Have you heard about the new S. Court ruleing that allows unlimited funding of political champaines by big corps.?  Am I alone in being frightened and appauled?

Views: 191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

nathan phillps, this is a nonsmokers right, this is not any thing that you eat or the rest of the things you said, liberals are mostly for human rights more so than republicans
liberals are mostly for human rights more so than republicans

Oh please. Republicans are totally for human rights. The right of Republican humans to tell the rest of the humans who they can marry, that they have to teach religion in science class, that a woman's uterus is not her own, that you don't have the right to a proper trial, and their religion's commandments and creches had better be displayed on government property despite the first amendment. Because if they aren't that is a violation of Republicans' first amendment right to tell the government to tell the people which religion to follow.

Remember; Republicans are all about keeping the government's nose out of people's personal business.
jo jerome you are absolutely right about the right wing on all your points, you can add that the 5 supreme court justices are conservatives that voted this law in
That's "Radical, Political, Activist Judges" to you!

Huh? What's that? This radical, political, activist decision will likely favor Republicans?

Shame on Obama for criticizing any Supreme Court decision at all! It is totally improper for a president* to question the Supreme Court!

*Unless it's a Republican president questioning Roe v Wade. Then it's totally proper.
This seems to be a false dichotomy. It is not necessary to have either the government nor large corporations rule our lives. It would behoove us to develop a system in which government and corporations act as a sort of checks and balances against one another. The government should not control any one person's life, but a corporation is not a person, has much more power and is birthed into existence via the government. Corporations are the government and by extension our own responsibility. We cannot let our own children trample us down.
NP "The government should not control any one person's life, but a corporation is not a person, has much more power and is birthed into existence via the government. Corporations are the government and by extension our own responsibility."

Sorry pal but that was jibberish. You're arguing with yourself. I'm socialist and I would probably know and be happy if we had the social system you seemed to think you are describing. What we have become is a fascist state where the gov't exist for the benefit of the corporation. Also, you stated that a "corporation is not a person". Then why did this SCOTUS ruling give them the same rights to free speach as a citizen?. This ruling also nulifies the argument that corporations shouldn't be taxed because they aren't people. The SCOTUS says differently.
Corporations are not independently developed entities, they need governmental permission to form. I was arguing that governmental regulations on corporations are necessary and should be seen as an obligation due to the governments role in corporation formation. You realize as much as anyone why the supreme court would make their decision as they did. Corporations are not people, even if they are granted some rights. Note, the patriot act effectively negates pretty much every right but the right to refuse quartering soldiers. Also being taxed doesn't make something human. If everything that is taxed were people, then transactions would be people. If transactions were people it would be the highest form of capitalism.
What we have become is a fascist state where the gov't exist for the benefit of the corporation.

Not yet, but that's where this SCOTUS decision will take us.

Then why did this SCOTUS ruling give them the same rights to free speach as a citizen?.

The real question I have is how did this become a free speech issue? I don't see anywhere in the text of the First Amendment that makes it unconstitutional to limit campaign contributions. So long as it's for everyone, across the board. If they say "No one person (or entity, since corporations are not people) can donate more than $5,000" that's equal, across the board, which in my humble interpretation promotes free speech, where giving the power to the rich inhibits it.
All hail the Uninhibited Corporations of America.

The free world waves goodbye... but, some would argue we waved goodbye to the US some time ago.
Good points;


The US helped bury imperial Britain with lend lease after WW2.

As a non American,the US certainly seems to be in decline.

Not sure I understand your second point. Do you mean it was after WW2 America developed its despised jingoism and stunning disparity of the distribution of wealth? (it had been already been an imperial power for approaching 100 years)
unlimited funding of political champaines

Corporations can now put unlimited amounts of money into bottles of sparkling wine from a particular region of France that are being used for political purposes, eh?
The SCOTUS is showing the effects of ignorance and corruption; fucking plebeians.

Unless there is aggressive action by the populace, the second burning of Rome is soon to commence.

But, history never repeats.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

Latest Activity

Sky God posted a video

Thoughts & Prayers App Commercial

The Thoughts & Prayers App: When you want people to draw attention to yourself with the least amount of effort ---------- Starring Danielle Spisso & Ryan Coil...
33 minutes ago
NazNoMore is now a member of Atheist Nexus
34 minutes ago
SILVIA SAINT-CLAIRE replied to Richard Haynes's discussion Brother Richard's speech: "Thank God America is a Secular Nation "
41 minutes ago
Daniel Wachenheim commented on Daniel Wachenheim's group Godless in the garden
52 minutes ago
Daniel Wachenheim commented on Joan Denoo's blog post Cary Part 5 Chicken stock
1 hour ago
Don commented on Daniel Wachenheim's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Idaho Spud commented on Daniel Wachenheim's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Don commented on Daniel Wachenheim's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service