The idea that the federal government can put a muzzle on non-profit or independent groups during an election or at anytime is so John McCain like considering what he thinks of the First Amendment.
As far as for-profit corporations: If they have no rights then the NY Times can sit down and SFTU.
What is the point of what McCain thinks? he flip-flops as much as liberman so who cares what either of them says?
Isn't it the job of the media to investigate, report and be the forth estate? be a source of decent ... like the founding fathers were regarding british imperialism? Would you prefer rush and fox be the only news sources similar to provda for the USSR in the 1970s?
I would love to discuss any and all pertinent and relevant issues regarding this with an intelligent pro big business
Why is there such a hatred and fear of big business? They are by far the lesser evil than big government. If you don't like what they're selling then dont buy it. At least they can't force, intimidate, and coerce us to do things by law like the current communist government is attempting.
As far as Rush and Fox: with over 90% of the media liberal dominated there's plenty of choices. Their ratings are high because as one of the few sources of conservativism that's where everyone goes.
The fear is that they tell the government what policies to enact.
this is like a having foot ball teams making up the rules as they play the game, only it is isn't a game, it is shipping jobs over seas, crashing the world economy and allowing 44,000 per year to die because they want higher stock values for medical insurance businesses.
big government is a problem WHEN it is run by big business, such as torturing innocent people to make them "confess" that they were terrorists from Iraq.
Hate to tell you this but the rules have already been made and they're the Constitution. Free speech is for everybody and not just for those whom the left decides has the right.
Since people get the government they deserve vote for those who aren't taking bribes from big business or lobbyists or anyone else. The only change to the Constitution we need is term limits.
The constitution should be used as law. free speech is for every living breathing person and the law is to protect living persons from the tyranny of big business merging with government in the processes of imperialism or corporatism.
government has passed the point of corruption that new officials can solve or stand up too.
corporations are afforded government charters and privileges as well as restrictions different from living persons. As a government of the people charting corporations
corporations have a requirement of operating in the interest of the general public, and when that isn't the case the corporate charter should be revoked, or else what is the meaning of a government of for and by the people? why would such a government charter a corporation to operate at the expense of the people, such as for-profit special interest lobbying suggests?
Fear of big business can be found from the robber barons, rail road tycoons, steel tycoons and bankers that engineer recessions and foisted the fractional reserve banking system on us to keep the masses struggling to survive rather than having a seat at the political table, a table where the majority is supposed to rule, counter the special interests, that have tens of thousands of washington lobbyists that insure policies counter to the interest of the general public. what is the purpose of gov
Perhaps someone could explain this, corporations do not have the right to vote, so why is there so much concern about corporate rights as listed in the bill of rights for people, people vulnerable to exploitation by big business?
Did the founders want corporations such as the east india company to have a vote or some other say in political policy? Is that what they risked their lives for? Did they forget to list corporations as persons? did they forget to allow for corporate voting rights?
It's less about corporate rights as much as it is about protecting everyone's else's free speech. By guaranteeing theirs, which they clearly have then the rest of ours are that much safer. I'm thinking more in terms of making political movies, writing books etc. than about contributing money to campaigns, though that's an issue too.
The fascist left would love to shut everyone's voices down but their own and they are not going to be allowed to do it.
Protecting free speech rights for corporations that are intent on replacing our government representation with theirs with lots of money spent on PACs, associations, right-wing think-tanks, campaign financing and lobbyists.
Do we really need to worry about them when they are working so hard to supersede our representation? I think your concern is naive, misguided and counterproductive, because big business uses money directed toward candidates and issues that increase their bottom line
Wanting the Constitution upheld, that sure is naive.
Your obsession with big business is clouding your judgment. Don't vote for politicians taking their money if it bothers you. And support term limits so politicians will be less inclined to become tempted into corruption. But do not mess with the Bill of Rights. I know liberals think the Constitution is a living document but really it isn't.
the only candidates that are considered for key offices are vetted by special interests. With billions/trillions at stake, you think they just hope for the best? I don't and that is why i am obsessed with the corporatocracy we have masquerading as a democracy (or republic) which is supposed to be one person, one vote and a government of for and by the people.
the statement "of for and by the people" is exclusive based on the history of special interest using the colonists as their source-cash
more so than doing what ever business big business is involved in, their purpose is to maximize profits, by law as well as those involved that are good corporate officers have no conscious. They have to be this way in order to do maximize profits at any human expense.
i do not see how protecting corporate free speech protects free speech for living people.
if this is true, shouldn't all human rights and constitutional amendments be extended to corporations?
