Supreme Court rolls back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns

[Sparta]

I'm a little late to the debate, so I won't join. All I will say, is that anyone who believes this is acceptable is truly deluding themselves.

Anyone who says this is all right because it already happens due to loopholes is missing the point entirely.

That's saying that it's alright for Senator Baucus of the U.S. Democrats to construct a healthcare reform bill (with the aid of pharmaceutical lobbyists) that does nothing to reduce the cost of drugs, which surveys show would not only save the government billions of dollars but would also lead to a drastic increase in the mental and physical well-being of its own citizens. To approve of this rollback is to say you approve of these pharmaceutical companies paying the democrats over 150 million dollars in campaign re-election funds so they would not force the drug companies to lower the cost of medicine and drugs which would dent their profits.

These kinds of lobbying moves effectively bribe the elected official into siding with them out of fear that corporation may begin paying for the other side's re-election campaign if they don't do what the corporation asks. This kind of lobbying for corporate interests leads to 30 Republican senators voting against an anti-rape legislation, it leads to senators coming to the public defense of the tobacco industry, it leads to the horrendous healthcare reform bill you have now thanks to the insurance and healthcare industry lobbying officials. It leads to companies like Blackwater (Xe) and KBR receiving almost total immunity in war zones. It leads to the prison-industrial complex lobbying senators and governors to be "tough on crime" which has led America to have 1/4 of the world's prison population.

The campaign against healthcare reform, alone, has been so effective that's brainwashed nearly 50% of the U.S. into thinking they actually have a good healthcare system. This has been waged almost entirely by corporate interests who have been influencing the public through elected officials.

To say it's not a big deal that these rollbacks have happened, because these things were already happening, is to condone every instance of political corruption and corporate bribery that was already happening. It is ridiculous that such a thing should be considered ok because the corporation should have the same rights as a person.

So much for not joining this debate.

Also this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA&feature=player_embedded

 

[No Limit]

- I dropped the whole YOU CANT ARGUE YOURE NOT A LAWYER bit because it was stupid and immature. You're trying to find fault with me backing up my arguments, whereas you're just banging on the keyboard and hoping sense comes out. It's not going to work.

What is it you said above about personal insults? Oh yeah:

Whenever you have no response, resort to insults, belittling, and personal thoughts with no evidence!

And two posts later you belittle my argument by saying I am just banging my head against a keyboard spewing nonsense and then you resort to calling me a douchbag. I never actually personally attacked you nor did I belittle your argument, I simply responded to it. But don't worry I don't get my feelings hurt like you seem to.

- Okay, you send an imaginary person to jail. Go for it. I'll be waiting. Then again, you can always use something called an alternative to better fit the situation.

What alternative do you propose? For example. If I go in to someone's house and take all their furniture I get arrested for a felony and spend a very long time behind bars. If bank of america does something similar they aren't subject to a criminal justice system but a civil one. Again, how is this equal protection under the law if bank of america really is a person?

- Quit being dense on purpose, you know exactly what I mean with operating costs and producing a product or service.

No, I don't. Do explain. Your argument is that a corporation is a person. A person needs certain things to live (aka operating expenses). Why do they get excemptions and why don't I?

- It doesn't matter whether it was actually said or not; what matters is that it has become precedent.

Yeah, except this ruling itself overturned a number of precedents:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_ONCajlMuTY

The decision shows that on core constitutional questions, which could also extend for example to abortion and religion, the court’s more conservative members are willing to overrule precedent they think is fundamentally wrong,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and the creator of the Scotusblog Web site, which tracks the court

Again, stop pretending to be a lawyer when you don't truly understand precedent.

- You still didn't address my point on what interest China had in influencing the elections.

When did you make that point? I'll be happy to address this now, let me try to be as civil about this as I can. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND? You don't think China has interest in influancing our elections? Do I really need to spend time explaining this to you?

- Clean(er) coal technology does exist. Whether it is actually used is a different story (because it isn't), but it -does- exist. Thank you for proving my point that you're being a condescending douchebag.

