goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: ednksu on January 08, 2016, 04:11:29 PM
-
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Abbott-calls-for-state-nullification-of-U-S-6745684.php
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fg0nApLD.gif&hash=d4f70d89844d41a711275cf870413986de437ff5)
-
We need an edna master thread trash can
-
We need an edna master thread trash can
lol
-
Whackadoodle gets pretty butt hurt.
-
Article 5 of the constitution allows for it to be amended through a convention of states. If 3/4th of the states vote to amend the constitution, the amendment goes to each state for ratification. 3/4 of the state's hAve to ratify it for it to become an amendment. This takes power from the beltway and puts it in the people's hands. This is pushed by Mark Levin. Rubio supports this.
-
Article 5 of the constitution allows for it to be amended through a convention of states. If 3/4th of the states vote to amend the constitution, the amendment goes to each state for ratification. 3/4 of the state's hAve to ratify it for it to become an amendment. This takes power from the beltway and puts it in the people's hands. This is pushed by Mark Levin. Rubio supports this.
Mark Levin is seriously a rough ridin' idiot who has no idea what this country was founded on. I'm shocked you support him. SHOCKED!
-
They should allow Texas to do it contingent on the state paying back every single dollar of federal funds they have received.
-
Article 5 of the constitution allows for it to be amended through a convention of states. If 3/4th of the states vote to amend the constitution, the amendment goes to each state for ratification. 3/4 of the state's hAve to ratify it for it to become an amendment. This takes power from the beltway and puts it in the people's hands. This is pushed by Mark Levin. Rubio supports this.
Mark Levin is seriously a rough ridin' idiot who has no idea what this country was founded on. I'm shocked you support him. SHOCKED!
You ever heard of George Mason?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/article-v-congress-conventions-and-constitutional-amendments
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress....”
— Article V
Assuming you are one of those "living constitution" morons...
-
They should allow Texas to do it contingent on the state paying back every single dollar of federal funds they have received.
Those "federal funds" come from the pockets of you and me working our asses off in the states.
It's truly amazing how ignorant young people are about the world they live in!
-
Article 5 of the constitution allows for it to be amended through a convention of states. If 3/4th of the states vote to amend the constitution, the amendment goes to each state for ratification. 3/4 of the state's hAve to ratify it for it to become an amendment. This takes power from the beltway and puts it in the people's hands. This is pushed by Mark Levin. Rubio supports this.
Mark Levin is seriously a rough ridin' idiot who has no idea what this country was founded on. I'm shocked you support him. SHOCKED!
You ever heard of George Mason?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/article-v-congress-conventions-and-constitutional-amendments
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress....”
— Article V
Assuming you are one of those "living constitution" morons...
Sorry but plebian anti federalists had jack crap to do with the founding and direction of this country. Levin wrongly assumes the founders aligned with his political views and he blunders through the history of the development of this country to invent a new colonial past.
And yeah, I guess I'm a living Constitution person.....because I like things like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and the 19th isn't so bad.
-
They should allow Texas to do it contingent on the state paying back every single dollar of federal funds they have received.
Those "federal funds" come from the pockets of you and me working our asses off in the states.
It's truly amazing how ignorant young people are about the world they live in!
What the eff are you talking about? Even in your fantasy land of money earned in the state going from the state, to the federal government, back to the states, MOST AMERICANS DON'T LIVE IN TEXAS YOU STUPID SONOFABITCH!
-
You think Texas gets more federal money than its citizens pay? I wonder if that's accurate.
Also, lol at ignorant edna in this thread.
-
I guess I just assume if Texas left it would be a net loss for our country from a fiscal pov
-
A few years ago I would have been against this. IMO Congress no longer is representing what the majority wants them to do. Examples term limits or a balance budget amendment. I am peaverd that the representatives of large states block legislation. Finally, Congress passes laws and the original intent is changed by the courts, regulators, or by executive orders using opinions of creative wordsmith lawyers. Returning some legislative power back more to the grassroots doesn't seem so wierd anymore.
