Move Over, Whitney, there's a New Radical Activist Judge..

[LTS TRN 2]

Acting as a god...here's the real story on how the American political system was effectively hijacked completely by the radical right activism of the Roberts court.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... act_toobin


Oh yeah, and a new angel in the heavenly choir to preen and pretend she can actually sing.

[mvscal]

That moron doesn't even understand the term 'judicial activism' let alone make a coherent argument against Roberts.

[Wolfman]

Not reading things is a trademark ™ of the left, like passing laws that no one read.

[bradhusker]

Did you even read the article you cited? The author blames a shitty assistant Solicitor General named Stewart with making stupid arguments that doomed McCain-Feingold. The truth, however, is that the arguments Stewart made were appropriate in view of the bad law enacted by Congress, which was clearly unconstitutional. The Court did what it should have done. Instead of citing an article you appear not to have read, why don't you explain how Congress has the right to subvert the First Amendment. This ought to be good.

THANK YOU 88.

I am sick and tired of left wing sick fucks trying to smear Justice Roberts. He is clearly one of the most brilliant legal minds to ever grace the court.

THANK YOU 88 for exposing LTS for being the sick liberal leftist that he is.

[Derron]

THANK YOU 88 for exposing LTS for being the sick liberal leftist that he is.

This is news that needed to be exposed?..glass dick here.

[LTS TRN 2]

Did you even read the article you cited? The author blames a shitty assistant Solicitor General named Stewart with making stupid arguments that doomed McCain-Feingold. The truth, however, is that the arguments Stewart made were appropriate in view of the bad law enacted by Congress, which was clearly unconstitutional. The Court did what it should have done. Instead of citing an article you appear not to have read, why don't you explain how Congress has the right to subvert the First Amendment. This ought to be good.

Dead wrong. The proper--and very simple--argument which the assistant solicitor general should have presented is supplied by the article's author--as it was easily detailed by various legal experts in the wake of his incredibly incompetent response. Had he done so the radical judges would not have been able to pursue and expand their dire ruling. The difference between television ads and books is obvious and was intended to be acknowledged in the application of McCain-Feingold. The tremendous leap of the radical justices to reinforce the rights of corporations to be treated as people is the great scandal of this legal travesty. And what was their precedent? A California court in the 19th century stating without argument or consideration that of course corporations have the same rights as individual citizens? This is an absolute disgrace of jurisprudence as well as categorically false and pernicious.

Obviously none of the hacks here could defend giving corporations basic rights of individuals because they're weaned at the teat of right-wing radio and...of course it's just tedious smears and drivel.

[bradhusker]

Did you even read the article you cited? The author blames a shitty assistant Solicitor General named Stewart with making stupid arguments that doomed McCain-Feingold. The truth, however, is that the arguments Stewart made were appropriate in view of the bad law enacted by Congress, which was clearly unconstitutional. The Court did what it should have done. Instead of citing an article you appear not to have read, why don't you explain how Congress has the right to subvert the First Amendment. This ought to be good.

Dead wrong. The proper--and very simple--argument which the assistant solicitor general should have presented is supplied by the article's author--as it was easily detailed by various legal experts in the wake of his incredibly incompetent response. Had he done so the radical judges would not have been able to pursue and expand their dire ruling. The difference between television ads and books is obvious and was intended to be acknowledged in the application of McCain-Feingold. The tremendous leap of the radical justices to reinforce the rights of corporations to be treated as people is the great scandal of this legal travesty. And what was their precedent? A California court in the 19th century stating without argument or consideration that of course corporations have the same rights as individual citizens? This is an absolute disgrace of jurisprudence as well as categorically false and pernicious.

Obviously none of the hacks here could defend giving corporations basic rights of individuals because they're weaned at the teat of right-wing radio and...of course it's just tedious smears and drivel.

A couple questions for ya LTS.

What is a union? ITS SOMETHING MADE UP OF WHAT? PEOPLE YOU FUCKIN MORON!!!!
Democrats love unions,
What is a corporation? What makes up a corporation? PEOPLE DO, YOU SICK COCKSUCKER!!

When we start saying who and or what can have free speech? You are treading on dangerous ground.
When you let the democrats organize powerful unions, which take advantage of the average taxpayer, YOUR AGAIN ON DANGEROUS GROUND.

