you were just trying to offer a solution to a problem that many people are very frustrated with, and if my language came off as too harsh or dismissive of your effort to engage in a discussion and more importantly offer solutions to that problem, then I humbly apologize. However, solutions are not answers. They are merely temporary actions to handle a problem, but until we get down to the answers themselves, then the problem itself will not get handled.

I am currently posting in another thread, and want to finish that up before returning to discuss this matter with you, but wanted to make sure to acknowledge your genuine effort and to assure that if we continue to discuss this, we very well may get down to the heart of the matter, and find the answers. While I am finishing up in that other thread, I would ask you to consider this; how would creating intrusive legislation that abrogates and derogates the rights of others, handle the problem of intrusive government?

I will await your response, and return.





[edit on 4-2-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Money and free speach are not directly connected.

Casting A VOTE equates to freedom of speech!

I showed the connection and also showed that they are not directly connected. Read again: Money (legal tender) helps facilitates speech. It is one the many avenues one has to espouse their views in regards to political speech.

As for casting a vote, you are correct. Not casting a vote also equates to freedom of speech. Buying air time on your local radio station (which requires some type of monetary exchange) helps facilitate your ideas and political speech.

I gather you do not take in nor allow other ideas into your mind.

Yes campaigning for "public office" costs money but the money should come from a pre-allocated budget in the form of taxation. A voting tax for citizens, corporations, labor unions, lobby groups, etc. The amount each person or group will be taxed should be pre-determined.

This would be a tax on political speech. Taxing the population so private citizens can run for office would open more devious actions you are trying to fight so hard against. They already rape the general population via taxes (Social Security for example), what makes you think this would cure the ills of contributions. It is passing the buck and again, giving even more power to an already too powerful Federal Government.

Each candidate and each party will have the same spending budget thus guaranteeing an equal opportunity of exposure. It will come down to which candidate is better qualified for the job rather than who had more to spend.

Alright....life isn't equal. Ideas are not equal and people are not equal. The only job of the Government is to make sure that all candidates abide by and are protected by the same rules. Candidate A has to follow all the procedures and laws, just as Candidate B.

Your suggesting that if the money was tax money and everyone had the same amount that it would clear things up is naive.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The Supreme Court rightly connects the two because if they didn't, some politician would draft up some legislation that states money is not part of your First Amendment and thus we can regulate and restrict speech that is connected with said monies.

Your basically saying: Whomever gets the most bribe money will likely win and he who gave the most to the winning party will guarantee his future success.

How did you ever come to that conclusion based on what I wrote? I showed why you cannot ban money in political speech. You went on a tangent and exposed your obvious bias in the situation to try and paint a different picture.

So no I am not basically saying....

Corporations are immensely more powerful than labor unions will ever be.

They are both powerful in their own right. They both have their hands up the backsides of our politician's shirts. Unions thrive on the same things that corporations strive on. But keep thinking that unions are saints and docile.

I don't think this is such a bad idea.

Either we sell out our nation to corrupt politicians, or we sell it out to corporations (which are run partly by the people).

I like the idea and I'm interested to see how it works.

Instead of one person making all the decisions, multiple people make the decisions. And if they don't make their customers happy, they loose money and can't be a Congress(person?).

I just don't see how corrupt politicians are any better than corporations. And if the company is locally owned, then it's even better for the constituents to contact and be apart of the decision making process.

I would vote for Murray Hill!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Money and free speach are not directly connected.

Casting A VOTE equates to freedom of speech!

I showed the connection and also showed that they are not directly connected. Read again: Money (legal tender) helps facilitates speech. It is one the many avenues one has to espouse their views in regards to political speech.

NO it is not an avenue one has to espouse their views!

Political speech is espoused in what we are doing on ATS and by casting a vote on election day. Financing a campaign IS A GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE and should be proportionally shared by all interested parties.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
As for casting a vote, you are correct. Not casting a vote also equates to freedom of speech. Buying air time on your local radio station (which requires some type of monetary exchange) helps facilitate your ideas and political speech.

Again that is a government expenditure.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I gather you do not take in nor allow other ideas into your mind.

I listen to all ideas but that does not mean I have to agree with you or anyone else.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Yes campaigning for "public office" costs money but the money should come from a pre-allocated budget in the form of taxation. A voting tax for citizens, corporations, labor unions, lobby groups, etc. The amount each person or group will be taxed should be pre-determined.

