Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:02 am » wrote:I see the *** dancer is still relying on weird mouthfuls of qualifiers to sell her gay talking points - still pretending that when I buy stock in GE, the lobbyists working for GE magically intuit my political leanings and unerringly represent me with lobbying dollars.

Yeah - I'm just "freely associating by forming a union or corporation and spending my money as I see fit."

Do you ever get off the dick, Nance?

Easy answer. No one is forcing you to buy stock in GE. If you do not like what GE does with it's money. Unlike a Union where in some states you are forced to pay dues and do not like what they do with their money.

So you want big daddy government to come in and regulate that.

bigsky » 16 May 2014 7:07 am » wrote: look, cannon is right about this...this country started out free enterprise, we are now welfare capitalists...we can either go into socialism...WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE HEADED...or just take a conservative u turn and go back to free enterprise..there is no constitutional right to a stock market or a federal reserve...none what so ever...i would argue that the constitution is against such entities

So simple that even a cave man understands it.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:12 am » wrote:Groups have no rights. Only people have rights.

The founders premised rights on the concept that they were bestowed exclusively on humanity, by the Creator.

This means that no rights enter the world except by the birth of another human. Creating a group does not bestow rights.

Therefor, your claim that GROUPS are exercising INDIVIDUAL rights is dishonest, since it relies on the pretense that everyone IN the group is aligned.

Using your example - G.E., - we have a group that is comprised of millions of people from diverse walks of life - many of whom purchased their "membership in this union, group or corporation" through an index fund. Not even a retarded child would presume 100% agreement between so many folks. Therefor, many in that group are in active disagreement with what industry lobbyists push.

To pretend folks in active disagreement what's being pushed are being "exercising their individual rights," and that outlawing lobbying would "violate their individual rights," is either stupid, dishonest, or both.

Again, the people who comprise the group have rights. The individuals of a group are collectively exercising their individual rights.

Again, cannon searches for a big government solution.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:24 am » wrote:You prattled about "values," bitch - YOU brought up your defenses of the torture state.

Sure, pops, sure.

You must really be hurting from the smack down I gave you the other day. To hide that you are now dredging up 3 year old topics.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:24 am » wrote: Easy answer. No one is forcing you to buy stock in GE.

Let's see how accurate that is.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/force?s=t

FORCE

...power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power

Now, then. We have a definition of FORCE.

You say no one FORCES us to invest in G.E. But G.E. is not the only Wall Street corporation granted "rights" under C.U. They all were. G.E. is one EXAMPLE.

Your refutation - if it were one - would ride on no one "forcing" us (influencing, affecting or controlling; using efficacious power) to invest in Wall Street.

Yet a look at the WORLD (as opposed to your partisan map of it) quickly informs us that government (on it's own, no doubt - not because they were lobbied) has created legislation which favors stock market investments over real estate, kewpie dolls and home laboratories as a means of creating a retirement account. And THAT is a form of force.

Not only do those who invest in the market get tax incentives for doing so, but government has ALSO (completely uninfluencd by lobbyists) incentivized EMPLOYERS to match employees'contributions to their retirement accounts - BUT ONLY IF THEY INVEST IN THE STOCK MARKET.

Using federal legislation - the government gun - to direct main street's retirement money to wall street has a certain smell of "force," kid.

Edit - Even if your claim were not utterly demolished by the above correction, your objection that I am not "forced" to invest in G.E. in no way imputes for your previously debunked thesis that G.E. is representing MY freedom of speech when it uses my money to say **** that I disagree with. So even if you had been right - and you were not, - you would still have been wrong.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:26 am » wrote: big government solution.

The guy who defends federal torture chambers runs his cock valve about big government.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:37 am » wrote:Let's see how accurate your **** is.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/force?s=t

FORCE

...power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power

Now, then. We have a definition of FORCE.

You say no one FORCES us to invest in G.E. But G.E. is not the only Wall Street corporation granted "rights" under C.U. They all were. G.E. is one EXAMPLE.

Your refutation - if it were one - would ride on no one "forcing" us (influencing, affecting or controlling; using efficacious power) to invest in Wall Street.

Yet a look at the WORLD (as opposed to your partisan map of it) quickly informs us that government (on it's own, no doubt - not because they were lobbied) has created legislation which favors stock market investments over real estate, kewpie dolls and home laboratories as a means of creating a retirement account. And THAT is a form of force.

Not only do those who invest in the market get tax incentives for doing so, but government has ALSO (completely uninfluencd by lobbyists) incentivized EMPLOYERS to match employees'contributions to their retirement accounts - BUT ONLY IF THEY INVEST IN THE STOCK MARKET.

Using federal legislation - the government gun - to direct main street's retirement money to wall street has a certain smell of "force," kid.

Edit - Even if your claim were not utterly demolished by the above correction, your objection that I am not "forced" to invest in G.E. in no way imputes for your previously debunked thesis that G.E. is representing MY freedom of speech when it uses my money to say **** that I disagree with. So even if you had been right - and you were not, - you would still have been wrong.