BIG government unions are made up of democrats. The benefits that Government employees get, far exceed the average taxpayer, WHO BY DEFINITION pays for their benefits!! you clueless fuck.

Your sick leftist mind is SO FUCKED UP, that you dont realize that corporations are made up of people, just like powerful democrat unions are.

The playing field needs to be even you motherfuckin faggott.

[LTS TRN 2]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well. The very idea that justices of the U.S. supreme court would engage in such blatant aggressive activism--in direct service of the corporate hoarders--is surely the most horrifying development of America's dismantlement following the advent of Reagan, etc.

[Van]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well.

:?

Link?

[bradhusker]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well. The very idea that justices of the U.S. supreme court would engage in such blatant aggressive activism--in direct service of the corporate hoarders--is surely the most horrifying development of America's dismantlement following the advent of Reagan, etc.

SHUT THE FUCK UP LTS. YOU are SO WEIRD and SICK, it is not funny. "following the advent of Reagan"???

YOU ARE SO mentally fucked up, you just slandered Reagan, and Reagan was someone who followed the constitution.

Its your beloved left wing nutjobs who DONT follow the constitution. Justice Roberts FOLLOWS the constitution. YOU are the fuckin clown here. The world is upsidedown with a sick joke like you.
The activists here are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SHE is the weird activist who does NOT follow the constitution.
Are you really this FUCKED in the head that you dont understand that liberals want to totally subvert our constitution?

[bradhusker]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well.

:?

Link?

Van, its no use talking to this creep. He thinks corporations are made up of something other than people. He also thinks big powerful government unions are people, BUT, corporations are not.

nice.

[Truman]

Bullshit, 88, it's right next to the free health care section...

[bradhusker]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well.

Those framers of the constitution who were worried about the distinctions between individuals and corporations did a shitty job of inserting their concerns into the Constitution, since there is absolutely nothing written in the Constitution regarding such distinctions.

88, doesnt it disturb you how left wing nutjobs hate the evil corporation, claiming its NOT made up of people?
YET, the huge and powerful government unions? They are people?

WOW, why is that? We all know how dangerous these unions have become, holding the taxpayer hostage. These unions have given the government employee benefits that your basic private sector worker can NEVER have. Why is that fair? The taxpayer obviously pays their hard earned money so government employees can have the best healthcare and the best retirement? While the average private sector employee must scrape by to have shit healthcare and no retirement?

BIG GIANT UNIONS are part of the left. Which is why LTS doesnt have a problem.
BIG GIANT POWERFUL UNIONS ARE PEOPLE, right LTS?
you sick piece of dung.

[Moving Sale]

(1) The First Amendment does not differentiate whether speech is protected based upon the identity of the speaker;

Defamation does. Try defaming yourself sometime and see how it goes.

(2) the First Amendment does not differentiate whether the speech is protected based upon the manner in which it is communicated.

The manner I wish to use is 1280AM. How do you think that is going to work out for me?

If you don't like Citizens United, you should try to convince the People to support an amendment to the Constitution, which would revise the First Amendment to allow Congress to restrict political speech based upon the speaker's identity or the manner in which it is delivered.

You mean like how we should make an amendment stating that congress can regulate interstate commerce, while regulation of intrastate commerce is left to the 9th and 10th amendments?

Those framers of the constitution who were worried about the distinctions between individuals and corporations did a shitty job of inserting their concerns into the Constitution, since there is absolutely nothing written in the Constitution regarding such distinctions.

"People" are clearly mentioned numerous times in the BoR. You can read right? How more clear can "people to be secure in their persons" be?

Good gawd you are a simpleton.

[Dinsdale]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well. The very idea that justices of the U.S. supreme court would engage in such blatant aggressive activism--in direct service of the corporate hoarders--is surely the most horrifying development of America's dismantlement following the advent of Reagan, etc.

Uhm, you realize that "corporate personhood" has been the law of the land for about 200 years, right?

Citizens' United did pretty much nothing to change that one way or another.

See, sometimes people pool their resources to start a business that wouldn't be feasable to do as an individual. When they do so, they're forming a legal pact known as a "corporation." And their rights don't suddenly go out the window just because they formed a business association.


And the problem isn't with corporations, business associations, the SCOTUS, Citizens' United, or corporate personhood...

The problem is you, and your ilk. Just truly stupid people -- they want Big Brother to take care of them and provide for them, and regulate everything there is to regulate at the federal level.

