Advertisement

La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for February 06, 2010

8 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Exploding human fat bombs hedge 060110
    Charles Brobst Premium Member about 10 years ago

    I think they would let Victoria’s Secret marry Marlboro.

    But then they would draft the corporations for the Republican oil wars.

     •  Reply
  2. Slapped by glenn ford 640 781321
    EScott2U  about 10 years ago

    Stupid corporations, selling us stuff we want at competitive prices, employing millions of people - bleeep them. bleeep THEM TO HELL!!

     •  Reply
  3. 100 2451
    RonBerg13 Premium Member about 10 years ago

    What republican oil wars?

     •  Reply
  4. Cicada avatar
    Dirty Dragon  about 10 years ago

    D - - n Republican Activist Judges!!

    Maybe corporations can still merge with ships, ships are always referred to in the feminine sense.

     •  Reply
  5. 104 2745
    Trebor39  about 10 years ago

    Supreme Court decision for corporations = Too bad for us.

     •  Reply
  6. Slapped by glenn ford 640 781321
    EScott2U  about 10 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.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    pilotx  about 10 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.

     •  Reply
  8. Flash
    pschearer Premium Member about 10 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.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From La Cucaracha

Advertisement