This would be a tax on political speech. Taxing the population so private citizens can run for office would open more devious actions you are trying to fight so hard against. They already rape the general population via taxes (Social Security for example), what makes you think this would cure the ills of contributions. It is passing the buck and again, giving even more power to an already too powerful Federal Government.

Taxation is a NECESSITY of organised co-existance. How can anything be done if government does not collect funds? The "they already rape the general population via taxes" shows your abnormal contempt for society and government.

Don't get me wrong, I DO THINK we are being over-taxed and a lot of the money is being wasted on unnecessary projects but still I cannot agree with people like you that OVER-GENERALISE to make erroneous points.

The fact that you demonise social security, which is one of the most beneficial programs ever developed, goes to show your contempt for the low and middle class american citizens. And please don't bother telling me its "a ponzi scheme" because I have heard/read it a thousand times and makes no sense. Besides no one can prove anything!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Each candidate and each party will have the same spending budget thus guaranteeing an equal opportunity of exposure. It will come down to which candidate is better qualified for the job rather than who had more to spend.

Alright....life isn't equal. Ideas are not equal and people are not equal. The only job of the Government is to make sure that all candidates abide by and are protected by the same rules. Candidate A has to follow all the procedures and laws, just as Candidate B.

Your suggesting that if the money was tax money and everyone had the same amount that it would clear things up is naive.

Right, I must be "naive" except for the fact that A VOTERS TAX has been instituted by many, many other countries throughout the world and they do NOT accept political "contributions" because contributions is a fancy term for BRIBERY!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Corporations are immensely more powerful than labor unions will ever be.

They are both powerful in their own right. They both have their hands up the backsides of our politician's shirts. Unions thrive on the same things that corporations strive on. But keep thinking that unions are saints and docile.

I do NOT hate corporations, but still that does not change the fact that they ARE IMMENESELY MORE POWERFUL than labor unions IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL STATUS!

I believe in equal representation of all interested parties. If corporations are allowed the lions share of influence because they are wealthier and can afford to "contribute" more to the political campaign process than that means they can pervert the laws and constitution IN THEIR FAVOR!

[edit on 5-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


In the typical fashion of a left wing autocrat you gleefully reveal your own love of tyranny by declaring that people do not have money as an avenue of to espouse their views, as if it were up to you. This, of course, is why you are against the 1st Amendment and would no doubt repeal it or abolish it all together, if you had the chance. It certainly explains why you have a problem with the Supreme Court upholding the 1st Amendment as rule of law. It reveals your own lawlessness, just as I stated about you earlier.

You attempt to reduce political speech to nothing more than internet postings, and even more amusingly the vote, somehow failing to make the connection that a vote is every bit as symbolic as currency. A vote would be cast in the form of ballot, which would serve as the same kind of medium of exchange that notes do in the form of legal tender.

You further reveal your own Marxist tendencies by stating, as if it were some fact, that political campaigning was a public expense. In fact, you scream it textually by using all caps to state it is so, not even bothering to suggest that this is the way you think it should be, instead arguing it as if it is all ready this way. While, of late, tax dollars are used to finance political campaigns, this was not always the case, and it is demonstrable that public finance is but only a very small portion of what finances a political campaign.

You willfully engage in mendacity attempting to argue that political finance is a public expenditure, apparently pretending that you did not all ready earlier admit that President Obama had become the first major party candidate to forgo public financing in favor of solely accepting private financing, since public assistance of political campaigns first began.

It matters not if you agree with others or not, your disagreement does not give you any right to impose your views upon the nation as if it is law. Indeed, so willing are you to expose your own tyrannical nature, that if I were a part of the dissenting opinion on the SCOTUS ruling I would suspect you were a shill for the advocates, only pretending to be a left wing radical. I suspect such venerable dissenters, and the honorable opposition are cringing at your posts, as they would understand that your stance is all too similar to theirs, and by association you indict them along with you.

If it weren't for you own insistence that taxation is a (again in all caps screaming) necessity to organized co-existence, I would most assuredly suspect you are a shill, but such assertions that those who view over taxation as a rape of the people being so reviled by you, now makes me suspect you are most likely a government employee dependent upon taxation in order to survive yourself.

The fact that you declare Social Security one of the most beneficial programs ever developed and further castigating those who disagree with such a sweeping generalization has having contempt for the "middle class". By extension of such a poorly thought out statement, you again reveal your own contempt for a large portion of society by implying that Social Security was a program developed for the "middle class" alone and not intended to benefit the poor or rich. When making these arguments you have that typical tendency to reveal your ideology and expose it for it flawed nature, when you assert that "no one can prove anything".