And gee, you put trillions of dollars in the hands of a few hundred people... and legislation becomes for sale????

Man, whoever would have imagined that could possibly happen?

YOU are the problem. Just a fucking stupid political ideology.

[bradhusker]

The framers of the constitution made clear distinctions between individuals and corporations--and gave warnings as well. The very idea that justices of the U.S. supreme court would engage in such blatant aggressive activism--in direct service of the corporate hoarders--is surely the most horrifying development of America's dismantlement following the advent of Reagan, etc.

Uhm, you realize that "corporate personhood" has been the law of the land for about 200 years, right?

Citizens' United did pretty much nothing to change that one way or another.

See, sometimes people pool their resources to start a business that wouldn't be feasable to do as an individual. When they do so, they're forming a legal pact known as a "corporation." And their rights don't suddenly go out the window just because they formed a business association.


And the problem isn't with corporations, business associations, the SCOTUS, Citizens' United, or corporate personhood...

The problem is you, and your ilk. Just truly stupid people -- they want Big Brother to take care of them and provide for them, and regulate everything there is to regulate at the federal level.

And gee, you put trillions of dollars in the hands of a few hundred people... and legislation becomes for sale????

Man, whoever would have imagined that could possibly happen?

YOU are the problem. Just a fucking stupid political ideology.

Dinsdale, can I say this? I FUCKIN LOVE YOU MAN!!!! RACK RACK, and a thousand more RACKS.

You just single-handedly made LTS look like a stupid retard, and, I am in sheer AWE of you.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

And LTS? How does it feel? BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Such a fervent endorsement from bradhusker should make you sit in deep thought for several days re-evaluating everything you've ever believed.

[Dinsdale]

Valid point, MGO -- except it was merely an endorsement of a thumping of LTS, hence there was no violation of the "if Brad agrees with you..." rule.

You just single-handedly made LTS look like a stupid retard

Someone did, but it wasn't me. LTS beat me to the punch by a few decades.

[Truman]

(1) The First Amendment does not differentiate whether speech is protected based upon the identity of the speaker;

Defamation does. Try defaming yourself sometime and see how it goes.

Sweet Christ you’re a mess. Why would 88 be troubled to defame himself when it is far more entertaining for him - and everyone else on this Board for that matter - to defame you?

(2) the First Amendment does not differentiate whether the speech is protected based upon the manner in which it is communicated.

The manner I wish to use is 1280AM. How do you think that is going to work out for me?

Pony-up several G Large and most likely your wishes should come to fruition. Provided, of course, that you actually have anything of value to say. Naturally, the Klan struggles to find airtime in the South… And I can’t imagine 1280 finding anything remotely compelling that a sawed-off bitter halfling might actually have to say. Put your selling shoes on, Counselor.

BTW, public radio stations generously sell air-time to all comers. You might take issue with the time slot, but I’m thinking 4:00-5:00 AM Sunday morning would be perfect for your message.

If you don't like Citizens United, you should try to convince the People to support an amendment to the Constitution, which would revise the First Amendment to allow Congress to restrict political speech based upon the speaker's identity or the manner in which it is delivered.

You mean like how we should make an amendment stating that congress can regulate interstate commerce, while regulation of intrastate commerce is left to the 9th and 10th amendments?

What part of “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” do you not struggle with?

88’s point is that if you don’t like the Constitution… Then change it. There IS a mechanism in place to do so. Let us know how it works out for you….

Those framers of the constitution who were worried about the distinctions between individuals and corporations did a shitty job of inserting their concerns into the Constitution, since there is absolutely nothing written in the Constitution regarding such distinctions.

"People" are clearly mentioned numerous times in the BoR. You can read right? How more clear can "people to be secure in their persons" be?

Good gawd you are a simpleton.

Quick question, Counselor: How are corporations any different than unions? And why should corporations be treated any differently? Both are comprised of, well, “people” - you know, the folks you reference in the Bill of Rights.… Of which who send representatives to govern at their consent. Sorry their ruling chapped your flaps, but SCOTUS simply levelled the playing field.

Are you easily this stupid in RL where no-less than two dozen anonymous posters on a message board surgically castrate you on every take you post? Both of your clients must hate you….

[bradhusker]

Well, he and LTS are both walking around without genitalia then, cause when you bring up the fact that both unions and corporations are made up of "people", its "crickets" ...then, CASTRATE!!!

