La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for February 06, 2010
February 05, 2010
February 07, 2010
Transcript:
Radio: In a horrible 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people too. However, this will lead to business mergers being outlawed as they are now considered gay marriage.
Charles Brobst Premium Member over 14 years ago
I think they would let Victoria’s Secret marry Marlboro.
But then they would draft the corporations for the Republican oil wars.
EScott2U over 14 years ago
Stupid corporations, selling us stuff we want at competitive prices, employing millions of people - bleeep them. bleeep THEM TO HELL!!
RonBerg13 Premium Member over 14 years ago
What republican oil wars?
Dirty Dragon over 14 years ago
D - - n Republican Activist Judges!!
Maybe corporations can still merge with ships, ships are always referred to in the feminine sense.
Trebor39 over 14 years ago
Supreme Court decision for corporations = Too bad for us.
EScott2U over 14 years ago
Trebor39, exactly HOW? The McCain Feingold bill wasthe biggest piece of anti-first amendment legislation in modern times. I can’t believe it took as long as it did to reach the courts.
Or are you one of those publicly educated mindless moonbats that have the amoeba-like intellect of nothing more than ‘stimulus, response’? Stimulus: Oil. Response: Evil! Stimulus: Corporation Response: Evil!
…and so on and so on.
pilotx over 14 years ago
The problem is extending the rights of natural humans on a corporation. The first amendment gives citizens free speech rights. Corporations can be foreign owned so the question becomes do they enjoy the same rights as you or I. I am of the opinion that the answer is no but I’m open to other ideas.
pschearer Premium Member over 14 years ago
All rights are human rights; anything else is a legal application of the same. So individuals have freedom of speech, the press, etc., and so do individuals organized as corporations (or unions, which is not always being mentioned). One does not lose rights by joining a (legal) group; that’s part of what “unalienable” means.
I was wondering why the Court made such a pro-freedom decision (not always the case) when I read that the attorney for the Federal Election Commission admitted that the McCain-Feingold law could be used not just to prevent the showing of movies (like the anti-Hillary one in question) but also to prohibit the publishing of books!
When the Court realized a government organization was claiming the power to void freedom of the press, the Court appropriately slapped them down.
One of the justices pointed out that what is important is free public access to ideas, not where they come from.