If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mega 949)   "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...". Pelosi: "Meh"   (mega949.com) divider line 542
    More: Interesting, radio networks, House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, freedom of speech, U.S. Constitution, First Amendment  
•       •       •

7150 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2012 at 2:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



542 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-20 11:36:05 AM
Corporations are people, my friend.
 
2012-04-20 11:41:00 AM
Despite what Romney and conservatives justices might think, corporations are not people, and the founding fathers likely never intended for them to be considered people.

Manufactured outrage is manufactured.
 
2012-04-20 11:41:29 AM
Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?
 
2012-04-20 11:42:58 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?


USING THE POWERS AND PROCEDURES EXPLICITLY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS SOCIALISM
 
2012-04-20 11:44:19 AM
I don't think congressional Democrats will have much success in repealing the First Amendment. The fact that they would even try such a thing is a good reason to vote against congressional Democrats in November. That's my take, anyways.
 
2012-04-20 11:46:44 AM

SkinnyHead: I don't think congressional Democrats will have much success in repealing the First Amendment. The fact that they would even try such a thing is a good reason to vote against congressional Democrats in November. That's my take, anyways.


Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech =/= repealing the First Amendment.

But you already knew that.
 
2012-04-20 11:46:53 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?


hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?


hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?


If you want to pass a law that's presently unconstitutional, the correct way to do it is MAKE it constitutional.

Attempting to abolish prohibition without an amendment would have been unconstitutional.
 
2012-04-20 11:52:04 AM
f*ck you subby and f*ck the admin who greened this sh*t. it's a willfully dishonest assessment. the first amendment is just that ... an amendment. proposing another amendment is in no way a casual disregard of the constitution. if it were to be ratified then the system f*cking works. if not, then the system still f*cking works.
 
2012-04-20 11:53:40 AM

SkinnyHead: I don't think


that's your first problem, right there.
 
2012-04-20 11:54:25 AM

Rincewind53: SkinnyHead: I don't think congressional Democrats will have much success in repealing the First Amendment. The fact that they would even try such a thing is a good reason to vote against congressional Democrats in November. That's my take, anyways.

Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech =/= repealing the First Amendment.

But you already knew that.


Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech violates the First Amendment. Congressional Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment so that they can legally censor political speech. See the difference?
 
2012-04-20 11:59:15 AM

SkinnyHead: Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech violates the First Amendment. Congressional Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment so that they can legally censor political speech. See the difference?


Um. No. There's no repealing involved. GED In Law strikes again.
 
2012-04-20 12:00:25 PM
Oblig:
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-20 12:02:39 PM

SkinnyHead: Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech violates the First Amendment.


Only if you believe corporations are entitled to free speech.

You see, I don't. Many other people don't. Entities that operate at the pleasure of the government simply should not enjoy the rights of a human being.

Unless you want them to be able to vote, too?
 
2012-04-20 12:07:49 PM
Make a constitutional amendment limiting corporate "personhood." No one could say that attacks the 1st amendment.
 
2012-04-20 12:10:45 PM
In states with "stand your ground" laws, can corporations hire hit squads to take out executives in corporations that are trying to do a hostile takeover?
 
2012-04-20 12:19:03 PM

impaler: Make a constitutional amendment limiting corporate "personhood."


"Congress shall have the power to regulate Corporate personhood."

Boom. Done.
 
2012-04-20 12:19:57 PM
t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-20 12:20:49 PM

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech violates the First Amendment.

Only if you believe corporations are entitled to free speech.

You see, I don't. Many other people don't. Entities that operate at the pleasure of the government simply should not enjoy the rights of a human being.

Unless you want them to be able to vote, too?


The Supreme Court believes that corporations are entitled to free speech. The First Amendment does not specify where the speech comes from or who pays for it, does it? It simply states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
 
2012-04-20 12:28:27 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?


It's being true to the amendation process of the Constitution, and nothing else. This proposed amendment would abridge the freedom of speech and association, just as an anti-blasphemy amendment would.
 
2012-04-20 12:28:45 PM
AMENDMENT XXVIII :

Since corporations, unions and fat cats want to buy elections, PACs and SuperPACs are hereby outlawed, and instead will be taxed +10% more so that federal elections can be publicly, and evenly funded.


/GED in Constitution
 
2012-04-20 12:30:24 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?


this this this MORE OF THIS .....
she isnt talking about making an unconstitutional law. she is talking about changing the constitution.
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
2012-04-20 12:32:59 PM

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court believes that corporations are entitled to free speech. The First Amendment does not specify where the speech comes from or who pays for it, does it? It simply states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."