-
So what he's proposing is basically the exact opposite of the thread title...
-
Article 5 of the constitution allows for it to be amended through a convention of states. If 3/4th of the states vote to amend the constitution, the amendment goes to each state for ratification. 3/4 of the state's hAve to ratify it for it to become an amendment. This takes power from the beltway and puts it in the people's hands. This is pushed by Mark Levin. Rubio supports this.
Mark Levin is seriously a rough ridin' idiot who has no idea what this country was founded on. I'm shocked you support him. SHOCKED!
Edna, Mark Levin is a genius. You don't have to agree with him, but when you call people like him idiots, it makes you look pretty foolish.
-
No Mark Levin is definitely a crazy person.
-
And yeah, I guess I'm a living Constitution person.....because I like things like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and the 19th isn't so bad.
Speaking of you looking foolish... Amending the Constitution and a "living Constitution" are two entirely different things. You're like a walking breathing facepalm.
-
No Mark Levin is definitely a crazy person.
The way he pronounces constitution cracks me up
-
"Living breathing" constitution is the most naive and childish thing ever.
It's a rough ridin' contract with amendment provisons. Hey man, pay your loan. Nah, it's a living breathing note and I dont like these terms anymore...
-
It shouldn't be overlooked that Edna listed amendments as examples of why he favors a "living constitution." Gonna have to add that one to the libtard HOF.
-
I literally can't even read EDna's posts. They make me physically ill.
-
So what he's proposing is basically the exact opposite of the thread title...
Yeah
-
So what he's proposing is basically the exact opposite of the thread title...
Yeah
No, not really since most of the amendments and changes the right wants to make revolve around a government that is more intrusive and antithetical to freedom, see being able to marry who you want or have equal rights. The part about them hating the constitution is that right now it limits their ability to inflict their religion and personal agendas on people so they want to change it in order to allow punitive laws against citizens (restrictive voting, no free contract of marriage, no equal protection for gender/race/religion).
-
So what he's proposing is basically the exact opposite of the thread title...
Yeah
No, not really since most of the amendments and changes the right wants to make revolve around a government that is more intrusive and antithetical to freedom, see being able to marry who you want or have equal rights. The part about them hating the constitution is that right now it limits their ability to inflict their religion and personal agendas on people so they want to change it in order to allow punitive laws against citizens (restrictive voting, no free contract of marriage, no equal protection for gender/race/religion).
None of what you just said is relevant.
-
So what he's proposing is basically the exact opposite of the thread title...
Yeah
No, not really since most of the amendments and changes the right wants to make revolve around a government that is more intrusive and antithetical to freedom, see being able to marry who you want or have equal rights. The part about them hating the constitution is that right now it limits their ability to inflict their religion and personal agendas on people so they want to change it in order to allow punitive laws against citizens (restrictive voting, no free contract of marriage, no equal protection for gender/race/religion).
None of what you just said is relevant.
Excellent analysis refuting how I explained exactly why they hate freedom and want to introduce ways to limit the freedom many Americans now enjoy. Thanks.
-
And yeah, I guess I'm a living Constitution person.....because I like things like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and the 19th isn't so bad.
Speaking of you looking foolish... Amending the Constitution and a "living Constitution" are two entirely different things. You're like a walking breathing facepalm.
Oh we're talking the academic definition. I mean if you want to talk about cases involving the penumbra of the constitution we can do that. I won't end up well for you and you'll just tap out. Why don't we just skip to that now?
-
Ed, you sound like an idiot.
-
Whack-a-Doodle combines the perfect combination of idiocy and butthurt that creates pure comedy.
-
See here is the things, I find very little value interacting with people online. It's not to say that you can't find good points or interesting discussions. But by and large, people like Dax never contribute to conversations and only drag things down to derivative talking points or extremist theories which can only function when someone doesn't have any critical evaluation. It's fun to joke about Mean Granny every now and then. But when your entire philosophy is typified by 140 characters, it gets really boring.
-
And yeah, I guess I'm a living Constitution person.....because I like things like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and the 19th isn't so bad.
