Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Why the outrage over Citizens United?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:05:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know this pisses people off, but what is so bad about allowing corporations to unlimitedly fund issue-based campaigns? If I only worked at my self-owned sole proprietorship business, and I used every dollar earned to fight for a cause that defends (or aids) my business' profits, no one would have an issue with that. However, if a corporation does it, that's wrong.

What's the difference?
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:21:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're a person. If you libel a CANDIDATE days before the election, there are real consequences for you. No one at a corporation faces any liability for their actions except, perhaps (and indirectly), the shareholders.

These "issues" are thinly veiled attacks on candidates (seriously, they pick the hot button "issue" that one candidate is on one side of, and another candidate is on the other side of), they come at a time when they can affect large swaths of voters (just before the election, because people are stupid ad have short memories), and they are so widely broadcast that they drown out the speech of anyone else.

THIS is the FIRE in a crowded movie theater that you were told about.

Plus, that wasn't even the worst part of Citizen United. The worst part was Roberts's secondary majority opinion on ultimate judicial authority.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:41:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:21:46 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You're a person. If you libel a CANDIDATE days before the election, there are real consequences for you. No one at a corporation faces any liability for their actions except, perhaps (and indirectly), the shareholders.
Then how can pundits, "news"casters, and other politicians get away with it?

These "issues" are thinly veiled attacks on candidates (seriously, they pick the hot button "issue" that one candidate is on one side of, and another candidate is on the other side of), they come at a time when they can affect large swaths of voters (just before the election, because people are stupid ad have short memories), and they are so widely broadcast that they drown out the speech of anyone else.

They are de facto campaign ads for "their guy", but if all candidates agreed (or disagreed), there would be no gain to a particular campaign, and the only purpose would be just to sway public opinion. Is this any different then advertising?

THIS is the FIRE in a crowded movie theater that you were told about.
Misinformation/slant is a problem, but if the only reason someone is voting for someone is on ONE issue, they should be researching it. The chances that a sum of issues would be skewed to aid one candidate over another is unlikely, as a conservative is unlikely to vote for a Democrat, no matter how badly they are portrayed, and vice versa.

We are in the so-called "information age", and it seems everyone is dumber than they used to be. People need to analyze and think. Critique resources. Find the truth inbetween the lies/hyperbole (generally the middle ground).

Plus, that wasn't even the worst part of Citizen United. The worst part was Roberts's secondary majority opinion on ultimate judicial authority.

I haven't read the decisions, and this is not something I hear. If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people.
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:47:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:41:11 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I haven't read the decisions, and this is not something I hear. If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people.

Who was it that just noted that "we live in the so-called information age and yet people are getting dumber and dumber, and if people are focusing on ONE issue, they should research it"?

Physician, heal thyself.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:50:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:41:11 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:21:46 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You're a person. If you libel a CANDIDATE days before the election, there are real consequences for you. No one at a corporation faces any liability for their actions except, perhaps (and indirectly), the shareholders.
Then how can pundits, "news"casters, and other politicians get away with it?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they're people as well.

These "issues" are thinly veiled attacks on candidates (seriously, they pick the hot button "issue" that one candidate is on one side of, and another candidate is on the other side of), they come at a time when they can affect large swaths of voters (just before the election, because people are stupid ad have short memories), and they are so widely broadcast that they drown out the speech of anyone else.

They are de facto campaign ads for "their guy", but if all candidates agreed (or disagreed), there would be no gain to a particular campaign, and the only purpose would be just to sway public opinion. Is this any different then advertising?

Well geez, why didn't you say so? Let's just go get everyone to agree, that should be easy enough, shouldn't it?

THIS is the FIRE in a crowded movie theater that you were told about.
Misinformation/slant is a problem, but if the only reason someone is voting for someone is on ONE issue, they should be researching it. The chances that a sum of issues would be skewed to aid one candidate over another is unlikely, as a conservative is unlikely to vote for a Democrat, no matter how badly they are portrayed, and vice versa.

We are in the so-called "information age", and it seems everyone is dumber than they used to be. People need to analyze and think. Critique resources. Find the truth inbetween the lies/hyperbole (generally the middle ground).

