Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 1:47 pm » wrote:Even if this were not a proven lie, CU would still be getting an unfair advantage from the tax code, which disadvantages my free speech, **** -and it IS a proven lie.

Keep playing word games sunny.

Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to kick your ***.

Again, please post the law that forces you to invest with a company. Whether wall street or main street, your diversion is irrelevant.

Your free speech is not diminished.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 1:48 pm » wrote: As it pertains to the CU argument whether you invest in Wall Street or Main Street is irrelevant.

If this were true, your lie would still be a lie.

But this is not true.

Giving a tax advantage to wall street makes their "free speech" happen through a bull horn, and mine, comparatively, is a whisper.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 1:50 pm » wrote:If this were true, your lie would still be a lie.

But this is not true.

Giving a tax advantage to wall street makes their "free speech" happen through a bull horn, and mine, comparatively, is a whisper.

Irrelevant.

What law forces you to invest in any company, whether main street or wall street?

The answer is none. The choice if to invest, where to invest, how much to invest, is YOURS.

Huey » 17 Jan 2017 7:24 am » wrote: 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.

This is where cannon went off the reservation.

You are not forced to buy stock in GE, pops.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 1:49 pm » wrote:
Again, please post the law that forces you to invest with a company. Whether wall street or main street, your diversion is irrelevant.

Your free speech is not diminished.

Not googling up the tax code for a cock sucker - nice try, ***.

This entire issue is ITSELF a side issue because of your parsing and lying. Chairs are not people, asswipe - and neither are multinational corporations, who "come together to share their love of women and their ideals of integrity, and voice their political concerns in a group setting as individual people, garnered from *** cheese" - or whatever that *** spiel you trot out was.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 1:56 pm » wrote:Not googling up the tax code for a cock sucker - nice try, ***.

This entire issue is ITSELF a side issue because of your parsing and lying. Chairs are not people, asswipe - and neither are multinational corporations, who "cometogether to share their love of women and their ideals of integrity, and voice their political concerns in a group setting as individual people, garnered from *** cheese" - or whatever that *** spiel you trot out was.

I already posted where you went off the reservation on this topic, pops.

You want to invest in GE, that is your choice. You don't want to, that is also your choice. Unless you can post a law that mandates you have to.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 1:57 pm » wrote:
I already posted where you went off the reservation on this topic, pops.

You want to invest in GE, that is your choice. You don't want to, that is also your choice.

And in NEITHER case is GE functioning as my political voice, you **** idiot.

That's where this all went south - your pretense that I am somehow ceding to GE, by investing in an index fund which purchases GE stock, my political agency. Stop being a lying queer with a whole paragraph of gobbledygook to justify a lie, you flaming homo.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 1:48 pm » wrote:
As it pertains to the CU argument whether you invest in Wall Street or Main Street is irrelevant.

Nice reframe pops. Not biting.

So again, as it pertains to CU what law requires you to invest?

Ill answer for you.

None.

The circles this asshole will run in order to sprint away from a topic.

Obama care law requires you to invest in wall street

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 1:59 pm » wrote:And in NEITHER case is GE functioning as my political voice, you **** idiot.

That's where this all went south - your pretense that I am somehow ceding to GE, by investing in an index fund which purchases GE stock, my political agency. Stop being a lying queer with a whole paragraph of gobbledygook to justify a lie, you flaming homo.

Never made that point, pops.

I posted it, pops.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 1:59 pm » wrote:And in NEITHER case is GE functioning as my political voice, you **** idiot.

That's where this all went south - your pretense that I am somehow ceding to GE, by investing in an index fund which purchases GE stock, my political agency. Stop being a lying queer with a whole paragraph of gobbledygook to justify a lie, you flaming homo.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 1:55 pm » wrote: This is where cannon went off the reservation.

You are not forced to buy stock in GE, pops.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 3:13 pm » wrote:

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 1:59 pm » wrote:And in NEITHER case is GE functioning as my political voice, as you lied, you **** idiot.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 3:18 pm » wrote:

Never said they were.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 1:55 pm » wrote: This is where cannon went off the reservation.

You are not forced to buy stock in GE, pops.

Huey » 18 Jan 2017 6:41 pm » wrote: Never said they were.

When you have to lie like a bitch about what you said in this very thread (snapbacks intact), you're just proving what I've said about your lack of character, sonny/

Here's you pretending - over and over and over - that corporations spening money on politics are merely the individuals who own the corporation, exercising their rights:

Huey » 10 May 2014 9:04 am » wrote: Citizens United, and the concept of unions, organizations, and yes, corporations which are all discussed in citizens united says that a group of people do not lose their rights because they are part of an organization. GE is not a person. A Union is not a person. But those that comprimise the group are. And they do not lose their rights because they formed a group.

