Liberal Forum

bigsky » 15 May 2014 7:07 pm » wrote:
hey cannon, how congrats on your thread...change any minds or hearts? or is this site full of heartless mindless ****?

Every forum on the internet is full of them, just some have more or less than others.

Cannonpointer » 16 May 2014 12:47 pm » wrote:
How is that?

How were people being denied those rights before citizens united?

Are corporations people, my friend? Are corporations people? Because THAT is what I find in you, when all of the **** and flowers are past - Mitt's mutt, mouthing mixed up monkey malarkey like a moronic mook.

God created people. People created corporations. Corporations created morons. Morons bought the idea that corporations are people. So, what came first, the chicken or the progressive, nanny state, neocon asswipe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c

Dude, this has been discussed and shown to you. Your failure to read it is very telling of your motivations and ideology.

Corporations, UNIONS, and associations are not people. But the people who comprimise those corporations, UNIONS, and associations are free to associate and work for common goal. The USSC in NAACP V Alabama ruled that it is a constitutionally gauranteed freedom.

Further more, Citizen's United ruled that these groups, UNIONS, corporations and associations ARE allowed to participate in electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. This case was simply about whether Citizen's United could air a film critical to Hillary with 30 days of the democrat primary in 2008 which was a result of the McCain Feingold Act of 2002. That it.

The case did not overturn the federal ban direct contributions to candidates or parties by UNIONS or corporations, it did not overturn the disclosure requirements, keeping both of them illegal.

If you are afraid of a TV or radio commercial discussing a candidate or issue you got problems. And if you are going to lecture me about this topic I suggest you educate yourself and stop spewing lies and talking points.

Huey » 17 May 2014 6:20 am » wrote:
Dude, this has been discussed and shown to you. Your failure to read it is very telling of your motivations and ideology.

Corporations, UNIONS, and associations are not people. But the people who comprimise those corporations, UNIONS, and associations are free to associate and work for common goal. The USSC in NAACP V Alabama ruled that it is a constitutionally gauranteed freedom.

Further more, Citizen's United ruled that these groups, UNIONS, corporations and associations ARE allowed to participate in electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. This case was simply about whether Citizen's United could air a film critical to Hillary with 30 days of the democrat primary in 2008 which was a result of the McCain Feingold Act of 2002. That it.

The case did not overturn the federal ban direct contributions to candidates or parties by UNIONS or corporations, it did not overturn the disclosure requirements, keeping both of them illegal.

If you are afraid of a TV or radio commercial discussing a candidate or issue you got problems. And if you are going to lecture me about this topic I suggest you educate yourself and stop spewing lies and talking points.

It's not about the commercials themselves. It's about being able to steamroll the opposition with 10 times the commercials they can afford.

SallyForth » 17 May 2014 7:36 pm » wrote:
It's not about the commercials themselves. It's about being able to steamroll the opposition with 10 times the commercials they can afford.

so you support the tea party?

If you are afraid of a TV or radio commercial discussing a candidate or issue you got problems.[...]

The problem is they do more than just discuss. The MSM is more often just propaganda serving the interests of their corporate owners. They don't want to give candidates a chance that don't fit their ideology, whether that is 'progressive' or 'conservative'. Good luck finding a mainstream media organization that isn't biased, and in the pay packet of wall street, hollywood, unions, or big oil.

Netflix has 1/3 of internet traffic during peak hours. This is a sore spot with Comcast/NBC and the rest of the telecom cartel. They want the FCC to write some regs so they can charge Netflix a fee. As it is now, I pay for my internet connection and Netflix pays for its internet connection. Comcast wants to start charging Netflix when I watch a movies.

The telecoms are calling this a "fast lane" as if it will be good for consumers because they will get faster connections to services like Netflix, even though most people are satisfied with their current service.

But broadband providers who want to offer fast lanes within the Internet say that option would help fund the investments needed to handle explosive traffic growth. In other words, to maintain their monopoly, they need some help from the feds.

http://youtu.be/L11kLmWha6o

Huey » 17 May 2014 6:20 am » wrote:
Dude, this has been discussed and shown to you. Your failure to read it is very telling of your motivations and ideology.

Corporations, UNIONS, and associations are not people. But the people who comprimise those corporations, UNIONS, and associations are free to associate and work for common goal. The USSC in NAACP V Alabama ruled that it is a constitutionally gauranteed freedom.