Um...yeah...I already addressed this.

Plus, that wasn't even the worst part of Citizen United. The worst part was Roberts's secondary majority opinion on ultimate judicial authority.

I haven't read the decisions, and this is not something I hear. If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people.

Find a reading circle, then.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:51:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You haven't read the decisions...

You know who I DON'T want to tell me about a movie?

SOMEONE WHO HASN'T F*CKING SEEN IT.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:56:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:47:24 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:41:11 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I haven't read the decisions, and this is not something I hear. If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people.

Who was it that just noted that "we live in the so-called information age and yet people are getting dumber and dumber, and if people are focusing on ONE issue, they should research it"?

Physician, heal thyself.
I left myself open for that, but is this mystery decision relevant to the claims being made?
And for the record, I am not a one issue voter, so it is an inapt analogy.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:03:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:51:37 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You haven't read the decisions...

You know who I DON'T want to tell me about a movie?

SOMEONE WHO HASN'T F*CKING SEEN IT.

Why do I have to read the decisions to agree with the ruling? If, on my own thinking, I find myself agreeing with someone else, but for different reasons, it means nothing? I can only cite their reasons for allowing this...
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:03:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:56:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:47:24 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:41:11 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I haven't read the decisions, and this is not something I hear. If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people.

Who was it that just noted that "we live in the so-called information age and yet people are getting dumber and dumber, and if people are focusing on ONE issue, they should research it"?

Physician, heal thyself.
I left myself open for that, but is this mystery decision relevant to the claims being made?
And for the record, I am not a one issue voter, so it is an inapt analogy.

No, but you've broken this down as if it were tied to a single issue and it isn't, so this is quite apt.

You were completely unaware of anything but what you're heard in the "news", and you then made an assumption about something which was much more complicated than you even realize because you believed that you were given all the relevant facts.

If you don't see that this is why the one piece of this decision that you did call out is a bad idea, then you're blind.

In attempting to defend Citizen's United, you've put forth the nearly perfect criticism of it.


Bravo! I don't think anyone could possibly have done a better job than you just did.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:06:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:03:01 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:51:37 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You haven't read the decisions...

You know who I DON'T want to tell me about a movie?

SOMEONE WHO HASN'T F*CKING SEEN IT.

Why do I have to read the decisions to agree with the ruling? If, on my own thinking, I find myself agreeing with someone else, but for different reasons, it means nothing? I can only cite their reasons for allowing this...

Because YOU DON'T F*CKING UNDERSTAND THE RULING OR EVEN KNOW THE FULL EXTENT OF IT.

That's why.

"Why do I have to read this book to understand what the author was saying in it when I can just have someone else tell me what they meant?"

You're f*cking kidding, right? This is a joke to show why Citizen's United is such a bad ruling, isn't it?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:15:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

It should be if doing so leads to greater profit. That's their job.

The argument here is that corporations are not held responsible in any meaningful way for libel or purposeful obfuscation.

People would be.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:16:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:50:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:41:11 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:21:46 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You're a person. If you libel a CANDIDATE days before the election, there are real consequences for you. No one at a corporation faces any liability for their actions except, perhaps (and indirectly), the shareholders.
Then how can pundits, "news"casters, and other politicians get away with it?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but they're people as well.
And what consequences are there for them? None to my knowledge.

These "issues" are thinly veiled attacks on candidates (seriously, they pick the hot button "issue" that one candidate is on one side of, and another candidate is on the other side of), they come at a time when they can affect large swaths of voters (just before the election, because people are stupid ad have short memories), and they are so widely broadcast that they drown out the speech of anyone else.

They are de facto campaign ads for "their guy", but if all candidates agreed (or disagreed), there would be no gain to a particular campaign, and the only purpose would be just to sway public opinion. Is this any different then advertising?

Well geez, why didn't you say so? Let's just go get everyone to agree, that should be easy enough, shouldn't it?
So, on a hot button issue, politicians have different views, and what is good for a particular business aligns with one of them, say Senator A. Is the ad campaign that promotes this view of Senator A saying that it is in fact the view of Senator B, or saying Senator A does not believe this view. Unless these are happening, there is no libel, there is no deception, and anyone who would care about said issue would likely already vote for Senator A. What is the negative effect here?

