Posted on 11/29/2012 10:44:38 AM PST by abishai
You mean corporations like CNN? MSNBC? Public Broadcasting? The New York Times Corporation? Hey, I might be in favor of shutting those up and, I agree, they have way too much power over the minds of the citizenry.
Now, the corporations he’s probably thinking about don’t have nearly that much power.
Scratch a liberal, uncover a fascist, dictator, commie, tyrant.
The issue is really with the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law, not the 1st.
Look at the megacorporations that own the various MSM outlets and have pretty much unfettered access to control the political debate. Or unions that have the ability to influence if not control the political debate as well.
Why should other corporations be at a disadvantage relative to the disproportionate influence of the MSM, unions and large activist groups? Citizens United should really be seen in that light and as a ruling that helps level the playing field somewhat.
“Look at the megacorporations that own the various MSM outlets and have pretty much unfettered access to control the political debate. Or unions that have the ability to influence if not control the political debate as well.”
Tanknetter, The last thing you should be worried about is corporations or unions controlling the debate when the only logical alliterative is by law to have government politicians control the debate.
Nobody is more motivated and politically power-hungry Federal Politician. NOBODY! Nobody will more eagerly or effectively control the debate than said politician, for nobody can have more incentive, (and if you give them law to enforce) power to do so.
Corporations compete with each-other, unions are parasitical monoplys depended upon government to let them leach & blackmail said corporations. Nether of which alone are powerful enough to control a debate. You give Government law, and serving politicians will dominate the debate!
There will be no truely free, much less competitively loud voices under them.
“Look at the megacorporations that own the various MSM outlets and have pretty much unfettered access to control the political debate. Or unions that have the ability to influence if not control the political debate as well.”
Tanknetter, The last thing you should be worried about is corporations or unions controlling the debate when the only logical alliterative is by law to have government politicians control the debate.
Nobody is more motivated and politically power-hungry Federal Politician. NOBODY! Nobody will more eagerly or effectively control the debate than said politician, for nobody can have more incentive, (and if you give them law to enforce) power to do so.
Corporations compete with each-other, unions are parasitical monoplys depended upon government to let them leach & blackmail said corporations. Nether of which alone are powerful enough to control a debate. You give Government law, and serving politicians will dominate the debate!
There will be no truely free, much less competitively loud voices under them.
How can a criminal that has use his office to violate most of the Constitution think that he could change that Constitution and it would have any bearing on the populace. As far as I am concerned, the illegal President and the Congress that supports him have clearly violated their oath of office and have no longer any force of law behind them.
They may have force, but not law. They are temporary residents till they are given their eviction notices. But their word is not binding any more than all the “Presidential Decrees” signed by that immigrant in thief.
We should remember...
He is sitting in the official Cynthia McKinney Chair of Congressional Moonbattery...
Such rantings from the LEFT field bleachers should be expected....
/SARC.....
Just sayin'
*************
**Insert Standard APOLOGY Paragraphs from all the right-minded tax-paying folks in Georgia who intend to run against Saxby Chambliss in 2014....
And he’s my Congressman. I had Cynthia McKinney before him.
Actually, even though his solution is wrong, there is an underlying problem.
When Lincoln was president, states decided to loot national companies, especially the railroads. So the chief justice let it be known that the SCOTUS would not support “civil rights” for corporations. And one of Lincoln’s henchmen fleshed out the idea.
And it has become central to corporate law ever since. However, it has become obvious that human person civil rights and corporate civil rights are not identical, but they are so interwoven in the law that a constitutional amendment is indeed needed to distinguish the two.
Corporations still need some forms of civil rights, but they should not have all the rights given to human persons.
This johnson feller is the DIMWIT of all DimWits.
I’ve known a lot of lawyers, and very few of them are smart. Some are cunning, some fancy themselves elite intellectuals. But they are often as dumb as stumps. And keep in mind that judges are lawyers, too—
These days, the temperature of the frog is at about 182 degrees. It's almost done.
Given the current candidate for Secretary of State, it seems to me he's got just the right qualifications to be a Secretary of something in this Administration, no?
What worries him about this is he and his cohorts in crime cannot (yet) control all the corporations.
...the Bill of Rights to the Constitution should be amended so that the government is given the power to restrict freedom of speech.
BS. If the government attacks the Bill Of Rights, CWII is on. They are coming pretty close in their attacks on the 2nd Ammendment, and with the so-called "fairness doctrine" which is anything but.
“These corporations, along with the people they support, other millionaires who they’re putting into office, are stealing your government.
Why are you demonizing millionaires? "Stealing the government" should be bad no-matter who is doing it. What Hank is really worried about is that someone may steal the government back from the big-government socialists/fascists.
“They control the patterns of thinking," said Johnson.
And what, that's government's job - to control patterns of thinking?
"They control the media. They control the messages that you get. So, you are being taught to hate your government--don’t want government...
You're right there. I don't want more government, I want less. In the words of my Dad (God rest his soul) "Love your Country, don't trust your government." Let me guess Hank, you're worried about "companies" like Fox News, and various online sources that are putting out a message contrary to yours.
...and we’re poking fingers at each other saying, well you’re black, you’re Hispanic, immigration, homosexuals. You know, we’re lost on the social issues, abortion, contraception.
We're not lost, and they're not really issues. They are only raised as issues by people like you Hank, seeking to divide us and pit us against each other for your own gain.
“And these folks," Johnson said, "are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening. We need a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations.”
Oh the horror! Imagine privatizing every aspect of our lives! Gasp! Instead of what Hank, having the public/government control every aspect of our lives? Thought so.
Y’know, I *thought* that guy’s name sounded familiar...guess he’s still not taking his meds. What a goonie bird!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.