Further more, Citizen's United ruled that these groups, UNIONS, corporations and associations ARE allowed to participate in electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. This case was simply about whether Citizen's United could air a film critical to Hillary with 30 days of the democrat primary in 2008 which was a result of the McCain Feingold Act of 2002. That it.

The case did not overturn the federal ban direct contributions to candidates or parties by UNIONS or corporations, it did not overturn the disclosure requirements, keeping both of them illegal.

If you are afraid of a TV or radio commercial discussing a candidate or issue you got problems. And if you are going to lecture me about this topic I suggest you educate yourself and stop spewing lies and talking points.

So you are acknowledging that there is something rotten in the soul - something false in the utterances - of the stuffed suit You are saying corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE - that Romney lied.

FINAL ANSWER? I don't trust you very much - too much wiggling and borrowed terminology intended to mis-state your actual positions. Too many rat re-frames.

Which is it? When Romney said, "Corporations are people," he was either telling a lie, or he was not.

WHICH? No rat talk - just tell us which. Did he lie? Or are corporations people, son?

Cannonpointer » 18 May 2014 5:25 pm » wrote:
So you are acknowledging that there is something rotten in the soul - something false in the utterances - of the stuffed suit You are saying corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE - that Romney lied.

FINAL ANSWER? I don't trust you very much - too much wiggling and borrowed terminology intended to mis-state your actual positions. Too many rat re-frames.

Which is it? When Romney said, "Corporations are people," he was either telling a lie, or he was not.

WHICH? No rat talk - just tell us which. Did he lie? Or are corporations people, son?

There is no "which", moron. The people that comprise Corporations, Unions, and other associations are free to excercise their freedom to assemble and collectively voice their first amendment rights. If you have a problem with that take it with the USSC.

That is what I said. Nod if you understand. I know it is tough for talking point parrots who spew whatever line their side creates to understand the truth of the matter. It is much easier for you to twist and spin what Citizen's United did or didn't do without really understanding what the case was about.

If you are stupid enough to ask again I will just cut and paste the above answer.

SallyForth » 17 May 2014 7:36 pm » wrote:
It's not about the commercials themselves. It's about being able to steamroll the opposition with 10 times the commercials they can afford.

For you, Sally, it is about restrcting the side you disagree with and your side steam rolling the opposition. Democrats and progressive causes have raised and spent more money than the republcans and conservatives in the last few election cycles. Are you making a stand right here and now concerning how much they have spent?

Once again a progressive liberal democrat stands for removing liberty.

KiwiPete » 17 May 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: The problem is they do more than just discuss. The MSM is more often just propaganda serving the interests of their corporate owners. They don't want to give candidates a chance that don't fit their ideology, whether that is 'progressive' or 'conservative'. Good luck finding a mainstream media organization that isn't biased, and in the pay packet of wall street, hollywood, unions, or big oil.

In an election cycle it is illegal to air one candidate without giving the other candidates air time.

47 US Code 315

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/315

You also can not charge one candidate more than the others. The rate card must remain the same.

Next...

Huey » 19 May 2014 5:37 am » wrote:
In an election cycle it is illegal to air one candidate without giving the other candidates air time.

47 US Code 315

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/315

You also can not charge one candidate more than the others. The rate card must remain the same.

Next...

Unfortunately, these rules are selectively enforced and often only apply to the bigwig parties. You see all the time airing of candidates from Democratic and Republican parties, but not others. They usually get time on obscure venues.

Huey » 19 May 2014 5:30 am » wrote:
There is no "which", moron. The people that comprise Corporations, Unions, and other associations are free to excercise their freedom to assemble and collectively voice their first amendment rights. If you have a problem with that take it with the USSC.

That is what I said. Nod if you understand. I know it is tough for talking point parrots who spew whatever line their side creates to understand the truth of the matter. It is much easier for you to twist and spin what Citizen's United did or didn't do without really understanding what the case was about.

If you are stupid enough to ask again I will just cut and paste the above answer.

We all know Libertarians believe that corporations should have a political voice just the same as individual people do. They believe corporations should be able to devote infinite amounts of money to drown out common peoples' voice and to elect pro-corporate candidates who will return the favour with political appointments, revolving-door jobs, and favourable policy.

If you boil Libertarianism's "freedom" philosobabble, that's what it really means.

Money = Power. Corporations give lots of money, ergo, they will have the power.

Huey » 19 May 2014 5:30 am » wrote:
There is no "which", moron. The people that comprise Corporations, Unions, and other associations are free to excercise their freedom to assemble and collectively voice their first amendment rights. If you have a problem with that take it with the USSC.