Speaking of you looking foolish... Amending the Constitution and a "living Constitution" are two entirely different things. You're like a walking breathing facepalm.
Oh we're talking the academic definition. I mean if you want to talk about cases involving the penumbra of the constitution we can do that. I won't end up well for you and you'll just tap out. Why don't we just skip to that now?
:lol: Ok, that cinched it. To the Libtard HOF!
-
If 3/4 of the states want to amend the constitution, then it's pretty reasonable that they should be able to. It's even constitutional.
-
Justice Douglas's talk of penumbras was and remains a novelty. It was a useful fiction employed to justify the (correct) outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. Since then, it has been largely abandoned. You don't even see liberal justices today using that reasoning. Instead, substantive due process analysis (14th/5th amendments) is the favored method for accomplishing the same thing. Even that is fraught with controversy because the implication is along the lines of, "You can't see it. That's how you know it's there!"
-
See here is the things, I find very little value interacting with people online. It's not to say that you can't find good points or interesting discussions. But by and large, people like Dax never contribute to conversations and only drag things down to derivative talking points or extremist theories which can only function when someone doesn't have any critical evaluation. It's fun to joke about Mean Granny every now and then. But when your entire philosophy is typified by 140 characters, it gets really boring.
Extremist theories? LOL, you're a complete whack-a-doodle and cannot stand it when your idiocy is called out, which is repeatedly.
In your whack-a-doodle little world, anything that cuts against your highly slanted view point is considered an "extremist theory" and then you try to counter that by spewing forth rudimentary talking points that are already understood by everyone.
-
Justice Douglas's talk of penumbras was and remains a novelty. It was a useful fiction employed to justify the (correct) outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. Since then, it has been largely abandoned. You don't even see liberal justices today using that reasoning. Instead, substantive due process analysis (14th/5th amendments) is the favored method for accomplishing the same thing. Even that is fraught with controversy because the implication is along the lines of, "You can't see it. That's how you know it's there!"
Griswold v CT concerned a stupid law, but it was not an unconstitutional law - not without that "penumbra." So I wouldn't say the case reached the right outcome. And the "right to privacy" was not limited to Griswold. It apparently includes many things from abortion to gay sex. All enshrined in the Constitition.
-
edn, just getting owned in this thread :D
-
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
-
LOL, so desperate now
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBke9Xbn.gif&hash=35b96dd764aaa67467ae547da5b14d419c47eca2)
-
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
-
:combofan:
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBke9Xbn.gif&hash=35b96dd764aaa67467ae547da5b14d419c47eca2)
Why is Hillary Clinton dressed up like Dr Evil? Oh, yeah...
-
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBke9Xbn.gif&hash=35b96dd764aaa67467ae547da5b14d419c47eca2)
Why is Hillary Clinton dressed up like Dr Evil? Oh, yeah...
That gif is so good I almost made a thread about it. It's just fantastic on every level.
-
:combofan:So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
-
"Corporate Personhood" :shakesfist:
-
:combofan:So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this. :ROFL: such flailing.
-
:combofan:So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this. :ROFL: such flailing.
Edna, you're the same dumbshit who listed amendments as examples of a living constitution. You're a moron. Nobody, not even the other libtards, thinks you know what you're talking about.
I'm well aware of the argument you're making (poorly). You're not the first to make it. You're not smart enough to concoct even poor arguments like this. As I have explained, there is no evidence that the framers intended for two or more people to lose their rights to free speech by going into business together. To the contrary, the founders valued business and freedom of association and assembly. Many of them were businessmen.
But I am enjoying your argument that "that's not what the founders intended," even if it is only your lackwit attemp at demonstrating hypocrisy.
-
:combofan:So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.
Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this. :ROFL: such flailing.
Edna, you're the same dumbshit who listed amendments as examples of a living constitution. You're a moron. Nobody, not even the other libtards, thinks you know what you're talking about.
I'm well aware of the argument you're making (poorly). You're not the first to make it. You're not smart enough to concoct even poor arguments like this. As I have explained, there is no evidence that the framers intended for two or more people to lose their rights to free speech by going into business together. To the contrary, the founders valued business and freedom of association and assembly. Many of them were businessmen.
