IMHO, its a bit naive or even perhaps delusionsal----to think our natiions founders, and those who wrote the consititution (even though a good % of the ideas were from John Locke and not them) could have conceptualized the idea of multi-national billion dollar corporations influncing elections and how the idea of free speech would be applied to them.
IMHO, its a bit naive or even perhaps delusionsal----to think our natiions founders, and those who wrote the consititution (even though a good % of the ideas were from John Locke and not them) could have conceptualized the idea of multi-national billion dollar corporations influncing elections and how the idea of free speech would be applied to them.
What? The cotton industry, farming/agriculture industry, manufacturing - you don't think these industries had influence or people attempting to get their industry special treatment? Come on - it's the same all through history.
"You aren't the first on here to attack the Supreme Court for the ruling on corporate spending on political advertising, and it still escapes me why anyone would attack the courts for upholding the Constitution... Where in our Constitution does it limit freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form? I've asked this over and over yet nobody seems to have an actual answer... They just keep spouting that it's corrupting our government. Even if that is true, that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional... Corporations are made up of people who have the same rights as anyone else. " by PURO.
Puro, let me make you aware of something you're evidently not familiar with: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government..." (from the Declaration of Independence). Nowhere in the Declaration or in the Constitution will you, or anyone else, find mention of corporations. ALL of the rights are meant for individuals, people, human beings, not their constructs. If you are unclear on this, you need to read it for yourself, you will not find a constitutional guarantee of ANYTHING for corporations.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"You aren't the first on here to attack the Supreme Court for the ruling on corporate spending on political advertising, and it still escapes me why anyone would attack the courts for upholding the Constitution... Where in our Constitution does it limit freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form? I've asked this over and over yet nobody seems to have an actual answer... They just keep spouting that it's corrupting our government. Even if that is true, that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional... Corporations are made up of people who have the same rights as anyone else. " by PURO.
Puro, let me make you aware of something you're evidently not familiar with: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government..." (from the Declaration of Independence). Nowhere in the Declaration or in the Constitution will you, or anyone else, find mention of corporations. ALL of the rights are meant for individuals, people, human beings, not their constructs. If you are unclear on this, you need to read it for yourself, you will not find a constitutional guarantee of ANYTHING for corporations.
Well then clearly you aren't familiar with what Corporations are made of... That would be people. But you are 100% wrong in you interpretation of the first amendment which reads:
"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."
Now wouldn't a law that limits a corporation from spending money on advertising in political campaigns be
A: A law made by congress. And
B: abridging the freedom of speech?
Now you might not like the rights laid out by our constitution, but they are very very clear, and in the first amendment free speech is NOT limited to individuals or limited in any way. Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. Plain and simple. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two totally different things and one in no way changes or limits the other... You're argument is false. The Declaration did not lay out laws and limits for our government, it simply declared we were a nation free from British rule and justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III. For someone that comes off as lecturing another on American history, you don't seem to have a thorough understanding of it yourself.
IMHO, its a bit naive or even perhaps delusionsal----to think our natiions founders, and those who wrote the consititution (even though a good % of the ideas were from John Locke and not them) could have conceptualized the idea of multi-national billion dollar corporations influncing elections and how the idea of free speech would be applied to them.
Than campaign to amend the Constitution. That is not the Supreme Courts job... Their job is to uphold it, which they did.
To be more precise, they rendered a very split decision which seems based as much of political feeling as on intrepretation of the constitution. A different court would give a different opinion, maybe even unanimous. Lets not talk about the court as though they are giving us proven science, or anything which is a "truth"----they are giving their (questionably biased) opinion on what a document written by men (long dead) might have thought in their time about an issue which is much more intricate than they could have understood.
To be more precise, they rendered a very split decision which seems based as much of political feeling as on intrepretation of the constitution. A different court would give a different opinion, maybe even unanimous. Lets not talk about the court as though they are giving us proven science, or anything which is a "truth"----they are giving their (questionably biased) opinion on what a document written by men (long dead) might have thought in their time about an issue which is much more intricate than they could have understood.
Ok, then why is it automatically your opinion that the majority were politically motivated and the hold outs were not? As Kuzi always says, nobody knows what is in the hearts of these people. They made the ruling, and that is the way it is. Read the first amendment and tell me how you can interpret it to limit who free speech is granted to in any way. It's a very clear cut case, the left just doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their mold of a perfect progressive nation. And they did give us the "truth." The legal truth in this nation is set by the Supreme Court. That is how our nation was set up. They are there to check the legality of what Congress and the President does and they are the final word.
