What the fuck does this even mean? You probably disagree, but it's the way that it works. That is not up for debate. This is why corporations were given free speech. Not my opinion, again, just the way it is.
Even if corporations are treated like people in the tax system doesn't mean they should be. A corporation is not a person.
Then, Constitutionally, it shouldn't be taxed. The Constitution does not give the government the right to tax anything more than personal income.
It is run by people. It's a huge difference. This is not a blow for individual rights, it's the exact opposite. This has actually pushed individual rights back further.
Is this going to be another debate where you say things like that and don't back them up? Furthermore, you aren't very bright if you don't get how that statement is tongue in cheek.
They can easily make back any income they lose from the people they still have, who would support their beliefs and buy more of their product than they already do.
No, this is wrong. No business wants to lose half of their clientele. The idea that it's easy for a business to talk half the people into buying twice as much is lunacy, at best.
That all depends on what channels the ads air on. If Disney wanted to run a pro-Republican or anti-Democrat ad, then a pro-Republican channel would most likely sell the ad time for less than they would most. Likewise for Microsoft running a pro-Democrat or anti-Republican ad on a pro-Democrat channel.
You're missing the point. There is not a single tax break that would make up for the loss of revenue. I am not going to buy twice as many copies of Windows as computers I own because I agree with their political view.
Because it gives more money to the rich businesses and panics the working middle-class, who could be screwed out of more money.
You forgot to yell, "What about the children?" Let me explain some things to you now. Telecom is barely taxed and not regulated. They make 23% profit, and since everyone has a cell phone or two, that is quite a significant amount of money. They endorse Democrats, so there is no push to regulate them. Most refining companies make around 9% profit. They are pro-Republican, so the legislature passes cap and tax. If the court rules in favor of business in this instance, it would be the fair thing to do, not something to do to shun the middle class. Furthermore, it would benefit the middle class, because where do you think the money to pay the tax increases come from? A few extra cents on every gallon of gasoline. There is a court decision that would be pro-business and benefit the middle class.
That's just wishful thinking. Political parties can't stay on the facts when talking about their opponents as it is. Do you really think a business who's looking to sell to a politician is going to do what the parties can't? They're more worried about saying whatever the politician wants to hear, instead of being truthful. This would have more to do with who's running at the time, but even then, don't expect a lot of truth.
Not at the risk of alienating half of their clientele. I am not going to but a TV for the shitter because Best Buy endorses John Cornyn.
All five of those basically proved my previous point. There are no death panels, I don't know if Obama is a socialist, but if he is, so what, don't know Nancy Pelosi but she sounds like a bitch, for fuck's sake I live in Canada, we already have healthcare, why is this so hard for you to understand, and fuck Burger King.
God, you have no idea how to find a joke. And Canadian Health Care is a joke. I'd give you sources, but why give you more pro-Republican sources like the NY Times? You know you were wrong about that now, right?
More than you would think, I imagine. Hell, up here, there were a ton of ads saying that Liberal party leader Stephan Dion was basically a douche. We still have Conservatives in charge.
Did the ads say he was a douche or use things he had actually done to show how he was a douche?
.....an exaggeration on a statement IS A LIE! It's the exact same goddamn thing! Lie = exaggeration. It's in the freaking dictionary! I mean.....wow, did you really just say that?
OK, you really have a simple mind. John Kerry hid inside of a boat during gunfire in Vietnam. His shipmates called him a coward. That is obviously and exaggeration, but show how it is a lie. Can you prove that he isn't? He had one chance to be brave, and failed.
Anyway, obviously it's difficult to prove what's a lie and what isn't in a political ad, but it's not impossible. It just requires some time and research, which a lot of people aren't willing to do. They'd just rather accept what they heard and move on. This is why allowing corporations the ability to make ads is a bad idea. If a corporation made an ad about you, saying that you raped sheep babies, unless you had enough money to start your own corporation and make a counter-ad, you're sunk.
Well, that's the worst argument you've made since "It's OK to alienate half your clientele, because the other half will buy twice as much."
If you think that's the case, then do you think we should ban ads from PACs too? PACs, who don't have a clientele, make far worse ads than any company would. Their ads are full of lies, yet they get played on TV all the time. What should happen here?
I doubt you even know what a PAC is.
Also, for five false ads, scroll up to the ones you mentioned.
No thanks, I find five ads that claim Universal Healthcare is a good idea.
A point I somewhat agree with. Still, it doesn't mean this should be allowed. No one should try to negatively influence elections, that defeats the whole purpose of it.
So then PACs should be banned? Well, that takes away from the right of the people to assemble and speak freely. That's unConstitutional, which goes back to Supreme Court decision, stating that if a business gets taxed like a person, it gets rights like a person.
Game over.
