Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806467]Except this case wasn't fucking FOUGHT by corporations, it was fought by independent activists who were denied their First Amendment Rights! [editline]04:33PM[/editline] Knock off the conspiracy shit. This isn't a fucking video game, corporations aren't controlling the universe. They are more strictly enforced in this country than anything else. We have MULTIPLE branches of the FBI to handle corporate crime, we have enormous infrastructure to keep them in their place and they DO get kept in their place. [editline]04:34PM[/editline] They are independent, non-corporate interests. What I call them does not matter. Their rights were violated, the law had to go. What happened to them would have been the same as blocking an ad for the SPCA, or Greenpeace or any other political organization. Their voices were muted unconstitutionally.[/QUOTE] can you honestly not see the potential for "legalized bribery" in the form of campaign finance for senators/congressmen (both locally and federally) who promise industry-friendly laws because i guarantee you that it will happen in some form or another

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806515]you should not focus on the "individual rights" so much [/QUOTE] This is America. It's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, motherfucker. Individual rights are the single most important thing in this country. More important than security, more important than prosperity, more important than wealth or poverty or sickness or health. Our entire doctrine was WRITTEN to enforce this. We have RIGHTS for this very reason. They are fucking RIGHTS, not suggestions. The reason they are RIGHTS is because they are NEVER to be violated under any circumstances, even if it would result in the complete collapse of the nation. [editline]04:38PM[/editline] If you do not understand this then you belong in a different country. [editline]04:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806560]can you honestly not see the potential for "legalized bribery" in the form of campaign finance for senators/congressmen (both locally and federally) who promise industry-friendly laws because i guarantee you that it will happen in some form or another[/QUOTE] Things that are still illegal: Direct Contribution. Bribery Perjury ANY COLLABORATION AT ALL BETWEEN CORPORATE INTERESTS AND CANDIDATES, and doing so results in the immediate dismissal of the candidate. The ONLY corporate right this entails is corporations' right to air their own independent advertisements with no input or relation to the candidate, and a clear and utter transparency therein in the form of public FoIA requests on their affairs.

[QUOTE=tinhead50;19806553]Couldn't he present a case to the supreme court arguing that people are more easily influenced by flashly ads than actual facts? I mean, the president is also a citizen, isn't he?[/QUOTE] That'd make him a hypocrite with all this flashy ads from '08. I remember he had the most expensive political ad in history.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806566]This is America. It's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, motherfucker. Individual rights are the single most important thing in this country. More important than security, more important than prosperity, more important than wealth or poverty or sickness or health. Our entire doctrine was WRITTEN to enforce this. We have RIGHTS for this very reason. They are fucking RIGHTS, not suggestions. The reason they are RIGHTS is because they are NEVER to be violated under any circumstances, even if it would result in the complete collapse of the nation. [editline]04:38PM[/editline] If you do not understand this then you belong in a different country.[/QUOTE] yes that is all very cute but the public good is equally as important as individual rights, you can have both, it isn't just one or the other campaign finance laws aren't a fascist conspiracy designed to stifle the public's ability to participate in a democratic election, but rather they promote democracy through fair and honest elections

[QUOTE=tinhead50;19806553]Couldn't he present a case to the supreme court arguing that people are more easily influenced by flashly ads than actual facts? I mean, the president is also a citizen, isn't he?[/QUOTE] The president has less power than a citizen. The Supreme Court cannot be violated. At all. Ever. Their first duty is Interpretation of the United States Constitution. They are the ones who DEFINE the most basic rules that government abides by. They are the end-all of authority in this nation. [editline]04:42PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806631]yes that is all very cute but the public good is equally as important as individual rights[/QUOTE] Not in this country it isn't. There is no right to Public Good. In fact it's quite the opposite, Public Good can fall as far as it wants, it does not permit the ability to violate basic constitutional rights. Welcome to America. Go the fuck back to History Class. You want ensured public good? Live elsewhere. There are plenty of nations that get along fine with what you suggest. But this nation, we do not do that.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19804350]Obama can't trump the Supreme Court. If the fucking SUPREME COURT deems something unconstitutional, neither the Executive nor Congress can reenact it. The Supreme Court has the FINAL say.[/QUOTE] I hope we don't end up with an even stronger Executive branch, fuck the Legislative branch has already given the Execs the say whether or not to go to war.