To be more precise, they rendered a very split decision which seems based as much of political feeling as on intrepretation of the constitution. A different court would give a different opinion, maybe even unanimous. Lets not talk about the court as though they are giving us proven science, or anything which is a "truth"----they are giving their (questionably biased) opinion on what a document written by men (long dead) might have thought in their time about an issue which is much more intricate than they could have understood.
Ok, then why is it automatically your opinion that the majority were politically motivated and the hold outs were not? As Kuzi always says, nobody knows what is in the hearts of these people. They made the ruling, and that is the way it is. Read the first amendment and tell me how you can interpret it to limit who free speech is granted to in any way. It's a very clear cut case, the left just doesn't like it because it doesn't fit their mold of a perfect progressive nation. And they did give us the "truth." The legal truth in this nation is set by the Supreme Court. That is how our nation was set up. They are there to check the legality of what Congress and the President does and they are the final word.
Aka checks and balances. Legislative branch votes on laws; executive enforces them; judicial decides wether or not they are constitutional. The president also can veto bills and appoints the supreme court justices (very broad and brief explanation of the checks and balances in place in our government)
Puro, let me say that I admire your passion. It was this kind of passion that inspired me to vote twice for Ronald Reagan. While he was often wrong, he was genuine in his love of country. People like that will recognize their mistakes and correct them. Let me start with something you and I can agree on, the first amendment rights do, to some extent, apply to institutions. eg: free press. Yes, corporations are made up of people, so is the KKK, I wouldn't abridge any of those individuals their right to free speech. I would, however, curb some of their activities. In fact, up to a certain point I don't have a problem with corporations contributing, but I do fear their unchecked power, when Hugo Chavez and CITGO oil have more to say in congressional decisions than American citizens, well, I don't like that. Thomas Jefferson proposed that no corporation be allowed to exist for more than twenty years before being mandatorily dissolved. This is because he feared that corporate power would corrupt our political process and reverse the freedoms that had been so dearly bought. Also, for about two centuries it was taught in History and Political Science classes that the Declaration of Independence represented the spirit of the country, and the Constitution the body, they weren't just two unrelated phenomena flapping about in a void. Perhaps that's changed. A current example of unchecked corporate power: tomorrow a qualified applicant will try and get a job, somewhere in America, and will be sent down the hall to pee in a cup. This person will be denied employment because the test will find nicotine in the urine. I prefer freedom. I will continue to side with the stated intent of the founding fathers, and the decisions of every Supreme Court that this question has been put to, until now, and advocate limits to corporate power. Up until this point, I'm OK to just agree to disagree, however, there is a line that you crossed when you said "Now you might not like the rights laid out by our constitution". I hear this kind of Ad Hominum attack all the time from talk radio hosts who can't mount a cogent answer to a caller. The implied arguement is: if you disagree with me, you're not patriotic. Here are my bona-fides. Between my father, myself, and my son we've spent a total of 50 years in military service. I'm still feeling the pain as I sit here. Two of my uncles survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, my son left his right hand in Afghanistan, one of my best friends is a former Green Beret, another friend of mine had a son, a pilot like my son was, who went to Iraq, the chaplain came to give the news. Me, my family, my friends, we paid the price to enjoy those rights. Don't tell me I "might not like" them. I'm sure that an impassioned fellow like yourself has also put his life on the line, like we did, so I won't question your patriotism. I would suggest that you think long and hard about giving our rights away to corporations, especially when we're talking about foreign corporations influencing our elections. On a last note, meant in a friendly way, at least you're engaged. I see far too many clueless folks who aren't even trying, don't even care! Like Reagan, I'll take your kind of wrong over theirs. This will be all I say on this subject.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
tomorrow a qualified applicant will try and get a job, somewhere in America, and will be sent down the hall to pee in a cup. This person will be denied employment because the test will find nicotine in the urine. I prefer freedom.
believe it or not, that IS freedom. how so? the company is privately owned. if the owner(s) does/do not want to employ people who smoke, who am i to tell them how to run the company? that owner has statistics on their side. smokers have been shown in studies to be less productive than nonsmokers. do i agree with it? does it matter if i do? having a job is not a right, and federally instituting mandates on who you can or cannot hire is violating the rights of the company to run it as they see fit so long as the company does not violate rights. since having a job is not a right, no rights were violated in this situation.