They already have them. Police can't barge into corporate headquarters and go through everything without a warrant. Corporations are free to hire armed guards for protection. And executives in court can exercise Fifth Amendment rights.
Just admit it, you want to deny the First to them because you're afraid it might get more Republicans elected. I'm sure you'd love to shut the unions up too.
i am under the impression that corporations are asking for and receiving civil rights in many cases.
if you read the santa clara co v southern pacific rr case you will see why this is controversial, as it is counter the courts ruling in that case, yet the case is sited as precedence for granting such rights to corporations
i do not more republicans elected, correct, but i see corporations as just as bad as right-wingers. corporations have not been granted voting rights, this case a way around t
If corporations would like to have the RIGHTS of citizens, then they had better be willing to be suffer the consequences of being RESPONSIBLE for their actions, like citizens are.
I agree, lets see, people can't legally own other people, so corporations would then not be allowed to own other corporations, if a corporation kills someone it would face the possibility of life w/o the possibility of parole, or the death sentence.
they should be able to vote, get drafted, pay it's own way, remember when walmart didn't pay a living wage or provide health care, they told their employees to get health care the way the homeless did; show up at the ER (i guess) and hope they were
hi, i would like to ask about the founding of the USA, the intent of the declaration of independence, do you think a big part of the independence the founders were seeking was from big business, in conjunction with the crown, talking advantage of the general public in the colonies and taxation without representation, don't tread on me? who or what was treading on them that so many were will willing to die for?
The idea that the federal government can put a muzzle on non-profit or independent groups during an election or at anytime is so John McCain like considering what he thinks of the First Amendment.
As far as for-profit corporations: If they have no rights then the NY Times can sit down and SFTU.
zepper72 2 years ago
What is the point of what McCain thinks? he flip-flops as much as liberman so who cares what either of them says?
Isn't it the job of the media to investigate, report and be the forth estate? be a source of decent ... like the founding fathers were regarding british imperialism? Would you prefer rush and fox be the only news sources similar to provda for the USSR in the 1970s?
I would love to discuss any and all pertinent and relevant issues regarding this with an intelligent pro big business
qi4u 2 years ago
Why is there such a hatred and fear of big business? They are by far the lesser evil than big government. If you don't like what they're selling then dont buy it. At least they can't force, intimidate, and coerce us to do things by law like the current communist government is attempting.
As far as Rush and Fox: with over 90% of the media liberal dominated there's plenty of choices. Their ratings are high because as one of the few sources of conservativism that's where everyone goes.
zepper72 2 years ago
The fear is that they tell the government what policies to enact.
this is like a having foot ball teams making up the rules as they play the game, only it is isn't a game, it is shipping jobs over seas, crashing the world economy and allowing 44,000 per year to die because they want higher stock values for medical insurance businesses.
big government is a problem WHEN it is run by big business, such as torturing innocent people to make them "confess" that they were terrorists from Iraq.
qi4u 2 years ago
Hate to tell you this but the rules have already been made and they're the Constitution. Free speech is for everybody and not just for those whom the left decides has the right.
Since people get the government they deserve vote for those who aren't taking bribes from big business or lobbyists or anyone else. The only change to the Constitution we need is term limits.
zepper72 2 years ago
The constitution should be used as law. free speech is for every living breathing person and the law is to protect living persons from the tyranny of big business merging with government in the processes of imperialism or corporatism.
government has passed the point of corruption that new officials can solve or stand up too.
corporations are afforded government charters and privileges as well as restrictions different from living persons. As a government of the people charting corporations
qi4u 2 years ago
corporations have a requirement of operating in the interest of the general public, and when that isn't the case the corporate charter should be revoked, or else what is the meaning of a government of for and by the people? why would such a government charter a corporation to operate at the expense of the people, such as for-profit special interest lobbying suggests?
qi4u 2 years ago
Fear of big business can be found from the robber barons, rail road tycoons, steel tycoons and bankers that engineer recessions and foisted the fractional reserve banking system on us to keep the masses struggling to survive rather than having a seat at the political table, a table where the majority is supposed to rule, counter the special interests, that have tens of thousands of washington lobbyists that insure policies counter to the interest of the general public. what is the purpose of gov
qi4u 2 years ago
Perhaps someone could explain this, corporations do not have the right to vote, so why is there so much concern about corporate rights as listed in the bill of rights for people, people vulnerable to exploitation by big business?
