Trent Lott leaving early to cash in? [Archive] - Debate Policy

JohnDoe

11-26-2007, 11:10 AM

I heard this on the news this morning, that he was quitting before his term is up, because the new culture of corruption busting laws that were put in, making the Senators wait a longer time before becoming lobbyists after leaving congress, go in to effect this coming January.

In my opinion it is a pretty sad case, no matter which side of the aisle they are on, that our Public Servants are not servants to the people that voted them in at all and only seem to care about their own personal dollar bottom line.

jd

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 11:13 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21973397/

He needs to leave early to avoid the new lobbying laws.

You say this as if it's fact. Can you please point me to where you got this factual interpretation?

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 11:13 AM

You say this as if it's fact. Can you please point me to where you got this factual interpretation?

And what I mean by this, is that this is why in fact he is resigning.

JohnDoe

11-26-2007, 02:44 PM

And what I mean by this, is that this is why in fact he is resigning.I suppose time will tell...

but this is what is being reported on the main stream media this morning....and in his press conference he did come out and say it is most certainly not any health reasons for him to leave before he served his full term that he was voted in to do.

I did not read the article yet, I am only speculating based on what I heard on tv.

I am just wondering HOW he voted on the legislation that changed these lobbying laws and whether he will end up being a lobbyist?

jd

truthmatters

11-26-2007, 02:50 PM

Well we will know in a year wont we. If he waited till after the new year we would have to wait two years.

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 02:55 PM

but this is what is being reported on the main stream media this morning

That he is in fact resigning specifically for those reasons? Can you please supply me a link?

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 02:56 PM

Well we will know in a year wont we. If he waited till after the new year we would have to wait two years.

Oh, so you spoke factually in your opening post, but in reality you were just speculating?

JohnDoe

11-26-2007, 03:35 PM

Oh, so you spoke factually in your opening post, but in reality you were just speculating?The question mark in the thread title, indicates that it was not a fact, but a speculation in my opinion.

Well, that is at least how I took it?

otherwise it would not have been posed in question form.

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 03:53 PM

The question mark in the thread title, indicates that it was not a fact, but a speculation in my opinion.

Well, that is at least how I took it?

otherwise it would not have been posed in question form.

Then I guess you didn't read her comment where she stated:

He needs to leave early to avoid the new lobbying laws

Which lead to my follow up question. Seems to me like she is speculating that this is in fact why he is leaving, without any proof whatsoever. And just because she posed it as a question doesn't mean she isn't trying to imply that.

Sir Evil

11-26-2007, 04:04 PM

And just because she posed it as a question doesn't mean she isn't trying to imply that.

Truth is too fucking stupid to speculate, and the dove loves to graciously voice an opinion from an oposing view, well in a round about way..

avatar4321

11-26-2007, 04:48 PM

Then I guess you didn't read her comment where she stated:

Which lead to my follow up question. Seems to me like she is speculating that this is in fact why he is leaving, without any proof whatsoever. And just because she posed it as a question doesn't mean she isn't trying to imply that.

speculating involves some rational thought. I would guess she just heard someone else say it and is declaring it for truth.

gabosaurus

11-26-2007, 07:08 PM

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 07:14 PM

The question mark in the thread title should alert you to the fact that the thread is offered as speculation and not fact. Or perhaps you don't know the meaning of a question mark and just want an excuse to throw shit at the OP.

Do me a favor. Quote her original post, including her commentary to the article, and please bold the portion containing the question mark. You do understand the difference between posing a question for a title, and then making a statement in your commentary, no? She stated "he needs" NOT, "is this why he's leaving?" Do you understand the difference between sentences ending with a period and those with a question mark?

truthmatters

11-26-2007, 07:19 PM

Yes I was speculating.

I will add to this story a year from now with annoucements of his new cushy job and you will still say his retirement from congress had nothing to do with the job.

We all know he really just needs to spend more time with his family.

gabosaurus

11-26-2007, 07:19 PM

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 07:23 PM

The question mark in the thread title makes the entire post a speculation. It doesn't have to be repeated. That is why the question mark is in the title.
Even those without a college education should be able to understand that. :)

I'll guarantee you I've had more time in school then you have, so save your lame flames.

She made a statement as her commentary. This cannot be disputed, and cannot be mistaken for a question. That, coupled with her history of being an idiot and biased moonbat, makes it clear what she is implying.

truthmatters

11-26-2007, 07:29 PM

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 07:31 PM

Iguess you missed my answer.

Shut up, stupid, us of higher intelligence are busy deciphering your posts again.

gabosaurus

11-26-2007, 07:35 PM

Right then. :rolleyes:

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 07:38 PM

Right then. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but she's made it quite clear what she is implying in this thread, and her sarcastic addition about " We all know he really just needs to spend more time with his family" AFTER she implied he was resigning for other reasons makes it even clearer. Not my problem if you haven't figured out her MO on this board, or that you don't care, but some of us rather enjoy pointing out what a biased moonbat she is at times.

truthmatters

11-26-2007, 07:41 PM

Did you read the article Jim?

