Funny how disagreeing with the POTUS is now treason. About campaign finance, no less.
Just recently heard that Congress is going to try and make those groups making the donations let their employees or union members know of it. I like that. If your union / company is going to be spending on poltical campaigns then your company employees or union memebrs should know about it.
WOOOOOOOO! SPACE MOUNTAIN!
More on topic, I don't think anyone's addressed Obama's actual purpose. There's only one branch where he currently doesn't hold a majority, and that's the SCOTUS. He's created an opponent against which he can use that old campaign-underdog, populist tone. And when he's up for reelection, he can point to this decision (and probably a couple of others coming up) where the Court sides with corporate interests, and say that voting for a Republican guarantees the Court will continue to do so. Maybe he does have a little FDR in him...
That might fly. From the article:
The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.
What about the unions that make contributions and commercial against the will of half their members?
I guess they could quit the union and give up their benefits based on principle.
Why do you hate free speech?
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-30-2010 at 02:53 AM.
So you agree with authoritarian at udes.
You are a fascist!
Disappointed mogrovejo didn't weigh in. I wanted to hear the punch line.
Why do you hate freedom of speech, Wild Cobra?
So now you are against a principled stance.
Did you really miss my point, or should I not have defended you when someone called you a moron?
My point was that if corporate speech was to be hated, then so should union speech, etc. Now I disagree with limiting any of it if it isn't going to be equal across the board.
Not at all. I am against authoritarians. What principals do authoritarians have that do not exert their will on others?So now you are against a principled stance.
Union members or employees can quit if they don't like who their employer supports. simple
Unions are cohersive. Except for some states, there is no "right to work" for a union unless you pay dues. In such cases, this takes away the rights of both the employees and the businesses.
Well said. Congress grants nothing that is already in the Cons ution.
But some people forget there is such a do ent. Including our
Lords of the Manor. Congress.
Some think our founding Father was Karl Marx.
Too bad almost none of them post here.
There's no valor in taunting an absent retinue, xray.
I was unaware I stood in need of assistance with SnC to begin with and I do not recall soliciting any help at the time. I appreciated the friendly timbre of your remarks, but then as now their import was not clear to me. They did not disclose much familiarity with the topical material or the thread itself, nor do they now.
Unions along with for profit and non profit orgs, have unfettered federally enforceable free speech now.
Does Citizens United ring any bells with you, WC?
There's no limiting any of it related to *speech*. That means putting up with ads that your union paid for that you don't like, for the rest of your life.My point was that if corporate speech was to be hated, then so should union speech, etc. Now I disagree with limiting any of it if it isn't going to be equal across the board.
Why do you wish to restrict their speech, WC?
You're talking about the bad old days. The conversation has moved on from all that.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-01-2010 at 02:16 AM.
Overhauled by the emerging facts, you might say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
