Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I have a question for you: why don't corporations have direct voting rights? Oh right, because they're not "citizens of the United States". It's the people of the United States whose rights are safeguarded by the Constitution. A corporation is not a person.
No right, in America, is absolute.
because it's not an all or nothing deal an each right should be handled on its own merits.
2. assuming they have a right to speech in general, and btw it was soooo stupid for that dumbass liberal lawyer to try to argue they dont and that congress could pass a law saying no corporation can publish a book...what a dumbass....then it doesn't mean they can give money politically like humans because
a. money isn't speech another wrong ruling by the court
b. in fact we can regulate speech...we CAN have a law saying you can't drown out others with your speech, you can't pay thugs to take over the public square in a park, so it's okay to regulate money used to buy public airwaves....shit it's okay to regulate human's using money to buy time to speak, it's okay to regulate corporations and to distinguish because see item 1 supra.
4. btw @4 US citizens do not have voting rights. DC, remember? YOU have the right to elect senators making laws for THEM, they don't, you are the colonizer, when being a colonizer it's polite to remember who you have colonized, ok?
Same with puerto rico, there you are in puerto rico, you want statehood, others deny this to you and the result is .... you don't got equal voting rights. What the fuck is up with that?
I can only assume you in the colonizer class enjoy ruling over others and your ignorance is willful....
Unless I'm grossly mistaken, this ruling now means a Chinese or Swiss or Russian corporate entity apparently has the same right to "free speech" in the form unlimited political donations to candidates as does an individual American citizen; more in point of fact, since corporations are in a position to throw thousands, tens of thousands, if not millions of dollars into the political arena, whereas most of us can only muster a mere fraction of a percentage of that amount.
The effect of this ruling seems to be to essentially say, "we are no longer a representative democracy based on the principle of 'one citizen, one vote', but rather 'one citizen/corporation, unlimited financial influence'."
The only bright spot I see in this is that the ruling would appear to apply to unions and grass-roots organizations as well as to for-profit corporations. Although, I can't help but wonder, following the rule of "unintended consequences", whether this ruling could for example also apply to non-profits. Could ANY corporate entity, even a tax-exempt one, now claim that denying them access to the political arena constitutes an "infringement" of their right to free speech?
http://www.people.com
/people
/article
/0,,20338983,00.html
<
he allegedly "walked up to the 17-year-old female victim, grabbed her tank top and bra and pulled them down and exposed her breasts," according to a police statement at the time of the arrest
>
I found it odd that this story isn't mentioned on your Morning News list:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
This is awful. This creep, Clark has the dubious distinction of being the first person convicted of Human Trafficking under the recent (2008) Washington state law. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison and only showed remorse at sentencing. Bloody sad.
The 'despite' should not be there-
we have either an misunderstanding of law or the English language here...
Perhaps if we stop Obama's illegal secret war (or declare war and make it legal...) they will stop killing our CIA agents.
discuss...
DESPITE
admitting that most Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life.
see how that works?
Howard Nielson, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign, asking Herek about INNUMERABLE studies that described sexual orientation as complex and found that people's sexual identities are often flexible.
Herek claimed the INNUMERABLE studies that found that people's sexual identities are often flexible did not contradict his conclusions.
Really?
The plaintiff's highly paid whore hack witness claimed few people change their sexual 'orientation'
DESPITE
the fact that most Gays and lesbians have heterosexual partners at some point in life and
DESPITE
INNUMERABLE studies that found that people's sexual identities are flexible.
Roeder seems to have an air-tight case....
I'm losing my (rental) house next week! That's right, another homeless guy in Seattle! Don't you think there's too many already? This will keep happening to more and more people; they don't care about me, you, or anybody who's not listed in the Fortune 500. Old story; the haves declare war on the have-nots, the have-nots vote on rigged machines, thinking it's gonna help. Meanwhile, the greedy House and Senate continue to pass legislation making it even easier to line their pockets and their friends' pockets with my livelihood. Then NPR asks unimportant questions and Fox breaks the story of a cat who rescued a baby. and the have-nots log on to Facebook.
This society is making me nauseous.
Can we have a fucking revolution, already? Well? Can we?
patience, my child-
Sarah hasn't given the Word...
@8 I was in a rush, and it was early. Apologies.