Megabuckpowerballs...Follow

Plot no jutsu.

No. Like people who continue to insist that this is what the court said, despite this simply not being true. By all means, show me where in the Court's decision they conclude that corporations are people. I'll give you a hint: It's not there. There is, however, clear and constant arguments that freedom of speech isn't limited just to individual people, but to associations of people (groups), which include corporations. It's mentioned several times (and referenced in a couple previous cases), but Scalia's statements on it are probably the most direct:




He's not saying that corporations are people, but rather that free speech doesn't just apply to individual people, so even though corporations are not individual people they still can exercise the right to free speech.


So... Can we please stop with the silly "the court ruled that corporations are people!" bit? It's completely false. And if you actually hold a position on the issue because you think it's true, then you've been mislead and maybe you should take it up with the folks who lied to you instead of blindly repeating the lie?

Edited, Apr 10th 2014 2:30pm by gbaji

It's the silent majority who are against the overwhelmingly liberal bias of this forum and communicate only with him through PM.

Of course.

I didn't miss the point. I'm just addressing the first part of your post. So you are now retracting your statement that the Supreme Court said that corporations are people? I just want to make sure we resolve that before moving on to the next part.

Great, but the cross thread shenanigans was a reference to this thread, in which the entire argument on one side (not mine, btw) was predicated on the assumption that corporations free speech rights rested on whether or not they held the same traits as individual people (not groups of people). So if a corporation wasn't a sentient person, and couldn't therefore "believe", it could not express free speech with regard to the religious beliefs of its owners.

Once we establish that corporate speech is merely an extension of the speech of those who own/control it (which, btw, is precisely what the SCOTUS actually ruled), then the whole strawman falls apart. So... progress, I guess.

Edited, Apr 10th 2014 6:23pm by gbaji

I think people who donate to a PAC are buying votes, which strikes me as undemocratic and un-American. Thanks for asking.

EDIT:

To clarify...again...I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative". I think both DEMs and GOPs are equally guilty of worshiping at the altar of money. I get why you think that's swell, being a Randian and all, but it's really, really sad.

Edited, Apr 10th 2014 8:39pm by Bijou

Identifying with any of them is pointless. They are both extreme sides of the same coin. I'm not claiming that to deny to call yourself a pawn makes you any less of a pawn or makes you any more of a natural free human, as a matter of fact I don't really know for what reason any standard citizen of this world would want to be vexed by even knowing such things when their is no earthly thing to be done about it at this time. I'm far beyond believing that anyone in politics has any normal persons best interest in mind except where it will grant them more power. It's just the way it's always been.
But with that in mind I cannot in good conscience try to call myself one thing or another. It is good tactic to nurture such opposing ideologies to keep the plebs at each others throats and away from the Hill. At this point it is best viewed; the more they look like they are trying to help you, they more they are probably getting away with something far worse.
I hated Bush. Voted Obama, hated Obama when it was obvious immediately that he was just another banker stooge. It's all nonsense.. bread and circus. Entertainment of life.

This is a lot of man-kind hate for a believer.

I'm kinda lazy for any real hatin'.

Thing I hate (per a forum search):
...the pseudo-word "sexting"
...the characters in "Girls With Slingshots" (I keep reading this for some reason & continue to hate all of them)
...citizen anecdote stories in political speeches ("I met a single mother in Kansas who...")
...various threads, usually "so much"
...Mass Effect's dialogue interface
...last minute twists (ingredient or method limitations) in cooking reality shows
...Luke Wilson in AT&T commercials
...sunburn (but peeling the skin is kinda fun)
...people who say "I know I'll get rated down for this but..."
...leading questions
...Andrew Jackson (more than Reagan)
...picture slideshows at weddings
...bruised bananas
...the word "blog"
...when I misspell "emergency" (with an 'a') or "separate" (with two 'e's)
...Panerra
...people who quote dictionaries in an argument
...side-scrolling on websites
...Phantom of the Opera (the musical)
...shoveling my long-*** 155' driveway
...Rinoa in FF8


Edited, Apr 11th 2014 9:23am by Jophiel

or just as good people who say, "No offense but,...." and then proceed to say something blatantly offensive.

Give them cyber arms. Maybe they'll do a better job protecting our personal data.

"I'm not racist, but..."