THIS is the FIRE in a crowded movie theater that you were told about.
Misinformation/slant is a problem, but if the only reason someone is voting for someone is on ONE issue, they should be researching it. The chances that a sum of issues would be skewed to aid one candidate over another is unlikely, as a conservative is unlikely to vote for a Democrat, no matter how badly they are portrayed, and vice versa.

We are in the so-called "information age", and it seems everyone is dumber than they used to be. People need to analyze and think. Critique resources. Find the truth inbetween the lies/hyperbole (generally the middle ground).

Um...yeah...I already addressed this.

Plus, that wasn't even the worst part of Citizen United. The worst part was Roberts's secondary majority opinion on ultimate judicial authority.

I haven't read the decisions, and this is not something I hear. If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people.

Find a reading circle, then.
Why? "Ultimate judicial authority" does not seem to have any place in what is actually being discussed. And my reasoning does not need it.

Basically, what you are saying is, I should be ignored because I don't know what "the worst part" of the decision was, even though it is not relevant to what I am discussing in the OP.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:25:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:06:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 4:03:01 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:51:37 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
You haven't read the decisions...

You know who I DON'T want to tell me about a movie?

SOMEONE WHO HASN'T F*CKING SEEN IT.

Why do I have to read the decisions to agree with the ruling? If, on my own thinking, I find myself agreeing with someone else, but for different reasons, it means nothing? I can only cite their reasons for allowing this...

Because YOU DON'T F*CKING UNDERSTAND THE RULING OR EVEN KNOW THE FULL EXTENT OF IT.

That's why.

Then neither do the people I am referring to in the OP. Fine, myself and the people I deal with no nothing about this. Ignore that I ever mentioned Citizens United, and that I am simply attacking people being upset that a company should be able to support a single-issue campaign. Care to comment, on this now that there is no grander issue at hand?

"Why do I have to read this book to understand what the author was saying in it when I can just have someone else tell me what they meant?"
You are assuming that I have been told anything except what people are complaining about. This is MY defense of the issue that is brought up by people claiming it is Citizen's United's fault. If they are wrong, it does not affect my argument.

You're f*cking kidding, right? This is a joke to show why Citizen's United is such a bad ruling, isn't it?
I guess so, since apparently no one knows what the core issue is (except you and others).
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:16:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? "Ultimate judicial authority" does not seem to have any place in what is actually being discussed. And my reasoning does not need it.

Basically, what you are saying is, I should be ignored because I don't know what "the worst part" of the decision was, even though it is not relevant to what I am discussing in the OP.

You should be ignored because you are the poster child for those who oppose this decision as a bad one.

Just like the one issue voter wouldn't think issues 2, 3, and 4 are important, or relevant, to an election because they were spoon fed information about them, you don't think this other, VERY IMPORTANT part of why Citizens United was a bad decision is relevant.

The title of this thread asks, "Why the outrage over Citizens United?".

I just told you why. Did that prompt you to go find information about Roberts's secondary majority opinion? I mean, we do live in the information age, so finding this information isn't an issue, is it?

Of course you didn't. Just like the people who would be overly influenced by the propaganda fed to them days, or even hours, before an election, you rely on your propaganda source to tell you what is and isn't important about this decision.

Me? I read the sh!t for myself and then make up my mind. I'm stupid like that, though, I hear.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:33:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:25:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 4:06:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

"Why do I have to read this book to understand what the author was saying in it when I can just have someone else tell me what they meant?"
You are assuming that I have been told anything except what people are complaining about. This is MY defense of the issue that is brought up by people claiming it is Citizen's United's fault. If they are wrong, it does not affect my argument.

What does the ruling in Citizens United allow for that wasn't allowed prior, and what was the basis for making this decision? (Stare Decisis...it's what our legal system is based on, much more than the constitution)

In the dissenting opinion, why was it noted that Scalia (he wrote the primary majority opinion) was incorrect in his application of law, or was it even noted that he was incorrect in his application of law?