Correct. So you pass an amendment to the Constitution that states Congress has the power to limit corporate personhood, and voila, the 1st Amendment is intact!

HOLY SH*T THE CONSTITUTION WORKS!!
 
2012-04-20 12:33:05 PM
Considering that this is Pelosi, I was actually expecting the worst when I clicked through.

Don't we get enough trolls in the threads without having them also getting greenlit?
 
2012-04-20 12:33:22 PM

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court believes that corporations are entitled to free speech. The First Amendment does not specify where the speech comes from or who pays for it, does it? It simply states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."


The Supreme Court's opinion is of no consequence if the Constitution is amended. They decide what the law says, not what the law ought to have been.
 
2012-04-20 12:34:53 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Considering that this is Pelosi, I was actually expecting the worst when I clicked through.


When are you going to learn that Pelosi isn't the demon the right makes her out to be?
 
2012-04-20 12:35:02 PM
Google search for "Pelosi first amendment"

Top searches by website:

Fox News (Blog)
Examiner.com
visionamerica.org
cnsnews.com
nationalreview.com
prisonplanet.com
infowars.com
hotair.com
freerepublic.com
therightscoop.com
theblaze.com

Hmmm. Smells like bullshiat to me.
 
2012-04-20 12:35:19 PM

gerrymander: This proposed amendment would abridge the freedom of speech and association, just as an anti-blasphemy amendment would.


Corporations aren't humans. They simply don't deserve, and should not enjoy, the rights we do.
 
2012-04-20 12:37:19 PM
but...corporations aren't people...
 
2012-04-20 12:37:21 PM

hillbillypharmacist: gerrymander: This proposed amendment would abridge the freedom of speech and association, just as an anti-blasphemy amendment would.

Corporations aren't humans. They simply don't deserve, and should not enjoy, the rights we do.


If Corporations were people, Romney would be imprisoned for murder.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-20 12:40:26 PM

SkinnyHead: I don't think congressional Democrats will have much success in repealing the First Amendment. The fact that they would even try such a thing is a good reason to vote against congressional Democrats in November. That's my take, anyways.


It would be.
 
2012-04-20 12:42:35 PM
And the two resolutions currently in play proposing constitutional amendments to ban desecration of the US Flag?

H.J. Res 13 w/ 82 cosponsors
S.H. Res 19 w/33 cosponsors
 
2012-04-20 12:43:07 PM
Nancy Pelosi's actual words today, for those of us that don't want to hear the GOP's take on it:

"On another subject, but related, yesterday House Administration Democrats held a forum on the need to create a new politics free of special interest money. I call it a forum because we were not allowed to call it a hearing because the Republicans will not allow a hearing on DISCLOSE. They did not allow the camera system of the room to be used to transmit the proceedings from the forum to the rest of the world. We think that this is about transparency, DISCLOSE. Stand by your ads. If you are so proud of what you are doing with your effective political action, then let the world know who is paying for this ad; not by the end of the year, or the end of the month, but by the end of the ad, in real time. We have to do it as candidates. They should have to do it as contributors.

We have a clear agenda in this regard. DISCLOSE, reform the system, reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to let secret, unlimited huge amounts of money flow into campaigns. I think one of the presenters yesterday said it was - that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that indeed is not an exaggeration. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy. [They] said the elections are determined by the people, the voice, and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. The Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our founders' vision, and we want to reverse it."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But I'm a looney leftist that hates America.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-20 12:44:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hillbillypharmacist: gerrymander: This proposed amendment would abridge the freedom of speech and association, just as an anti-blasphemy amendment would.

Corporations aren't humans. They simply don't deserve, and should not enjoy, the rights we do.

If Corporations were people, Romney would be imprisoned for murder.


No, that's the beauty of it. You can do whatever you want and it isn't your fault, the company is guilty. It's like "the dog ate my homework", except more like, "The corporation defrauded millions of people out of billions of dollars and wrecked the economy, not me!"
 
2012-04-20 12:46:55 PM

Lando Lincoln: Nancy Pelosi's actual words today, for those of us that don't want to hear the GOP's take on it:

"On another subject, but related, yesterday House Administration Democrats held a forum on the need to create a new politics free of special interest money. I call it a forum because we were not allowed to call it a hearing because the Republicans will not allow a hearing on DISCLOSE. They did not allow the camera system of the room to be used to transmit the proceedings from the forum to the rest of the world. We think that this is about transparency, DISCLOSE. Stand by your ads. If you are so proud of what you are doing with your effective political action, then let the world know who is paying for this ad; not by the end of the year, or the end of the month, but by the end of the ad, in real time. We have to do it as candidates. They should have to do it as contributors.

