so di supreme court sey

[Wendy]

Re: so di supreme court sey

An Doc ..at least we can sey the unions spend their money representeing WOrkErs ..the little man .. you and me ..small business owners. When was the last time Big Corporation fight for the interest of "little people"

No comparison either way ...

[Blackstar*]

Re: so di supreme court sey

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MrsBlue</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #3333FF">It seems the Supreme Court based this decision on a previous decision years ago that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens. That is the decision that I would question.

If it has already been established that corporations have the same rights and freedoms as individual citizens, then it's not so much of a stretch to the decision that corporations should be able to give to campaigns in the same way that individuals can.

I think the error was made in the first decision, it certainly set the groundwork for this one.</span> </div></div>A piece in the NY Times mentions a case in 1886 (!) where the Supreme Court decided that railway companies have the same rights as individuals. (I guess corporations have a right to bear arms and benefit from religious freedom too!) Congress should really pass some legislation to put this matter to rest. Alternatively, corporations should have the same obligations as individuals, i.e. rate of taxation, military service, serve jury duty, etc.

[remo]

Re: so di supreme court sey

aren't these the same 5 guys who gave the 2000 election to Dubya?
and now this...in 10 years there will not be a Senator from Idaho or Nebraska there will be senators from General electric and Halliburton...

[barosa]

Re: so di supreme court sey

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: remo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">aren't these the same 5 guys who gave the 2000 election to Dubya?
and now this...in 10 years there will not be a Senator from Idaho or Nebraska there will be senators from General electric and Halliburton... </div></div>
Remo, what about other big corporations that are part of the Military Industrial Complex? Boeing and General Dynamics among others, come to mind. When we add the Wall St Capitalists, we now have the Republican idea of &quot;Free Speech... How can Unions which represents poor and middle income folks compete with these &quot;behemoths&quot; who's owners, shareholders and employees are outnumbered by the general population? How can a minority because of more MONEY has more &quot;free speech&quot; than the majority in any society? This is obscene and not democratic?
____________________________

It's not whether you win or lose, it's HOW you play the game.

[blugiant]

Re: so di supreme court sey

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So a corporation owned by shareholders who are not even citizens can influence the political system by sponsoring their own programs that select their own politician.

tell me that is not a novel way to over throw the American system
So foreigners can give us our government now. </div></div>

inn a thyme wen a latt aff mericans ar anti corporations ann even da mixxed race man iss politrixxinn ere. diss might eventuallee lead too a bakklash dat might change da system inn unexxpected ways

[remo]

Re: so di supreme court sey

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: barosa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=remo]aren't these the same 5 guys who gave the 2000 election to Dubya?
and now this...in 10 years there will not be a Senator from Idaho or Nebraska there will be senators from General electric and Halliburton... </div></div>
Remo, what about other big corporations that are part of the Military Industrial Complex? Boeing and General Dynamics among others, come to mind. When we add the Wall St Capitalists, we now have the Republican idea of &quot;Free Speech... How can Unions which represents poor and middle income folks compete with these &quot;behemoths&quot; who's owners, shareholders and employees are outnumbered by the general population? How can a minority because of more MONEY has more &quot;free speech&quot; than the majority in any society? This is obscene and not democratic?
____________________________

My point exactly Barosa.....
You will get no arguments from me with those observations....
Unions cant compete with big business and I have long contended
the the U.S. is no democracy

[gourmet]

Re: so di supreme court sey

The Speaker of the House recognizes the Congressman from Walmart...
This is the end of the US as we knew it. It's over, and it's &quot;legal&quot;. It's a terrible crime against democracy and against the American people.
The most powerful nation in the history of the world is now led by soulless corporations. They make more mobey while at war than at peace, so you can see what the future likely holds.
The Supreme court is corrupt and treasonous.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: so di supreme court sey

Trust me it not as bad as it seems. For the most part the corporations will be speaking to the choir. Most Young People are not going to listen to all those idiotic ads.

Swift-boaters have been gaming the system for years, it is better to put it all out in the open. The corporate backers of Bush and Company had a great years the economy was almost toasted Keep backing the wring horse and pretty soon it will Haiti on the Potomac.....no one wins.

The other thing Congress will find a way to make worse so that they can go forward to receiving Big Corp donations on the sly out of the gaze of the public.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: so di supreme court sey

Corporation dose not have the same rights and freedoms as individuals.
They do not have the right to vote or elect member s of government.
They cannot be nominated or elected as representative of teh people.
One of the reasons is that corporations although they may be registered in the US, there is not restriction on the citizenship of the holders of their stock, directors or management.
So a foreign country can with thi legal backing totally own all the stock on any corporation and use it to not just influence, but change laws, and replace politicians.

Now tell me what would cause any judge to overlook such a reality?? <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MrsBlue</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #3333FF">It seems the Supreme Court based this decision on a previous decision years ago that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens. That is the decision that I would question.

If it has already been established that corporations have the same rights and freedoms as individual citizens, then it's not so much of a stretch to the decision that corporations should be able to give to campaigns in the same way that individuals can.

I think the error was made in the first decision, it certainly set the groundwork for this one.</span> </div></div>