Amos Umwhat:
Thomas Jefferson proposed that no corporation be allowed to exist for more than twenty years before being mandatorily dissolved.
could you cite a reference on this? (even in book form if you have to) i cant seem to find anything on this. i can find many things against government-corporate entanglement but not anything this extreme.
Amos Umwhat:
Also, for about two centuries it was taught in History and Political Science classes that the Declaration of Independence represented the spirit of the country, and the Constitution the body, they weren't just two unrelated phenomena flapping about in a void.
Puro, let me say that I admire your passion. It was this kind of passion that inspired me to vote twice for Ronald Reagan. While he was often wrong, he was genuine in his love of country. People like that will recognize their mistakes and correct them. Let me start with something you and I can agree on, the first amendment rights do, to some extent, apply to institutions. eg: free press. Yes, corporations are made up of people, so is the KKK, I wouldn't abridge any of those individuals their right to free speech. I would, however, curb some of their activities. In fact, up to a certain point I don't have a problem with corporations contributing, but I do fear their unchecked power, when Hugo Chavez and CITGO oil have more to say in congressional decisions than American citizens, well, I don't like that. Thomas Jefferson proposed that no corporation be allowed to exist for more than twenty years before being mandatorily dissolved. This is because he feared that corporate power would corrupt our political process and reverse the freedoms that had been so dearly bought. Also, for about two centuries it was taught in History and Political Science classes that the Declaration of Independence represented the spirit of the country, and the Constitution the body, they weren't just two unrelated phenomena flapping about in a void. Perhaps that's changed. A current example of unchecked corporate power: tomorrow a qualified applicant will try and get a job, somewhere in America, and will be sent down the hall to pee in a cup. This person will be denied employment because the test will find nicotine in the urine. I prefer freedom. I will continue to side with the stated intent of the founding fathers, and the decisions of every Supreme Court that this question has been put to, until now, and advocate limits to corporate power. Up until this point, I'm OK to just agree to disagree, however, there is a line that you crossed when you said "Now you might not like the rights laid out by our constitution". I hear this kind of Ad Hominum attack all the time from talk radio hosts who can't mount a cogent answer to a caller. The implied arguement is: if you disagree with me, you're not patriotic. Here are my bona-fides. Between my father, myself, and my son we've spent a total of 50 years in military service. I'm still feeling the pain as I sit here. Two of my uncles survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, my son left his right hand in Afghanistan, one of my best friends is a former Green Beret, another friend of mine had a son, a pilot like my son was, who went to Iraq, the chaplain came to give the news. Me, my family, my friends, we paid the price to enjoy those rights. Don't tell me I "might not like" them. I'm sure that an impassioned fellow like yourself has also put his life on the line, like we did, so I won't question your patriotism. I would suggest that you think long and hard about giving our rights away to corporations, especially when we're talking about foreign corporations influencing our elections. On a last note, meant in a friendly way, at least you're engaged. I see far too many clueless folks who aren't even trying, don't even care! Like Reagan, I'll take your kind of wrong over theirs. This will be all I say on this subject.
I'm not questioning your patriotism at all my friend, simply saying that you may not agree with something. I just don't see how anyone can say that a corporation spending money to advertise in a political campaign is violating the rights of another. That is where I have a problem with your stance on this Supreme Court decision. Free speech is granted in the Constitution to everyone and every entity. You are right, it is granted to the KKK even as twisted as those people are, so for it to be stripped by a congressional bill from corporations that are not violating anyone's rights by airing a commercial on TV really does bother me. You say Citgo and Hugo Chavez have more influence in our elections, but everyone has the same opportunities to spend as much as they would like or to contribute all they want to any political campaign. That is true freedom and that is what I stand for. As for your military service I thank you and your family and we are lucky to have people such as yourself to serve this great nation and keep it free.
Interesting posts Amos, I liked 'em. Thank you both for the explanation of checks and balances and what each branch of govt. does---I already knew that and have minored in college in political science sp am quite aware, but others may not be. To say the Supreme Court gives us truth is total lack for the idea of a philiosophical "truth", or scientific truth....(at their best) they provide the best possible idea of what they feel the consitution is referring to on a certain matter, with plenty ofroom for fallacy and opinion on either side------hardly a concrete determination of what a 200 year old document means.
