by rangerone314 » Thu 24 Feb 2011, 20:53:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'W')hat this all boils down to is Republican efforts to equate the dollar to free speech. Unions have consistenly been in favor of collective progress for every American worker, which has cost the rich owner class the maximum potential of their profits. Republicans are entrenched into re-creating a society where the rich have all the power, and the workers have none. Unions just shouldn't be allowed to speak out against us, and if we can equate the dollar with free speech, then we can equate corporations from any country as citizens of the US, entitled to the same rights to free speech. Unions should have fewer rights than corporations and PACs, because corporations control jobs and give us money. If Unions would support Republicans the same as they have supported Democrats, the battle against unions would not be happening today. State by state, Republican governors are siezing this opportunity to eliminate as many voices of opposition as they can. Divide and conquer. That's the American Way. It's what democracy is all about.
Really, the only solution to this, which will never happen, by the way, is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that seperates the dollar and free speech. Only citizens have the right to vote, and political contributions toward elections that govern our country should also be restricted in the same manner. Corporations and PACs cannot vote. Therefore, their rights to free speech should not be equated with unlimited monetary contributions. Our democracy is worth more than the worth of the richest 1% of the US. If you have a voice, use it. Otherwise, join a chorus of voices to make it louder. Protest. Make yourself visible as an entity to be heard. None of this has anything to do with money, but in the Republican playbook, the dollar controls everything. Using the law to eliminate voices of the opposition is UnAmerican.
Or abolish the "judicial activism" that conservatives CLAIM to oppose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Davis$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')cting as court reporter in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, Davis is a key figure in the corporate personhood debate. Journalists have since cited Davis's prior position as president of Newburgh and New York Railway as evidence of a conflict of interest in the corporate personhood interpretation of the ruling.
You note CLAIM in capital letters, indicating conservatives are hypocritical about opposing judicial activism of an actual judges, but not when it comes to a railroad CEO acting as court reporter (and most likely lying0