We have a clear agenda in this regard. DISCLOSE, reform the system, reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to let secret, unlimited huge amounts of money flow into campaigns. I think one of the presenters yesterday said it was - that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that indeed is not an exaggeration. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy. [They] said the elections are determined by the people, the voice, and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. The Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our founders' vision, and we want to reverse it."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But I'm a looney leftist that hates America.


she actually sounds almost reasonable. WTF man...? oh, right. it's 4/20. that explains it!
 
2012-04-20 12:48:05 PM

vpb: No, that's the beauty of it. You can do whatever you want and it isn't your fault, the company is guilty. It's like "the dog ate my homework", except more like, "The corporation defrauded millions of people out of billions of dollars and wrecked the economy, not me!"


Okay then why hasn't Bain Capital been arrested for murder?

Oh wait, you can't do that, because corporations aren't people.
 
2012-04-20 12:49:20 PM

Weaver95: she actually sounds almost reasonable. WTF man...? oh, right. it's 4/20. that explains it!


Why is she even working today on 4/20? Isn't it like a San Francisco holiday? Everybody in that town is gay and smokes dope.
 
2012-04-20 12:51:03 PM

Lando Lincoln: Weaver95: she actually sounds almost reasonable. WTF man...? oh, right. it's 4/20. that explains it!

Why is she even working today on 4/20? Isn't it like a San Francisco holiday? Everybody in that town is gay and smokes dope.


got me. Personally, I expect to see a sudden spike of clouds today around 4:20 pm, followed by a run to the stores for munchies about 40 min after that.
 
2012-04-20 12:54:02 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: impaler: Make a constitutional amendment limiting corporate "personhood."

"Congress shall have the power to regulate Corporate personhood."

Boom. Done.


That doesn't solve the problem; business entities could still assemble under an existing, or new, legal fiction other than a corporation.

One thing they *can't* get around is the fact that they're always going to be legal persons.

Draw a bright line between natural persons from legal persons, then establish that only natural persons have BOR/civil rights protections (since the barriers to regulate have been raised from the illegitimately-obtained notion that they're the same type of people as we are).
 
2012-04-20 12:56:09 PM

hillbillypharmacist: gerrymander: This proposed amendment would abridge the freedom of speech and association, just as an anti-blasphemy amendment would.

Corporations aren't humans. They simply don't deserve, and should not enjoy, the rights we do.


Corporations are made up of humans -- humans who do not lose their freedom of speech rights because they choose to also use their freedom of association rights.

Think about it for a minute: What you want is a legal system where you and I could independently purchase and carry "Beer is Good!" signs, but would be forbidden from forming "Beer-Drinkers United", and pooling resources to purchase and carry those same signs together.

Which makes no damn sense.

Even the "corporations aren't humans" complaint is silly. Can you come up with even one example where a corporation took action without using any human effort or agency?
 
2012-04-20 01:00:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Considering that this is Pelosi, I was actually expecting the worst when I clicked through.

When are you going to learn that Pelosi isn't the demon the right makes her out to be?


I'm in her congressional district. My issues with her have very little to do with right-wing demonization.

/And I'd still pick her over most of the Republican candidates, so back off, m'kay?
 
2012-04-20 01:01:26 PM

gameshowhost: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: impaler: Make a constitutional amendment limiting corporate "personhood."

"Congress shall have the power to regulate Corporate personhood."

Boom. Done.

That doesn't solve the problem; business entities could still assemble under an existing, or new, legal fiction other than a corporation.

One thing they *can't* get around is the fact that they're always going to be legal persons.

Draw a bright line between natural persons from legal persons, then establish that only natural persons have BOR/civil rights protections (since the barriers to regulate have been raised from the illegitimately-obtained notion that they're the same type of people as we are).


That's fine. Change it to "Congress shall have the power to regulate the rights of legal and artificial persons. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to affect the rights of natural persons under this Constitution."
 
2012-04-20 01:02:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court believes that corporations are entitled to free speech. The First Amendment does not specify where the speech comes from or who pays for it, does it? It simply states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Correct. So you pass an amendment to the Constitution that states Congress has the power to limit corporate personhood, and voila, the 1st Amendment is intact!

