General Discussion

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)

44. It's a flawed statement, but the conclusion is important.

Sat May 26, 2012, 12:51 PM

May 2012

It looks like they headed over to a dictionary, and copy and pasted.

I questioned whether or not to post it. But it's such an important issue, and the notion that it is pushing us in the direction of plutocracy is important enough to overlook the one glaring flaw. We could massage it, and make a better message.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I have to share this comment I found on a Citizens United petition. [View all] Gregorian May 2012 OP

"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." That's my fave rebuttal to Demit May 2012 #1

Can corporations get married? How can we determine gender? Can I see its birth certificate? alfredo May 2012 #19

I beleive marriage is between a man corporation and a woman corporation as the Bible says... rfranklin May 2012 #45

Can a multinational become president? alfredo May 2012 #51

Isn't that what a merger is? And if so shouldn't they only be allowed to do it once? Live and Learn May 2012 #47

I guess a merger is a civil union. Is polygamy legal for corporations? alfredo May 2012 #50

spectacularly said. robinlynne May 2012 #2

The New York Times Corporation is not human, Nye Bevan May 2012 #3

The question is: RobertEarl May 2012 #4

Well said and good questions! n/t Spazito May 2012 #14

That is verbal endorsement. It differs from financial support. Gregorian May 2012 #5

I daresay the editors can endorse, even in such a case. bigmonkey May 2012 #6

By standing on a street corner and telling people who they endorse? Nye Bevan May 2012 #7

The press has it's own constitutional protections.. . . .n/t annabanana May 2012 #11

DemocraticUnderground LLC is not human. It doesn't have thoughts and feelings. Nye Bevan May 2012 #18

I see your point. randome May 2012 #23

So it's the unlimited contributions that effectively distort the election process. Gregorian May 2012 #25

to say the ACLU supports Citizens United druidity33 May 2012 #33

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in favor of Citizens United (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #34

You are being obtuse...of course they believe in free speech for corporations... rfranklin May 2012 #46

The newspaper is not endorsing a candidate Scootaloo May 2012 #29

The voice of unlimited funds of a large corporation..... Sheepshank May 2012 #8

Well, the way for your voice to get as much attention as Koch's, Nye Bevan May 2012 #16

These collections of people are called "unions". Republicans are trying to outlaw them. Scuba May 2012 #26

And the democrats... awoke_in_2003 May 2012 #40

You do realize what you just said, right? Scootaloo May 2012 #30

I agree with the ACLU on this issue (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #31

According to the 1% and their bootlickers... IrishAle May 2012 #17

I've been a poll worker for over 10 years. Not once have I seen a corporation on alfredo May 2012 #9

Legislating radicalism from the bench. Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #10

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe May 2012 #12

Excellent articulation of why Corp.'s do not "speak" (they can't think nor feel). SunSeeker May 2012 #13

Exactly. Corporations speak for the shareholders. raouldukelives May 2012 #15

Many are passive investors. Teacher pension funds are invested in many corporations bigbrother05 May 2012 #20

Too true. I would imagine it would take many teachers raouldukelives May 2012 #39

the best argument I have ever heard. zeemike May 2012 #21

But "speech" in the constitutional sense also tblue37 May 2012 #22

I found that to be too narrow as well. Gregorian May 2012 #24

Citizen's United provided corporate CEOs with even more influence that ultimately destroys pacalo May 2012 #27

K & R Scurrilous May 2012 #28

Du rec. Nt xchrom May 2012 #32

SCOTUS ?? bleedinglib May 2012 #35

Along with the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief Nye Bevan May 2012 #38

Speech is.... speech. Money is amplification. FredStembottom May 2012 #36

That definition of speech has almost nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. aikoaiko May 2012 #37

It's a flawed statement, but the conclusion is important. Gregorian May 2012 #44

That is a fantastic quote! GObamaGO May 2012 #41

of corporations, by corporations, for corporations. pansypoo53219 May 2012 #42

This is what troubles me: dmr May 2012 #43

I was deeply disheartened by Obama's recent endorsement of corporate ethical ambivalence tcaudilllg May 2012 #48

I think he's saying that corporations can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own, Nye Bevan May 2012 #49