Let's start there. Show me you even understand this decision, and then you can have an argument about it. How's that?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:33:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:15:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

It should be if doing so leads to greater profit. That's their job.
Exactly. And if the shareholders had an issue with it, they could sell their shares or create a bylaw to prohibit it.

The argument here is that corporations are not held responsible in any meaningful way for libel or purposeful obfuscation.

People would be.
Have you listened to talk radio? Alex Jones and Mike Maloy come to mind.
Is there a significant difference between libel and slander, where one would be too far merely because it is written? Doesn't Trump go around saying Obama was not born in Hawaii, what has been his consequences for saying this? Hell, didn't he say he had proof? Didn't he basically try to extort the president to release his birth certificate by holding a charity at ransom? Didn't Harry Reid "know for a fact" that Romney was hiding money on his tax returns (or something like that), and that was why he wasn't releasing them?

What were their consequences?
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 4:52:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:33:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 4:15:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

It should be if doing so leads to greater profit. That's their job.
Exactly. And if the shareholders had an issue with it, they could sell their shares or create a bylaw to prohibit it.

Shareholders don't have an issue with lawlessness? The only issue they have is stock price.

The argument here is that corporations are not held responsible in any meaningful way for libel or purposeful obfuscation.

People would be.
Have you listened to talk radio? Alex Jones and Mike Maloy come to mind.
Is there a significant difference between libel and slander, where one would be too far merely because it is written?

No, there isn't. that isn't the point.

Doesn't Trump go around saying Obama was not born in Hawaii, what has been his consequences for saying this? Hell, didn't he say he had proof?

Donald Trump says he doesn't BELIEVE that Obama was born in Hawaii...BIG difference.

Didn't he basically try to extort the president to release his birth certificate by holding a charity at ransom?

No law against being a douchebag, unfortunately.

Didn't Harry Reid "know for a fact" that Romney was hiding money on his tax returns (or something like that), and that was why he wasn't releasing them?

And, if this were libel, Romney would have immediately taken him to court and sued his @ss off, using his tax returns as proof.

He didn't because he couldn't because Reid was right. (every rich person took advantage of the Tax Amnesty in 2010...Romney was no exception. I'm not sure that the amnesty wasn't a trap that the DNP put in place, knowing the GOP would go for it without thinking that their main candidate would be subject to the "generosity" of the amnesty, and thus unable to release his returns for that year during his campaign, because he tried to release EVERYTHING but those)

What were their consequences?

Exactly what they should have been.


For Trump, he got his issues into the campaign (which were actually pretty important and he was on the right side of all of them...the birther thing was a stunt, and a pretty good one).

For Reid - nothing.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:03:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 4:26:46 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 4:16:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? "Ultimate judicial authority" does not seem to have any place in what is actually being discussed. And my reasoning does not need it.

Basically, what you are saying is, I should be ignored because I don't know what "the worst part" of the decision was, even though it is not relevant to what I am discussing in the OP.

You should be ignored because you are the poster child for those who oppose this decision as a bad one.

Just like the one issue voter wouldn't think issues 2, 3, and 4 are important, or relevant, to an election because they were spoon fed information about them, you don't think this other, VERY IMPORTANT part of why Citizens United was a bad decision is relevant.

The title of this thread asks, "Why the outrage over Citizens United?".

I just told you why. Did that prompt you to go find information about Roberts's secondary majority opinion? I mean, we do live in the information age, so finding this information isn't an issue, is it?
The title is connected to the OP, and you didn't really address the OP. In fairness, you addressed the title, though.

Of course you didn't. Just like the people who would be overly influenced by the propaganda fed to them days, or even hours, before an election, you rely on your propaganda source to tell you what is and isn't important about this decision.
1. What makes you think I didn't look for it? It is an 82-page decision, of which I have just realized I am missing something of great importance in it, within less than the last two hours. I do not read that fast.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com...
2. Again, what makes you think I have propaganda fed to me? In the OP, I stated what people complain about, and give my defense. Is my defense what others say? If not, clearly I wasn't fed. Is what others complain about relevant to the "really important" issue you speak of, or even to this case at all? If not, they don't know, either, and my defense is clearly not propaganda, as why would people feed me something that isn't the issue.