Where does it exist? Name me a single plant operating clean coal. Yes, I am aware of one, that produces almost no energy. Clean coal is not commercially viable, something that exists in a laboratory doesn't exist in the real world. That's not what these commercials imply. And to the bigger point you are really going to sit here and try to argue that these commercials are never misleading? As sparta pointed out corporate interests have been able to brainwash half of this country in to thinking their health system is good.

- It was an example. Let's not forget that Google's CEO endorsed Obama.

Yes, now if google wanted to have more control over internet they can now start influancing that through political actions. What is your point? Are you really that simplistic that you see everything as democrat vs republican?

P.S.: Please don't multiquote. It makes the post a pain in the ass to read.

I'll do what I please, as a real non-immaginary person I have free speech rights in this country. Plus I would hate for you to come back and say I ignored something or that I didn't have a real argument and instead Im just banging my head against the keyboard.

 

[Kinslayer]

What is it you said above about personal insults? Oh yeah:

And two posts later you belittle my argument by saying I am just banging my head against a keyboard spewing nonsense and then you resort to calling me a douchbag. I never actually personally attacked you nor did I belittle your argument, I simply responded to it. But don't worry I don't get my feelings hurt like you seem to.

What alternative do you propose? For example. If I go in to someone's house and take all their furniture I get arrested for a felony and spend a very long time behind bars. If bank of america does something similar they aren't subject to a criminal justice system but a civil one. Again, how is this equal protection under the law if bank of america really is a person?

No, I don't. Do explain. Your argument is that a corporation is a person. A person needs certain things to live (aka operating expenses). Why do they get excemptions and why don't I?

Yeah, except this ruling itself overturned a number of precedents:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_ONCajlMuTY

Again, stop pretending to be a lawyer when you don't truly understand precedent.


When did you make that point? I'll be happy to address this now, let me try to be as civil about this as I can. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND? You don't think China has interest in influancing our elections? Do I really need to spend time explaining this to you?


Where does it exist? Name me a single plant operating clean coal. Yes, I am aware of one, that produces almost no energy. Clean coal is not commercially viable, something that exists in a laboratory doesn't exist in the real world. That's not what these commercials imply. And to the bigger point you are really going to sit here and try to argue that these commercials are never misleading? As sparta pointed out corporate interests have been able to brainwash half of this country in to thinking their health system is good.


Yes, now if google wanted to have more control over internet they can now start influancing that through political actions. What is your point? Are you really that simplistic that you see everything as democrat vs republican?


I'll do what I please, as a real non-immaginary person I have free speech rights in this country. Plus I would hate for you to come back and say I ignored something or that I didn't have a real argument and instead Im just banging my head against the keyboard.

- You're a funny guy.

- I don't know, I assume fines would be an alternative seeing as corporations have much more money to give away than the normal person.

- First off, I still don't see why one has to be a lawyer to A) Read (which you seem to avoid doing as I don't think you've read the decision nor my posts); and B) Argue politics. Secondly, that ruling itself turned over precedent. I can cite the Supreme Court's argument on why they overturned it again if you want. What's your point? You're just throwing out "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND PRECEDENT AGHAGHHG" over and over without really explaining what you mean. I think you need to read the decision yourself before you come on here and start calling other people ignorant.

- You aren't producing anything. If, for instance, you began producing hand-crafted wooden toys and began selling them to other people, you would be operating a business and thus have operating costs. Perhaps the analogy will help since I've already said this before.

- Foreign policy towards other superpowers really isn't going to change based on who's elected, it's going to change based on what that country does. If you disagree, let me ask you: Who would China have supported, Obama or McCain? I don't know. Do you? Let me add that this is a much easier decision seeing as we've already seen some of Obama's policies.

- Let me quote myself: "Whether it is actually used is a different story (because it isn't), but it -does- exist." No, it's not close to being usable; Yes, the ads have been misleading; But also, yes there have been counter-ads which have begun to push the other way.

- About 70% of Obama's advertising dollars in the primaries were spent on Google Advertisements. I don't really understand your "Democrat vs Republican" argument, because that's what's being voted on in the elections. If one side has more funding than another, then they'd have an advantage; if it is balanced, then nothing has changed! Let me put it in words you can understand: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND? You don't think most people vote on either the Republican or the Democrat in elections? Do I really need to spend the time explaining this to you?