Huey » 20 May 2014 4:40 am » wrote: 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.

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.

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?

When I make ya lie, little bitch, I own ya.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2017 9:06 pm » wrote:When you have to lie like a bitch about what you said in this very thread (snapbacks intact), you're just proving what I've said about your lack of character, sonny/

Here's you pretending - over and over and over - that corporations spening money on politics are merely the individuals who own the corporation, exercising their rights:
When I make ya lie, little bitch, I own ya.

Again, you are not forced to invest in a company. Which is the crux of the argument no matter how many times you attempt to reframe.

Huey » 19 Jan 2017 5:39 am » wrote:
Again, you are not forced to invest in a company. Which is the crux of the argument no matter how many times you attempt to reframe.

We are forced to invest in wall street...just through how this society is set up. Property taxes alone force us to invest in wall street...and I'm not speaking g of taking ten grand and purchasing stocks...I'm talking of actually INVESTING in a company by being forced to purchase their products. This thread is about free enterprise v capitalism. Remember Huey, during Obama care law suits we learned that by NOT purchasing a product is engaging in enter state commerce and the government has SCOTUS approval to force you by cage or gun to purchase a product from wall street

bigsky » 19 Jan 2017 6:06 am » wrote: We are forced to invest in wall street...just through how this society is set up. Property taxes alone force us to invest in wall street...and I'm not speaking g of taking ten grand and purchasing stocks...I'm talking of actually INVESTING in a company by being forced to purchase their products. This thread is about free enterprise v capitalism. Remember Huey, during Obama care law suits we learned that by NOT purchasing a product is engaging in enter state commerce and the government has SCOTUS approval to force you by cage or gun to purchase a product from wall street

This thread is 3 years old with 376 replies. This thread has many sub topics, like any long length thread. The discussion with Cannon is about CU and investing in a specific companies that you don't agree with. Now, like cannon, you are playing linguistic games. In the context of CU you are not forced to invest in anything. We are talking about taking 10 grand and investing in a company and whether the government forces you to do so or you have a choice.

What comapny are you forced by government to invest in and how does that apply in the discussion of CU?

Huey » 19 Jan 2017 6:15 am » wrote:
This thread is 3 years old with 376 replies. This thread has many sub topics, like any long length thread. The discussion with Cannon is about CU and investing in a specific companies that you don't agree with. Now, like cannon, you are playing linguistic games. In the context of CU you are not forced to invest in anything. We are talking about taking 10 grand and investing in a company and whether the government forces you to do so or you have a choice.

What comapny are you forced by government to invest in and how does that apply in the discussion of CU?

I do not disagree with the citizens united decision in as much as labor unions are legal...it is only fair that employers should be able to organize as well...what you are failing to grasp is that just to legally exist in the united states you must purchase or at least own clothing. Clothing manufacturers are usually publicly traded corporations. Your investment is on the purchasing product end. Most grocery suppliers are publicly traded...if Ya wanna eat....my point is that through property tax and regulation you are forced to financially invest in a corporation...
I know this isn't the in yer face argument everyone is looking for but it is an argument none the less

bigsky » 19 Jan 2017 6:36 am » wrote: I do not disagree with the citizens united decision in as much as labor unions are legal...it is only fair that employers should be able to organize as well...what you are failing to grasp is that just to legally exist in the united states you must purchase or at least own clothing. Clothing manufacturers are usually publicly traded corporations. Your investment is on the purchasing product end. Most grocery suppliers are publicly traded...if Ya wanna eat....my point is that through property tax and regulation you are forced to financially invest in a corporation...
I know this isn't the in yer face argument everyone is looking for but it is an argument none the less

I am not going to disagree with you. But when I purchase ANYTHING I still have the choice of where to purchase, where to live, where to shop. If I do not like WalMart I can go to Target, or Kroger, or Food Lion. My wife can shop at Kohls, Macy's, or where ever. I can buy my fuel at any number of places. I have 50 states I can choose to live in.

Now, not all the choices are good, but they are choices. And these choices are not dictated by the federal government.

Except for healthcare.

Thanks for the greenie.

Huey » 19 Jan 2017 5:39 am » wrote:
Again, you are not forced to invest in a company. Which is the crux of the argument no matter how many times you attempt to reframe.

Made ya lie - pwned.

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2017 9:59 am » wrote:Made ya lie - pwned.

You got that law for us? The one that mandates you HAVE to invest in corporations and how does that affect your argument on CU?