- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This myth that Republicans in Congress would work with Obama
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:30 pm to redandright
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:30 pm to redandright
Personally I don't like corps or unions being able to donate at all and wouldn't mind a hard-cap on what could be raised from them in total because neither entity is a person. Corps and Unions a units are mostly about trying to get their own form of crony system in place.
Unions, in their current incarnation, are corps. and if the law is amended must include unions.
Unions, in their current incarnation, are corps. and if the law is amended must include unions.
1
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:32 pm to blackrose890
quote:
Unions, in their current incarnation, are corps. and if the law is amended must include unions.
100% fully agree.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:33 pm to oklahogjr
You should hope that such an amendment or law would never pass or be upheld.
Free Speech is the mother's milk of any free society, and once limits are put on the right to petition one's government, or to speak out and criticize the powers that be, it'll be the death knell for this nation.
Free Speech is the mother's milk of any free society, and once limits are put on the right to petition one's government, or to speak out and criticize the powers that be, it'll be the death knell for this nation.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:36 pm to redandright
quote:
Free Speech is the mother's milk of any free society, and once limits are put on the right to petition one's government, or to speak out and criticize the powers that be, it'll be the death knell for this nation.
Money is not speech. Corporations are not people.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:38 pm to redandright
He's not saying people can't donate or speak out. He saying that if Soros or the Koch Brothers wanted to donate they don't instruct their corporation to donate from the collection of bank it has compiled and instead they do it themselves or start a non-profit fund raiser that can't from anyone but individuals who willingly donated.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:39 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I really like the way Obama has worked with Congress.
One example is of his recess appointments that occurred when the Senate wasn't even in recess.
It's amazing how much power the Dems in the Congress are willing to cede to this man. They seem to forget that there may very well be another GOP president. So much of this stuff is going to bite them in the rear.
He was slapped down in the Appeals Court for that, and I do look forward to the day when the Supremes stick a fork into that abuse of power.
One example is of his recess appointments that occurred when the Senate wasn't even in recess.
It's amazing how much power the Dems in the Congress are willing to cede to this man. They seem to forget that there may very well be another GOP president. So much of this stuff is going to bite them in the rear.
He was slapped down in the Appeals Court for that, and I do look forward to the day when the Supremes stick a fork into that abuse of power.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:41 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Money is not speech.
The USSC begs to differ.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:51 pm to oklahogjr
quote:Interesting. So if corporations are not made up of an organization of people...
Corporations are not people.
1/ how can they be expected to follow laws?
2/ how can they have ethics?
3/ how can they be sued?
4/ how can they be punished?
If corporations are not treated as they are (a group of people)... they would thus be above the law. They'd never have standing in court. You sure you want that?
Oh.. and if corporations don't have 1A rights... the press would be gone. They are all owned by corporations...
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 11:57 pm
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:57 pm to Taxing Authority
Yo TA, I understand where you're going with this. But do think this is solvable by reclassifying them in law a new type of legal entity as a way to limit the way the can make political statements?
I only ask because we complain of corporatism often and if we did this it would seem to limit it.
Edit: I know it unfortunately make Statism trying to seize them higher as well, but that threat seems low.
I only ask because we complain of corporatism often and if we did this it would seem to limit it.
Edit: I know it unfortunately make Statism trying to seize them higher as well, but that threat seems low.
This post was edited on 2/2/14 at 12:01 am
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:04 am to blackrose890
quote:Sure. If you want two sets of laws written by Congress. You think it's bad now?
But do think this is solvable by reclassifying them in law a new type of legal entity as a way to limit the way the can make political statements?
quote:It won't. Foolish to think so. As long as government is in corporate's pockets, coproations will be in government's pockets.
I only ask because we complain of corporatism often and if we did this it would seem to limit it.
But more philosphically... why would we as citizens GIVE UP our right to organize?
As it is, people of lesser means can now band together, pool their money, and match resources with "the rich". If you stop people from banding together... only "the rich" will have voices.
Seems dumb to me. And seemingly it makes it easier for "the rich" to exert more influence. Not less.
You never increase freedom of speech, by restricting freedom of speech.
This post was edited on 2/2/14 at 12:07 am
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:06 am to redandright
quote:
The USSC begs to differ.
Like I said both sides and lots of people disagree with the supreme court of different decisions. It's why I support an amendment. Something exactly like
quote:
He saying that if Soros or the Koch Brothers wanted to donate they don't instruct their corporation to donate from the collection of bank it has compiled and instead they do it themselves or start a non-profit fund raiser that can't from anyone but individuals who willingly donated.
I just want it so we know who is behind all the money. I don't want to be left wondering how much of the political sphere is just astroturf misleading people for one reason or another.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:08 am to Taxing Authority
That's right the non-profits, PACs, and other groups are corporations in the eyes of the law.
Huge oversight thanks for that
Huge oversight thanks for that
This post was edited on 2/2/14 at 12:09 am
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:22 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
It won't. Foolish to think so. As long as government is in corporate's pockets, coproations will be in government's pockets.
But more philosphically... why would we as citizens GIVE UP our right to organize?
As it is, people of lesser means can now band together, pool their money, and match resources with "the rich". If you stop people from banding together... only "the rich" will have voices.
Seems dumb to me. And seemingly it makes it easier for "the rich" to exert more influence. Not less.
You never increase freedom of speech, by restricting freedom of speech.
Interesting I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm going to ponder on this. But my intial inquiry would be about corporations not giving employees equal access to treasury funds it's more of whoever controls the purse strings such as soros, it doesn't really matter his employees political beliefs as they don't have a say in how he donates his companies money but I am going to ponder this some more. There is definitely some validity to your train of thought though.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:30 am to Draconian Sanctions
Hello dimwit.
Here is an explanation how people negotiate.
They start at polar opposites on many topics, give some on both side and/or give much on one issue in order to get much on another issue.
It is nor has ever been ( before Obama & his lapdog media ) my way or we shuting down the government.
geezzzzzz
Here is an explanation how people negotiate.
They start at polar opposites on many topics, give some on both side and/or give much on one issue in order to get much on another issue.
It is nor has ever been ( before Obama & his lapdog media ) my way or we shuting down the government.
geezzzzzz
Posted on 2/2/14 at 1:38 am to oklahogjr
quote:Employees? Employees have no rights to ANY treasury funds (except accrued payroll). Perhaps you meant shareholders?
But my intial inquiry would be about corporations not giving employees equal access to treasury funds
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News