Your next assertion I am going to quote in its entirety:

"Right, I must be "naive" except for the fact that A VOTERS TAX has been instituted by many, many other countries throughout the world and they do NOT accept political "contributions" because contributions is a fancy term for BRIBERY!"

And then I am going to quote it again, just to punctuate the lunacy of your argument:

"Right, I must be "naive" except for the fact that A VOTERS TAX has been instituted by many, many other countries throughout the world and they do NOT accept political "contributions" because contributions is a fancy term for BRIBERY!"

Yes my brother, you are tragically naive if you genuinely believe a (again screamed in all caps) voters tax will somehow purify the political system. As if a tax is not a contribution and then by your own definition, bribery.

While your assertion that you do not hate corporations is dubious, as your character in general seems to be fairly hostile, and while there are those who would embrace you as a friend, you return this gesture with rejecting them as a foe, again your left wing Marxist ideology is exposed when you scream your lamentations that corporations are extremely more powerful than labor unions in terms of financial status.

There is a reason corporations are more financially secure than labor unions and that has everything to do with what a corporation produces in stark contrast with what labor unions produce. While I have no love for corporatism at all, at least corporations provide a product and service, unlike the uselessness of unions that pretends their collective bargaining is a service to all, and by extension a service to the greater good. Unions are parasites that have structured themselves just in the same statutory structure as a corporation, and yet far less powerful because of their own parasitic nature.

You further reveal your own disdain for individuals and their natural right to equal representation under the law, when you assert that you believe in equal representation of all interested parties. Such a qualification most certainly exposes your own contempt for individualism, and deigns to suggest that you know best who those "interested parties" are. You continue to expose your own autocratic nature by using terms such as "allow" to describe who has rights, and who doesn't.

You can scream your own ideology as loud and as long as you like, in the end, those critical thinkers who actually bother to listen to your overbearing rhetoric, know your character, as it has been measure and weighed and found to be left wanting.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

In the typical fashion of a left wing autocrat you gleefully reveal your own love of tyranny by declaring that people do not have money as an avenue of to espouse their views, as if it were up to you. This, of course, is why you are against the 1st Amendment and would no doubt repeal it or abolish it all together, if you had the chance. It certainly explains why you have a problem with the Supreme Court upholding the 1st Amendment as rule of law. It reveals your own lawlessness, just as I stated about you earlier.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with freedom of bribery. By critising by interpretation of freedom of speech you are perverting the meaning.

Of course you can believe whatever you want and I have no right to silence you but I seriously doubt many people will espouse your views.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You further reveal your own Marxist tendencies by stating, as if it were some fact, that political campaigning was a public expense. In fact, you scream it textually by using all caps to state it is so, not even bothering to suggest that this is the way you think it should be, instead arguing it as if it is all ready this way. While, of late, tax dollars are used to finance political campaigns, this was not always the case, and it is demonstrable that public finance is but only a very small portion of what finances a political campaign.

Anyone who is not far-right is marxist? Do you even know what a marxist is? Hint: It has to do with communism. I am not a fan of communism, but I am a fan of mild socialism!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You willfully engage in mendacity attempting to argue that political finance is a public expenditure, apparently pretending that you did not all ready earlier admit that President Obama had become the first major party candidate to forgo public financing in favor of solely accepting private financing, since public assistance of political campaigns first began.

We already discussed that in earlier posts and I told you that democrats are rellying on private donations just as repubicans are because that is the way the system currently works. If the democrats had their way in the past and brought the much needed campaign reform, things would be different.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It matters not if you agree with others or not, your disagreement does not give you any right to impose your views upon the nation as if it is law. Indeed, so willing are you to expose your own tyrannical nature, that if I were a part of the dissenting opinion on the SCOTUS ruling I would suspect you were a shill for the advocates, only pretending to be a left wing radical. I suspect such venerable dissenters, and the honorable opposition are cringing at your posts, as they would understand that your stance is all too similar to theirs, and by association you indict them along with you.

Haha, what a hypocrite you are!

I am not imposing anything, others are doing all the imposing.

The rest of your post is total nonsense. I won't bother quoting more but I will tell you that there is no such thing as total freedom if we are to live in an organised society.