Again, no one is forced to buy GE stock.

You meant to add unions, right?

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:41 am » wrote:The guy who defends federal torture chambers runs his cock valve about big government.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:26 am » wrote: Again, the people who comprise the group have rights. The individuals of a group are collectively exercising their individual rights.

Again, cannon searches for a big government solution.

You left some things out.

Can't reply to edited comments.

Huey » 17 May 2014 6:20 am » wrote: 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.

You can no longer pretend they are "free" to "associate, and work for a common goal," now that you've had it demonstrated to you that FORCE is involved in their "free" choice to do so.

And again, that does not waive the issue that it's a lie to pretend someone using my money to lobby for things I disagree with is representing my free speech rights. He's doing the opposite of that.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:43 am » wrote: You left some things out.

Retarded things, which I have a right to address or ignore - and you lie that I left them out.

I went on to debunk them, as well.

Anything I dsagree with, I am free to address on it's own. I have no obligation to post any portion of a post I agree with, or simply don't feel like addressing at that moment.

You tell one lie or five, I reserve the right to address any or all.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:42 am » wrote:
Again, no one is forced to buy GE stock.

You meant to add unions, right?

Yes, since you want to be effeminate and pretend I didn't already clearly demonstrate that we're talking about wall street and not one company, let's go with unions, you fairy.

Are people free to not join a union, fairy?

Or are they coerced (influenced, forced) to join if they want to work?

And if they are forced to join, how hypocritical is it of you to pretend they are exercising free will, and the union is their legitimate voice?

If unions are truly representing members, why didn't hillary carry the union vote, dancing fraud?

And if they are NOT representing their members, when will you stop lying that unon members are "exercising their individual rights" when they're forced to pay lobbyists to go against their positions?

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:37 am » wrote: Let's see how accurate that is...

Blah, blah, blah

Edit - Even if your claim were not utterly demolished by the above correction, your objection that I am not "forced" to invest in G.E. in no way imputes for your previously debunked thesis that G.E. is representing MY freedom of speech when it uses my money to say **** that I disagree with. So even if you had been right - and you were not, - you would still have been wrong.

Stunning that he'd waste time writing a long post of utter psychotic BS.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:47 am » wrote:You can no longer pretend they are "free" to "associate, and work for a common goal," now that you've had it demonstrated to you that FORCE is involved in their "free" choice to do so.

And again, that does not waive the issue that it's a lie to pretend someone using my money to lobby for things I disagree with is representing my free speech rights. He's doing the opposite of that.

You have not demonstrated any such thing. Their is no law that says you have to investment in these companies. Nor are you ultimately forced to join a union.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:48 am » wrote:Retarded things, which I have a right to address or ignore - and you lie that I left them out.

I went on to debunk them, as well.

Anything I dsagree with, I am free to address on it's own. I have no obligation to post any portion of a post I agree with, or simply don't feel like addressing at that moment.

You tell one lie or five, I reserve the right to address any or all.

Same goes for me pops.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:26 am » wrote: Again, the people who comprise the group have rights. The individuals of a group are collectively exercising their individual rights.

So union members being forced to join or no job are "exercising their individual rights" by paying for lobbying they disagree with.

Final answer?

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:57 am » wrote: Same goes for me pops.

Additionally, you reserve the right to dance. Shamelessly, shamelessly dance.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:53 am » wrote:Yes, since you want to be effeminate and pretend I didn't already clearly demonstrate that we're talking about wall street and not one company, let's go with unions, you fairy.

Are people free to not join a union, fairy?

Or are they coerced (influenced, forced) to join if they want to work?

And if they are forced to join, how hypocritical is it of you to pretend they are exercising free will, and the union is their legitimate voice?

If unions are truly representing members, why didn't hillary carry the union vote, dancing fraud?

And if they are NOT representing their members, when will you stop lying that unon members are "exercising their individual rights" when they're forced to pay lobbyists to go against their positions?

Ultimately, you have the choice to join a union, just as you have a choice to invest. It may not be good choice, but it is a choice non the less.

Claiming you have demonstrated something is not the same as actually demonstrating it.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:58 am » wrote:So union members being forced to join or no job are "exercising their individual rights" by paying for lobbying they disagree with.

Final answer?

See above post. It might not be a good choice but it is still a choice.

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:59 am » wrote:Additionally, you reserve the right to dance. Shamelessly, shamelessly dance.

No, I have a right to ignore a non topical response or an edited response.

Particularly one not rooted in truth.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:59 am » wrote: Ultimately, you have the choice to join a union, just as you have a choice to invest. It may not be good choice, but it is a choice non the less.

Keep dancing, lady.

You brought up force - I brought in the dictionary, and linked it so you could verify.

I proved that force is brought to bear, ending for any adult your prattle that free exercise of rights occurs when lobbyists spend union members' money against their wishes.

Now, dance, you little bitch.