HOLY SH*T THE CONSTITUTION WORKS!!


That won't work. A constitutional amendment limiting corporate personhood would not empower congress to make a law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. That's because the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

And besides, don't you think that the First Amendment protects the right of both the speaker and the listener?
 
2012-04-20 01:04:41 PM

Aarontology: hillbillypharmacist: Isn't wanting to amend the Constitution an example of being true to the Constitution, rather than an example of disregarding it?

USING THE POWERS AND PROCEDURES EXPLICITLY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS SOCIALISM


Paultards seriously believe this. It boggles the mind, but apparently anything other than the Bill of Rights is not True Constitutionalism.
 
2012-04-20 01:04:46 PM

gerrymander: Think about it for a minute: What you want is a legal system where you and I could independently purchase and carry "Beer is Good!" signs, but would be forbidden from forming "Beer-Drinkers United", and pooling resources to purchase and carry those same signs together.


That would never happen.

For one thing, such an organization should be set up as a PAC or other political organization, and such organizations' right to free speech would always remain unaffected.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that corporations not have the right to speak, ever. Merely that Congress has the power to limit it as the actual human citizens see fit.
 
2012-04-20 01:05:03 PM

impaler: Make a constitutional amendment limiting corporate "personhood." No one could say that attacks the 1st amendment.


I would take it a step further. I would like to see something like the Bill of Rights amended to the constitution dealing with corporate entities. Only it's not limited to garanteeing rights. It would also spell out limitations corporate entities have especially regarding political activity.

It may be too late. The people need to decide the role of corporations in our society at a constitutional level. If we do not the corporations are going to decide it for us wether we like it or not.
 
2012-04-20 01:05:57 PM

gerrymander: Think about it for a minute: What you want is a legal system where you and I could independently purchase and carry "Beer is Good!" signs, but would be forbidden from forming "Beer-Drinkers United", and pooling resources to purchase and carry those same signs together.


No, what we want to forbid is things like Anheuser-Busch (which is now foreign-owned) donating millions of dollars to BeersForAll SuperPAC and not have to legally disclose that they did so.
 
2012-04-20 01:06:41 PM

gerrymander: hillbillypharmacist: gerrymander: This proposed amendment would abridge the freedom of speech and association, just as an anti-blasphemy amendment would.

Corporations aren't humans. They simply don't deserve, and should not enjoy, the rights we do.

Corporations are made up of humans -- humans who do not lose their freedom of speech rights because they choose to also use their freedom of association rights.

Think about it for a minute: What you want is a legal system where you and I could independently purchase and carry "Beer is Good!" signs, but would be forbidden from forming "Beer-Drinkers United", and pooling resources to purchase and carry those same signs together.

Which makes no damn sense.

Even the "corporations aren't humans" complaint is silly. Can you come up with even one example where a corporation took action without using any human effort or agency?


No one is suggesting that the individuals involved in a corporation should be disallowed from making donations etc. its when it is done in the name of the corporation (a fictional entity that only exists because the gov't lets it) that it becomes an issue
 
2012-04-20 01:11:08 PM

SkinnyHead: That won't work. A constitutional amendment limiting corporate personhood would not empower congress to make a law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. That's because the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."


... and yet we have the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to directly tax income without apportionment, which is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.

There is nothing stopping Amendments from directly contravening other Amendments. Absolutely nothing.
 
2012-04-20 01:17:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Restricting corporate expenditures on political speech violates the First Amendment. Congressional Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment so that they can legally censor political speech. See the difference?

Um. No. There's no repealing involved. GED In Law strikes again.


I wonder what he would think of this issue if the majority of billionaire activist money was going to left and liberal groups.
 
2012-04-20 01:30:22 PM

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: That won't work. A constitutional amendment limiting corporate personhood would not empower congress to make a law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. That's because the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

... and yet we have the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to directly tax income without apportionment, which is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.

There is nothing stopping Amendments from directly contravening other Amendments. Absolutely nothing.


But an amendment abolishing corporate personhood would not authorize congress to do what the first amendment specifically forbids. It says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

If the First Amendment stated that Congress shall make no law abridging a person's right to freedom of speech, an amendment abolishing corporate personhood would allow congress to restrict corporate speech. But the First Amendment does not state that only a "person" has the right to free speech. It prohibits all laws that abridge freedom of speech.

That's why congressional democrats are going to have to specifically repeal the First Amendment if they want to censor certain forms of political speech.
 
Displayed 50 of 542 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report