[QUOTE=Amez;19806651]I hope we don't end up with an even stronger Executive branch, fuck the Legislative branch has already given the Execs the say whether or not to go to war.[/QUOTE] The Excecutive branch is the weakest of the 3.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806635]The president has less power than a citizen. The Supreme Court cannot be violated. At all. Ever. Their first duty is Interpretation of the United States Constitution. They are the ones who DEFINE the most basic rules that government abides by. They are the end-all of authority in this nation. [editline]04:42PM[/editline] Not in this country it isn't. There is no right to Public Good. In fact it's quite the opposite, Public Good can fall as far as it wants, it does not permit the ability to violate basic constitutional rights. Welcome to America. Go the fuck back to History Class. You want ensured public good? Live elsewhere. There are plenty of nations that get along fine with what you suggest. But this nation, we do not do that.[/QUOTE] don't patronize me; i am familiar with history and would prefer it if this court case didn't bring back gilded age politics. why, for that matter, are you so opposed to the public good as i said, campaign finance reform/publicly financed elections don't stifle democracy, but rather enforce it; it provides for fair and honest elections.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806631]campaign finance laws aren't a fascist conspiracy designed to stifle the public's ability to participate in a democratic election, but rather they promote democracy through fair and honest elections[/QUOTE] And by blocking a dissenting voice. [editline]04:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806741]don't patronize me; i am familiar with history and would prefer it if this court case didn't bring back gilded age politics as i said, campaign finance reform/publicly financed elections don't stifle democracy, but rather enforce it; it provides for fair and honest elections.[/QUOTE] And it blocks dissenters from speaking. these guys were dissenters they were blocked there is nothing more to this. Maybe YOU don't give a fuck about the integrity of the most basic right we have in this country, but the rest of us do. The singlemost important right we have in this country is the right to be discontent. These people were denied that. I don't give a flying fuck what the law was intended for, it was corrupted and abused and it had to go. [editline]04:50PM[/editline] You talk like this is a fair law but you neglect to acknowledge the fact that it UNFAIRLY and ILLEGALLY silenced this group of people. [editline]04:50PM[/editline] Perhaps it is easy for you to overlook legitimized abuse simply because you do not like the people who were abused, but some of us actually realize rights apply to everyone. I don't agree with these people, they are closet homophobic conservative imperialists. But they goddamn well have the right to say whatever the hell they want without any government interference.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806750]And by blocking a dissenting voice. [editline]04:47PM[/editline] And it blocks dissenters from speaking. these guys were dissenters they were blocked there is nothing more to this. Maybe YOU don't give a fuck about the integrity of the most basic right we have in this country, but the rest of us do.[/QUOTE] i literally do not care about the first amendment or individual liberties there is no need to act like a child lankist

obama = communist!~!!

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806817]i literally do not care about the first amendment or individual liberties there is no need to act like a child lankist[/QUOTE] Go live in China. They are very stable and they have excellent law enforcement. Sure, the First Amendment is what ensures you the right to post on this forum and say whatever you wish without any reprimand from your government, but fuck that. I mean, YOU weren't the one being silenced so who cares.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806467]Except this case wasn't fucking FOUGHT by corporations, it was fought by independent activists who were denied their First Amendment Rights! [/QUOTE] Oh bullshit, it was fought by a PAC backed by corporate money to pursue corporate interests, just like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks and all those others who shilled lies and misinformation during the health debate to stoke fear and anxiety so people would be less inclined to support a bill that would have been devastating to their interests. There's nothing independent about it, they are your standard corporate-funded astroturf group designed to look like an ordinary citizen's activist organization. They were denied the right to air their 90 minute smear ad because it was judged to be just that: a political campaign ad subject to the existing restrictions on campaign ads. It's not like it was censored, they advertised on the internet, sold DVDs, and showed it in theaters, where the laws didn't apply. Nobody's rights were violated, and corporations are not human.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19806874]Oh bullshit, it was fought by a PAC backed by corporate money to pursue corporate interests[/QUOTE] Proof, now. You are the worst kind of conspiracy nut. And you idiots claim I'M paranoid about government conspiracy. YOU guys act as though corporations are raping your brains right now.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806855]Go live in China. They are very stable and they have excellent law enforcement. Sure, the First Amendment is what ensures you the right to post on this forum and say whatever you wish without any reprimand from your government, but fuck that.[/QUOTE] maybe you should edit your post 5 more times about how i hate people for their opinions and don't care about the first amendment it would be nice if we can get this thread more focused about the outcome of the decision and how it will affect issues in the future, or even about corporate personhood, but instead you chose to be extremely reductionist. it's almost as if this thread is a microcosm of the court case itself

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806906]maybe you should edit your post 5 more times about how i hate people for their opinions and don't care about the first amendment it would be nice if we can get this thread more focused about the outcome of the decision and how it will affect issues in the future, or even about corporate personhood, but instead you chose to be extremely reductionist. it's almost as if this thread is a microcosm of the court case itself[/QUOTE] Have you read the actual court ruling? Or have you simply read articles about it?