But I am enjoying your argument that "that's not what the founders intended," even if it is only your lackwit attemp at demonstrating hypocrisy.
Woah...rage posting
You should really look into the history of corporate personhood because you're really making yourself look like an ass. Read up about some railroads and we can move forward with your next rage post.
-
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
If corporations must pay taxes, then they deserve a say in their governance. You cannot have it both ways. You pay taxes, you must have a say.
-
Your vote is your say. Corporations can't vote. Taxes are irrelevant
-
We need to scare the hell out of the beltway bastards. Suck power from them and give it to the people. Powerful committee chairs in Congress will no longer be able to stop what the people truly want action on. The convention of states may never yield a dang thing, but it can show the DC knotheads what we want. The strongest argument against this is if the populous follows someone blindly, and the Congress can't be a check valve, oops nevermind Obama issued another illegal order.
-
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
If corporations must pay taxes, then they deserve a say in their governance. You cannot have it both ways. You pay taxes, you must have a say.
I have no problem with them having a voice. I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
-
but back to the criticism I've received in this thread, you who don't favor a living constitution must by definition reject corporate personhood because of its complete and total bastardization of *X* amendment (leave reno guessing).
-
I don't know, I bet you could get 38 states on board with a balanced budget amendment. It'd be close but worth a shot.
-
I have no problem with them having a voice. I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
Straw man arguments carry no weight. No one has asked for corps having "the same Constitutional rights as a person." My solution is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. People vote - people get taxed. Simple.
And if you are going to tax high earners at a higher % than lesser earners, they should have more of a say in their governance. Solution = flat tax.
-
Ok 'lemy :lol:
-
I have no problem with them having a voice. I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
Straw man arguments carry no weight. No one has asked for corps having "the same Constitutional rights as a person." My solution is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. People vote - people get taxed. Simple.
And if you are going to tax high earners at a higher % than lesser earners, they should have more of a say in their governance. Solution = flat tax.
WTF strawman arguments are you talking about? Corps now have freedom of speech per Citizens United. Corps now have religious beliefs transferred into them from their closely held owners per Burwell. The next step could be voting at the rate the Court is going.
Still love the fact that all of you who tried to call me out are ducking the issue that any type of corporate personhood is a bastardization of the living constitution. I guess it's only bad when that doctrine gives rights to minority groups and women.
-
It takes a tremendous leap in logic to get from Citizens United (iirc that was Hill dog trying to trounce on tights) and Burwell to "Corporate peson", which I'm understanding to mean a corporation having the same rights as citizens, including the right to vote.
So, to engage in the whack-a-doodle -o, I need to know one thing. Does a corporation have to wait until it's 18 to vote, and does it start getting medicare at age 65?
-
Fyi, this is going into the libtard repository
-
You aren't really this stupid are you?
-
Better watch it, edna.
At the rate the court is going, corporations already have civil rights, and you are acting like a huge bigot. What if a corporation converts (transitions) into a limited partnership?? Could edna be charged with a hate crime for his anti-corporate rhetoric? I think so...
-
Better watch it, edna.
At the rate the court is going, corporations already have civil rights, and you are acting like a huge bigot. What if a corporation converts (transitions) into a limited partnership?? Could edna be charged with a hate crime for his anti-corporate rhetoric? I think so...
I'm shocked that you don't know the basics here. I thought anyone who had a simple education and interest in political science or history would pick up on these facts. I was very mistaken.
-
I don't know, I bet you could get 38 states on board with a balanced budget amendment. It'd be close but worth a shot.
This is so stupid. Of all the stupid ideas conservatives have a balanced budget amendment is the worst. There is no reason the government shouldn't be able to borrow money, and if enacted the country would go into a giant recession.
-
I don't know, I bet you could get 38 states on board with a balanced budget amendment. It'd be close but worth a shot.
