Comment Re:KKKonservatism at its finest. (Score 1) 1330
No, you fucking moron.
Corporations are "persons" not "people" and moreover, only "Citizens" can vote. Corporations are not now, have never been and shall never be "citizens".
LK
No, you fucking moron.
Corporations are "persons" not "people" and moreover, only "Citizens" can vote. Corporations are not now, have never been and shall never be "citizens".
LK
I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?
Shut your oppressive mouth. Cock-man! Despoiler!
Everyone knows that it's only discrimination to treat people differently when women aren't happy with the disparity.
LK
put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.
I guess you missed that part about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
LK
+1 Fucking Right!
These "vouchers" that you are describing sound an awful lot like...money.
LK
Corporations can be the targets of legal action precisely because they are persons under the law.
LK
You can't run ads that mention political candidates or parties 2 weeks before an election.
How about political editorials?
Who will decide if "news" coverage is impartial or biased towards or against any candidate or party?
Congratulations, you found out that sometimes, there's a trade-off in a decision that you make, and a perfect solution doesn't exist.
Sure it does. Let people say whatever they want to say and in the marketplace of ideas, the most compelling argument wins.
LK
CocaCola does not get a vote in November.
Because CocaCola is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in November either. (We all know that many of them will anyway, but they have no right to do so.)
but the corporation is not a person.
Yes it is. Being a "person" under the law doesn't require one to be a human being. There is still a class of human beings who are not "persons" under the laws of the USA. You need to understand the underlying premise here.
The Constitution refers to "Persons", "The People" and "Citizens". These are three distinct types of entity under the law. I am a Citizen and by virtue of that, I am a person and one of the people.
Corporations are absolutely NOT people.
No, they are not "people". They are "persons". There is a legal distinction and an important one.
If a dog bites you, can you sue the dog? No. Why? Because the dog is not a person.
Can you sue a corporation? Yes. Why? Because it's a legal "person". "Incorporate" means to "bring together into one body".
LK
Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing with "first amendment" issues) we should prohibit all political donations and give all candidates a set amount to work with to reach their constituents.
ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?
Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you're supposed to do is stop digging. These "solutions" make the problem worse.
LK
I can try to convince a woman to sleep with me all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I pay her for it, it's illegal.
If you pay a woman to have sex with you, in most places, that's illegal.
If you pay other people to tell this woman why she should have sex with you, that's not illegal.
Buying votes is illegal. Paying people to tell others to vote the way you want them to should not be illegal.
LK
Do you have a problem with Michael Bloomberg giving $50,000,000 to promote anti-gun politicians?
LK
Other people here have already pointed these issues out separately but I'd like to combine them.
I don't think that anyone can honestly deny how NBC's portrayal of Sarah Palin had a tremendous impact on how the 2008 campaign ended. To this day, a lot of people still confuse Tina Fey's awesome satire for actual Palin statements. Bill Maher, in addition to his million dollar donation to a PAC for Obama's benefit, has constantly given media exposure to politicians who represent his point of view.
Do you have a plan to limit the effect that non-advertising content has on elections?
LK
Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.
That's a popular canard but it's not always true. Intensity beats extensity, every time.
This is an example of what I mean, Eric Cantor just lost his primary to a no-name Tea Partier that he outspent 27 to 1.
In local, state and national elections the ability to motivate people is what wins elections.
In 2008, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani out-fundraised McCain by 7 million and 4 million dollars respectively and they both lost.
The Democrats were even more interesting on this front. First when he beat the Clinton machine in the 2008 primary. His campaign employed analytics on a level that hadn't been seen before, especially for a political nobody who was barely on the national stage for 4 years. Hillary out-funraised Barack by over 11 million dollars and he soundly beat her.
Obama out-spent McCain by almost 400 million dollars and had it not been for his running mate, McCain would have faced an embarrassing loss in the general election. Beyond that money, Obama had the organization to win.
Obama out-spent Romney by 250 million dollars. Had the election taken place a year later, his victory wouldn't have been assured. Despite a quarter of a billion dollar advantage, the incumbent nearly lost.
The thread that unites all of these cases is that in every instance, the candidate with the most energetic following won. Money helps but it's only the losers who complain when the game that they chose to play doesn't turn out their way.
LK
I'm a Libertarian
OK. Fair enough.
I want liberty from government AND business.
Then, you're not really a Libertarian. Your association with any business is purely voluntary, absent any government coercion.
If the government didn't have so much power, there'd be no incentive for businesses to subvert it for their own goals.
LK
Technically, our current system is "voluntary" as well.
See what happens if you don't volunteer to pay.
LK
Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!
