Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And just to be clear.
You, Liability, feel that Corporations should be allowed to blanket the airwaves with propaganda, and drown out all other individual voices in every election.
I just want you to go on record as stating that that is your feeling.
You cannot go on the record to state MY feeling.
Your post serves quite well to underscore why.
I speak for me (and when I speak for me, I say what I feel).
You don't speak for me because when you make the effort, you fuck it up.
Corporations should indeed have the right to express their POV. I endorse freedom of speech. The First Amendment means what it says.
This is great litmus test for who amongst the teabaggers and the teabag sympathizers are just corporatists in disguise.
If Tea Party activists were interested in individual freedoms at all, they would be marching on the supreme court as we speak.
Wtf are you babbling about?
How do you imagine a corporation COULD be incarcerated?
No. For deliberate (and proved) violations of the criminal law, the corporations can get fined and possibly disbanded. Their officers can face convictions and incarceration.
Shareholders are, of course, the beneficiaries of their limited liability. (Otherwise who the fuck would ever invest in capitalist enterprises?) But shareholders CAN lose the entirety of whatever capital they invested IN the corporation if the sanctions cause the corporation to go out of business.
For all your rather incoherent criticisms, you don't come across all that clearly on rational alternatives.
What would you propose as an alternative to the current corporations'-system, which would serve to both permit the formation of companies (in order to foster capitalist ventures) and yet also serve the needs of those who would make such investments?
Wtf are you babbling about?
How do you imagine a corporation COULD be incarcerated?
No. For deliberate (and proved) violations of the criminal law, the corporations can get fined and possibly disbanded. Their officers can face convictions and incarceration.
Shareholders are, of course, the beneficiaries of their limited liability. (Otherwise who the fuck would ever invest in capitalist enterprises?) But shareholders CAN lose the entirety of whatever capital they invested IN the corporation if the sanctions cause the corporation to go out of business.
For all your rather incoherent criticisms, you don't come across all that clearly on rational alternatives.
What would you propose as an alternative to the current corporations'-system, which would serve to both permit the formation of companies (in order to foster capitalist ventures) and yet also serve the needs of those who would make such investments?
Meaning that shareholders could have the corporation hire someone for a hell of a lot of money, have that person kill whomever they wanted, and only the mass murderer and possibly the CEO would be liable, allowing the shareholders to get off scott free to start up another corporation.
Our elections will now be filled with TV ads , billboards, radio station adds that fight for the corporations and limit the options of regular Americans.
Money = speech now and the corps have HUGE piles of money and me and you dont have enough to make our voices heard.
We are soon to be a corporate owned country.
We already are!
Your tawdry, petty and baseless contentions are unpersausive. But when you have no actual facts, as you clearly don't, then it's not surprising to see your "rhetoric" take such a sophomoric turn.
Interpretation - I ain't really got nuttin', so I'll use me a bunch of big ol wurds and wave ma arms around real fast like and maybe people will think I'm all smart and stuff and had a point. Epic fail weenie.
As is so often the case, YOUR "interpretation" is wrong because you are biased and unable to engage in critical thinking -- or honest discussion.
Again, more for others than for you, since you lack the honesty to engage validly in such discussions, let's just rebut your premises. Your sophomoric contentions are:
- Those "evil" Corporations have a lot of money so they can buy a lot of Ad time on TV, in print and on radio (and even in the interwebz).
- Those corporations who spend a great deal of their massive wealth in distributing political Ads will effectively "buy" the public opinion!
___________________________________________
- Thus, we must prevent the corporations from having the right to engage in such free speech.
Among the numerous defects in your would-be "logic" one can easily observe that your premises are suspect. If some evil REPUBLICAN oriented Mega-Corporation (you silly uber-leftards seem to fixate on Haliburton, for example) buys a lot of air time espousing the right's "agenda," the public will inevitably be persuaded of the rectitude of voting for conservatives! (Sound the alarms!)
Do you actually believe such tripe?
And what of those LIBERAL Corporations? Aren't you one who found it necessary to "advise" me (as though it was "news") that Microsoft (for example) is a liberal politically oriented corporation? Wouldn't the counter advertising by Microsoft kind of neutralize the effect that Repbulican Evil Mega-Corp supposedly has?
But of course, your critique is dishonest.
You offered nothing at all except lame ad hominem and unsupported lame ad hominem at that.
Do try to get back on point someday.
If corporations can speak fully and freely, are the American people really at risk of having their opinions CRAFTED by corporations? Is that really how little faith you have in "the people?"
Interpretation - I ain't really got nuttin', so I'll use me a bunch of big ol wurds and wave ma arms around real fast like and maybe people will think I'm all smart and stuff and had a point. Epic fail weenie.
As is so often the case, YOUR "interpretation" is wrong because you are biased and unable to engage in critical thinking -- or honest discussion.
Again, more for others than for you, since you lack the honesty to engage validly in such discussions, let's just rebut your premises. Your sophomoric contentions are:
- Those "evil" Corporations have a lot of money so they can buy a lot of Ad time on TV, in print and on radio (and even in the interwebz).
- Those corporations who spend a great deal of their massive wealth in distributing political Ads will effectively "buy" the public opinion!
___________________________________________
- Thus, we must prevent the corporations from having the right to engage in such free speech.
Among the numerous defects in your would-be "logic" one can easily observe that your premises are suspect. If some evil REPUBLICAN oriented Mega-Corporation (you silly uber-leftards seem to fixate on Haliburton, for example) buys a lot of air time espousing the right's "agenda," the public will inevitably be persuaded of the rectitude of voting for conservatives! (Sound the alarms!)