- Now you're just trying to be an asshole. Free speech allows you to be irritating, but it doesn't mean people have to like you for it. Now you're just showing that you're trying to troll by continuing to multiquote.

P.S.: ARE YOU A LAYWER NO LIMIT? I DONT THINK YOU SHOULD BE ARGUING THIS IF YOURE NOT A LAWYER. YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE AND GRAD SCHOOL AND STUDY LAW TO TAKE PART IN THIS COUNTRYS POLITICAL PROCESS.

 

[No Limit]

- I don't know, I assume fines would be an alternative seeing as corporations have much more money to give away than the normal person.

No you dont know, and it makes your entire argument fall apart. Your argument remember is that corporations have every right to equal treatment under the law because they are actually a person. Yet if that were the case they would have to be subject to the same justice system all other persons are, something that is not possible. Therefore they get better, not equal, treatment under the law. Put your lawyer hat back on, do you see how this is now unconsitutional?

First off, I still don't see why one has to be a lawyer to A) Read (which you seem to avoid doing as I don't think you've read the decision nor my posts); and B) Argue politics. Secondly, that ruling itself turned over precedent. I can cite the Supreme Court's argument on why they overturned it again if you want. What's your point? You're just throwing out "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND PRECEDENT AGHAGHHG" over and over without really explaining what you mean. I think you need to read the decision yourself before you come on here and start calling other people ignorant.

...

ARE YOU A LAYWER NO LIMIT? I DONT THINK YOU SHOULD BE ARGUING THIS IF YOURE NOT A LAWYER. YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE AND GRAD SCHOOL AND STUDY LAW TO TAKE PART IN THIS COUNTRYS POLITICAL PROCESS.

Again, jesus. You keep missing the point, you don't have to be a lawyer. The problem I have is you are pretending to be by citing case law which you don't actually understand. First you cite that corporations being a person is a matter of legal precedent so that was your defense for the supreme court decision. Then you can't explain why it's okay for the supreme court to overturn certain precedents while not others. So if you can't explain that your defense that it's legal precedent is irrelevant.

You aren't producing anything. If, for instance, you began producing hand-crafted wooden toys and began selling them to other people, you would be operating a business and thus have operating costs. Perhaps the analogy will help since I've already said this before.

So your defenition of operating expenses only applies when you run a business? Again, what are you basing this definition on?

Foreign policy towards other superpowers really isn't going to change based on who's elected, it's going to change based on what that country does. If you disagree, let me ask you: Who would China have supported, Obama or McCain? I don't know. Do you? Let me add that this is a much easier decision seeing as we've already seen some of Obama's policies.

Again, grow up. Stop looking at things Obama vs McCain or Republican vs Democrat. Things are a lot more complex than that. China could target single issues that benefit them with countless amount of money. That continues to be the point, something you can not deny. So if China wants us to spend a trillion dollars on healthcare over the next decade because they know much of that money will come from them (and then they can collect interest on it) they can run as many ads that are pro-healthcare as they want. Do you still not comprehend this or are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?

- Let me quote myself: "Whether it is actually used is a different story (because it isn't), but it -does- exist."

It's not that it exists in the laboratory. The impression these ads leave you with is that this is a viable technology we can use today. It simply isn't. Again, do you dispute that corporations run misleading ads all the time that shift public opinion? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

About 70% of Obama's advertising dollars in the primaries were spent on Google Advertisements. I don't really understand your "Democrat vs Republican" argument, because that's what's being voted on in the elections. If one side has more funding than another, then they'd have an advantage; if it is balanced, then nothing has changed! Let me put it in words you can understand: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND? You don't think most people vote on either the Republican or the Democrat in elections? Do I really need to spend the time explaining this to you?