Wanting to cut taxes is one thing but saying they are tyranical is quite dishonest and misleading on your part. I suspect you are either a misguided libertarian or a republican who hates "tax and spend" and spends a little too much time doing alternative research.

When people say "economic freedom" they mean please don't tax me on my million or billion dollar income. I want to keep all the money and send it to switzerland while the middle class gets taxed to death because they can't afford tax attorneys.

Your not fooling anyone with your long posts JPZ! Quantity is not better than quality and never will be. I made my case and you disagree only for the sake of disagreeing and are being quite rude and insulting in the process. That is the reason I put you on my "respected" foes list! I could just ignore you but then all your narrow-minded posts would go unchallenged and that is certainly not healthy.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


If my views are so "narrow minded" then why waste your time challenging them at all in a site filled with open minded souls? Do you fear I will use this open mindedness to convince others to be more narrow minded?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
NO it is not an avenue one has to espouse their views!

Political speech is espoused in what we are doing on ATS and by casting a vote on election day. Financing a campaign IS A GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE and should be proportionally shared by all interested parties.

You are playing chicanery with my words. I have only shown it is a tool and a means by which the people can use to express their ideas. The very notion that you continue to twist what I say to trying and make my words absolute shows this.

You are correct that political speech is what we are doing on ATS and it is also expressed in a form a vote (and by extension, as I stated before, a non-vote). You have contained political speech to a vote and anything that doesn't require money to facilitate that speech. The owners of this site require funding to operate and thus use legal tender to facilitate the expression and ideas of many freely to its users.

Again that is a government expenditure.

You lay all the responsibility upon the government and that it is only their right to produce political speech. You and I have every right via the First Amendment to produce speech in whatever form we wish; whether it be for or against a candidate or current official in a seat. That is not government expenditure.

Taxation is a NECESSITY of organised co-existance. How can anything be done if government does not collect funds? The "they already rape the general population via taxes" shows your abnormal contempt for society and government.

When I use the term 'rape' in connection with taxes I am not saying that taxes are not a necessity. You have made that connection based on your own views of the situation. The very notion also that one who views taxes as bad is abnormally contempt shows you yourself have a contempt for those that have different views upon Government.

Don't get me wrong, I DO THINK we are being over-taxed and a lot of the money is being wasted on unnecessary projects but still I cannot agree with people like you that OVER-GENERALISE to make erroneous points.

Wait....you just got done vilifying me for saying the People are being raped yet you just proclaim the same thing. I did not over-generalize any more than you just did.

Tell me do you think you are getting a good return on your taxes?

The fact that you demonise social security, which is one of the most beneficial programs ever developed, goes to show your contempt for the low and middle class american citizens. And please don't bother telling me its "a ponzi scheme" because I have heard/read it a thousand times and makes no sense. Besides no one can prove anything!

Hmm, you are reaching yet again. Just because I gave a small example of Social Security tax as part of the rape of the People when it comes to taxes doesn't mean any of what you stated above. You have allowed your emotions to take over your ability to critical analyze and have come to a conclusion based on your own personal bias towards anyone who thinks differently than yourself.

This post is not about Social Security so I will leave it at that.

Right, I must be "naive" except for the fact that A VOTERS TAX has been instituted by many, many other countries throughout the world and they do NOT accept political "contributions" because contributions is a fancy term for BRIBERY!

Well I have searched and could not find these countries. Care to share with us on which countries institutes a 'voter tax'? A voter tax by nature is compulsory voting. Yet before you have claimed that your free speech is exhibited by a vote, yet that vote is not free. It demands a fee to process it via a tax.

I do NOT hate corporations, but still that does not change the fact that they ARE IMMENESELY MORE POWERFUL than labor unions IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL STATUS!

Well which is it then. Not all power is derived from money. A union has the power of the voter. The voter is and will always be more powerful than money. Why do you think the President invited the Labor Unions to the White House? Those unions are filled with potential voters that will follow their labor union leaders for fear of reprisal if they do not.

I believe in equal representation of all interested parties. If corporations are allowed the lions share of influence because they are wealthier and can afford to "contribute" more to the political campaign process than that means they can pervert the laws and constitution IN THEIR FAVOR!

If you believe in equal representation than you would be for, not against the recent Supreme Court ruling. As the ruling has taken away the special provisions that the media enjoyed and protected the rights of other corporations to also be involved in the process. That is equal protection under the law.

I just fear too many do not like the concept of equal protection under the law as many here and elsewhere wish only certain groups should enjoy the First Amendment and not others.