Me? I read the sh!t for myself and then make up my mind. I'm stupid like that, though, I hear.

Congratulations. I work three jobs and am a slow reader. I sift through knowledge however I get it, then analyze. Similar to what you do, except you have fewer judgment calls as to what is true before you analyze.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:09:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Malcom, can you cite me a source that shows a politician suing someone for libel? Perhaps Hillary Clinton for the movie that was made?

If there is a shred of truth to the claim, I am assuming it isn't libel, and I would assume that any spin doctor would make sure it is there.
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:18:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:03:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

1. What makes you think I didn't look for it? It is an 82-page decision, of which I have just realized I am missing something of great importance in it, within less than the last two hours. I do not read that fast.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com...

The fact that it was only after I accused you of not looking for it, that you noted that you did, and prior to that you were completely dismissive of it were the biggest clues I was working with there.

2. Again, what makes you think I have propaganda fed to me? In the OP, I stated what people complain about, and give my defense. Is my defense what others say? If not, clearly I wasn't fed. Is what others complain about relevant to the "really important" issue you speak of, or even to this case at all? If not, they don't know, either, and my defense is clearly not propaganda, as why would people feed me something that isn't the issue.

"If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people." - Khaos_Mage


Me? I read the sh!t for myself and then make up my mind. I'm stupid like that, though, I hear.

Congratulations. I work three jobs and am a slow reader. I sift through knowledge however I get it, then analyze. Similar to what you do, except you have fewer judgment calls as to what is true before you analyze.

You've had all this time to argue with me about something you haven't even bothered to research independent of whatever talk radio show you heard this topic being bandied about today.

We all use our time differently. Whatevs.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:22:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:09:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Malcom, can you cite me a source that shows a politician suing someone for libel? Perhaps Hillary Clinton for the movie that was made?

If there is a shred of truth to the claim, I am assuming it isn't libel, and I would assume that any spin doctor would make sure it is there.

I can cite you the, "My Name Is ______________, and I approve this message" decision, which largely keeps campaign ads plausibly true so that no one can sue anyone else. Is that good enough?

Also, members of Congress can't be held liable for anything which is in the purview of their duties as congressmen.

That's in the Constitution. I'm guessing that's another document you criticize without having read as well, though.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:34:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:18:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 5:03:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

1. What makes you think I didn't look for it? It is an 82-page decision, of which I have just realized I am missing something of great importance in it, within less than the last two hours. I do not read that fast.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com...

The fact that it was only after I accused you of not looking for it, that you noted that you did, and prior to that you were completely dismissive of it were the biggest clues I was working with there.
Yes, in the course of a two hour thread, and literally 30 minutes between my comment and your accusation.

2. Again, what makes you think I have propaganda fed to me? In the OP, I stated what people complain about, and give my defense. Is my defense what others say? If not, clearly I wasn't fed. Is what others complain about relevant to the "really important" issue you speak of, or even to this case at all? If not, they don't know, either, and my defense is clearly not propaganda, as why would people feed me something that isn't the issue.

"If it really is an issue, it surely isn't being discussed in my circles. The issue is money =/= speech, and corporations are not people." - Khaos_Mage
This is what I hear people say in my circles. So, they misunderstand and misrepresent, and I play along. It is my fault for not knowing any better, but it is hardly the same as being fed propaganda.


Me? I read the sh!t for myself and then make up my mind. I'm stupid like that, though, I hear.

Congratulations. I work three jobs and am a slow reader. I sift through knowledge however I get it, then analyze. Similar to what you do, except you have fewer judgment calls as to what is true before you analyze.

You've had all this time to argue with me about something you haven't even bothered to research independent of whatever talk radio show you heard this topic being bandied about today.
This is something that has been discussed in my circles for months (does Occupy Wall Street not say corporation are not people). Again, they misrepresent the issue. They are the ones that don't know because of what they are told. They are the ones that could be arguing the "not before them broad issue" that it appears Roberts was talking about. Instead, they quote the mantras of someone else.

