How can you possibly support the supreme court ruling?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by David9176

This was the worst case of anti-free-speech legislation that I've seen in my life.

Iw ould beg to differ and call the control of an individuals specific choice language more of root sign of control. Of course practically we are not talking about single person in this case, we are talking about a group of individuals employed in a hierarchal fashion. I can go further to say the goal of this entity is to meet the set expectations of a few individuals in this hierarchy.

As a person I cannot make the leap to personhood, just as many do not think terrorist deserve the protection of the constitution. Provided I had a vote, I would deem this concept false on principle, I would then try very hard to inform people of some of the implications I perceive. I find so much dislike in this whole fiasco of history; organization is comprised of individuals, just as a human body is comprised of cells, neither of the two are synonymous with their components, related, but NOT the SAME. IF asked? the question -

Is a corporation an individual? One could ask is NASA an individual, is the federal reserve an individual? I would SAY NO on ALL counts, they are comprised of such...

AS an individual I say I will not have anybody define my reality in such a way, I don't ask anyone to believe a rat is a horse just because a rat might eat hay. Or that a cell is a human, or a chicken is a starving child or hand grenade is a long vacation.

All the components of any entity are free to speak, but they are also subject to laws when the that speak initiates illegal process,
an individual cannot bribe an official, or deviate from the basic laws of individuals.

However in this society our officials are sweethearted, coerced and bribed everyday
in a manner that is deemed "legal", because its is performed between an official and a ENTITY of some sort.

I could not legally go to my local zoner and offer a donation in return for a rezoning my home.

So why is there a double standard between these two supposed individuals???


Because they are not the same,

a company would be subject to different laws than I would for attempting an identical violation. An agent could assign his crimes to the company via his relationship to it or the dutiful oblivion attached, I could blame my dog, but ultimately I cannot use the same defense based upon the fact that the laws pertaining to such do not coincide.

Once again for two side by side individuals this would appear to resemble a two tiered legal system, this state of equity is NEVER implied in the constitution. Legal jazz made the distinction not the document, this consideration of corporate personhood should be pealed away from the document as it has leeched on to it at the hands of unsound politicians.

if you can't kill it with a .45 round it is not an individual.


So I propose the government should reverse the Janky concept.

BTW I am glad we are here discussing this with our free speech, we may not hear what we like, but we are finally exercising this gift to a greater potential, those that came before us would envy our descent.





[edit on 27-1-2010 by Janky Red]