This is so stupid. Of all the stupid ideas conservatives have a balanced budget amendment is the worst. There is no reason the government shouldn't be able to borrow money, and if enacted the country would go into a giant recession.
I think of about 19 trillion reasons we ought to move towards a balanced budget.
-
I don't know, I bet you could get 38 states on board with a balanced budget amendment. It'd be close but worth a shot.
This is so stupid. Of all the stupid ideas conservatives have a balanced budget amendment is the worst. There is no reason the government shouldn't be able to borrow money, and if enacted the country would go into a giant recession.
This stems from an ignorance about what the Fed actually does and how things like gov debt and interests rates can affect the economy.
-
Better watch it, edna.
At the rate the court is going, corporations already have civil rights, and you are acting like a huge bigot. What if a corporation converts (transitions) into a limited partnership?? Could edna be charged with a hate crime for his anti-corporate rhetoric? I think so...
I'm shocked that you don't know the basics here. I thought anyone who had a simple education and interest in political science or history would pick up on these facts. I was very mistaken.
Guys, Edna knows what (s)he's talking about. Same Edna who thought Constitutional Amendments were examples of a "Living Constitution." :lol: Even a simple education.... :lol:
-
I don't know, I bet you could get 38 states on board with a balanced budget amendment. It'd be close but worth a shot.
This is so stupid. Of all the stupid ideas conservatives have a balanced budget amendment is the worst. There is no reason the government shouldn't be able to borrow money, and if enacted the country would go into a giant recession.
I think of about 19 trillion reasons we ought to move towards a balanced budget.
Ok and what's your plan to replace all the government spending that this would cut from the economy? I mean after 10 years the economy would adjust, but that is gonna be a painful 10 years. Again it's just another stupid fear conservatives have. I mean China sold US Treasury notes this week, and the price of those notes went up!!!!! Obviously the market is perfectly fine with our debt load.
-
Better watch it, edna.
At the rate the court is going, corporations already have civil rights, and you are acting like a huge bigot. What if a corporation converts (transitions) into a limited partnership?? Could edna be charged with a hate crime for his anti-corporate rhetoric? I think so...
I'm shocked that you don't know the basics here. I thought anyone who had a simple education and interest in political science or history would pick up on these facts. I was very mistaken.
Guys, Edna knows what (s)he's talking about. Same Edna who thought Constitutional Amendments were examples of a "Living Constitution." :lol: Even a simple education.... :lol:
Hey Bitch,
I have no problem with them having a voice. I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
Straw man arguments carry no weight. No one has asked for corps having "the same Constitutional rights as a person." My solution is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. People vote - people get taxed. Simple.
And if you are going to tax high earners at a higher % than lesser earners, they should have more of a say in their governance. Solution = flat tax.
WTF strawman arguments are you talking about? Corps now have freedom of speech per Citizens United. Corps now have religious beliefs transferred into them from their closely held owners per Burwell. The next step could be voting at the rate the Court is going.
Still love the fact that all of you who tried to call me out are ducking the issue that any type of corporate personhood is a bastardization of the living constitution. I guess it's only bad when that doctrine gives rights to minority groups and women.
Get back to me for your measurement.
-
You guys are cray-cray.
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
-
Pretty soon these corpos (slur for corporation) are gonna insist on drinking from the same drinking fountains as us!
-
I really thought campaign finance reform was like the one truly bipartisan issue, guess I was wrong.
-
I think you're in the wrong thread, pal.
Or maybe you're just a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) who thinks money in campaigns is something new in the last 8 years
-
I don't think it's new, definitely not wrong thread.
-
I don't think it's new, definitely not wrong thread.
Wow this is like an epiphany moment in understanding why Fake and KSUW don't get the direction of politics and how our country really works. They really don't understand the mechanisms at play for things like campaign spending. They only hear that the SEIU spends a few million dollars on elections and that's un-'Merican by ads put on by AFP (Kochs) that cost 400 million. Complete and total disconnect.