It did more implying than I did.

Anyone with any sense knows why hes resigning a few months early.

jimnyc

11-26-2007, 07:45 PM

Did you read the article Jim?

It did more implying than I did.

Anyone with any sense knows why hes resigning a few months early.

The article implying something doesn't make it right, nor does it make it right for you to make implications without proof either. I'm simply pointing out your preconceived judgments. You actually have no idea whatsoever why he's resigning, and you have no sense, so please don't play that game.

But anyway, I now rest my case. Like I said from the beginning, she wasn't asking a question, she was making an accusation, and now just as much admitted it. No need to tell me I was correct, gabby!

Pale Rider

11-26-2007, 08:04 PM

For whatever reason he's leaving, good riddance to the son of a bitch. He's the dirty cock sucker that got MAD because people had the NERVE to call in to congress and tell them they didn't want their big amnesty bill.

Fuck lott. He's an arrogant piece of shit that's completely forgotten that he works for US!

Kathianne

11-26-2007, 08:09 PM

The question mark in the thread title makes the entire post a speculation. It doesn't have to be repeated. That is why the question mark is in the title.
Even those without a college education should be able to understand that. :)

Because those with college education can comprehend better? Is that what you mean? You're dumbing it down? Not too much hubris there.

Kathianne

11-26-2007, 08:14 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21973397/

He needs to leave early to avoid the new lobbying laws.

I'm with Jim, this post implies a whole bunch of stuff TM never addresses, though she certainly does go on after this 'lobbying deal' to insinuate other issues.

Can anyone tell us who Gore, Albright, etc., are hawking for now?

BTW, I'm with PR, Lott is an embarrassment for the GOP, from immigration to appearing to be racist, (I know that's not what he meant, but that IS how it came off.)

REDWHITEBLUE2

11-26-2007, 10:49 PM

:clap: I see our resident liberals took an extra dose of stupid pills today :laugh2:

Gunny

11-27-2007, 07:23 AM

The question mark in the thread title makes the entire post a speculation. It doesn't have to be repeated. That is why the question mark is in the title.
Even those without a college education should be able to understand that. :)

:smoke:

Hardly. The thread title is usually the article title. Even when it is not, a thread title that is speculative in no way makes each and every post part of that speculation when statements are made as absolutes.

How's that college education working for ya?:poke:

truthmatters

11-27-2007, 10:56 AM

Its seems there MAY be other reasons he is retiring. Can you say gay sex scandal?

http://tailrank.com/3959788/Trent-Lo...Escort-Scandal

Sir Evil

11-27-2007, 01:12 PM

Did you read the article Jim?

It did more implying than I did.

Anyone with any sense knows why hes resigning a few months early.

Hey dummy, all you ever do is imply, and anyone with sense knows that much. You are too stupid to post an article, and post anything slightly intelligent of your own thought to go along with it.

jimnyc

11-27-2007, 01:16 PM

Its seems there MAY be other reasons he is retiring. Can you say gay sex scandal?

http://tailrank.com/3959788/Trent-Lo...Escort-Scandal

Hey dummy, all you ever do is imply, and anyone with sense knows that much. You are too stupid to post an article, and post anything slightly intelligent of your own thought to go along with it.

You'll notice her link is bogus too, as since she can't think for herself, she simply goes to other sites and copies the links from their sites. Had she read her retarded article and copied the link directly from there, then the link would have copied just fine! Kinda sad when someone can't think and act for themselves and yet tries to spread what they read when they're obviously too dumb to do so.

truthmatters

11-27-2007, 01:52 PM

http://tailrank.com/3959788/Trent-Lott-In-Gay-Escort-Scandal

there you go.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 12:17 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005025.php

Yeap he left to avoid the new laws going into effect.

nevadamedic

01-06-2008, 12:31 PM

You'll notice her link is bogus too, as since she can't think for herself, she simply goes to other sites and copies the links from their sites. Had she read her retarded article and copied the link directly from there, then the link would have copied just fine! Kinda sad when someone can't think and act for themselves and yet tries to spread what they read when they're obviously too dumb to do so.

That is the true definition of a Democrat.

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 12:53 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005025.php

Yeap he left to avoid the new laws going into effect.

As much as I despise lobbiest I have to ask. Why does this bother you??? The new laws take effect so he capitalizes on this by resigning his post early so he can continue working without interuption.

How about all the other senators and congressmen before him who are lobbiest, dou you hate them as well?? Do you question their motives in everything they do.

I will let you in on a little secret the motivation behind all of them is MONEY and lots of it.

