Red1966
Well-Known Member
Red car drivers have higher insurance claim rates than the average driver. Lets all reply with totally unrelated drivel to each others posts.
The differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
With lower gas prices travel will be heavy during the holidays.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Sky, it was not my intent to embarrass you with the D-F question.
I don't understand D-F and I freely admit that. I read about it on Wiki. The explanation is filled with accounting gibberish. It looks ripe for abuse for that reason. When a proposed law is that complicated, my knee jerk reaction is to oppose it. If the intent is to "protect us" from too big to fail institutions then it seems to me a better solution is to break up the institutions that are too big to fail into smaller institutions that are small enough to fail.
The Act is categorized into sixteen titles and, by one law firm's count, it requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports.
The stated aim of the legislation is:
To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.[36]
I don't even know whether you are for or against it.
I don't understand D-F and I freely admit that. I read about it on Wiki. The explanation is filled with accounting gibberish. It looks ripe for abuse for that reason. When a proposed law is that complicated, my knee jerk reaction is to oppose it. If the intent is to "protect us" from too big to fail institutions then it seems to me a better solution is to break up the institutions that are too big to fail into smaller institutions that are small enough to fail.
The Act is categorized into sixteen titles and, by one law firm's count, it requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports.
The stated aim of the legislation is:
To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.[36]
I don't even know whether you are for or against it.
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
another unoriginal copy and paste from the forum's resident stormfront recruiter.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Does anybody here understand Dodd-Frank?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yep. it's simple as shit.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I guess the best way to shutdown a lefty rant thread is to ask them to explain themselves.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Citizens who run corporations have the exact same free speech rights as everyone else, Citizens United gave corporations more rights than American citizens, effectively limiting the power of the American vote. Somewhat ironic considering the conservatives at RIU used that exact same argument against gay marriage when it was an issue "they don't want equal rights, they want more rights"...
"The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case. "
"Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office…[t]he financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
"Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907…The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
Both would bother me
Corporations should not be able to buy elections, that's not what the country was founded on and that's not how our government is supposed to work. What do the 15th & 19th amendments mean if corporations can buy elections? Nothing.
What's stopping foreign owned US corporations like Belgian owned Anheuser-Busch from influencing American politics? Or what about Venezuelan owned Citgo? Do conservatives really want a socialist state buying American elections?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, you agree that the government should have the power to ban books, and to prohibit political speech? That, after all, is specifically what the government lawyer said was allowed.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's not the argument against Citizens United. Read Justice Stevens dissent
Were books banned based on political speech from 1907 till Citizens United in 2010? No. Pretty obvious proof we don't need the Citizens United decision in order for books to remain unbanned..
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
If we knew up front that candidate X received his funding from a socialist state I don't see a problem. It should be a big old red flare to voters. I'm aware that Kim Jung wants this candidate so I should probably look at others.
If candidate X hid the fact that his funding was from a socialist state then this is a problem. Especially if candidate X is claiming candidate Y's funding was less that up front.
If candidate Y was bought and paid for by the autos, I could decide whether or not that's in my best interest or not. If they are bought and paid for by financials, same thing.
Just tell us where the money is coming from, we can base our decision to vote or not on this info.
I still say the best option is to limit the power these dipshits have so the money doesn't flow to them in such excess, or the effects are minimal, but there are too many parasites to cede that power.
I know I know, limiting power... RACIST!! EXTREMIST!!!
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
This from the POS who burnt his?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
That is exactly what CU was about: The government forbade the showing of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008. The government lawyer arguing to keep that power for the government claimed that the government had the power and the right to ban books and quell political speech.
CU was correctly decided by SCOTUS.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
As Kynes would say: Toby, you don't understand what you are arguing about.
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22][23] This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[24] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[25] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[26]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[27] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[28] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[29] The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that "corporations are people." Both notions are also incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886. First Amendment protection for corporate speech has also been recognized since at least Valentine v. Christenson (1942), and in the realm of campaign finance since at least First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (197
. The question in Citizens United was simply whether the First Amendment protected the rights of corporations to engage in a particular form of corporate speech. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, was relatively short, less than 30 pages; the dissenting opinions of Justices Kennedy and Scalia in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission actually provide a more complete picture of the majority's thinking, in many respects. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion to address concerns about stare decisis, and Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion about the history and meaning of the First Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote separately to announce his disagreement with the majority's decision not to strike down the mandatory disclosure requirements in BCRA. Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent to analyze the development of First Amendment doctrine and campaign finance restrictions and to rebut the arguments of the majority and concurring opinions.
Last edited:
Red1966
Well-Known Member
How is the speech of corporations "limiting the power of the American vote."? What the fuck do gay rights have to do with it?
You can't buy an election. "Corporations should not be able to buy elections,"? But unions should? Billionaire Australian coal magnates offering 100 million in campaign donations to any libtard passing legislation limiting the ability of American firms to compete with his should?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that was an argument with no basis in reality which has never been tried and would fail wildly if it did.
but feel free to keep spamming us with your unoriginal imaginary boogeymen. we know you will.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
As Kynes would say: Toby, you don't understand what you are arguing about.
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22][23] This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[24] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[25] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[26]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[27] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[28] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[29] The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that "corporations are people." Both notions are also incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886. First Amendment protection for corporate speech has also been recognized since at least Valentine v. Christenson (1942), and in the realm of campaign finance since at least First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (197
The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, was relatively short, less than 30 pages; the dissenting opinions of Justices Kennedy and Scalia in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission actually provide a more complete picture of the majority's thinking, in many respects. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion to address concerns about stare decisis, and Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion about the history and meaning of the First Amendment. Justice Thomas wrote separately to announce his disagreement with the majority's decision not to strike down the mandatory disclosure requirements in BCRA. Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent to analyze the development of First Amendment doctrine and campaign finance restrictions and to rebut the arguments of the majority and concurring opinions.
nice original copy and paste.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Does any progressive here understand the Citizens United decision?
Does ANYBODY here understand Dodd-Frank?
Does ANYBODY here understand Dodd-Frank?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you clearly don't. i do though.
they even have a dodd-frank guide for dummies. guess they need to make one for retarded fascist propagandists as well.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
How can you argue with this reasoning?
Majority opinion
Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court's opinion.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[30] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[31]
Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).
Majority opinion
Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court's opinion.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[30] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[31]
Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).