I love your use of the word, "castrate", its so violent and straight to the point. See, with the sick twisted liberal mind, words like "castrate" and "blunt force sodomy" are sorely needed to drive points thru their thick empty skulls.

[LTS TRN 2]

Here's Thomas Jefferson warning about the unfettered influence of corporations.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare to challenge our government to a trial by strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -- Thomas Jefferson.

He was right, of course, and yet the frenzied and panicked GOP since Reagan has sought to deliver the nation as a simple giant commodity to be exploited as rapaciously as possible regardless of the disastrous effects on the citizenry.

Why are corporations not deserving of the status of a real person? Many obvious reasons. Consider that if a person commits a crime, he can be properly held accountable. But if a corporation commits a crime there is legally nothing that can hold it accountable beyond a fine or sanction. This bizarre immunity allows the corporation to continue its primary mission, which is to expand and devour competition no matter what.

Further, corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace. This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare. Too Big to Jail is the actual fact of the modern corporate design. Stripped of any pretense of social obligation or actual patriotism, unconstrained corporations, like cancer cells, lethal parasites, and the scorpion, can destroy their “hosts,” without which they cannot survive, much less flourish. And this is exactly what is occurring as Modern Capitalism (as NY Times hack David Brooks clearly states) is now a "service economy" of twisting murky algorithms and derivatives shuffling billions in obscenely risky and reckless gambling.

As for the standard (desperate) defense of the obvious immoral and dangerous ethos of the trans-national corporate model, we hear nothing but simplistic "libertarian" slogans and smears. The idea of comparing a corporation with a labor union is perverse and typically idiotic, demonstrating as well as any of the tedious non-arguments just how completely the GOP agenda has defaulted and accepted an insane scorch and burn mentality in all areas of policy and process.

[bradhusker]

LTS, leave it to you to leave out the most important warnings from our founders.

"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty", end quote.

"When the people realize that they can vote themselves FREE MONEY, that will herald the end of our great republic".

WHAT ABOUT BIG GOVERNMENT UNIONS LTS? You dont mention them do you? And we know why.

You are a hack for the left, so big corrupt unions dont bother you one bit. NICE.

[Snake]

just this....when a case is brought up to the highest court. How can political views of a judge influence their decision????? The law is the law and should not be shaped to serve ones individual believes and or politics.

[mvscal]

How can political views of a judge influence their decision????? The law is the law and should not be shaped to serve ones individual believes and or politics.

How cute.

[bradhusker]

just this....when a case is brought up to the highest court. How can political views of a judge influence their decision????? The law is the law and should not be shaped to serve ones individual believes and or politics.

Snake, Allow me to answer this, with 88's permission of course.

There shouldnt be a problem with Chief Justice Roberts. Even though he may be a conservative, he is going to stick to the constitution of the United States.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg? BUWAHAHAHAHA. SHE WILL NOT. She has even publically shown her disdain for our constitution, by stating on foreign soil, that she likes several other constitutions before our own!!! HOLY FUCKIN SHIT!! She would, NO DOUBT IN MY MIND, be activist from the bench and allow her personal political beliefs to enter into her judgement.
Same thing with the two new dykes that Obama nominated. Pure activist, with zero respect for our founding fathers.
November is HUGE! Romney will nominate strict constitutionalists. Obama will NOT.
The choice could not be more CRYSTAL CLEAR.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not reading things is a trademark ™ of the left, like passing laws that no one read.

RACK!!!

We don't have time to read the Patriot Act, we have to pass it right away.

Sin,

[Moving Sale]

Sweet Christ you’re a mess. Why would 88 be troubled to defame himself when it is far more entertaining for him - and everyone else on this Board for that matter - to defame you?

Nice white flag.

Pony-up several G Large and most likely your wishes should come to fruition.

Hey dumbass, I’m talking about in defiance of the rightful owners of the 1280AM license in my area you foolish felching flyover fop.

What part of “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” do you not struggle with?

Huh? I just fucking cited it. WTF are you talking about?

88’s point is that if you don’t like the Constitution… Then change it. There IS a mechanism in place to do so. Let us know how it works out for you….

Hey asswipe, The Constitution clearly states that congress can only regulate interstate commerce and yet they use that clause to regulate intrastate commerce in defiance of WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. In plain English. So how is changing the USC going to help if they don’t follow it anyway?