Did Obama get that advertising for free? No? Then what the hell is your point? Stop making this a republican vs democrat issue, it shows you aren't capable of thinking past the bullshit politics of all this. Because again you didn't address the real issue, that now if google wants to gain control of certain parts of the internet they can spend as much money on politicians that will help them do just that. Just as exxon-mobile can spend money to drill offshore. And pharmacuticals can spend money to make people believe that importing the exact same drugs for much cheaper is actually a bad idea. And it works, you know it works.

Now you're just trying to be an asshole. Free speech allows you to be irritating, but it doesn't mean people have to like you for it. Now you're just showing that you're trying to troll by continuing to multiquote.

Who died and made you boss? No, I'm not trying to be an asshole. This is how I debate. You wanna do it otherwise that is your right, you don't see me bitching about the format of your post, just the substance of it. If you are incapable of reading this very simple and easy to read format that's not my problem.

 

[Kinslayer]

No you dont know, and it makes your entire argument fall apart. Your argument remember is that corporations have every right to equal treatment under the law because they are actually a person. Yet if that were the case they would have to be subject to the same justice system all other persons are, something that is not possible. Therefore they get better, not equal, treatment under the law. Put your lawyer hat back on, do you see how this is now unconsitutional?

Again, jesus. You keep missing the point, you don't have to be a lawyer. The problem I have is you are pretending to be by citing case law which you don't actually understand. First you cite that corporations being a person is a matter of legal precedent so that was your defense for the supreme court decision. Then you can't explain why it's okay for the supreme court to overturn certain precedents while not others. So if you can't explain that your defense that it's legal precedent is irrelevant.

So your defenition of operating expenses only applies when you run a business? Again, what are you basing this definition on?

Again, grow up. Stop looking at things Obama vs McCain or Republican vs Democrat. Things are a lot more complex than that. China could target single issues that benefit them with countless amount of money. That continues to be the point, something you can not deny. So if China wants us to spend a trillion dollars on healthcare over the next decade because they know much of that money will come from them (and then they can collect interest on it) they can run as many ads that are pro-healthcare as they want. Do you still not comprehend this or are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?

It's not that it exists in the laboratory. The impression these ads leave you with is that this is a viable technology we can use today. It simply isn't. Again, do you dispute that corporations run misleading ads all the time that shift public opinion? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Did Obama get that advertising for free? No? Then what the hell is your point? Stop making this a republican vs democrat issue, it shows you aren't capable of thinking past the bullshit politics of all this. Because again you didn't address the real issue, that now if google wants to gain control of certain parts of the internet they can spend as much money on politicians that will help them do just that. Just as exxon-mobile can spend money to drill offshore. And pharmacuticals can spend money to make people believe that importing the exact same drugs for much cheaper is actually a bad idea. And it works, you know it works.

- Whether or not it's different, it's what has been understood for the past X years. Doesn't matter if it's right, wrong, or if it works well in some circumstances. (By the way, I don't think a corporation can break into a house and steal furniture either.) I'm not going to argue policy with you, that's a complete tangent to what we're talking about here.

- I directly quoted the Supreme Court's decision. Man, I bet they don't understand law at all.

- As in you're producing things that you're selling to other people to make a profit.

- Your China -> Healthcare argument doesn't make sense. I fail to see why China would give a shit about healthcare anyways. Furthermore, using your own example, healthcare is just as much of a partisan issue as the Presidential elections.

- Yes, there is false advertising. I don't get what point you're trying to make and how it applies to this debate.

- Bribes are still illegal. Read the decision.

 

[No Limit]

Are you incapable of simple comprehension?

- I know you quoted it, but you couldn't explain it.

- Again, where the hell are you getting this definition from?

- You don't get why China would want to influance the health care debate? How about you address my reasoning for it. It's right there in the sentence, you ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

- The point is that with the false advertising they can influance people to believe things that aren't true. This is why we are talking about this. Remember, your original claim was that people in America are smart enough to see past this, they aren't. And it's a direct threat to our democracy.

- bribes? the **** you talking about?

Finally, you still haven't addressed this:

No you dont know, and it makes your entire argument fall apart. Your argument remember is that corporations have every right to equal treatment under the law because they are actually a person. Yet if that were the case they would have to be subject to the same justice system all other persons are, something that is not possible. Therefore they get better, not equal, treatment under the law. Put your lawyer hat back on, do you see how this is now unconsitutional?