-
So rough ridin' delusional :facepalm:
Edna, you are a libtard characiture
-
So rough ridin' delusional :facepalm:
Edna, you are a libtard characiture
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.starchefs.com%2Ffeatures%2Fsavory%2Fproduct%2Fsausage-making%2Fimages%2FKris-Doll-Salumi_lg.jpg&hash=9a9146d8bc1bbefc322cb9224d3b67889c36ab55)
:love:
-
:lol:
-
I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
WTF strawman arguments are you talking about? See above.
Corps now have freedom of speech per Citizens United. You want to deny a corporation the right to make a statement?
Corps now have religious beliefs transferred into them from their closely held owners per Burwell. No. Corporations have the right to say no to spending THEIR money on abortion drugs they morally object to.
-
I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
WTF strawman arguments are you talking about? See above.
Corps now have freedom of speech per Citizens United. You want to deny a corporation the right to make a statement?
Corps now have religious beliefs transferred into them from their closely held owners per Burwell. No. Corporations have the right to say no to spending THEIR money on abortion drugs they morally object to.
Who is morally objecting to the drugs? I think having morals is a trait of a person. :shrugs:
-
Governments aren't people and therefore shouldn't be able to determine what's illegal or immoral.
-chuck and edna, two intellectually bankrupt mongoloids
-
I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person. Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.
WTF strawman arguments are you talking about? See above.
Corps now have freedom of speech per Citizens United. You want to deny a corporation the right to make a statement?
Corps now have religious beliefs transferred into them from their closely held owners per Burwell. No. Corporations have the right to say no to spending THEIR money on abortion drugs they morally object to.
LOL
-
https://twitter.com/texastribune/status/1404954422749319175?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/texastribune/status/1404954422749319175?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On the same day the senate passed a bill making juneteenth a federal holiday :lol: America, folks
-
The comparison :lol: :lol:
-
https://twitter.com/patricksvitek/status/1439599537740472328?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Alright, alright.
-
https://twitter.com/patricksvitek/status/1439599537740472328?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:facepalm:
-
Now private companies in Texas can’t mandate vaccines.
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1447695114969694210?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Now private companies in Texas can’t mandate vaccines.
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1447695114969694210?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A perfect addition to a very aptly titled thread. Texas has always been the stalking horse for testing out whether there's an appetite for completely reversing well-established Constitutional concepts.
-
Now private companies in Texas can’t mandate vaccines.
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1447695114969694210?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A perfect addition to a very aptly titled thread. Texas has always been the stalking horse for testing out whether there's an appetite for completely reversing well-established Constitutional concepts.
even when the answer is a resounding "no, there is no appetite for that" the response is 🙉
-
Now private companies in Texas can’t mandate vaccines.
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1447695114969694210?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A perfect addition to a very aptly titled thread. Texas has always been the stalking horse for testing out whether there's an appetite for completely reversing well-established Constitutional concepts.
even when the answer is a resounding "no, there is no appetite for that" the response is 🙉
But also, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
-
Widespread voter fraud!
https://twitter.com/jamesrhenson/status/1451179831027175424?s=20
-
Widespread voter fraud!
https://twitter.com/jamesrhenson/status/1451179831027175424?s=20
:lol:
-
https://buff.ly/3AwQM5D?fbclid=IwAR2GzZOsBzEXPTVWrG52Jw5V-jDrmt_i5_6Jc6yO8rifRS4d-IZSVG9TvPY
When a Southlake parent attempted to donate “In God We Trust” signs written in Arabic and decorated with rainbow colors, the school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters displaying the national motto.
But under a new law, Texas public schools are required to hang posters emblazoned with “In God We Trust” if someone donates a poster or framed copy to a campus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://buff.ly/3AwQM5D?fbclid=IwAR2GzZOsBzEXPTVWrG52Jw5V-jDrmt_i5_6Jc6yO8rifRS4d-IZSVG9TvPY
When a Southlake parent attempted to donate “In God We Trust” signs written in Arabic and decorated with rainbow colors, the school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters displaying the national motto.
