BF2S Forums Interesting Ron Paul Commercial

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

citizens united is the worst thing to happen to this country since dred scott

Why?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p3284630


and to add.  citizens united granted a monopoly of speech to those who are able to afford it.  monopolies are inherently anti free market/anti capitalist.  monopolies are an artificial construct between competitors in order to limit the competition.  competition is a is the heart of a free market system and when that competition is removed, not by the power of the invisible hand but by cooperation between a handful of competitors, that free market is no longer free.


now, consider free speech as a free market/exchange of ideas.  if only the richest members of a society are the only ones able to significantly alter that free market by drowning out the voice of everyone else, that is not free speech.


for the love of christ jay, please respond without the spirit of lowing or personal attacks.  i want this to be civil and i know im just as bad at making personal attacks.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-01-26 17:15:24)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno&sns=fb

Very "Overton Window"-ish.

But even if Paul were elected, overall policies wouldn't change. It's the entrenched bureaucrats who control the implementation of policy (or lack thereof). Those graybeards aren't going anywhere...their union is too good.

Wouldn't this echo what Jay just said?

I could choose to vote for Romney (who's pretty obviously going to get the nomination), but that wouldn't be much different from Obama.

Even if Gingrich won it, it would be the same (although he's actually worse than Obama).

So, all I'm left with is two choices.

1) Voting for candidates like Paul that don't have a real chance at winning but who represent something different from the status quo.

2) Not voting at all, since it's rather futile to begin with.

Admittedly, #2 is looking more attractive over time.

If the candidate understands the problem, they can enact lots of things within their purview as Chief Executive--within the Executive Branch--to clear out the dead wood. They'd only serve one term, but what a term it would be...

KJ wrote:

It broadens the definition of citizen to include corporations, which means corporations are allowed the same protections as people. It's a bit ominous in my opinion.

Probably gets back to the definition of a "US person" which governs wiretaps, monitoring, et al. You can't surveil them without a warrant or Presidential Finding and "them" includes US corporations. Probably too confusing to have multiple definitions of the same thing, particularly when law enforcement could get involved.

eleven bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

citizens united is the worst thing to happen to this country since dred scott

Why?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p3284630


and to add.  citizens united granted a monopoly of speech to those who are able to afford it.  monopolies are inherently anti free market/anti capitalist.  monopolies are an artificial construct between competitors in order to limit the competition.  competition is a is the heart of a free market system and when that competition is removed, not by the power of the invisible hand but by cooperation between a handful of competitors, that free market is no longer free.


now, consider free speech as a free market/exchange of ideas.  if only the richest members of a society are the only ones able to significantly alter that free market by drowning out the voice of everyone else, that is not free speech.


for the love of christ jay, please respond without the spirit of lowing or personal attacks.  i want this to be civil and i know im just as bad at making personal attacks.

Except you're neglecting that corporations have to kowtow to public opinion even more than politicians do. Walmart could donate heavily to the Republicans, but then they'll be boycotted by Democrats and their push to expand in places like NYC will receive even more pushback than they already do. There are consequences to taking a political stance too openly: you risk offending half your customer base. This is why the fears are overblown, companies aren't going to risk their bottom line on a gamble that their candidate will win. You'd have to be the dumbest CEO on the planet to do something like that.

And there were no personal attacks. You made a very strong statement (comparing Citizens United to Dred Scott is pure hyperbole btw) and I simply asked you to explain your position. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-26 19:47:19)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Citizens united and dred Scott case both deal with what defines a citizen. There's a common thread. Just because you don't understand that doesn't make it asinine

Corporations have been considered citizens since Dartmouth College vs Woodward in 1819. There's just about 200 years of case history in support of it as well.

All CU did was declare McCain-Feingold and the Tillman Act unconstitutional based on speech limitations.

edit - hyperbolic rather than 'asinine' then.

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-26 19:47:02)

jay you are wrong, although dartmouth was a very very important ruling (thanks to marshalls court), high court rulings in subsequent years made it so that corporations were not seen as people because, at the time of these ruling, a corporation was accountable to many things the robber barons did not want to helf up to the fire for.  i forget the precedent but the rulings occurred during the guilded age (late 18th century)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It has nothing to do with wiretaps and everything to do with free speech.

I'm talking about US Code.

They're not considered "people" or "citizens" but "US persons." There is a very clear distinction.

And having multiple legal definitions for the same entity would be a recipe for getting off on a technicality.

Jay wrote:

And there were no personal attacks. You made a very strong statement (comparing Citizens United to Dred Scott is pure hyperbole btw) and I simply asked you to explain your position. I don't think that's unreasonable.

just a precaution.  i know how easy things could escalate to personal attacks

It really doesn't matter who is president, 99% of what they say will never happen.

Jay wrote:

Except you're neglecting that corporations have to kowtow to public opinion even more than politicians do. Walmart could donate heavily to the Republicans, but then they'll be boycotted by Democrats and their push to expand in places like NYC will receive even more pushback than they already do. There are consequences to taking a political stance too openly: you risk offending half your customer base. This is why the fears are overblown, companies aren't going to risk their bottom line on a gamble that their candidate will win. You'd have to be the dumbest CEO on the planet to do something like that.

In practice, corporations tend to fund both sides.  They will often pick one side over the other by funding that side a little more, but they want control over both sides.

The real danger to the Citizens United ruling isn't a matter of one party over another -- it's just the fact that it essentially grants legal approval to buying elections.

There's not much difference between donating to a campaign vs. bribing an official.  The purposes are basically the same, with only a few minor differences in method.

Granted, our system was bought long before this ruling, which is why it might take a lot more than just voting to really change anything.  We probably need another revolution to set things straight.

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

citizens united is the worst thing to happen to this country since dred scott

For once, we agree on something.

shut up, idiot

Hate runs deep with you, doesn't it?

eleven bravo wrote:

i hate idiots. every post you make is a shining example of idiot who wants to come off as a non idiot


granted.....lol

And I thought you were just having a conversation with Jay about how things can degenerate into insults.

Admit it.  You like it when it goes there.

Whenever you're ready for an actual debate, let me know.  If you're just going to fling insults, I'll just ignore the rest of your posts.

A predictable response.  Well then, I accept your request.