Without addressing that your entire argument doesn't make any sense. because for corporations to be persons they would need equal, not better, protection under the law.

 

[Kinslayer]

Are you incapable of simple comprehension?

- I know you quoted it, but you couldn't explain it.

- Again, where the hell are you getting this definition from?

- You don't get why China would want to influance the health care debate? How about you address my reasoning for it. It's right there in the sentence, you ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

- The point is that with the false advertising they can influance people to believe things that aren't true. This is why we are talking about this. Remember, your original claim was that people in America are smart enough to see past this, they aren't. And it's a direct threat to our democracy.

- bribes? the **** you talking about?

Finally, you still haven't addressed this:

Without addressing that your entire argument doesn't make any sense. because for corporations to be persons they would need equal, not better, protection under the law.

- The quote explains itself:

China could target single issues that benefit them with countless amount of money. That continues to be the point, something you can not deny. So if China wants us to spend a trillion dollars on healthcare over the next decade because they know much of that money will come from them (and then they can collect interest on it) they can run as many ads that are pro-healthcare as they want.

This doesn't make sense.

- The clean coal myth was relatively short lived after the elections, as other people started running counter-ads. Yes, false advertising exists. Yes, you can counter false advertising with ads of your own. Usually the side with truth wins.

- What you described was essentially a bribe. Vote for this, we'll give you money. That's a bribe. The decision is based mostly around advertising, seeing as that was the issue in the first place. Are you familiar with the actual case or are you just arguing based on what you've heard? Look it up and/or read the decision.

I addressed your last point in my previous post.

- Whether or not it's different, it's what has been understood for the past X years. Doesn't matter if it's right, wrong, or if it works well in some circumstances. (By the way, I don't think a corporation can break into a house and steal furniture either.) I'm not going to argue policy with you, that's a complete tangent to what we're talking about here.

And also, since you seem to be wanting a "real lawyer's" opinion:

Spoiler

 

[No Limit]

So simply because something has been understood for the past X years that means its right? What? You have not explained to me how corporations not being subject to a criminal justice system but only a civil one is equal protection under the law. Yes, they can break in to a house as I showed you.

I can keep banging my head against the wall because you keep ignoring my points but instead of doing that I just want you to explain this one point to me.

 

[Kinslayer]

So simply because something has been understood for the past X years that means its right? What? You have not explained to me how corporations not being subject to a criminal justice system but only a civil one is equal protection under the law. Yes, they can break in to a house as I showed you.

I can keep banging my head against the wall because you keep ignoring my points but instead of doing that I just want you to explain this one point to me.

And you're using the logical fallacy of going off on an unrelated tangent to try and get away from the main debate.

Like I said: It DOESN'T MATTER what SHOULD BE, it's what IS.

By the way, the article you mentioned doesn't say what eventually happened in regards to the civil suit. Not to mention it wasn't at fault of the corporation, but rather the people who were sent out to do the "dirty work". I was surprised they weren't charged seeing as they were directly at fault (wrong house broken into, not wrong reported house).

 

[No Limit]

It doesn't matter what it should be, it is what it is? Are you ****ing kidding me? How does this explain why unequal protection under the law is suddenly constitutional.

Also look up what logical fallacy means because I don't think you quite understand it, there is a thread pinned to the top if you need a reference.

 

[Xevrex]

Again, jesus. You keep missing the point, you don't have to be a lawyer. The problem I have is you are pretending to be by citing case law which you don't actually understand. First you cite that corporations being a person is a matter of legal precedent so that was your defense for the supreme court decision. Then you can't explain why it's okay for the supreme court to overturn certain precedents while not others. So if you can't explain that your defense that it's legal precedent is irrelevant.

He's not a lawyer, and he's pretending? Really? Sounds like argumentum ad hominem.

So your defenition of operating expenses only applies when you run a business? Again, what are you basing this definition on?