Interesting posts Amos, I liked 'em. Thank you both for the explanation of checks and balances and what each branch of govt. does---I already knew that and have minored in college in political science sp am quite aware, but others may not be. To say the Supreme Court gives us truth is total lack for the idea of a philiosophical "truth", or scientific truth....(at their best) they provide the best possible idea of what they feel the consitution is referring to on a certain matter, with plenty ofroom for fallacy and opinion on either side------hardly a concrete determination of what a 200 year old document means.
I wasn't tryin to be a smartass or anythin. Just thought I could give a minor contribution to someone who might not have known what that system entailed.
Interesting posts Amos, I liked 'em. Thank you both for the explanation of checks and balances and what each branch of govt. does---I already knew that and have minored in college in political science sp am quite aware, but others may not be. To say the Supreme Court gives us truth is total lack for the idea of a philiosophical "truth", or scientific truth....(at their best) they provide the best possible idea of what they feel the consitution is referring to on a certain matter, with plenty ofroom for fallacy and opinion on either side------hardly a concrete determination of what a 200 year old document means.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. That aside, nobody has yet been able to point out how the Supreme Court was wrong in their decision. It is very clear in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. There has still been a total lack of evidence that they were wrong, instead a bunch of opinions of why they don't like the law. I've asked it half a dozen times with no real answer. Where in the Constitution does it limit free speech in any way? Where does it say free speech is not extended to corporations and unions and every other group out there. We all know how I feel about unions, but they have the same rights to free speech as everyone else...
Then high court has on occassion limited free speech. Hate speech laws (right or wrong) come to mind and were upheld in certain test cases. The same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is none. In both cases the rights of individuals from harm outweigh the speakers rights to say it. The problem with limiting free speech is it opens the gate to the slippery slope to outlawing other speech that is critical of those that make said laws at the whim of politicians or Presidents who would like to be Emporer.
Interesting posts Amos, I liked 'em. Thank you both for the explanation of checks and balances and what each branch of govt. does---I already knew that and have minored in college in political science sp am quite aware, but others may not be. To say the Supreme Court gives us truth is total lack for the idea of a philiosophical "truth", or scientific truth....(at their best) they provide the best possible idea of what they feel the consitution is referring to on a certain matter, with plenty ofroom for fallacy and opinion on either side------hardly a concrete determination of what a 200 year old document means.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. That aside, nobody has yet been able to point out how the Supreme Court was wrong in their decision. It is very clear in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. There has still been a total lack of evidence that they were wrong, instead a bunch of opinions of why they don't like the law. I've asked it half a dozen times with no real answer. Where in the Constitution does it limit free speech in any way? Where does it say free speech is not extended to corporations and unions and every other group out there. We all know how I feel about unions, but they have the same rights to free speech as everyone else...
Don't forget that the labor unions own the Democratic Party. The reason most Democrats don't like this ruling is that it gives a voice to the other side of the table. They seem to forget that those evil corporations create millions of jobs.
Interesting posts Amos, I liked 'em. Thank you both for the explanation of checks and balances and what each branch of govt. does---I already knew that and have minored in college in political science sp am quite aware, but others may not be. To say the Supreme Court gives us truth is total lack for the idea of a philiosophical "truth", or scientific truth....(at their best) they provide the best possible idea of what they feel the consitution is referring to on a certain matter, with plenty ofroom for fallacy and opinion on either side------hardly a concrete determination of what a 200 year old document means.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. That aside, nobody has yet been able to point out how the Supreme Court was wrong in their decision. It is very clear in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. There has still been a total lack of evidence that they were wrong, instead a bunch of opinions of why they don't like the law. I've asked it half a dozen times with no real answer. Where in the Constitution does it limit free speech in any way? Where does it say free speech is not extended to corporations and unions and every other group out there. We all know how I feel about unions, but they have the same rights to free speech as everyone else...
Don't forget that the labor unions own the Democratic Party. The reason most Democrats don't like this ruling is that it gives a voice to the other side of the table. They seem to forget that those evil corporations create millions of jobs.
Yes, but according to the left, the Unions are gooood... corporations being run into the ground by unions is a a great thing because those corporations are evil!! Never mind the jobs those corporations create and the unions destroy... They are doing a great thing for those people!
