Quote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 11:27:30 AMUhhhhh, hell yeah there is. What part of the government taking phone records of Verizon customers don't you understand? Might as well set fire to the Constitution and let an authoritarian government existYou should not talk about the Constitution when you openly defend police officers completely disregarding it.
Uhhhhh, hell yeah there is. What part of the government taking phone records of Verizon customers don't you understand? Might as well set fire to the Constitution and let an authoritarian government exist
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 12:59:11 AMNot giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from GoogleUmm. . . What? The information the government would be "allowed" to take still belongs to a person with rights. A multitude of them, in fact.
Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google
Then why doesn't the government get search warrants for the individuals who the records belong to?
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 11:27:30 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 09, 2014, 09:22:36 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on September 09, 2014, 12:28:07 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.And I have to disagree. Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google. It also means corporations can't fully express themselves as they are not protected by the 1st AmendmentAnd there's a problem with that?Uhhhhh, hell yeah there is. What part of the government taking phone records of Verizon customers don't you understand? Might as well set fire to the Constitution and let an authoritarian government exist>implying they don't already do that
Quote from: SoporificSlash on September 09, 2014, 09:22:36 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on September 09, 2014, 12:28:07 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.And I have to disagree. Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google. It also means corporations can't fully express themselves as they are not protected by the 1st AmendmentAnd there's a problem with that?Uhhhhh, hell yeah there is. What part of the government taking phone records of Verizon customers don't you understand? Might as well set fire to the Constitution and let an authoritarian government exist
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on September 09, 2014, 12:28:07 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.And I have to disagree. Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google. It also means corporations can't fully express themselves as they are not protected by the 1st AmendmentAnd there's a problem with that?
Quote from: Mad Max on September 09, 2014, 12:28:07 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.And I have to disagree. Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google. It also means corporations can't fully express themselves as they are not protected by the 1st Amendment
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.
Quote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rights
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not people
I'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html
Quote from: SoporificSlash on September 11, 2014, 07:34:14 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 11, 2014, 07:25:07 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 08, 2014, 02:28:53 PMQuote from: challengerX on September 08, 2014, 01:29:02 PMNobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.Now that's just impracticalNot at all. Money should not be a factor in who gets to hold any kind of office.Candidates have used money to campaign since Washington's time when politicians were honest. No one would ever get to know anything about the candidates because they wouldn't have any print, tv, or radio to get word of the candidates' views. Elections would be a total clusterfuck.I'm talking about donations. Besides, you don't need much to travel and give speeches. And politicians weren't honest back then.
Quote from: challengerX on September 11, 2014, 07:25:07 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 08, 2014, 02:28:53 PMQuote from: challengerX on September 08, 2014, 01:29:02 PMNobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.Now that's just impracticalNot at all. Money should not be a factor in who gets to hold any kind of office.Candidates have used money to campaign since Washington's time when politicians were honest. No one would ever get to know anything about the candidates because they wouldn't have any print, tv, or radio to get word of the candidates' views. Elections would be a total clusterfuck.
Quote from: SoporificSlash on September 08, 2014, 02:28:53 PMQuote from: challengerX on September 08, 2014, 01:29:02 PMNobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.Now that's just impracticalNot at all. Money should not be a factor in who gets to hold any kind of office.
Quote from: challengerX on September 08, 2014, 01:29:02 PMNobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.Now that's just impractical
Nobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 11, 2014, 11:22:05 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 11, 2014, 07:52:53 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 11, 2014, 07:34:14 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 11, 2014, 07:25:07 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 08, 2014, 02:28:53 PMQuote from: challengerX on September 08, 2014, 01:29:02 PMNobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.Now that's just impracticalNot at all. Money should not be a factor in who gets to hold any kind of office.Candidates have used money to campaign since Washington's time when politicians were honest. No one would ever get to know anything about the candidates because they wouldn't have any print, tv, or radio to get word of the candidates' views. Elections would be a total clusterfuck.I'm talking about donations. Besides, you don't need much to travel and give speeches. And politicians weren't honest back then.And what do you think donations go to? It funds the entire campaign, with the most expensive being television ads. Campaigns are not affordable and back in 2012, Obama raised around $775M and spent $606M of itThat's the problem. The whole system needs to be changed in terms of campaigning and fundraising.
Quote from: challengerX on September 11, 2014, 07:52:53 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 11, 2014, 07:34:14 AMQuote from: challengerX on September 11, 2014, 07:25:07 AMQuote from: SoporificSlash on September 08, 2014, 02:28:53 PMQuote from: challengerX on September 08, 2014, 01:29:02 PMNobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.Now that's just impracticalNot at all. Money should not be a factor in who gets to hold any kind of office.Candidates have used money to campaign since Washington's time when politicians were honest. No one would ever get to know anything about the candidates because they wouldn't have any print, tv, or radio to get word of the candidates' views. Elections would be a total clusterfuck.I'm talking about donations. Besides, you don't need much to travel and give speeches. And politicians weren't honest back then.And what do you think donations go to? It funds the entire campaign, with the most expensive being television ads. Campaigns are not affordable and back in 2012, Obama raised around $775M and spent $606M of it
In Honor of the Vote for a 28th Amendment...
