Liberal Forum

Huey » 20 May 2014 4:45 am » wrote: 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.

Let's take GE as an example. GE is loaded with people but is not, in and of itself, a person. Let's say the top management decides to write 5 million into their budget destined fora SuperPac in support of a Democrat running for Senator in Texas. Mind you, this money is not the personal finances of the 'people' that comprise the top management nor is it a bunch of low level employees (people) within a corporation pooling their donations for a candidate. In fact, if most of the employees were polled, they'd say they were voting for the Republican candidate.

Where are the **** 'little people' in this scenario, bozo? You can support the practice of corporate financing of campaigns but don't be an asshole and claim that the will of "the people" is being represented here.

It ain't.

greatnpowerfuloz » 20 May 2014 12:07 pm » wrote:
Let's take GE as an example. GE is loaded with people but is not, in and of itself, a person. Let's say the top management decides to write 5 million into their budget destined fora SuperPac in support of a Democrat running for Senator in Texas. Mind you, this money is not the personal finances of the 'people' that comprise the top management nor is it a bunch of low level employees (people) within a corporation pooling their donations for a candidate. In fact, if most of the employees were polled, they'd say they were voting for the Republican candidate.

Where are the **** 'little people' in this scenario, bozo? You can support the practice of corporate financing of campaigns but don't be an asshole and claim that the will of "the people" is being represented here.

It ain't.

I support the rights of people who comprise unions, associations, and corporations to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights. So does the USSC as I posted earlier. If you do not support these constitutionally protected rights just say so. Bozo? I think you, ma'am, are acting like the bozo because what you wrote does not reflect anything I said.

It appears Ozzie supports the force payment of union dues, from what she calls the little people, that is used for political campaigns whether the person forced to pay the dues agrees or not. Which is the bigger crime? At least corporations are not forcing employees to pay for the electonic commicutions like unions do.

Again, for the ignorant like ozzie, it is illegal for corporations, unions, and non profit corporations to donate to candidates or political parties. My comments are related to Citizens United which discussed basically commercials.

Remember Ozzie, the UAW or GE does not have first amendment rights. But the people who comprise and run those entities do. Why do you wish to suppress their rights?

Huey » 20 May 2014 4:45 am » wrote:
This what people like Huey say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c

I made that simpler, you little parrot.

Huey » 20 May 2014 4:43 am » wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c

Pretend it's not a dick, son, so that you'll be able to spit it out.

Huey » 20 May 2014 4:45 am » wrote:
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

You ***, not every stock holder in G.E. has an identical opinion. Their "rights" are not what management is pushing, you little cum-spew.

Go read a better website, ya sally alinsky meme-repeating ***.

And not every union member agrees with the politics that union leaders spend that money on. A shareholder can pull their money out. Not so easy for a forced union member.

If you don't agree with the right of people to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights just say so do man.

Huey » 20 May 2014 2:27 pm » wrote:And not every union member agrees with the politics that union leaders spend that money on. A shareholder can pull their money out. Not so easy for a forced union member.

If you don't agree with the right of people to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights just say so do man.

And if you believe this, you cowardly ***, SAY IT:


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

Huey » 20 May 2014 1:31 pm » wrote:
I support the rights of people who comprise unions, associations, and corporations to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights. So does the USSC as I posted earlier. If you do not support these constitutionally protected rights just say so. Bozo? I think you, ma'am, are acting like the bozo because what you wrote does not reflect anything I said.

It appears Ozzie supports the force payment of union dues, from what she calls the little people, that is used for political campaigns whether the person forced to pay the dues agrees or not. Which is the bigger crime? At least corporations are not forcing employees to pay for the electonic commicutions like unions do.

Again, for the ignorant like ozzie, it is illegal for corporations, unions, and non profit corporations to donate to candidates or political parties. My comments are related to Citizens United which discussed basically commercials.

Remember Ozzie, the UAW or GE does not have first amendment rights. But the people who comprise and run those entities do. Why do you wish to suppress their rights?

Oz addressed the true point and you didn't, that's why. What she said was straight on: I'm sure her example happens rather often--the employees of a company feel one way and management the other -- but management controls the money. So it isn't really everyone in the corporation "expressing their first amendment rights." It's just a few, and in a lot of cases I'm sure, AGAINST the will of the many in the corporation. That's why Citizens United is a load of bull.

And even if it was everyone in the corporation in agreement about where the money should go, it's not their personal money, but money customers paid them. Anybody asking those customers which commercials they'd like to have run? Of course not.

We live in such a low-information nation that a huge number of citizens don't know which party stands for what. The parties, of course, know this well and it enables them to fool voters into voting against their own interests.

If you think all of this is okay, how can you call yourself a responsible citizen? If elections and governing and all the rest is just the result of a relatively few really smart people rigging the game, which is exactly what's happening, then all that stuff we learned in school about the patriots and what they stood for and died for is just so much eyewash, because we've managed to go around their ideals and hopes for this country. We've put the government up for sale to the guys with the most money.