I was actually quite surprised last night to see Fox News offer up un-biased coverage of the Health Care bill. I switched to FOX last night, because I absolutely cannot stand listening to Tony Harris report the news, expecting to see a feeding frenzy going on and was quite disappointed. There were analysts who did not like the bill and said their peace and their were analysts who did like the bill and said their peace and that was really about it. Sean Hannity simply reported, didn't really offer any opinions on it one way or the other, and, the entire time, looked like someone just kicked his puppy.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. So, when the Supreme Court held that slavery was compatible with the Constitution, that was the truth? Your question has been answered by several people.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
For some of us it is about protecting the unborn. Abortion is morally repugnant and has left a stain on our society that can not be bleached out. Forty-five million innocent lives and counting.
For some of us abortion is not just a political issue. It is one of the only issues that matters. Our economy will bounce back if left alone; it always has. The moral fiber of our society is far more important than any political issue.
Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
Wasn't it the Left that was crying out that opposition to healthcare was tantamount to supporting slavery? Wasn't it the Left that was saying anyone opposed to Obama's election, and any opposition to his agenda was based on racism and the thought that "some people" didn't want a black guy in office? Obama himself is notorious for setting up strawmen in his speeches as well, "Some people don't want healthcare reform and want to see the insurance companies crush people" - when in actuality, the opposition isn't to heatlhcare reform, it's to this particularly bad bill (notice he never quite identifies "some people" or when these "some people" actually made these statements).
I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers, considering the Left considers the First Amendment malleable in who it applies to and doesn't have a problem with favoring/disfavoring groups based on how much they like them, yet views healthcare paid for by taxpayers a civil right. Your views and comments conveniently leave out the atrocities and oxymoron's of the Left - if you want to have credibility, at least be truthful about your own political spectrum's shortcomings
Yep, and the whole point of all these "rights" is to protect the rich and powerful and their interests. Which brings me to Kuzi's point about employers rights. Kuzi, on the surface your arguement seems sound, the employer has rights to hire/fire whomever for whatever reason, that's freedom! Oh, wait, no its not. The point is balance. Let me explain. Say you own a store, and someone wants a job at the counter interfacing with the public, but this person has 47 safety pins in their eyebrows and a tattoo of a **** on their forhead. Or, you have someone who smokes constantly, creating a bad atmosphere in your store. The employer then certainly has the right not to hire that person, because their appearance or behavior impacts the business. The same with job performance, etc. However, in my example of the potential employee being denied, or the employee who is fired for the presence of nicotine in their urine (yes, this is happening in America today), the employer is oppressing this individual for engaging in a legal activity on their own time, which in no way impacts the employer or their business. Oppression does not equal freedom. You may say this is a slippery slope arguement, and indeed it is, but the slippery slope is only invalid if there is not supporting evidence indicating a real threat. There is ample evidence, check out the last 20 years of Insurer's trying to deny claims to people engaged in activities like motorcycling, skiing, horseback riding, etc. The employers rights do not (or should not) extend to dictating personal behavior that falls within legal boundaries unless that behavior can be shown to directly impact the employers business. Freedom cannot be anarchy, anarchy is only freedom for the one with the most power. Not what we're supposed to be about.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
For some of us it is about protecting the unborn. Abortion is morally repugnant and has left a stain on our society that can not be bleached out. Forty-five million innocent lives and counting.
For some of us abortion is not just a political issue. It is one of the only issues that matters. Our economy will bounce back if left alone; it always has. The moral fiber of our society is far more important than any political issue.
God help us.
Its also a good amount of people who dont have to have medicaid, wont kill/lie/steal from others, and wont milk the system----is it not?? I BTW, am generally pro-life....but to keep it is a big issue in politics seems a good way to not go after things that really matter. Roe v Wade was final last I checked, and the Supreme Court after all, is truth.
Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
Wasn't it the Left that was crying out that opposition to healthcare was tantamount to supporting slavery? Wasn't it the Left that was saying anyone opposed to Obama's election, and any opposition to his agenda was based on racism and the thought that "some people" didn't want a black guy in office? Obama himself is notorious for setting up strawmen in his speeches as well, "Some people don't want healthcare reform and want to see the insurance companies crush people" - when in actuality, the opposition isn't to heatlhcare reform, it's to this particularly bad bill (notice he never quite identifies "some people" or when these "some people" actually made these statements).