That is what I said. Nod if you understand. I know it is tough for talking point parrots who spew whatever line their side creates to understand the truth of the matter. It is much easier for you to twist and spin what Citizen's United did or didn't do without really understanding what the case was about.

If you are stupid enough to ask again I will just cut and paste the above answer.

Got it - corporations are people. Thanks, neocon. I knew you were tap dancing, mister romney republican pants.

I can always spot it when you try to rat mouth me, son. It's in the foot work.

Next thing you know. Huey and the LoLbertarians will want corporations to have voting rights. They will spin it as a voting rights freedom act. And then, corporations can have representation directly in congress, because disallowing Exxon congressional representation is slavery. After all, we can't limit freedom of persons.
See, this is what happens when you allow the absurdity that fetus' are considered people. You can say anything is a person then. Even a business.

Technocrat » 19 May 2014 1:45 pm » wrote:Next thing you know. Huey and the LoLbertarians will want corporations to have voting rights. They will spin it as a voting rights freedom act. And then, corporations can have representation directly in congress, because disallowing Exxon congressional representation is slavery. After all, we can't limit freedom of persons.
See, this is what happens when you allow the absurdity that fetus' are considered people. You can say anything is a person then. Even a business.

Chairs are people. Book cases are people. And *** like huey say that corporations are people -WHEN they aren't tap dancing around it, rat mouthing and lying about their positions.

You name the republican position, he has studied the talking points and worked his game toward talking around the issues he lacks the balls to address head on. Notice I axed him if corporations are people, and he cannot give a yes/no? He's ashamed of his position. But still lacks the dignity to abandon it.

That's funny, I don't care who you are.

He reminds me of Straightedge a bit, only in straight's warped view, government is slavery and taxation is theft. Coming from a nurse who went to a public subsidized college and working in a public-subsidized hospital.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

Technocrat » 19 May 2014 1:45 pm » wrote:Next thing you know. Huey and the LoLbertarians will want corporations to have voting rights. They will spin it as a voting rights freedom act. And then, corporations can have representation directly in congress, because disallowing Exxon congressional representation is slavery. After all, we can't limit freedom of persons.
See, this is what happens when you allow the absurdity that fetus' are considered people. You can say anything is a person then. Even a business.

The people that comprise unions, corporations and other associations already have voting rights. I guess the whole discussion is over your head.

The people that comprise Corporations, Unions, and other associations are free to excercise their freedom to assemble and collectively voice their first amendment rights. If you have a problem with that take it with the USSC.

Technocrat » 19 May 2014 1:37 pm » wrote:
Unfortunately, these rules are selectively enforced and often only apply to the bigwig parties. You see all the time airing of candidates from Democratic and Republican parties, but not others. They usually get time on obscure venues.

****. The station in question has to offer time to the opposing candidate. If the candidate does not accept that is on the candidate. Again, I have been in that industry and understand how it works. I have seen FEC investigations into radio stations.

Cannonpointer » 19 May 2014 1:45 pm » wrote:
Got it - corporations are people. Thanks, neocon. I knew you were tap dancing, mister romney republican pants.

I can always spot it when you try to rat mouth me, son. It's in the foot work.

The people that comprise Corporations, Unions, and other associations are free to excercise their freedom to assemble and collectively voice their first amendment rights. If you have a problem with that take it with the USSC.

If that is how YOU choose to intepret that you are a simpleton parroting whatever the DNC tells you to parrot. You wish to remove constitutionally protected rights from Union Members. Why is that?

Cannonpointer » 19 May 2014 1:49 pm » wrote:
Chairs are people. Book cases are people. And *** like huey say that corporations are people -WHEN they aren't tap dancing around it, rat mouthing and lying about their positions.

You name the republican position, he has studied the talking points and worked his game toward talking around the issues he lacks the balls to address head on. Notice I axed him if corporations are people, and he cannot give a yes/no? He's ashamed of his position. But still lacks the dignity to abandon it.

That's funny, I don't care who you are.

This what people like Huey say:

The people that comprise Corporations, Unions, and other associations are free to excercise their freedom to assemble and collectively voice their first amendment rights. If you have a problem with that take it with the USSC.

Why are you wishing to remove the rights of people who are part of a union?

You are an idiot parroting whatever **** the DNC throws at you. And you too ignorant to understand that not just people who comprise corporations will be affected by your master plans. But what the hell. You are an elitist and you know what is best for the little people, right? I mean, in your opinion, damn the constitution, you know what is best.