Quick question, Counselor:

Quick question shit for brain. Where did I ever say unions should be treated like people? Try learning how to read.

Sorry their ruling chapped your flaps, but SCOTUS simply levelled Sicthe playing field.

Because you had so much more power than Ford before CU.

Are you easily this stupid in RL where no-less than two dozen anonymous posters on a message board surgically castrate you on every take you post? Both of your clients must hate you….

A) two dozen anonymous posters on a message board
B) surgically castrate you on every take you post

[Moving Sale]

Wouldn't it have been great if Jefferson could have persuaded others at the Constitutional Convention to write something in the Constitution about those corporations?

The USC clearly gives the Feds the right to form and hence regulate corps you stupid fucktunnel.

[LTS TRN 2]

Here's Thomas Jefferson warning about the unfettered influence of corporations.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare to challenge our government to a trial by strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -- Thomas Jefferson.

Wouldn't it have been great if Jefferson could have persuaded others at the Constitutional Convention to write something in the Constitution about those corporations? Unfortunately for you, they did no such thing. So until you can get five robed oracles who don't give two shits about what is actually written in the Constitution to feel some anti-corporate emanations from that living breathing document, I guess you'll just have to deal with those who understand the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

Utterly simplistic nonsense, SS. The precedent for corporations enjoying the rights as actual people is derived from the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, and was delivered without any argument or discussion. It was a classic robber baron-era machination of a friendly bunch of appointees to a federal court in California. To suggest that this backroom rubber stamp acquiesence to the Southern Pacific railroad--itself a caricature of corporate abuse in the history of California--somehow properly speaks for the constitution or its principles is typical Tea Bagger drivel.

The lack of accountability enjoyed by a corporation deemed a "person" is just one of the obvious reasons you won't dare approach--but that's nothing new. You pasty squirming "libertarian" simpletons are a disgrace, period. Your "arguments" are nothing but the melting ice in the urinals of Rusp Limpdick and the Koch brothers.

[Moving Sale]

88,
Just seeing what it would take to get you out of your spiderhole.
Now go back and answer my first post to you you fucking pussy.

[bradhusker]

Not reading things is a trademark ™ of the left, like passing laws that no one read.

RACK!!!

We don't have time to read the Patriot Act, we have to pass it right away.

Sin,

Sorry terry, nice try in comparing the two, BUT, the patriot act is during "war time", you do understand that, dont you?
There is a HUGE difference between "peace time" and a "time of war", HUGE.

[bradhusker]

88,
Just seeing what it would take to get you out of your spiderhole.
Now go back and answer my first post to you you fucking pussy.

Moving Sale? This isnt going well for you and LTS. And now that I have paired up with 88? It will be a turkey shoot.

LTS has no ground to stand on here. He lives in a lying hypocritical world where BIG government unions are people, BUT, evil corporations are not. YET, we have seen some really evil unions do some really evil thuggery.

LTS doesnt care, he is a left wing cocksucker.

OH, by the way? 88 really doesnt need me persay, He's already castrated the BOTH of you fruits.
I am going on record here in saying, 88 is one of the most, if not THE MOST brilliant legal minds, ever to grace this OR ANY other message board in cyber history!!

I have never been as cocksure on anything as I am on this.

[Truman]

Hey dumbass, I’m talking about in defiance of the rightful owners of the 1280AM license in my area you foolish felching flyover fop.

Have you ever applied for 1280 AM’s broadcast license, bitter, little man? Have you ever offered to compensate 1280 AM’s owners? Why should you expect free and unfettered access to 1280 AM’s broadcast airwaves just because you think you have something of value to say? Or is such expectation just another example of the entitlement mentality ingrained in you leftists?

Hey asswipe, The Constitution clearly states that congress can only regulate interstate commerce and yet they use that clause to regulate intrastate commerce in defiance of WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. In plain English. So how is changing the USC going to help if they don’t follow it anyway?

I wasn’t aware that slavery was still wantonly practiced (Amendment XIII); that minorities and women were still being subjugated and denied the vote (XV and XIX); and that the sales and distribution of booze is still outlawed in this country despite repeal (XXI). Though I did see where Article II, Section 1 is still up for fiery debate over in another thread...

Quick question shit for brain. Where did I ever say unions should be treated like people? Try learning how to read.

