Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#133 Feb 20, 2013
What is really hard to believe, is all of the complaining from the left about a few cents in a possible tax increase to take care of our roads, but they dont complain at all about all of the tax increases Obama has in his "affordable heath care" plan.
Like Pelosi said, you have to pass the bill, and then we will see what's in it........

sheep
Chip

Hartland, WI

#134 Feb 20, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dense enough I doubt you see light.
Stay on that merry-go-round and keep spinning. I really think the extent of your motives here is attention. Must be your video games aren't doing enough for you?
Oh what's going on, first you post from Grand Blanc, now Flint, and yet it was you with the constant crying about where my post come from.

You clearly don't see the light so I guess I have to spell it out for you. Advertisement is a form of speech, whether it goes through campaign funds or through private foundations. If you want to restrict peoples ability to promote a candidate you have to address the issue of peoples right to free speech. Perhaps you haven't bothered to pay attention to any of this discussion when campaign financing was debated.
OhOhObama

Grand Rapids, MI

#135 Feb 20, 2013
You see now this is why you can trust republicans (ME) I wouls ALSO slam this guy for raising taxes.

But when it comes to you and those Dem's and dictator Obama, he could chop off your hand and you will have a smile on your face.

see the difference, same reason to watch FOXNEWS, no lies,

But there you go, I officially bash this Governor, especially about the car registration fee or whatever it was I heard a few months ago.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#136 Feb 20, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
So you now understand that money equates to someone's ability exercise their freedom of speech. Why don't you go back and read your original moron comment about speech and money.
Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. Look it up in any dictionary you so please. NOWHERE is the money in the definition of speech.

You have reached a level of simple-mindedness that is beyond any recovery.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#137 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. Look it up in any dictionary you so please. NOWHERE is the money in the definition of speech.
You have reached a level of simple-mindedness that is beyond any recovery.
SIB, the Supreme Court ruling, whether you like it or not, is now the law of the land and blaming only Republicans for spending that money is totally, completely hypocritical and you know it.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#138 Feb 21, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>SIB, the Supreme Court ruling, whether you like it or not, is now the law of the land and blaming only Republicans for spending that money is totally, completely hypocritical and you know it.
Hasn't happened that I have "blamed" only the Republicans for "spending that money".

My position has always been that corporations are not persons.

Conversely, if they are to be seen as persons then we should treat them as persons. Having no rights and or privileges other than those of natural persons. And prosecuted the same as persons when breaking laws.
Chip

Madison, WI

#139 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. Look it up in any dictionary you so please. NOWHERE is the money in the definition of speech.
You have reached a level of simple-mindedness that is beyond any recovery.
And yet, if you limit someones ability to spend money to promote their ideas you are also limiting their freedom of speech.

I guess I assumed any idiot would be able to figure this out. You must be a special kind of stupid.
Chip

Madison, WI

#140 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Hasn't happened that I have "blamed" only the Republicans for "spending that money".
My position has always been that corporations are not persons.
Conversely, if they are to be seen as persons then we should treat them as persons. Having no rights and or privileges other than those of natural persons. And prosecuted the same as persons when breaking laws.
"we should treat them as persons. Having no rights"

Don't surprise me one bit that you believe people shouldn't have any rights.

Coroprations are prosecuted and can be terminated by the government. It just happens in a different court.

So if a corporation is not an separate entity, then how would they pay taxes?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#141 Feb 21, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, if you limit someones ability to spend money to promote their ideas you are also limiting their freedom of speech.
I guess I assumed any idiot would be able to figure this out. You must be a special kind of stupid.
So then what you are also saying is bribery is a legitimate form of speech...free speech.

Do you disavow that by campaign contributions there is an expectancy of favors purchased? Money being used in the form of campaign contributions is known as a route to purchasing favors. If it was entirely a form of free speech each and every contributor could well choose to donate to the campaign without going through a PAC and/or other organization of special interest. Are you denying that?

The original intent of the First Amendment which you so carelessly redefine was to protect speech against the government.

Using your example of purchasing media ads as a form of speech; the money paid to a printer for the service of putting one's "ideas" into writing, the money paid is not THE speech. The money is payment for a service for the wider distribution of the speech. If the money were the speech as "protected under the First Amendment" the printer could not legally refuse to do the printing. You are suggesting that if I go to a printer, and/or a visual and/or audio media, to print out and/or produce my ideas whatever those ideas may be the they are obligated by the Constitution to do it? By your reasoning they would be as otherwise they would be limiting the freedom of speech.

If you believe they have the right to "limit the speech" then you have to agree there is speech censorship such as in screaming fire in a theater the next time you go. Try publicizing a desire to assassinate the president with your actual contact information.

So then censoring speech by denying the "bribery" form of it should also be censored.

Try learning something sensible about money being speech.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#142 Feb 21, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
"we should treat them as persons. Having no rights"
Don't surprise me one bit that you believe people shouldn't have any rights.
Coroprations are prosecuted and can be terminated by the government. It just happens in a different court.
So if a corporation is not an separate entity, then how would they pay taxes?
Your superior intellect should keep you from asking such asinine questions. Taxes were originally perceived by the founders to be paid on the profits of businesses and profits of those earning their incomes from capitalist ventures. Not levied against the incomes earned by people for their labors to survive.

It's the people that should be having the Rights, not the corporations. A corporation is a fiction of law.

