Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "What the Supreme Court Got Right" by Glenn Greenwald. [View all]dsc
(52,172 posts)108. and use them to be exempt from a cc mandate (to provide insurance that complies with the ACA)
and no, businesses, even sole proprietorships, haven't been permitted to do that. This would be an entire new right crafted out of new cloth. Had this right existed in the 1960's the Civil Rights Law wouldn't have been able to be applied to many businesses which it most assuredly was.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well--if corporations have a first amendment rights that can be expressed through political
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#2
Well said...we trump the rights of actual persons when we pretend that enities with money and power
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#16
for the same reason that those who have a first amendment right to hate racial minorities
dsc
Apr 2014
#95
Explain that. I can't discriminate in hiring because of Title 7. So tell me the legal theory
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#97
Indeed...but people do have the right to refuse under conscience laws. Why shouldn't Hobby Lobby
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#103
But HL is arguing that their corporate personhood allows for First Amendment protections.
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#107
and use them to be exempt from a cc mandate (to provide insurance that complies with the ACA)
dsc
Apr 2014
#108
Indeed...and when Libertarians like Mr. Greenwald make the argument that you do, I
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#110
Given his racist stance on immigration, and his decision to defend Matt Hale
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#116
I think you should cite his opposition if it exists not extrapolate from stances you don't like
dsc
Apr 2014
#121
I don't think there's any shortage of pointing out hypocrisy on this board, or anywhere on the net.
MADem
Apr 2014
#70
Using the OP's "logic" does that mean the ACLU is libertarian and should be distrusted? n/t
NOVA_Dem
Apr 2014
#51
Of course, because if they can't say "It's Obama's fault!!!" it's no damn fun, you see.
MADem
Apr 2014
#61
Well, I would never post pictures of puppies on a spit. But we aren't talking about two different
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#8
To fail to take into account the messenger means you've failed to critically
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#31
In an actual logic class, using Latin terms incorrectly only invokes laughter.
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#42
That's not what an ad hominem is. I'm not discussing his views on the NSA. Haven't mentioned them,
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#53
No...I never mentioned the NSA, only a general comment that one should take a messenger into account
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#84
Marr--I'm going to reply to your deleted post, since I had the window open....
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#91
"So if you wanna go, I'm gonna suggest you bring more than the Wikipedia knife to this gunfight."
Number23
Apr 2014
#100
The blue links stopped after that, didn't they? Maybe one day I'll get told who I actually
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#102
Sloppy....you know it's a disservice to us all without the video. Bad form...
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#111
Because I am rather interested on what a media conglomerate head has to say about corporate
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#92
"I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses
Hissyspit
Apr 2014
#6
"But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities ...
ProSense
Apr 2014
#7
Should be possible to ban a corporation from publishing a book during an election campaign
Nye Bevan
Apr 2014
#10
I see your point, but I think CU is a travesty. I think the pushing of corporate personhood
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#15
So Charles or David Koch should be permitted to publish anything they like in an election campaign,
Nye Bevan
Apr 2014
#27
What does publishing a book have to flooding the political process with money?
ProSense
Apr 2014
#29
This thread is actually about the Citizens United decision, as opposed to today's ruling.
Nye Bevan
Apr 2014
#30
I thought I was a cryptofascistcorpratistauthoritarian? Or something? Stasi, maybe? nt
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#23
Yes, but they don't imply Greenwald is a member of the Libertarian Party as the OP does,
Hissyspit
Apr 2014
#35
Oh--I'm not implying. I'm stating forthrightly that Mr. Greenwald is a Libertarian.
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#44
"Advertised as a Liberal." I wouldn't call that truth in advertising. Three Libertarians, on a
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#74
Yes, but according to his loyal flock around here at Democratic Underground,
BlueCaliDem
Apr 2014
#37
Mr. Greenwald taking Koch money for writing whitepaper, and appearing at their
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#36
He was wrong, and guess what, so was the ACLU which filed a brief in favor...
joeybee12
Apr 2014
#38
When the ACLU accepts billionaire money to run a media conglomerate, I'll be more
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#46
Larry the Cable Dude is a republican who has appeared on Hannity to speak against the ACA.
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#47
Larry the Cable guy is an unfunny, sexist, racist, and homphobic Republican. As for Mr. Greenwald,
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#54
I'm sorry, but you seem rather upset that I answered your question outside of the binary
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#82
Yes...I don't think Greenwald was telling the truth when he wrote that. I think he has no problem
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#81
I agree, I think a few actually do not recognize the cognitive dissonance associated with
Spazito
Apr 2014
#126
I wouldn't give them that much deference. They damn well know the difference.
BlueCaliDem
Apr 2014
#139
EXACTLY!! how do you reason with people who think it is okay to criticize a Democratic
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2014
#131
Your attempt at being cute failed, Dougie. So did your "reasoning" in your defense of a Libertarian
BlueCaliDem
Apr 2014
#138
I don't know what you are talking about? We need to expose all the frauds!! From Gary Hart and Jimmy
Douglas Carpenter
Apr 2014
#141
Thus my point--if he backed CU, he's going to be just fine with today's ruling if he's held
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#76
I am sorry--are you suggesting that Greenwald didn't support the CU decision? nt
msanthrope
Apr 2014
#93
I know I'm stating who the fuck cares. George W Bush supports sending money to Africa to fight
Ed Suspicious
Apr 2014
#113
Oh, he loves billionaires, proving that money really is speech in GG's case.
Tarheel_Dem
Apr 2014
#133