WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[Intense]

You mean like Air America?

Yes, or MSNBC, or FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh.

None of them force you to taste, bite, chew, swallow, or digest. Check your premise. Use the remote when your conscience tells you to.

 

[Vast LWC]

The following is a partial list of some of the bigger names that are contributing to relief efforts. At the bottom is the complete list as compiled by the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

January 20, 2010 - Complete list of donors to Haiti earthquake recovery

Haiti earthquake relief: Private corporations and trusts donate millions of dollars

WOW, American Express contributed 250,000 to a charity! Well, that's about what, .00001% of their profits from this year? Not to mention that charitable contributions are a tax shelter.

 

[cawacko]

Through what group will the bin Laden's be funneling their money?

I guess that depends on what corporations they own stock in.

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

 

[Vast LWC]

You mean like Air America?

Yes, or MSNBC, or FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh.

None of them force you to taste, bite, chew, swallow, or digest. Check your premise. Use the remote when your conscience tells you to.

Oh, I do. But millions of other people think that the crap that's spouted by the media arms of the extreme right and left is the "Fair and Balanced" truth, and no-one's telling them differently.

Or rather, people are telling them differently, but a lot of money goes a long way in convincing people of what is true or not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because what the court did was not judicial activism. We often call judicial activism legislating from the bench. That is setting new precedents that aren't law.

the court did not do that here. Had the ruling gone the other way THAT would have been judicial activism. The court simply affirmed that limiting a corporations ability to contribute money to a campaign would have been a violation of the first amendment.

There is no explaining reality to this dumb as rocks Liberal turds.

 

[Vast LWC]

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

If you buy stock in a company, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that company then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the shareholders don't complain about the CEO giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the corporation as a money funnel.

 

[del]

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

If you buy stock in a company, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that company then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the shareholders don't complain about the CEO giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the corporation as a money funnel.

If you pay dues to a union, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that union then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the union members don't complain about the union leadership giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the union as a money funnel.

 

[Intense]

It's like You accidentally walked into the Ladies Room by mistake, You can't find the Urinals, You are in denial, You want proof, and you will not accept as evidence the sign on the door.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you didn't read the thread I pointed to at all.

I was not arguing the constitutionality of corporate personhood, or the abridging of the freedom of speech of the same. I was saying that if a corporation wanted to have the rights of an individual, they needed to be taxed as an individual, at the proper income tax tier.

Yeah, I'm glad You addressed that. I'm rushed and was working on that point to. It's partially addressed in the Donation list.

Let me ask you this, let's pick on Starbucks. Let's say Obama's friends take a new interest in Hawaiian Coffee, and want to give it a bump. They decide to tax each pound of imported coffee an additional 5%, what do you presume the effect to be on the price of the cup you buy at Starbucks? Do you imagine that cost of production is not a factor in retail price?
When We tax Corporations, do you connect that with increased cost? Does your phone bill or cell phone bill, Cable Bill, Utility Bill, when studying, them tell you anything?

 

[cawacko]

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

If you buy stock in a company, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that company then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the shareholders don't complain about the CEO giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the corporation as a money funnel.

Alright you lost me. What does that have to do with the bin Laden's taking over a company to give donations to our politicians?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

If you buy stock in a company, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that company then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the shareholders don't complain about the CEO giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the corporation as a money funnel.

Now you are making shit up.

 

[Intense]

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

If you buy stock in a company, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that company then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the shareholders don't complain about the CEO giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the corporation as a money funnel.

In the beginning lobbyists were not allowed. I personally support that.

A Corporate fighting to remove obstruction is not wrong in itself. The action may or may not be justified. Look to cause and circumstance.

 

[Intense]

The following is a partial list of some of the bigger names that are contributing to relief efforts. At the bottom is the complete list as compiled by the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

January 20, 2010 - Complete list of donors to Haiti earthquake recovery

Haiti earthquake relief: Private corporations and trusts donate millions of dollars

WOW, American Express contributed 250,000 to a charity! Well, that's about what, .00001% of their profits from this year? Not to mention that charitable contributions are a tax shelter.

That's in the last week. Their stocks dropped yesterday, maybe Obama can find Someone else to pick on next week. What do you think?

 

[cawacko]

Because you own stock in a company doesn't mean you can funnel money to politicians through that company.

Desh's argument is that CEO's can supposedly give a bunch of the company's money to certain politicians. So what company(ies) are the bin Laden's CEO's of that would donate money?

If you buy stock in a company, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that company then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the shareholders don't complain about the CEO giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the corporation as a money funnel.

Now you are making shit up.

Ok, it's not just me. I had to read that several times and I still don't get it.

 

[Truthmatters]

Because they OWN us huh?

We can do nothing to harm them NO matter what they do to the American people and no matter what country they live in and what they believe.

They now will ALL have the ability to flood our elections and keep themselves from ever having to answer to the American people from ANYTHING they do to us.

They are the same corporations who will have endelss money to flood our elections with any lie they wish to make people believe.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you pay dues to a union, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that union then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the union members don't complain about the union leadership giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the union as a money funnel.

Yep, you're right. I'm against all special interest money funneling.

 

[Intense]

Because they OWN us huh?

We can do nothing to harm them NO matter what they do to the American people and no matter what country they live in and what they believe.

They now will ALL have the ability to flood our elections and keep themselves from ever having to answer to the American people from ANYTHING they do to us.

They are the same corporations who will have endelss money to flood our elections with any lie they wish to make people believe.

Not True. Free Speech has consequence. Image is high up there, don't underestimate it, unless You are talking about Hugo Chavez.

 

[cawacko]

Because they OWN us huh?

We can do nothing to harm them NO matter what they do to the American people and no matter what country they live in and what they believe.

They now will ALL have the ability to flood our elections and keep themselves from ever having to answer to the American people from ANYTHING they do to us.

They are the same corporations who will have endelss money to flood our elections with any lie they wish to make people believe.

Can someone translate this for me please?

 

[Vast LWC]

Now you are making shit up.

OK, let me go slow.

1) You give a Corporation money by buying stock. This is commonly known as investing.

2) That corporation uses the investment to do various things, like buy land, build cars, or pay politicians to look out for their interests, usually through lobbyists.

Thus, money funneling.

 

[Intense]

If you pay dues to a union, you are giving them money to continue operations.

If that union then sends money to Washington, that is effectively your money.

As long as the union members don't complain about the union leadership giving away money through lobbyists, then it is perfectly fine. And one would assume that they wouldn't complain if they were using the union as a money funnel.

Yep, you're right. I'm against all special interest money funneling.

If the Unions were on the Straight and Narrow, which They are not, They would proportion Donations to the make-ups of Their Ranks.

 

[Vast LWC]

What I want to know is where is John McCain here? He should be screaming and banging on the door of the SCOTUS as we speak.