And where you came up with that infantile accusation I believe people shouldn't have rights is just one more example of you have no interest in rationale.
Chip

Madison, WI

#143 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
So then what you are also saying is bribery is a legitimate form of speech...free speech.
Do you disavow that by campaign contributions there is an expectancy of favors purchased? Money being used in the form of campaign contributions is known as a route to purchasing favors. If it was entirely a form of free speech each and every contributor could well choose to donate to the campaign without going through a PAC and/or other organization of special interest. Are you denying that?
The original intent of the First Amendment which you so carelessly redefine was to protect speech against the government.
Using your example of purchasing media ads as a form of speech; the money paid to a printer for the service of putting one's "ideas" into writing, the money paid is not THE speech. The money is payment for a service for the wider distribution of the speech. If the money were the speech as "protected under the First Amendment" the printer could not legally refuse to do the printing. You are suggesting that if I go to a printer, and/or a visual and/or audio media, to print out and/or produce my ideas whatever those ideas may be the they are obligated by the Constitution to do it? By your reasoning they would be as otherwise they would be limiting the freedom of speech.
If you believe they have the right to "limit the speech" then you have to agree there is speech censorship such as in screaming fire in a theater the next time you go. Try publicizing a desire to assassinate the president with your actual contact information.
So then censoring speech by denying the "bribery" form of it should also be censored.
Try learning something sensible about money being speech.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politi...
Someone using their resources to promote their beliefs is the right and freedom of being a citizen of this country.
Thatís a tough one, do I believe the OPINION of a liberal civil rights lawyer who writes for a liberal trash magazine, or do I believe the opinion of the Supreme Court. Think Iíll stick with the Supreme Court.
Chip

Madison, WI

#144 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Your superior intellect should keep you from asking such asinine questions. Taxes were originally perceived by the founders to be paid on the profits of businesses and profits of those earning their incomes from capitalist ventures. Not levied against the incomes earned by people for their labors to survive.
It's the people that should be having the Rights, not the corporations. A corporation is a fiction of law.
And where you came up with that infantile accusation I believe people shouldn't have rights is just one more example of you have no interest in rationale.
Taxes were originally property taxes and not corporate taxes. But hey you will make crap up anyway, thatís how you worthless liberals operate, because facts rarely work in your favor.

I took your quote about people not having rights word for word from your post.
Chip

Madison, WI

#145 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Hasn't happened that I have "blamed" only the Republicans for "spending that money".
My position has always been that corporations are not persons.
Conversely, if they are to be seen as persons then we should treat them as persons. Having no rights and or privileges other than those of natural persons. And prosecuted the same as persons when breaking laws.
Starting with the second line on the second paragraph:
"we should treat them as persons. Having no rights"

I posted it again, just in case you conveniently forgot.

I guess the truth does come out eventually.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#146 Feb 21, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes were originally property taxes and not corporate taxes. But hey you will make crap up anyway, thatís how you worthless liberals operate, because facts rarely work in your favor.
I took your quote about people not having rights word for word from your post.
And money also was considered property.

So where the quote on my word for word? What post number?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#147 Feb 21, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Starting with the second line on the second paragraph:
"we should treat them as persons. Having no rights"
I posted it again, just in case you conveniently forgot.
I guess the truth does come out eventually.
That was referring to the corporation DS.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#148 Feb 21, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone using their resources to promote their beliefs is the right and freedom of being a citizen of this country.
Thatís a tough one, do I believe the OPINION of a liberal civil rights lawyer who writes for a liberal trash magazine, or do I believe the opinion of the Supreme Court. Think Iíll stick with the Supreme Court.
You mean you agree with the right-wing 5 majority of the Supreme Court because there is still the minority 4 that disagreed.

Now you'll say the majority wins. Yes it does. But even a majority of idiots can twist it into a fiction of law is of natural origin.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Oxford, MI

#149 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you agree with the right-wing 5 majority of the Supreme Court because there is still the minority 4 that disagreed.
Now you'll say the majority wins. Yes it does. But even a majority of idiots can twist it into a fiction of law is of natural origin.
Like the Low Information Voters
Chip

Madison, WI

#150 Feb 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That was referring to the corporation DS.
BS, you stated very clear that corporations should be treated just like people, with no rights...

Face it you let it slip but its exactly how you feel, and falls right in line with your socialist agenda.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#151 Feb 21, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
BS, you stated very clear that corporations should be treated just like people, with no rights...
Face it you let it slip but its exactly how you feel, and falls right in line with your socialist agenda.
This is exactly why you are such a worthless person to be having any discussion with. You have no ability of comprehension and then you abbreviate to suit your purpose of a sick desire to be nothing other than contentious.

What I said was exactly; "Conversely, if they are to be seen as persons then we should treat them as persons. Having no rights and or privileges other than those of natural persons."

That you enjoy being a liar and cheat is not humorous.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#152 Feb 21, 2013
This is exactly why no sane person should ever consider money to be speech and subsidies should be eliminated for large corporations;
"Neither bank executives nor shareholders have much incentive to change the situation. On the contrary, the financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy. The result is a bloated financial sector and recurring credit gluts. Left unchecked, the superbanks could ultimately require bailouts that exceed the governmentís resources. Picture a meltdown in which the Treasury is helpless to step in as it did in 2008 and 2009."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hudsonville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 11 hr tom wingo 1,923
Tremors of the Earthquake Kind Sat dotmcmillon 1
bruce jenner!? who cares! Sat Orenthal James 3
News Earthquake! Tremors felt in West Michigan (Apr '08) Sat endoftimes 225
News a Pay It Forward Daya encourages people to help... Sat RushFan666 2
News Shop owner will deny - openly gay' customers May 1 Batch 37 Pain Is ... 73
Ladies - Make $$ w/ your feet May 1 Suagr 5
More from around the web

Hudsonville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]