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806891]Proof, now. You are the worst kind of conspiracy nut. And you idiots claim I'M paranoid about government conspiracy. YOU guys act as though corporations are raping your brains right now.[/QUOTE] what is your problem it's a saturday

Because if you HAVEN'T read the ruling I'd say your pretentious attitude like you actually know shit about the case needs to drop the fuck off right now.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806817]i literally do not care about the first amendment or individual liberties there is no need to act like a child lankist[/QUOTE] So you don't like freedom of speech? That already took a chunk of creditability away from you.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806942]what is your problem it's a saturday[/QUOTE] So you're dropping your self-proclaimed logical argument fraught with foresight for this?

[QUOTE=doommarine23;19806959]So you don't like freedom of speech? That already took a chunk of creditability away from you.[/QUOTE] it was sarcasm :smile: [editline]10:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;19806961]So you're dropping your self-proclaimed logical argument fraught with foresight for this?[/QUOTE] no it's because you're being a hateful unpleasant dick for no reason and I don't want to get into a shouting match

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806974]no it's because you're being a hateful unpleasant dick for no reason and I don't want to get into a shouting match[/QUOTE] If you aren't going to provide a rebuttal then you can leave. In the meantime I am going to muse on the irony here, given the concern for individual rights above all else is a LIBERAL philosophy, where the concern for stability and prosperity as a whole is a CONSERVATIVE one. In fact that's where the terms came from! LIBERAL in concern to risks and rights, and CONSERVATIVE in thus. Surprise! You're Conservative. Run along now and vote Palin.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807014]If you aren't going to provide a rebuttal then you can leave. In the meantime I am going to muse on the irony here, given the concern for individual rights above all else is a LIBERAL philosophy, where the concern for stability and prosperity as a whole is a CONSERVATIVE one. Surprise! You're Conservative.[/QUOTE] nice attempt at trolling but ideological purity is really ignorant; I'm a gun owner and fully support gun rights (against the AWB and would like the MG registry to be reopened with heavy regulation, such as licensing and etc), that doesn't make me a conservative, that just makes me pro-gun. what do you want me to rebut, as far as the case is concerned I'd agree that if the movie was as much of a campaign advertisement as the FEC claimed it was then it should be subjected to campaign laws. I haven't seen the movie and you probably haven't either so I can't really expand on that. as far as I have read into the case I would disagree with the supreme court's decision in that it would allow corporations and unions to cut the middleman (PACs) and run campaign ads themselves ("mcdonalds likes low prices and so does barack obama. vote for him")

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806891]Proof, now. You are the worst kind of conspiracy nut. And you idiots claim I'M paranoid about government conspiracy. YOU guys act as though corporations are raping your brains right now.[/QUOTE] The whole reason it was blocked by the federal government is because, duh, the production and airing of the movie was paid for with corporate money, which was illegal at the time. Technically Citizens United is a non-profit corporation, not a PAC, so they're subject to that law.

why are you so angry lankist, we can discuss this and chill out at the same time it's not like you need to be in a state of indignant rage to get your point across

And this is the year when Democracy dies in America.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807014]If you aren't going to provide a rebuttal then you can leave. In the meantime I am going to muse on the irony here, given the concern for individual rights above all else is a LIBERAL philosophy, where the concern for stability and prosperity as a whole is a CONSERVATIVE one. In fact that's where the terms came from! LIBERAL in concern to risks and rights, and CONSERVATIVE in thus. Surprise! You're Conservative. Run along now and vote Palin.[/QUOTE] I must be a liberal then. If they're so concerned about individual rights, then why are most of them anti-gun?

[QUOTE=JDK721;19807323]I must be a liberal then. If they're so concerned about individual rights, then why are most of them anti-gun?[/QUOTE] because liberals are very superficial from time to time guns aren't the issue, poverty and drugs are; you don't need to end both to fix the problem

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19807185]The whole reason it was blocked by the federal government is because, duh, the production and airing of the movie was paid for with corporate money, which was illegal at the time.[/QUOTE] Prove it, now. Given the ruling states specifically that this was NOT the case, you're fucking wrong. [editline]05:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721;19807323]I must be a liberal then. If they're so concerned about individual rights, then why are most of them anti-gun?[/QUOTE] Liberal ideology, not democratic party. The American Constitution is a purely Liberal doctrine.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807418]Prove it, now. Given the ruling states specifically that this was NOT the case, you're fucking wrong. [/QUOTE] Citizens United is a non-profit corporation. Citizens United paid to create the movie, which was judged to be an extended length campaign ad. Therefore, corporate money paid for a campaign ad, which was illegal. Why is it so hard for you to get it through your head that the Supreme Court isn't perfect?