I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers, considering the Left considers the First Amendment malleable in who it applies to and doesn't have a problem with favoring/disfavoring groups based on how much they like them, yet views healthcare paid for by taxpayers a civil right. Your views and comments conveniently leave out the atrocities and oxymoron's of the Left - if you want to have credibility, at least be truthful about your own political spectrum's shortcomings
No one idea is "my spectrum", I consider myself fair and balanced. However, this topic was not about shortcomings of the left (and there are many), it was about the right wing and Fox News.
No one idea is "my spectrum", I consider myself fair and balanced. However, this topic was not about shortcomings of the left (and there are many), it was about the right wing and Fox News.
If you really consider yourself "fair and balanced", then you must by definition give equal weight to the deficiencies of both sides - and that means admitting that the Left has serious problems with hypocrisy, just as the Right does. You can't talk about one without talking about the other
Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
For some of us it is about protecting the unborn. Abortion is morally repugnant and has left a stain on our society that can not be bleached out. Forty-five million innocent lives and counting.
For some of us abortion is not just a political issue. It is one of the only issues that matters. Our economy will bounce back if left alone; it always has. The moral fiber of our society is far more important than any political issue.
God help us.
Its also a good amount of people who dont have to have medicaid, wont kill/lie/steal from others, and wont milk the system----is it not?? I BTW, am generally pro-life....but to keep it is a big issue in politics seems a good way to not go after things that really matter. Roe v Wade was final last I checked, and the Supreme Court after all, is truth.
Are you seriously going to defend infanticide because it reduces the population creating less of a need for social services? How do you sleep at night?
Yep, and the whole point of all these "rights" is to protect the rich and powerful and their interests. Which brings me to Kuzi's point about employers rights. Kuzi, on the surface your arguement seems sound, the employer has rights to hire/fire whomever for whatever reason, that's freedom! Oh, wait, no its not. The point is balance. Let me explain. Say you own a store, and someone wants a job at the counter interfacing with the public, but this person has 47 safety pins in their eyebrows and a tattoo of a **** on their forhead. Or, you have someone who smokes constantly, creating a bad atmosphere in your store. The employer then certainly has the right not to hire that person, because their appearance or behavior impacts the business. The same with job performance, etc. However, in my example of the potential employee being denied, or the employee who is fired for the presence of nicotine in their urine (yes, this is happening in America today), the employer is oppressing this individual for engaging in a legal activity on their own time, which in no way impacts the employer or their business.
just to play devils advocate (id personally hire smokers and be ok with it)...
there are many companies that have codes of conduct that apply on and off the clock. there are many times where legal activities are involved but will still result in termination. for example:
what if its an anti-smoking group looking for help?
couldnt that be a bit of a PR problem?
but what you are saying is that smokers are being discriminated against? im not sure they are. there are many studies that show that cigarette smokers are a drain on the workplace productivity, Take more sick days, and Cost about $300 more per employee vs. nonsmokers to insure. if two employees, identical in all respects, except that one had those issues (even without smoking) guess who would keep their job/ get hired? is it discrimination then? many wouldnt want to hire people that are less productive, take more sick days, and cost me more to operate. its not discrimination because smoking is a choice made. at some point they chose to smoke. its not like racism. you cant stop being white if your white. you cant stop being black if your black. you cant be Asian at work but German at home. even if one doesnt smoke at work, it still impacts their job. If i came to work hung over, though taking part in a legal activity outside of work, i would still be fired. smoking cigarettes is just a bit more difficult to notice the impact.
Amos Umwhat:
There is ample evidence, check out the last 20 years of Insurer's trying to deny claims to people engaged in activities like motorcycling, skiing, horseback riding, etc. The employers rights do not (or should not) extend to dictating personal behavior that falls within legal boundaries unless that behavior can be shown to directly impact the employers business. Freedom cannot be anarchy, anarchy is only freedom for the one with the most power. Not what we're supposed to be about.
this statement shows the total misunderstanding of what insurance is. Insurance is a risk assessment vs. payout. the higher the risk, the more likely they are to pay out. high risk activities may be deemed by the insurance company to be too risky to take on because it will be a money losing prospect. since, like every business on the planet, they want to stay in business, it is an unwise decision to insure people for high risk activities. those companies who do insure risky behavior, make the premiums much higher so the company does not lose money on it. this is not infringing on rights. its business. people can chose not to engage in this risky behavior and lower their premium. it is a choice/ trade off. you choose to buy it or not. insurance is not a Right. no good or service is a Right.
Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself; we have a right to seek insurance but not insurance itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
on top of that
a Right is something that is an integral part of us, innate, and thus unalienable, and NOT something that is devised, given, or granted. Because it is innate, it cant be given to us. By the same token, it cant be taken away by other people, organizations, or governments, either.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. So, when the Supreme Court held that slavery was compatible with the Constitution, that was the truth? Your question has been answered by several people.
I never said the Supreme Court was always " morally right." At the time, yes that decision made it the legal truth of the day. Thank god it was changed. However you are wrong, nobody has shown where in the Constitution anywhere that free speech is limited. You quoted part of the Declaration of Independence, yet that is not what dictates the law in this country and does not change what the First Amendment says at all. There is nothing saying that free speech is limited from corporations. If you don't like it, then campaign to amend the Constitution, not blame the Supreme Court and call them a "gang of 5" for doing their job just because you don't agree with it.
Comments
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"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."
Now wouldn't a law that limits a corporation from spending money on advertising in political campaigns be
A: A law made by congress. And
B: abridging the freedom of speech?
Now you might not like the rights laid out by our constitution, but they are very very clear, and in the first amendment free speech is NOT limited to individuals or limited in any way. Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. Plain and simple. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two totally different things and one in no way changes or limits the other... You're argument is false. The Declaration did not lay out laws and limits for our government, it simply declared we were a nation free from British rule and justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III. For someone that comes off as lecturing another on American history, you don't seem to have a thorough understanding of it yourself.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
one particularly notable:
believe it or not, that IS freedom.
how so? the company is privately owned. if the owner(s) does/do not want to employ people who smoke, who am i to tell them how to run the company? that owner has statistics on their side. smokers have been shown in studies to be less productive than nonsmokers. do i agree with it?
does it matter if i do? having a job is not a right, and federally instituting mandates on who you can or cannot hire is violating the rights of the company to run it as they see fit so long as the company does not violate rights. since having a job is not a right, no rights were violated in this situation.
could you cite a reference on this? (even in book form if you have to) i cant seem to find anything on this. i can find many things against government-corporate entanglement but not anything this extreme. thats how i look at it.
interesting post.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
For some of us abortion is not just a political issue. It is one of the only issues that matters. Our economy will bounce back if left alone; it always has. The moral fiber of our society is far more important than any political issue.
God help us.
I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers, considering the Left considers the First Amendment malleable in who it applies to and doesn't have a problem with favoring/disfavoring groups based on how much they like them, yet views healthcare paid for by taxpayers a civil right. Your views and comments conveniently leave out the atrocities and oxymoron's of the Left - if you want to have credibility, at least be truthful about your own political spectrum's shortcomings
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
there are many companies that have codes of conduct that apply on and off the clock. there are many times where legal activities are involved but will still result in termination.
for example: what if its an anti-smoking group looking for help?
couldnt that be a bit of a PR problem?
but what you are saying is that smokers are being discriminated against?
im not sure they are. there are many studies that show that cigarette smokers are a drain on the workplace productivity, Take more sick days, and Cost about $300 more per employee vs. nonsmokers to insure. if two employees, identical in all respects, except that one had those issues (even without smoking) guess who would keep their job/ get hired? is it discrimination then? many wouldnt want to hire people that are less productive, take more sick days, and cost me more to operate.
its not discrimination because smoking is a choice made. at some point they chose to smoke. its not like racism. you cant stop being white if your white. you cant stop being black if your black. you cant be Asian at work but German at home. even if one doesnt smoke at work, it still impacts their job. If i came to work hung over, though taking part in a legal activity outside of work, i would still be fired. smoking cigarettes is just a bit more difficult to notice the impact. this statement shows the total misunderstanding of what insurance is. Insurance is a risk assessment vs. payout. the higher the risk, the more likely they are to pay out. high risk activities may be deemed by the insurance company to be too risky to take on because it will be a money losing prospect. since, like every business on the planet, they want to stay in business, it is an unwise decision to insure people for high risk activities. those companies who do insure risky behavior, make the premiums much higher so the company does not lose money on it. this is not infringing on rights. its business. people can chose not to engage in this risky behavior and lower their premium. it is a choice/ trade off. you choose to buy it or not. insurance is not a Right. no good or service is a Right.
Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself; we have a right to seek insurance but not insurance itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
on top of that a Right is something that is an integral part of us, innate, and thus unalienable, and NOT something that is devised, given, or granted. Because it is innate, it cant be given to us. By the same token, it cant be taken away by other people, organizations, or governments, either.