Did the founders want corporations such as the east india company to have a vote or some other say in political policy? Is that what they risked their lives for? Did they forget to list corporations as persons? did they forget to allow for corporate voting rights?
qi4u 2 years ago
It's less about corporate rights as much as it is about protecting everyone's else's free speech. By guaranteeing theirs, which they clearly have then the rest of ours are that much safer. I'm thinking more in terms of making political movies, writing books etc. than about contributing money to campaigns, though that's an issue too.
The fascist left would love to shut everyone's voices down but their own and they are not going to be allowed to do it.
zepper72 2 years ago
Protecting free speech rights for corporations that are intent on replacing our government representation with theirs with lots of money spent on PACs, associations, right-wing think-tanks, campaign financing and lobbyists.
Do we really need to worry about them when they are working so hard to supersede our representation? I think your concern is naive, misguided and counterproductive, because big business uses money directed toward candidates and issues that increase their bottom line
qi4u 2 years ago
Wanting the Constitution upheld, that sure is naive.
Your obsession with big business is clouding your judgment. Don't vote for politicians taking their money if it bothers you. And support term limits so politicians will be less inclined to become tempted into corruption. But do not mess with the Bill of Rights. I know liberals think the Constitution is a living document but really it isn't.
zepper72 2 years ago
the only candidates that are considered for key offices are vetted by special interests. With billions/trillions at stake, you think they just hope for the best? I don't and that is why i am obsessed with the corporatocracy we have masquerading as a democracy (or republic) which is supposed to be one person, one vote and a government of for and by the people.
the statement "of for and by the people" is exclusive based on the history of special interest using the colonists as their source-cash
qi4u 2 years ago
more so than doing what ever business big business is involved in, their purpose is to maximize profits, by law as well as those involved that are good corporate officers have no conscious. They have to be this way in order to do maximize profits at any human expense.
i do not see how protecting corporate free speech protects free speech for living people.
if this is true, shouldn't all human rights and constitutional amendments be extended to corporations?
why is free speech the exception?
qi4u 2 years ago
They already have them. Police can't barge into corporate headquarters and go through everything without a warrant. Corporations are free to hire armed guards for protection. And executives in court can exercise Fifth Amendment rights.
Just admit it, you want to deny the First to them because you're afraid it might get more Republicans elected. I'm sure you'd love to shut the unions up too.
zepper72 2 years ago
i am under the impression that corporations are asking for and receiving civil rights in many cases.
if you read the santa clara co v southern pacific rr case you will see why this is controversial, as it is counter the courts ruling in that case, yet the case is sited as precedence for granting such rights to corporations
i do not more republicans elected, correct, but i see corporations as just as bad as right-wingers. corporations have not been granted voting rights, this case a way around t
qi4u 2 years ago
If corporations would like to have the RIGHTS of citizens, then they had better be willing to be suffer the consequences of being RESPONSIBLE for their actions, like citizens are.
SEN5ORY 2 years ago
I agree, lets see, people can't legally own other people, so corporations would then not be allowed to own other corporations, if a corporation kills someone it would face the possibility of life w/o the possibility of parole, or the death sentence.
they should be able to vote, get drafted, pay it's own way, remember when walmart didn't pay a living wage or provide health care, they told their employees to get health care the way the homeless did; show up at the ER (i guess) and hope they were
qi4u 2 years ago
hi, i would like to ask about the founding of the USA, the intent of the declaration of independence, do you think a big part of the independence the founders were seeking was from big business, in conjunction with the crown, talking advantage of the general public in the colonies and taxation without representation, don't tread on me? who or what was treading on them that so many were will willing to die for?
qi4u 2 years ago
terrible video.
christine1458 2 years ago
... because...?
allisonhayward 2 years ago
Pointing out that the supporters of the corporate expenditure ban don't want to "hear" what corporations may have to say . . .
I didn't think it was subtle at all.
allisonhayward 2 years ago
wtvr you can't play that violin anyway so just throw it! lol!
great message tho!
natdavi 2 years ago
What a compliment! Thanks!!
allisonhayward 2 years ago
wtf i just put in something random like aj ;iuoehu;oaphu and i got this
davheromany 2 years ago
lolwut.
joker4747 2 years ago