Huey » 20 May 2014 4:45 am » wrote: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.

Huey » 20 May 2014 1:31 pm » wrote:It appears Ozzie supports the force payment of union dues, from what she calls the little people ...

Who calls them the "little people"?

And where did she say anything about union dues?

Huey » 20 May 2014 2:27 pm » wrote:And not every union member agrees with the politics that union leaders spend that money on. A shareholder can pull their money out. Not so easy for a forced union member.

If you don't agree with the right of people to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights just say so do man.

WHAT!?!?! PROGRESSIVE STANDING AGAINST FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!?!?!? SAY IT AIN'TS SO!!!!!

Silverfox » 20 May 2014 5:12 pm » wrote:


Who calls them the "little people"?

And where did she say anything about union dues?

SHE called them the little people.

As far as union dues we have been discussing the USSC decision concerning Citizen's United which states that corporations, UNIONs, and non profit corporations can participate in electioneering communications. She went off on some tangent about the employees, what she called the little people, which has NOTHING to do with the discussion that was occuring. Which is par for the course concerning ozzie.

This is what happens when she gets ornery and jumps into the middle of a discssion without reading it.

SallyForth » 20 May 2014 3:23 pm » wrote:
Oz addressed the true point and you didn't, that's why. What she said was straight on: I'm sure her example happens rather often--the employees of a company feel one way and management the other -- but management controls the money. So it isn't really everyone in the corporation "expressing their first amendment rights." It's just a few, and in a lot of cases I'm sure, AGAINST the will of the many in the corporation. That's why Citizens United is a load of bull.

And even if it was everyone in the corporation in agreement about where the money should go, it's not their personal money, but money customers paid them. Anybody asking those customers which commercials they'd like to have run? Of course not.

We live in such a low-information nation that a huge number of citizens don't know which party stands for what. The parties, of course, know this well and it enables them to fool voters into voting against their own interests.

If you think all of this is okay, how can you call yourself a responsible citizen? If elections and governing and all the rest is just the result of a relatively few really smart people rigging the game, which is exactly what's happening, then all that stuff we learned in school about the patriots and what they stood for and died for is just so much eyewash, because we've managed to go around their ideals and hopes for this country. We've put the government up for sale to the guys with the most money.

No, neither you nor Ozzie addressed the true point of Citizen's United and the right of people who form an association, whether a UNION, corporatation, etc to practice their first amendment rights with the profits of that assoication.

Notice again how these ignorant leftist concentrate on those who own a corporation yet ignore that unions fall under the same category from the Citizen's United case. Not one of you leftist understand the case or have a **** clue to what it did. You are like Obama at the SOTU address. Your post reeks of the ramblings of a low information voter.

Str8tEdge » 20 May 2014 9:22 pm » wrote:
WHAT!?!?! PROGRESSIVE STANDING AGAINST FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!?!?!? SAY IT AIN'TS SO!!!!!

It is quite obvious. Every single one of the lefties arguing against the Citizen's United decision is wishing to remove a citizens right to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights in a group. Well, unless that group, like unions, is supporting their side.

It is funny that Ozzie brought up GE. I schooled her a while back about Immelt and the green push from GE. As the rail agianst money in politics they were all strangely silent about GE particaption in Obama initiatives. They need an education fast.

Huey » 21 May 2014 5:52 am » wrote: It is quite obvious. Every single one of the lefties arguing against the Citizen's United decision is wishing to remove a citizens right to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights in a group. Well, unless that group, like unions, is supporting their side.

.

Right here, you show your ignorance. An employee is not a citizen while that employee is under the control of any corporation that is not a non-profit or government institution. A corporation is not a citizen - its a corporation where employees are contracted to perform certain functions within the corporation. A union is not a citizen - it's an organization which exists for the sole purpose of advocating for its members and supporting them in their relationships with their employers.

You have this crazy notion that democracy and individual rights operate in an environment where the Constitutional rights of citizens are not recognized. They don't of course but it appears there is no dissuading you from your errant perceptions that employees enjoy the same rights in the workplace that they enjoy as citizens outside of the workplace.

If you believe that to be so, maybe you need to start a campaign to insist that corporations bestow the same rights to their employees that the Constitution bestows on them as citizens.

greatnpowerfuloz » 21 May 2014 12:03 pm » wrote:
Right here, you show your ignorance. An employee is not a citizen while that employee is under the control of any corporation that is not a non-profit or government institution. A corporation is not a citizen - its a corporation where employees are contracted to perform certain functions within the corporation. A union is not a citizen - it's an organization which exists for the sole purpose of advocating for its members and supporting them in their relationships with their employers.