One could argue that you tacitly did just that, Shorty, when you took issue with 88’s post. You also managed to trivialize the Supremes’ landmark ruling with your usual asshattery when you suggested that Congress ignores the IXth and Xth Amendments. That isn’t true. Congress only ignores amendments when they are inconvenienced by them. Besides, others of your diminutive thinking ('sup L-TARD) - and most probably, stature - DID suggest that unions should be treated differently than corporations before SCOTUS validated that the First Amendment actually means what it says:

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale - trying to equalize speech between different speakers - that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley v. Valeo. The Michigan statute at issue in "Austin" had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The "Austin" Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. In Citizens United, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.

Sorry their ruling chapped your flaps, but SCOTUS simply leveled the playing field.

Because you had so much more power than Ford before CU.

More rat’s ass from an ass hat. Ford has more at stake than I do.

[LTS TRN 2]

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions. [...] Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."

And this was never intended by our constitution's framers. The rapacious assault on America's wealth by the loosed and gorging trans-national corporations is basically an orgy of amoral greed leading to an increasingly fascistic government--not a "smaller" one'. Of course you also desperately ignore this basic fact:

Corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace. This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare. Too Big to Jail is the actual fact of the modern corporate design. Stripped of any pretense of social obligation or actual patriotism, unconstrained corporations, like cancer cells, lethal parasites, and the scorpion, can destroy their “hosts,” without which they cannot survive, much less flourish. And this is exactly what is occurring as Modern Capitalism (as NY Times hack David Brooks clearly states and endorses) is now a "service economy" of twisting murky algorithms and derivatives shuffling billions in obscenely risky and reckless gambling.

The entire premise of the modern corporation is as toxic, outdated and dangerous as the basic Friedman/Greenspan model of capitalism itself. Do you oppose a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, with even more teeth? How about the disgraced CEO of JP Morgan sitting on the NY Fed board--to oversee the behavior of the banks :doh: ? In short, where does your wind-up "libertarian" wet spot actually see the light of day?

[Truman]

Is there even a modicum of intelligence about you L-Tard?

Corporations are made of people. SCOTUS has ruled.

Don't like it? Move to Norway. Please. Take up Norwegian. And bitch on their message boards. TIA.

[mvscal]

The other measure I would employ would be to tax profits on commodities futures investments at 90% unless the investor had the physical ability to take possession of the commodities at the time the investment was made.

It would be better to ban such speculation altogether. Bidding should be strictly limited to those able to demonstrate ability to take delivery of the commodity.

[Smackie Chan]

I have paired up with 88

I'm sure that makes 88 feel like Ali having Angelo Dundee in his corner.

[Goober McTuber]

I have paired up with 88

I'm sure that makes 88 feel like Ali having Richard Simmons in his corner.

FTFY.

[Moving Sale]

Have you ever offered to compensate 1280 AM’s owners?

You are dumber than 4 pounds of Mac and cheese. My point is not that I should be able to use 1280’s airwaves without compensation. My point is that the fact that I can’t proves 88 is full of shit when he says there is no difference in the mode of speech. This is a concept you would understand if you didn’t ride the short bus.

I wasn’t aware that slavery was still wantonly practiced (Amendment XIII);

Then maybe you should read the amendment again you fucking retard.
The point is that changing the USC will not help if the political will is not there to make sure that the powers that be follow the fucking thing you stupid silly fuck.

One could argue that you tacitly did just that, Shorty, when you took issue with 88’s post. You also managed to trivialize the Supremes’ landmark ruling with your usual asshattery when you suggested that Congress ignores the IXth and Xth Amendments. That isn’t true. Congress only ignores amendments when they are inconvenienced by them. Besides, others of your diminutive thinking ('sup L-TARD) - and most probably, stature - DID suggest that unions should be treated differently than corporations before SCOTUS validated that the First Amendment actually means what it says:

Cat got your tongue? WTF was that? I think what you are try to say is that you think I signed off on a complete dissent of CU. Ever heard of a justice dissenting to only part of the ruling? Of course you haven’t because you are a stupid tard.

Ford has more at stake than I do.

Like the possibility of being put to death? How dumb are you?

[Moving Sale]

That would be fine with me too. It might stir some construction business, so speculators would have facilities to take possession of the chips they want to gamble with.

I see you are back in your spider hole you fucking pussy.