Cost per unit of a product or service, or the annual cost incurred on a continuous process. Operating costs do not include capital outlays or the costs incurred in design and implementation phases of a new process.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/operating-cost.html

It's not that it exists in the laboratory. The impression these ads leave you with is that this is a viable technology we can use today. It simply isn't. Again, do you dispute that corporations run misleading ads all the time that shift public opinion? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Are you not comprehending your own argument? You're calling Kinslayer an idiot when you validated his point that clean coal does exist. The point of your original argument was that it doesn't, and you're going off on irrelevant tangents rather than sticking to the original argument.

Give me a break, in fact if you mention clean coal to the american people they think this is something that exists today.

Sounds to me like you asserted that Americans falsely believe that clean coal does exist, implying that it's a myth. Kin's point what that it did exist, to which you responded "Well, not in any usable form!" Don't change your argument.

I also noticed you have a tendency to be quite literal when it comes to terminology or a rule. "Operating costs" does not literally mean, "costs that one requires to operate/live" and a company "being a person" does not imply that it can do things only a single human can do or functions the same way a single human functions.

 

[Kinslayer]

Also look up what logical fallacy means because I don't think you quite understand it, there is a thread pinned to the top if you need a reference.

8: Straw Man:
A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. Doing so invalidates the refutation.

12: Perfect Solution Fallacy:
Rejecting a solution because it doesn't solve every part of a problem is not a valid position.

16: Trivial Objection:
It is not valid to distract from the bulk of an argument by focusing on small, irrelevant elements.

You were saying?

 

[No Limit]

I was saying that you still haven't been able to provide me with an explaination as to how corporations aren't getting unequal protection under the law. Anytime you wanna do that, please by all means.

And like I said, you need to reread that logical fallacy thread because you don't understand it. I never put up a strawman. In regards to number 12 its not that you cant resolve every single part of the problem, the point is you simply cant resolve the problem at all. Again, unequal protection under the law is unconsitituional. In regards to #16, this is hardly irrelevant, it undercuts your entire argument that corporations should have equal protection under the law when such protection is impossible.

So again, lets break this down. Is unequal protection under the law unconsititutional?

Yes? Im pretty sure you wont disagree, so lets move on to the next point.

Explain how a corporation not being subject to criminal courts only to civil courts is equal protection under the law. Until you do that the fact remains that a corporation can't have equal protections under the law therefore it can not be given constitutional rights the same way a real person can.

Xevrex, by all means feel free to address this too.

 

[No Limit]

By the way, as a side point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YBvbEGAWoQ

"You are looking at 50% of our total electricity". Then proceeds to display the clean coal logo. Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Again, are you guys being this naive just to **** with me or you actually believe these. Yes, I said it doesn't exist, if it makes you happy I'll clarify to say it doesn't exist in the real world. Cool? Now the larger point is how misleading and destructive these ads truly are.

 

[Kinslayer]

By the way, as a side point:

as a side point

side point

16: Trivial Objection:
It is not valid to distract from the bulk of an argument by focusing on small, irrelevant elements.

The straw man came from how you CONTINUE to (even after I pointed it out) say that I said treating a corporation is valid in every circumstance, and that it should be equal protection under the law in every circumstance. I explicitly SAID that it doesn't work out in some cases because it CANNOT, however, you continue to say the exact same thing over and over, deliberately misrepresenting my point so you can just Ctrl-V and move on. By the way, it's still EQUAL protection even if it's EQUIVALENT protection.

The perfect solution fallacy comes from the same source; no, treating a corporation as a person doesn't work in ALL RESPECTS, however, in most respects it DOES work and is treated as such.

Another #16 comes from the fact that you connect your argument against it to #12. Gee, this seems like a problem. Looks like your arguments are so buried in these fallacies you can't escape from them! Citing criminal vs civil IS irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the courts are treated POLITICALLY. Key word here. You're arguing a tangent that has nothing to do with either the OP or the issue at hand.

In terms of your last post, I ALREADY SAID that advertising can be misleading. Now you're just ignoring and not reading anything. Perhaps you need a lesson in reading comprehension? You also ignored my counterpoint of the possibility of being counter-ads which are NOT misleading, and tend to come out as the truth because they ARE truthful. Hey, guess what? There's a 2.5 star rating on that video. Guess why? Because people know it's bullshit.