But under a new law, Texas public schools are required to hang posters emblazoned with “In God We Trust” if someone donates a poster or framed copy to a campus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
holy crap lol
-
https://buff.ly/3AwQM5D?fbclid=IwAR2GzZOsBzEXPTVWrG52Jw5V-jDrmt_i5_6Jc6yO8rifRS4d-IZSVG9TvPY
When a Southlake parent attempted to donate “In God We Trust” signs written in Arabic and decorated with rainbow colors, the school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters displaying the national motto.
But under a new law, Texas public schools are required to hang posters emblazoned with “In God We Trust” if someone donates a poster or framed copy to a campus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Party of small government and freedoms, huh? rough ridin' frauds. Bigotry at all costs.
-
Insane that law exists. Even insanier that they didn’t want to display something cool.
-
https://buff.ly/3AwQM5D?fbclid=IwAR2GzZOsBzEXPTVWrG52Jw5V-jDrmt_i5_6Jc6yO8rifRS4d-IZSVG9TvPY
When a Southlake parent attempted to donate “In God We Trust” signs written in Arabic and decorated with rainbow colors, the school board president informed him that schools already have enough posters displaying the national motto.
But under a new law, Texas public schools are required to hang posters emblazoned with “In God We Trust” if someone donates a poster or framed copy to a campus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's some great trolling. Amazing that lawmakers had time to craft a law regulating the display of donated "In God We Trust" signs.
-
that is a goEMAW level troll
-
https://twitter.com/sawyerhackett/status/1644802843495264262?s=46&t=hU61MNRKQXFa4a831KNtLg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/sawyerhackett/status/1644802843495264262?s=46&t=hU61MNRKQXFa4a831KNtLg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/JohnBasham/status/1644501781114675202
-
I was listening to a conservative AM radio station in Austin last weekend (I know, I know; don't ask), and they were all in a tizzy about this case. When the defendant's claims are taken as FACTS (as Tucker does, here), it does sound unjust. But when you dig into the actual facts and testimony, a different picture emerges.
But WHO HAS TIME FOR THAT? Certainly not a jury, who voted unanimously to convict the defendant.
Texas is proudly an open-carry state. Nothing unlawful, per se, about an Air Force veteran carrying a rifle in public. It's awfully convenient that despite a large crowd of onlookers, only the defendant allegedly saw the victim point the rifle at him. Are we supposed to just ignore the fact that the defendant, both on social media and in text messages, expressed disdain for BLM protestors and talked about how to get away with shooting them to death?
-
He went there hoping to kill some one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I hope somebody stands their ground against Greg
-
I hope somebody stands their ground against Greg
I hope Greg stands his own ground.
-
I hope somebody stands their ground against Greg
I hope Greg stands his own ground.
Ok, that’s wheely funny
-
If Greg won't even stand up for murder victims, then what the eff will he stand for?
-
If Greg won't even stand up for murder victims, then what the eff will he stand for?
White Republicans' ability to shoot people they disagree with.
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/sawyerhackett/status/1646683812749885440?s=46&t=hU61MNRKQXFa4a831KNtLg
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230415/7541025c058974be634fd10ad0b34c00.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My word it’s almost like Greg was baited into sticking his neck out there.
-
Greg can still get out of this. Remember, he needs a recommendation from the parole board (whose members he appoints). If he has a soul, he can hide behind a negative recommendation from his hand-picked board. Do the right thing, Greg.
-
That's just normal Texas banter
-
Greg can still get out of this. Remember, he needs a recommendation from the parole board (whose members he appoints). If he has a soul, he can hide behind a negative recommendation from his hand-picked board. Do the right thing, Greg.
Can’t remember the last time I saw the gop use the tactic of capitulation. They’re more of the “double, or even triple down” types.
Remember: if you can drown out the dissenting voices by yelling louder, you are right and you win.
-
Why would Greg want to "get out of it"? It's what his constituency wants. It makes him a stronger politician in Texas and honestly says him up to get the Republican nomination in a few cycles. This is gold for him.
-
What is it about guys named Greg being assholes
-
What is it about guys named Greg being assholes
Wow, a shot I was not expecting to be fired on a beautiful Saturday ...