Should libertarian voters hold their noses and vote for Romney... the SCOTUS issue

• Yes, corporations are ASSOCIATIONS of people, they are not individuals. Corporations cannot be jailed, or executed, until they can be, they are not individual people and the reasoning is illogical on its face.​
  
  
  
  

Somehow unions that confiscate dues from their members and spend it on whatever political party, campaign, etc. that they want to are A-OK!!!

However, corporations that take profits not stolen from their employees and spend it on whatever political party, campaign, etc. are the DEVIL!!!


The hypocracy is astounding...

canndo said:

It was the issue you posted a link to - I guess you missed my thread about that very issue.

Again, I said nothing about "no money" - yet money is still not speech, speech, symbols, actions, words, gestures are "speech" money is not, I have yet to hear my wallet say anything at all to me or anyone around me.


Yes, corporations are ASSOCIATIONS of people, they are not individuals. Corporations cannot be jailed, or executed, until they can be, they are not individual people and the reasoning is illogical on its face.

Click to expand...

My opinion on drug sniffing dogs: I don't think a dog "alerting" is probable cause for a search. I agree with the Florida court's ruling in that case. We will see what SCOTUS says.

Clarify your statement for me: "money is not speech". What are you getting at with that? Money must not be used to support political speech?

"Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[SUP][21][/SUP] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

I agree with Kennedy's opinion. The point of the citizens united ruling was that corporations, acting as associations of people, were legitimately using their first amendment rights when they engaged in political speech. To me, that is uncontroversial.

NLXSK1 said:

• Yes, corporations are ASSOCIATIONS of people, they are not individuals. Corporations cannot be jailed, or executed, until they can be, they are not individual people and the reasoning is illogical on its face.​
  
  

Somehow unions that confiscate dues from their members and spend it on whatever political party, campaign, etc. that they want to are A-OK!!!

However, corporations that take profits not stolen from their employees and spend it on whatever political party, campaign, etc. are the DEVIL!!!


The hypocracy is astounding...

Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't get a say in where a corporation I have stock in donates it's political contributions.

canndo said:

Not at all. I don't get a say in where a corporation I have stock in donates it's political contributions.

Click to expand...

Sure you do. Sell your interest if you don't like how the corporation operates. If you are a large enough stock holder, you get absolute veto power over donations.

desert dude said:

Sure you do. Sell your interest if you don't like how the corporation operation operates. If you are a large enough stock holder, you get absolute veto power over donations.

Click to expand...

If I have a large enough hold. The same could be said for Unions, You could quit a union that is not contributing the way you like. Beyond that, I believe union political contribtions are dwarfed by corporate contributions

canndo said:

If I have a large enough hold. The same could be said for Unions, You could quit a union that is not contributing the way you like. Beyond that, I believe union political contribtions are dwarfed by corporate contributions

Click to expand...

That is one of the problems with unions, you can't quit the union without quitting your job except in "right to work" states, I assume you don't like "right to work" states.

I think you are wrong about how much unions contribute versus corporations. Unions contribute more, I believe. You are welcome to call bull shit on this and force me to look it up, or you can look it up.

canndo said:

Yes I would, I would hold all those campaigning to that same standard. I don't see where Obama has constructed something that is an outright lie. Tooth whitener might make your teeth three shades whiter but it won't do your laundry - that is a lie, the same sort of lie Romney is telling

Click to expand...

So let me ask you, do you think the Obama administration was being completely forthcoming and honest with the American people about the terrorist attacks Benghazi?

canndo said:

What exactly is equal protection under the law? I believe that is the salient issue.

Again, I'd like your opinion on the sniffing dog issue - which is far more petinent to us here at RIU than admissions statistics.

Click to expand...

Person A and person B are treated equally under the law. Public institutions are not allowed to discriminate against people based on race, among other things. The University of Canndonia does not get to reject applicants because they are black, for example.

desert dude said:

That is one of the problems with unions, you can't quit the union without quitting your job except in "right to work" states, I assume you don't like "right to work" states.

I think you are wrong about how much unions contribute versus corporations. Unions contribute more, I believe. You are welcome to call bull shit on this and force me to look it up, or you can look it up.

Click to expand...

http://allisonkilkenny.com/2010/10/false-equivalency-watch-union-versus-corporate-spending/


About 3 to one.

beenthere said:

So let me ask you, do you think the Obama administration was being completely forthcoming and honest with the American people about the terrorist attacks Benghazi?

Click to expand...

No I don't, but that is not campaign speech.

desert dude said:

Sure you do. Sell your interest if you don't like how the corporation operates. If you are a large enough stock holder, you get absolute veto power over donations.

Click to expand...

Each person has one vote, and one voice. The addition of money means that someone with more money has more voice and more votes. If three people with a billion each spend their money in an election they are far more likely to have their wishes enacted and enforced than any other three people.