Do you actually believe such tripe?
And what of those LIBERAL Corporations? Aren't you one who found it necessary to "advise" me (as though it was "news") that Microsoft (for example) is a liberal politically oriented corporation? Wouldn't the counter advertising by Microsoft kind of neutralize the effect that Repbulican Evil Mega-Corp supposedly has?
Oh wow! You wound me with your insults. Whatever will I do. The fact that you disagree with my conservative views in no way makes them dishonest, invalid, sophomoric, illogical or silly uber-leftard tripe.
You're just an interwebs tough guy weenie.......and that wins you nothing except that at the end of the day, a few people have had a good laugh at your spittled poop flinging rage.
But of course, your critique is dishonest.
You offered nothing at all except lame ad hominem and unsupported lame ad hominem at that.
Do try to get back on point someday.
If corporations can speak fully and freely, are the American people really at risk of having their opinions CRAFTED by corporations? Is that really how little faith you have in "the people?"
Oh, I didn't say it was dishonest. I said it was a proper response to your propagandist BS.
Thank you for showing your true colors.
Wtf are you babbling about?
How do you imagine a corporation COULD be incarcerated?
No. For deliberate (and proved) violations of the criminal law, the corporations can get fined and possibly disbanded. Their officers can face convictions and incarceration.
Shareholders are, of course, the beneficiaries of their limited liability. (Otherwise who the fuck would ever invest in capitalist enterprises?) But shareholders CAN lose the entirety of whatever capital they invested IN the corporation if the sanctions cause the corporation to go out of business.
For all your rather incoherent criticisms, you don't come across all that clearly on rational alternatives.
What would you propose as an alternative to the current corporations'-system, which would serve to both permit the formation of companies (in order to foster capitalist ventures) and yet also serve the needs of those who would make such investments?
Meaning that shareholders could have the corporation hire someone for a hell of a lot of money, have that person kill whomever they wanted, and only the mass murderer and possibly the CEO would be liable, allowing the shareholders to get off scott free to start up another corporation.
do you tend to attract black helicopters, vast?
i bet you do.
Got strawman?The cons still have faith in their party.
Misplaced though it may be.
They had faith in bush too for about his first term and a half.
A bit slow to catch on I suppose.
You didn't admit your own critique was dishonest. Gee. There's a surprise.
I have engaged in no propagandist anything. The only BS is the stuff you've been spewing.
You cannot defend your own position!
Good. It's a ridiculous position and you would look even sillier trying to defend it.
Free speech = Corporate control?What position can I not defend? That you're a corporate oligarchist?
That you literally want Corporations to control our government?
Seems like you've been defending my position with every word you post...
As is so often the case, YOUR "interpretation" is wrong because you are biased and unable to engage in critical thinking -- or honest discussion.
Again, more for others than for you, since you lack the honesty to engage validly in such discussions, let's just rebut your premises. Your sophomoric contentions are:
- Those "evil" Corporations have a lot of money so they can buy a lot of Ad time on TV, in print and on radio (and even in the interwebz).
- Those corporations who spend a great deal of their massive wealth in distributing political Ads will effectively "buy" the public opinion!
___________________________________________
- Thus, we must prevent the corporations from having the right to engage in such free speech.
Among the numerous defects in your would-be "logic" one can easily observe that your premises are suspect. If some evil REPUBLICAN oriented Mega-Corporation (you silly uber-leftards seem to fixate on Haliburton, for example) buys a lot of air time espousing the right's "agenda," the public will inevitably be persuaded of the rectitude of voting for conservatives! (Sound the alarms!)
Do you actually believe such tripe?
And what of those LIBERAL Corporations? Aren't you one who found it necessary to "advise" me (as though it was "news") that Microsoft (for example) is a liberal politically oriented corporation? Wouldn't the counter advertising by Microsoft kind of neutralize the effect that Repbulican Evil Mega-Corp supposedly has?
Oh wow! You wound me with your insults. Whatever will I do. The fact that you disagree with my conservative views in no way makes them dishonest, invalid, sophomoric, illogical or silly uber-leftard tripe.
You're just an interwebs tough guy weenie.......and that wins you nothing except that at the end of the day, a few people have had a good laugh at your spittled poop flinging rage.
LOL! Nice effort to skulk away. But let's focus you again. I offered a restatement of what appears to be your argument. You could deny the accuracy of that syllogism and change it to suit whatever argument you ARE trying to grunt out. Or, you could accept the syllogism and then address it in something approximating a logical argument.
You chose neither course.
Instead, as you frequently do, you immediately went to dishonesty and ad hominem.
Your views are not even remotely conservative. You have grunted out the modern American liberal position in reaction to the correct ruling by the SCOTUS. You are afraid of free speech. You actually oppose it.
I accept your surrender. I knew you had nothing to go with.
Got strawman?The cons still have faith in their party.
Misplaced though it may be.
They had faith in bush too for about his first term and a half.
A bit slow to catch on I suppose.
Free speech = Corporate control?
Hooooobooie!
Meaning that shareholders could have the corporation hire someone for a hell of a lot of money, have that person kill whomever they wanted, and only the mass murderer and possibly the CEO would be liable, allowing the shareholders to get off scott free to start up another corporation.
I'm neither a "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) nor a republican.Got strawman?The cons still have faith in their party.
Misplaced though it may be.
They had faith in bush too for about his first term and a half.
A bit slow to catch on I suppose.
Nope it is all relevant to you attitude on this.
Now that is not to say that many dems do not also still have faith in their party, it does not seem to be a much as of a lockstep thing as the republicans are.
I am speaking of citizens not politicians.
