Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:50
VIEWED: 10274
PAGE 13 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
We can get Congress to work together (Good luck on that! I can already name you 41 "no" votes in the Senate. Wanna guess which ones?) to pass new laws restricting corporations' ability to poison the well, which will help for a little while, until the Supreme Court once again rules them unconstitutional. But at the moment, that's the only solution I see, and it's a mere patch.
I guarantee you that not all Republicans like this ruling. Bring some legislation if possible, and it will pass easily.
I think you haven't been paying close enough attention to the political climate lately. It doesn't MATTER whether something's a good idea or not, or good for the country or not, or if they "like it" or not; all that matters is that they vote along the party lines. And the Republican party leadership in both the House and Senate have already said they love this ruling, so there's the tone they've set, and all others must get in line behind them.
And I don't think I suggested doing "nothing". Run a bill up Capitol Hill and get it passed and signed into law, and you're all set - FOR A LITTLE WHILE. After that, it will take a court challenge, which must get appealed all the way up the chain to the Supreme Court, which THEN must decide whether to even hear the case, and THEN it must be argued, debated, weighed, and decided on. And you have about a 5-4 chance it'll go against you, but that process will likely take a minimum of at least a year.
And then you do it again. And again. And again. All while trying to build support for something else, or hoping against hope to get a ruling that's more favorable to your views.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Russ Feingold is my new Hero, not just for this but for his stance on Health Care.
And for a host of other things. Votes against the Patriot Act, votes against renewal of same, expansion of same, etc., bringing to light the number of "terrorism" cases in which "sneak-n-peek" warrants were used last year (3 out of over 700 instances were tied in any way to investigations of terror plots; the others were drug deals) - Remember, the sneak-n-peek was to be used ONLY in terrorism cases; that's what they promised when asking for the authority to do it.
Also, his vote against the Iraq War.
Just another wide-eyed crazy lefty loon, I s'pose...
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lmao, the CEO's are even annoyed.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100123/BUSINESS/1230320/1003/R
SS01
"Stop calling us, will you ?!"
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh heh.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He said "Playboy," heh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There are, in my opinion, some things that are inherent in all people, but that doesn’t mean all people ACT or THINK according to those things.
Then I don't consider that an aspect of any kind of nature. Certainly not definitive "human nature."
What do you think is inherent in all people at a basic level? As far as I've seen, even when forced into a situation relying entirely on instinct, all humans will react differently to a given situation.
Dictionary.com:
Quote:
- the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
- the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
- characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
- the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
- the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
- a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But if the law requires equal shares of profit (not wages, profit) to all who participate in the co-op, where does greed come in?
Couple of things on this question.
1. If Bob's co-op makes more profit per member than yours, he makes more money than you. If Bob gets together a co-op of greedy folks who are willing to do whatever it takes to make more profit per member, then, hey, you got a greedy co-op that will bribe, buy, contribute, whatever, to get the advantage which will make them more profitable.
2. That is, unless you mean all the co-ops will have to share profit equally, or that folks are assigned to co-ops without choice. In that case just have everyone work for the State, and all get paid the same. However, that's not worked out so well before.
Quote:
...that society is what we make it, and human behavior tends to what is rewarded... but hasn't so far.
Not sure I see that the hardest-working, most innovative, most dedicated member of a co-op getting paid the same as the laziest, least creative, slacker member is a reward - unless the hard worker has already changed his mindset. Putting him in that situation if he still thinks better effort should recieve better reward is a recipe for trouble.
Quote:
Exactly. And what we have NOW is a mindset/ philosophy of greed, individualism, and acqusitiveness.
NOW? I'm trying to think of a time in history when there weren't a lot of folks with the mindset of greed, etc. I'm aware there have been pockets of non-greed out there, as there are now, but I'm talking about generally and world or region-wide.
Quote:
To deny the effect of society- it's assumptions and paradigms - is ANOTHER assumption on your part...
Well, actually, it's pretty much what I've been saying. If you don't change the assumptions and paradigms, it doesn't matter if you change the laws. Folk will find a way to be greedy and acquisitive in any economic system you propose, IF their mindset tends toward greed and acquisitiveness. You're not going to change that be forcing them into a co-op, you're just forcing them to find a different way to make their profit.
Quote:
SOCIETY MAKES A DIFFERENCE in overall human behavior, an undeniable fact that you keep sliding over. The question is not whether it does or doesn't, but how to construct it in such as way as to make its effect what we WANT it to be.
But SOCIETY isn't just laws or regulations, and the ethics and philosophy of a society can't be forced on the people (unless you want to use methods which are unacceptable to a free society).
Fremd has noted that Anarchy won't work until a critical mass of the people have the proper mindset for it. A non-competitive, non-greedy, non-acquisitive society isn't going to be created by law or decree if a significant majority of the people aren't ready to support it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Most women, and many men, are cooperative. Having and raising children is cooperative... it can't possibly be done by a single person. (But you wouldn't know that, would you?) Even TODAY, most people are cooperative. Your mail carrier, the guy who fixes your car... cooperation. Division of labor... cooperation. The people who drive on the right-hand side of the road and stop at stoplights and stop signs... cooperation.
NOW? I'm trying to think of a time in history when there weren't a lot of folks with the mindset of greed, etc. I'm aware there have been pockets of non-greed out there, as there are now, but I'm talking about generally and world or region-wide.
There is a difference between GREED and REWARD. Just because people work for REWARD doesnt' mean they're GREEDY. For example, it's possible to gain a bigger REWARD through COOPERATION.
Quote:Bull. Crap. You make it sound as if OUR system isn't being constantly reinforced, corporate thought, corporate interests being pushed on us from all directions, deviants crowded out. What do you suppose THIS VERY RULING is all about??? I know people from Russia, and they say that the propaganda here in the USA is worse than in their home country. OF COURSE you can force an ethic on a people. And that is why you question the ability of people to cooperate, even when every single person you meet each day is cooperating with you in some way.
But SOCIETY isn't just laws or regulations, and the ethics and philosophy of a society can't be forced on the people (unless you want to use methods which are unacceptable to a free society).
Every day, in every way, we're propagandized. What do you think advertising is? Your ability to weasel your way around the obvious never ceases to amaze.
But at least we're not arguing about human nature anymore!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Every day, in every way, we're propagandized."
Examples, please.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't believe people are inherently greedy. I'm 61; I've never in my life been "greedy", just wanted a job that paid enough to survive and hopefully let me have some extra money to buy this or that. My husband is the same; ironically, his first marriage didn't work because his WIFE wanted social standing and wanted him to make more and more money and move up the corporate ladder. My best friend and her husband have always been the same, for the same 61 years. And I know others; in fact, MOST of my friends haven't been what I'd considered "greedy". And I've always been smack in the middle of our society, so have they.
I think it's up to the individual; I never competed for a higher-paying job, never involved myself in office politics, and I KNOW I'm not the only one "out here".
Question: Do co-ops make profits? I thought they were to have power to obtain things at a cheaper price, for example, health insurance co-ops. The people in them don’t get PAID, they get lower cost health insurance. Food co-ops: again, nobody gets profit, they combine their forces to get things in bulk, which they then split among themselves, thereby obtaining things at lower prices. I didn’t think anyone got PAID except the administrative people doing the work, and I should think among those, the co-op members would choose who to hire and how much to pay them. I could be wrong, which is why I’m asking the question.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME