- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Money is Freespeech And Corporations Are People
Posted on 10/18/14 at 8:55 pm to stormy
Posted on 10/18/14 at 8:55 pm to stormy
As long as you have a liberal news media, pushing an agenda instead of reporting the news, WHY WOULD ANYONE object to people advocating their pisitions with money when you have people that can come against your company / corporation / beliefs with the power of the press?
Lol at your naivety.
Lol at your naivety.
1
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:20 pm to stormy
I bet you won't hear complaints about judicial activism from the right-leaners on here about this.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:29 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
I bet you won't hear complaints about judicial activism from the right-leaners on here about this.
Just sdmit you don't have a clue what "judicial activism" is.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:34 pm to Lakeboy7
Okay, sorry for the snarky remark but you made some sort of statement that isn't readily compressible. So please explain.
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:36 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
I bet you won't hear complaints about judicial activism from the right-leaners on here about this.
Holy Lord. Can we please get a meaningful dialog going here? What does this mean?
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:37 pm to HonoraryCoonass
quote:judicial activism on this board means when judges decide the way people don't like.
Just sdmit you don't have a clue what "judicial activism" is.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:42 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
judicial activism on this board means when judges decide the way people don't like.
That's probably close to fair enoug . But in this instance what does it mean (I assume most know I'm an Atty so I don't need a lesson on the concept but an explanation of the application)
Posted on 10/18/14 at 10:45 pm to McLemore
Tech board: my auto-complete has started cutting off last letter or two of sentence when i double space for peri . Yay! Probably e-bol . Get it?
This post was edited on 10/18/14 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 10/18/14 at 11:12 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:Can't the non-shareholders collaborate to punish corporations that they disagree with? Haven't you witnessed effective boycotts of corporations that have caused corporations to alter their policies? Corporations do not survive if they do not make money. Non-shareholders have the ability to prevent offensive corporations from making money.
what could possibly go wrong for the non shareholder?
Posted on 10/18/14 at 11:47 pm to McLemore
quote:Indeed. The precedent is damn important. And the precedent of ending it... would be horrible.
corporations have been people for as long as there have been corporations.
If corporations don't have First Amendment rights... we'd have NO freedom of the press... because most news organizations... are... owned and operated by.... corporations!
Most proponents of stripping away corporation rights have no idea of the consequences of it actually happening.
But if we can strip 1A rights, any constitutional right can be stripped. Corporations would have no rights against search and seizure. Meaning any corporate assets could be searched without cause. The government could arbitrarily seize corporate-owned property without compensation. Corporations would have no right to due process in the courts. How could a corporation have standing in a court if it's not treated as a single-person? Corporations couldn't be sued for negligence or wrongdoing.
Who would want to live in an environment like that?
The result would be third-world dictatorship territory. Only a fool would be a proponent of it.
One has to be completely ignorant to believe that stripping organizations of like minded individuals of basic constitutional rights somehow increases freedom. Total magical thinking.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 11:57 pm to Taxing Authority
Y'all are so dammed cute....like a bunch of puppies. Corporations aren't people....they are property of people. You can't throw a corporation in jail for breaking the law.....but you can the people who own the corporation. I think corporations should have the same rights as I do....and I think my truck should also. If either of them wants to contribute to a campaign without any assistance from me I say good for them...neither is going to have a voice but y'all seem to think a corporation should have a voice as well as the people who own it....surely my truck is just as important?
Posted on 10/19/14 at 12:32 am to Poodlebrain
quote:
Corporations do not survive if they do not make money.
True, its the only legal reason they exist.
quote:
Non-shareholders have the ability to prevent offensive corporations from making money.
In theory, historically not the norm.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 12:40 am to stormy
Money is the ultimate vote, but corporations would probably not exist in their current format without government support of limited liability.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 12:52 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
True, its the only legal reason they exist.
not true, actually. it may be the predominant practical reason they exist, but a corporation may operate for any legal purpose, and there is no law in any state requiring a corporation to exist "to make money."
Posted on 10/19/14 at 12:55 am to germandawg
quote:
Y'all are so dammed cute....like a bunch of puppies. Corporations aren't people....they are property of people. You can't throw a corporation in jail for breaking the law.....but you can the people who own the corporation. I think corporations should have the same rights as I do....and I think my truck should also. If either of them wants to contribute to a campaign without any assistance from me I say good for them...neither is going to have a voice but y'all seem to think a corporation should have a voice as well as the people who own it....surely my truck is just as important?
corporations are legal persons. do you want to change this? if so, then propose your alternative complete with how our system will operate under your radical reformation.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 12:58 am to McLemore
also, while we're being political-party hacks, let's discuss what the Democratic Party would look like without its cabal of corporate donors. i assume this is another misinformed citizens united thread. :headinoven:
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:21 am to McLemore
quote:
corporations are legal persons. do you want to change this? if so, then propose your alternative complete with how our system will operate under your radical reformation.
No...if you read the post you quoted and are replying to I think that all property should be given the right to express their opinion. My truck has every bit as much right....and more importantly the ability....to speak independently of me as does any corporation I might own. I am agreeing completely that a corporation has the same rights as an individual and should be allowed to pursue those rights to the fullest extent of its ability to do so independently of its owners.
What should be done is a severe limit on campaign contributions...and the money I contribute though corporate donations are union donations are any other way should count against my personal limit. Corporations are no more entitled to speak independently of their owners than a truck is.....because they are both inanimate entities without their owners.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:23 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
judicial activism on this board means when judges decide the way people don't like.
Hardly exclusive to this board.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:31 am to germandawg
quote:
What should be done is a severe limit on campaign contributions...
The same restrictions must be placed on the Unions. The unions on a political level should have no more or less say than the corporations do. The parallel between the Union and the Corporation is painfully obvious and it is sad that many do not see it.
When that parallel restriction happens I will agree with this but we all know it won't.
Posted on 10/19/14 at 8:42 am to germandawg
quote:
What should be done is a severe limit on campaign contributions
Those aren't the only way to influence an election. Independent expenditures happen all the time. And there's no way to limit those without violating the First Amendment.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News