There is no equality.

canndo said:

Each person has one vote, and one voice. The addition of money means that someone with more money has more voice and more votes. If three people with a billion each spend their money in an election they are far more likely to have their wishes enacted and enforced than any other three people.

There is no equality.

Click to expand...

The addition of money means that someone with more money has more voice and more votes.
This doesn't fit very well with your previous complaints that "money is not speech!!!". Just an observation.


If three people with a billion each spend their money in an election they are far more likely to have their wishes enacted and enforced than any other three people.
What is your solution to this problem? Take the money out of politics? Prohibit people from contributing to political candidates? Put a limit on the amount of political donations?

What sort of equality do you want there to be? Who would administer this equality and how? Is there a political party in the US that represents the little guy?

[h=2]Should libertarian voters hold their noses and vote for Romney... the SCOTUS issue[/h]

Click to expand...

Yes.

Obama is a class and race pimp. Nothing more.

He needs to be allowed to slip back into the private sector where he can practice his craft without fucking up our nation any more than he already has.

Wilksey said:

Yes.

Obama is a class and race pimp. Nothing more.

He needs to be allowed to slip back into the private sector where he can practice his craft without fucking up our nation any more than he already has.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted, and respected. Personally, I will be voting for Gary Johnson, but that is just me.

Obama cannot slip back into the private sector because he has never been in the private sector. He can be retired to the sidelines, though, where he can rake in the big bucks giving speeches to the adoring left.

desert dude said:

This is from Reason magazine, a libertarian bullwork, and is meant to appeal to libertarian voters but the questions seem legit for voters in general. Since I see RIU progressives lament the fact that Romney will probably get to nominate a couple of Supremes if he wins, I thought it was time to offer an opposing view point.

Personally, I am voting for Gary Johnson, but an Obama win is scary none the less.



http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/02/should-libertarians-vote-romney-to-preve#comments

"

*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the First Amendment does not bar Congress from regulating political speech against incumbents.
​

*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Second Amendment does not create any individual rights against the government.
​

*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Commerce Clause creates no constraint on Congress's regulatory powers.
​

*There are likely at least four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the government can choose to discriminate on the basis of race if "diversity" is at issue.

Click to expand...

To your topic: Absolutely not, Obama should be equally as "scary" to you as Mitt Romney, Did you watch the "debate" last night? I think it illustrated just how much they agree with each other. They each oppose every libertarian cause in existence, they come to their conclusions not from rational methodological approach of libertarianism and philosophy but through pure propaganda. While standing against civil liberties on every level and supporting state coercion, power, the military complex, the drug war and on and on...They give us this propaganda that we can somehow have democracy when they control the money supply, when they violate the moral rules and standards they charge us with, I mean, as a libertarian you should understand these things so I don't think I need to explain them any further so my friend please recognize what made you have such illogical and irrational thought of voting for the lesser evil or the one they want you to hate, don't vote against what you DON'T stand for but what you stand for, do not be afraid.

Regarding SCOTUS...Republican justices have done many injustices to libertarian causes.

desert dude said:

I am pretty sure that is currently the law, there are no anonymous donors to candidates.

Click to expand...

this is you trying to play dumb and getting caught.

you can't donate anonymously to candidates, but you can donate anonymously to the PACs that we all know support said candidates.

if you haven't figured that out, you're dumb.

if you have figured that out and are trying to piss on me and tell me it is pissing outside, you are trying to play dumb. or lie.

either way, it is an insult to intelligence. you are the epitome of FAIL.

desert dude said:

They are equal opportunity jokes, both left and right.

Click to expand...

lol.

equal if you think that monied interests should be allowed the opportunity to be as equal as they want, while the rest of us can be only as equal as we can afford.

you are a tool.

desert dude said:

I think you are wrong about how much unions contribute versus corporations. Unions contribute more, I believe.

Click to expand...

as i have just pointed out, you believe a lot of things in attempts to spread bad information by playing dumb.

corporations and the like contribute far more than unions. you make me sick, you racist vile puke.

Wilksey said:

Obama is a class and race pimp. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

desert dude said:

Your opinion is noted, and respected.

Click to expand...

this exchange belongs on stormfront.

desert dude said:

The addition of money means that someone with more money has more voice and more votes.
This doesn't fit very well with your previous complaints that "money is not speech!!!". Just an observation.


If three people with a billion each spend their money in an election they are far more likely to have their wishes enacted and enforced than any other three people.
What is your solution to this problem? Take the money out of politics? Prohibit people from contributing to political candidates? Put a limit on the amount of political donations?

What sort of equality do you want there to be? Who would administer this equality and how? Is there a political party in the US that represents the little guy?

Click to expand...

All political contributions can only be donated anonymously - that solves the problem of the winner owing favors while preserving the ability to help elect people of similar disposition to the donors - and there should be an absolute limit to contributions regardless. Say $20,000. We know that rich donors can convince others to contribute their own money and in an anonymous situation, no one will ever know but it is a start.