Also, when something isn't the same it doesn't mean it's not equal. If I pay you $30 in cash, it's not the same as paying you $30 in a check by any means. It is, however, equivalent. Thus, the criminal sanctions are put into EQUIVALENT civil sanctions for the corporations. Now please drop this point as it is stupid, irrelevant, and fallacious.

Man, you're tending to ignore more and more of the posts directed against you. Any reason why?

 

[No Limit]

Im sorry, I must have missed your point. You made it so much clearer now:

By the way, it's still EQUAL protection even if it's EQUIVALENT protection

I see, so a seperate but equal type deal, right? Where did I hear that reasoning before? Nevermind.

So regular people go to prison. Imaginary people pay a small fine and move on with their imaginary lives. In your opinion that is equal. Or am I misrepresenting your argument in any way?

And do yourself a favor and stop pointing to logical fallacy, you're starting to look silly.

 

[No Limit]

In terms of your last post, I ALREADY SAID that advertising can be misleading. Now you're just ignoring and not reading anything. Perhaps you need a lesson in reading comprehension? You also ignored my counterpoint of the possibility of being counter-ads which are NOT misleading, and tend to come out as the truth because they ARE truthful. Hey, guess what? There's a 2.5 star rating on that video. Guess why? Because people know it's bullshit.

Ahh, ok you tube ratings are a scientific representation of what the american people believe.

Ok, fine, you're right. We agree these ads can be extremely misleading. But we have to go back to the point. ACCC is a coal lobby funded by the industry and has countless funds to spend. Who is going to match those funds?

But all this is a side point until we get he equal protection thing out of the way.

 

[Kinslayer]

Double posting is cool.

So is deflection of the accusation of your poor arguments.

So, you want to bring up something COMPLETELY different, separate but equal? Man, you're way, way off tangent now. You're drawing a connection where there is none to be found.

1) It's not a "small fine".

2) You never addressed the fact that your article didn't include the outcome of those two cases.

3) "Separate but equal" wasn't equal. One party's "separate part" was far inferior, which was part of the reasoning behind abolishing it.

Hey look you're discrediting a source without looking at the reasoning. Is that yet ANOTHER fallacy? Damn, man.

The counter-ads have been EXTREMELY effective. Who cares if there are less of them if they work incredibly well, much better in fact than the ones for clean coal?

 

[No Limit]

It's actually not something completely different if we are still talking about the 14th amendment.

Yes, it is a small fine. If I go to prison for 2 years for breaking and entering I lose everything. If they do something similar they pay a fine that doesn't have any real effect on their operations. This is not equal. And you are absolutely right, same thing happened with civil rights. What white people were saying was equal real wasn't. You really don't draw any correlations from this?

Also if you read the 14th amendment this is what it says about equal protection:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lets forget the fact that this says "persons". Notice that it doesn't say equivilent, it says equal. Im not gonna be snarky and post links to dictionary.com this time, you know they are not the same thing.

And you say that the true ads worked a lot better. You aren't basing that on any facts. I will bet you a beer that if you look at actual polling you will find that the clean coal ads were extremely effective and most people today believe that clean coal exits on a viable scale when the fact is it doesn't.

Oh and I forgot so here's a late edit. No I didn't address the outcome of those cases because that outcome is irrelevant. It was handled in a civil court, not a criminal court. And the fact that bofa is around with it's stock price the highest since the financial collapse tells me whatever they had to pay or will have to pay had absolutely no measurable effect on them.

 

[No Limit]

Hey, I got another side note real quick:

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/201...es-on-florida-home-big-deal-oops-wrong-house/

$500,000 if anyone was wondering. That's what Bank of America is being sued for after they broke in, kicked out the people there, and took out all their belongings. I wonder if I did that if I could just pay a tiny insiginificant percentage of my anual profit and move on with my life? By the way, this is not the same case I posted above. This is a totally different one, so this isn't exactly a rare occurance.