You have this crazy notion that democracy and individual rights operate in an environment where the Constitutional rights of citizens are not recognized. They don't of course but it appears there is no dissuading you from your errant perceptions that employees enjoy the same rights in the workplace that they enjoy as citizens outside of the workplace.

If you believe that to be so, maybe you need to start a campaign to insist that corporations bestow the same rights to their employees that the Constitution bestows on them as citizens.

Huey is a little talking points *** - he repeats the memes that people more clever than he (not saying much) construct for ***-wipes to parrot.

Here the little monkey is, badly parroting talking points at an earlier time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF48IghIN7c

greatnpowerfuloz » 21 May 2014 12:03 pm » wrote:
Right here, you show your ignorance. An employee is not a citizen while that employee is under the control of any corporation that is not a non-profit or government institution. A corporation is not a citizen - its a corporation where employees are contracted to perform certain functions within the corporation. A union is not a citizen - it's an organization which exists for the sole purpose of advocating for its members and supporting them in their relationships with their employers.

You have this crazy notion that democracy and individual rights operate in an environment where the Constitutional rights of citizens are not recognized. They don't of course but it appears there is no dissuading you from your errant perceptions that employees enjoy the same rights in the workplace that they enjoy as citizens outside of the workplace.

If you believe that to be so, maybe you need to start a campaign to insist that corporations bestow the same rights to their employees that the Constitution bestows on them as citizens.

This discussion, Citizen's united, etc are not about employees. WHy are you reframing? It is it ignorance? It is a low IQ? Lack of comprehension skills? I wasn't even discussing employees because they are not part of the equation in regards to Citizen's United.

So when you figure this out, start a thread on the topic you wish to discuss and we will see where that takes us.

PS. Never said a corporation is a citizen. I did say that way back in the 50's the USSC ruled that people who freely form an association, like a union, corporatioin, or a non profit do not forfeit their first amendment rights to speak as a group. The people who form and comprise that union or corporation ARE citiznes and you wish to supporess their rights. I will NEVER agree with you on that. And that "crazy notion" that you have reframed comes from the USSC. As far as the rights that employees in the workplace have I have not even addressed that. So you pontificating on what I believe, or what perceptions I have, is usual Ozzie ****.

Cannonpointer » 21 May 2014 9:35 pm » wrote:
Huey is a little talking points *** - he repeats the memes that people more clever than he (not saying much) construct for ***-wipes to parrot.

Here the little monkey is, badly parroting talking points at an earlier time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF48IghIN7c

No sir. I am parroting the USSC court. You got you ignorant *** handed to you on this thread. It has been pointed out that you wish to stifle the liberty of individuals to form an association and practice their first amendment rights. You have been exposed as an anti constitutionalist so you unpinned the thread in the hopes this thread will die on the vine and be buried.

What other liberties do you and ozzie wish to wipe out? Just make a list Mr Marx.

Huey » 22 May 2014 5:10 am » wrote:This discussion, Citizen's united, etc are not about employees. WHy are you reframing? It is it ignorance? It is a low IQ? Lack of comprehension skills? I wasn't even discussing employees because they are not part of the equation in regards to Citizen's United.

Then who are these 'people' you have introduced into the discussion who comprise corporations if not employees?

Huey » 20 May 2014 1:31 pm wrote:I support the rights of people who comprise unions, associations, and corporations to freely associate and practice their first amendment rights

greatnpowerfuloz » 22 May 2014 6:01 am » wrote:
Then who are these 'people' you have introduced into the discussion who comprise corporations if not employees?

I am sorry. I assumed you were smart enough to understand that in the context of this portion of the discusion, Citizen's United, we were discussing the people who formed these UNIONS, corporations, and other associations. The people who decided how to run these UNIONS, corporations, and other associations. If you had bothered to read more than one post of mine you would have seen me mention those who FORMED these entities.

If you understood Citizen's United you would never have gone down this rambling road. Could you explain how Citizen's United, the topic of this portion of the discussion, would apply to members of Unions of employees of corporations?

For the record, I did not "introduce" Citizen's United into the discussion. Ozzie, once again, your speed reading and picking one post to comment on bit you in the ***.

Huey » 22 May 2014 6:12 am » wrote: I am sorry. I assumed you were smart enough to understand that in the context of this portion of the discusion, Citizen's United, we were discussing the people who formed these UNIONS, corporations, and other associations. The people who decided how to run these UNIONS, corporations, and other associations. If you had bothered to read more than one post of mine you would have seen me mention those who FORMED these entities.

If you understood Citizen's United you would never have gone down this rambling road. Could you explain how Citizen's United, the topic of this portion of the discussion, would apply to members of Unions of employees of corporations?

For the record, I did not "introduce" Citizen's United into the discussion. Ozzie, once again, your speed reading and picking one post to comment on bit you in the ***.

For a disingenuous twit, you're not very good at getting your *** out of the sling.