And I am the ignorant fool that argues against their propaganda with only my wits.

We all use our time differently. Whatevs.
Perhaps you could use yours to not assume so much, as I could use mine to actually do research.
My work here is, finally, done.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:58:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 5:34:23 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/14/2013 5:18:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

We all use our time differently. Whatevs.
Perhaps you could use yours to not assume so much, as I could use mine to actually do research.

then shut up and do it, already. I ain't stoppin' ya.

The only thing that p!sses you off about the few things I've assumed here is that they've been right.

I bet I can argue with you about just this for another 2 hours and completely distract you from this research by doing so.

Prove me wrong...PLEASE!
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 10:29:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

^

Corporations are "persons" but corporations are not really "persons". Corporations do not have emotions, they are groups of people who have emotions. These groups of people are free to donate as much as they see fit, but IMHO not through the corporation for exactly the reasons double_r cites.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 2:28:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 10:29:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

^

Corporations are "persons" but corporations are not really "persons". Corporations do not have emotions, they are groups of people who have emotions. These groups of people are free to donate as much as they see fit, but IMHO not through the corporation for exactly the reasons double_r cites.

Corporations are pieces of paper which codify their corporate charter. People work at corporations, but they do not make a business a corporation by the nature of their employment for them.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:11:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 2:28:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 10:29:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

^

Corporations are "persons" but corporations are not really "persons". Corporations do not have emotions, they are groups of people who have emotions. These groups of people are free to donate as much as they see fit, but IMHO not through the corporation for exactly the reasons double_r cites.

Corporations are pieces of paper which codify their corporate charter. People work at corporations, but they do not make a business a corporation by the nature of their employment for them.

I don't understand your point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 3:26:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:28:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 10:29:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

^

Corporations are "persons" but corporations are not really "persons". Corporations do not have emotions, they are groups of people who have emotions. These groups of people are free to donate as much as they see fit, but IMHO not through the corporation for exactly the reasons double_r cites.

Corporations are pieces of paper which codify their corporate charter. People work at corporations, but they do not make a business a corporation by the nature of their employment for them.

I don't understand your point.

My point was (and is) corporations are in no way persons, other than through a legal decision around the Santa Clara Railroad in 1886 which was intended to give the Federal Government a little muscle when the Federal Government needed a little muscle.

Corporations are legal documents which we have been stupid enough to imbue with personhood, and while it is necessary for them to have limited 4th-7th amendment rights in order to conduct business, I'm pretty sure they don't need 21st amendment rights, and we don't grant them 19th amendment rights.

If they can't feel pain, why do they need 8th amendment rights?

They are NOT persons.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2013 5:00:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/14/2013 3:26:39 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:11:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 2:28:52 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/14/2013 10:29:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/14/2013 3:43:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
Corporations should have no business funding political campaigns. Corporations are owned by it's shareholders, which for many of these companies means that they literally have thousands of different owners. If the executives at these companies want to donate their own personal money to helping their political cause then that is their right, but what should not be their right is to use other peoples money instead.

^

Corporations are "persons" but corporations are not really "persons". Corporations do not have emotions, they are groups of people who have emotions. These groups of people are free to donate as much as they see fit, but IMHO not through the corporation for exactly the reasons double_r cites.

Corporations are pieces of paper which codify their corporate charter. People work at corporations, but they do not make a business a corporation by the nature of their employment for them.

I don't understand your point.

My point was (and is) corporations are in no way persons, other than through a legal decision around the Santa Clara Railroad in 1886 which was intended to give the Federal Government a little muscle when the Federal Government needed a little muscle.

Corporations are legal documents which we have been stupid enough to imbue with personhood, and while it is necessary for them to have limited 4th-7th amendment rights in order to conduct business, I'm pretty sure they don't need 21st amendment rights, and we don't grant them 19th amendment rights.

If they can't feel pain, why do they need 8th amendment rights?

They are NOT persons.

I fully agree with this statement. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?