 

[Kinslayer]

Oh, but those links would only help me!

Synonyms:
1. See equal.

We can argue this all day; it's a difference of opinion. What can't be argued, and you've stopped arguing it, is that it's irrelevant to the issue described by the OP. As for your continued citations of these house false foreclosures, then legislate TO that. You don't break the entire system because of ONE failure (sanctions for criminal actions). Not only that, but these occurrences would be easily fixed if they double-checked the address and such; legislating TO this would be much easier and more sensible than overturning the entire system.

As for the coal thing, I couldn't found any polls that were taken after both the clean coal campaign started and the counter campaign started as well.

http://avaazpress.s3.amazonaws.com/...ricans want a strong treaty at Copenhagen.pdf

This, however, shows that 64% of Americans thought the Oil and Coal industries had too much influence over Congress, which is close if not directly correlated.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, thats fair enough. So is a $500,000 fine for what BofA did equivalent to me getting say 2 years in prison for the same thing? If not how would you punish them?

And that 64% number is totally different from what we are talking about. 64% of Americans might think that the Oil and Coal industries have too much influence over Congress but those same 64% probably think that clean coal is viable today. 2 completely seperate issues.

 

[Kinslayer]

Ok, thats fair enough. So is a $500,000 fine for what BofA did equivalent to me getting say 2 years in prison for the same thing? If not how would you punish them?

And that 64% number is totally different from what we are talking about. 64% of Americans might think that the Oil and Coal industries have too much influence over Congress but those same 64% probably think that clean coal is viable today. 2 completely seperate issues.

I'd focus more on it not happening in the first place. Institute a system of double-checks to make sure they do have the right address. Then, the fault would fall completely upon the guy who does the dirty-work, who could be charged with negligence and, indeed, be put in jail since you're so caught up with that.

And that's the reason I said not directly correlated.

 

[No Limit]

I'd focus more on it not happening in the first place. Institute a system of double-checks to make sure they do have the right address. Then, the fault would fall completely upon the guy who does the dirty-work, who could be charged with negligence and, indeed, be put in jail since you're so caught up with that.

And that's the reason I said not directly correlated.

How are you going to make it so this thing never happens? This happened twice in a month. What if it does happen?

 

[Kinslayer]

How are you going to make it so this thing never happens? This happened twice in a month. What if it does happen?

...Then you would have someone physical to blame it on. Do you read?

 

[No Limit]

Yes, I read. Your solution is to force corporations to install a system of double checks. What if they don't at all or they dont do it efficiently and this happens again? You can't possibly expect that every corporation will always follow the law. They currently break laws all the time and you can never point the finger at any one person. How will you punish them?

 

[Kinslayer]

Yes, I read. Your solution is to force corporations to install a system of double checks. What if they don't at all or they dont do it efficiently and this happens again? You can't possibly expect that every corporation will always follow the law. They currently break laws all the time and you can never point the finger at any one person. How will you punish them?

More serious fines and/or sanctions that would be crippling. Why are we even arguing this? Completely off topic.

Whatever. If you're not going to respond to the main point, then I'm done here.

 

[No Limit]

we are arguing this because if you can't show how paying a small fine (or even a bigger fine) is equal to being put in prison for a few years then this entire thing is unconstitutional.

How big should the fine be? What main point do you want me to respond to?

 

[No Limit]

Look what I ran in to today:

Andrew Cuomo, attorney-general of New York, filed civil charges against Ken Lewis, former Bank of America chief executive, and Joe Price, the bank’s former chief financial officer, accusing them of fraud related to troubled asset relief programme bail-out funds.

After more than one year of investigation, Mr Cuomo’s office determined that Mr Price, the chief financial officer, misled BofA’s general counsel as to the magnitude of Merrill’s losses in the fourth quarter of 2008, in order to get the general counsel to agree with the bank’s stance that Merrill’s losses did not need to be disclosed to shareholders prior to a December 5 vote on the transaction.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d0110e8-11af-11df-bceb-00144feab49a.html

Is it fair that they are subject to civil not criminal court for this? If found guilty how would you punish bofa?