Personaly I think we should have term limits of no more than 10 years for any congressional office. I also feel that after you have SERVED your civic duty you should also be banned from any lobbying job of 15 years so you have no contact with anyone you served with.... I think you would find there would be a liitle less back slapping and good-ol-boy networking going on and maybe just maybe we could get some REAL work out of our politicians.

Politics went DOWN hill when it became a career instead of a civic responsiblity. By enacting term limits and limiting the ability to lobby you are taking away the "career" aspect of government employment. The career mentality is wrong for government because by its very nature you want to KEEP your employment by any means so your willing to comprimise your principles once your elected, but if you know you have a finite amount of time you will be more apt to stick to your morals and convictions and do what you feel is right not what is going to keep you in office for more money...

Sorry this is rambling!!! Carry on with your nonsense TM....

5stringJeff

01-06-2008, 01:03 PM

That is the true definition of a Democrat.

Says the "Republican" who's voting for Hillary.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 01:03 PM

How does anything you say here change the fact that Lott is cashing in?

5stringJeff

01-06-2008, 01:07 PM

How does anything you say here change the fact that Lott is cashing in?

So do you think that former Congressmen should be banned from petitioning Congress, as the First Amendment gives them the absolute right to do?

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 01:12 PM

How does anything you say here change the fact that Lott is cashing in?why do you have a problem with him "cashing in" as you put.

Is he breaking any laws by doing so?? Is he moraly bankrupt for doing so? Is any past President "cashing in" when they charge tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 30-60 min speach???

I dont understand why you have a BIG problem with this!!!!! Or is it solely the fact that he is *gasp* republican???:slap:

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 01:47 PM

manu1959

01-06-2008, 01:55 PM

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 02:05 PM

will it be against the law to make money in your "new america"?

It OK with you as long as its the republicans doing it huh?

Lets see you defend the dems hwo become lobbists at your expense?

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 02:16 PM

When I started this thread all the cons on here told me it was a lie he quit to avoid the new laws effecting his ability to cash in.

He obviously did it for just that reason.

Say whatever silly thing you want. It does not change the fact that he is cashing in.
Actually TM if you go back and read the thread no one said you were a liar they said you were "SPECULATING" on his reason that you presented as FACT. that is what the problem was. You have a history on this board of presenting as FACT an opinion. So when you brought an OPINION peice and presented it as FACT that is what some on here had a problem with.

What was asked of you was your PROOF that that was why Mr. Lott was leaving and the only PROOF you had at the time was pure SPECULATION.

Now you have PROOF and there is no room for SPECULATION as to why he left. If you had waited for this peice of information you would not have been slammed for presenting SPECULATION as FACT.

Now that being said what is your major problem with this since it has been going on since the 1930's with the "New Deal" politics. Both side have put a great many lobbiest out there so why do you have a problem with this.

Could it be because you saw a REPUBLICAN maybe trying to cash in like so many Democrats do...

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 02:18 PM

It OK with you as long as its the republicans doing it huh?

Lets see you defend the dems hwo become lobbists at your expense?

You are such a one trick pony its laughable. Yo have the nerve to sit there and say this to Manu and yet your panties get all wet EVERY TIME a Republican is in the news for doing something that may or may not be right..

Get off your freaking high horse lady and open your eyes and realize the pot calling the kettle black is getting quite tiresome.....

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 02:20 PM

When will you EVER admitt any wrong doing on the part of the people in your party?

It seems you are the one doing just what you are complaining to me about.

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 02:28 PM

When will you EVER admitt any wrong doing on the part of the people in your party?

It seems you are the one doing just what you are complaining to me about.

For the record I dont pull information off the web to only bash Democrats I could personaly care less about what party they belong to if they are crooked they are crooked. You fail to realize that for EVERY REPUBLICAN DOING SOMETHING WRONG THERE ARE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF DEMS DOING THE SAME EXACT THING.
you continue to bring forth the Republicans yet by your silence about the Dems you are condoning and ultimately defending them. Once again POT-MEET-KETTLE

My God woman you are as dense as hard oak......

By the way I have only asked you what is he doing that is ILLEGAL. can you answer a straight forward question?????

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 02:30 PM

When will you EVER admitt any wrong doing on the part of the people in your party?

. WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 02:31 PM

where did I ever say it was illegal?

It will be illegal now which is why he left so early in his term.

Nukeman

01-06-2008, 02:34 PM

where did I ever say it was illegal?

It will be illegal now which is why he left so early in his term.NO DIP SHIT!!!!! It will not be illegal, they will have to wait a longer time period before they can lobby. YOu are the most dense person on the face of the earth......

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 02:36 PM

So doing it so early after leaving office will be illegal.

Just like I said.

BoogyMan

01-06-2008, 02:39 PM

So TM, other than posting what you were sent here to post, what do you expect to get out of this thread other than people pointing out that being a lobbyist ISN'T illegal and that if Lott can make money being a lobbyist, MORE POWER TO HIM!

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 02:52 PM

BoogyMan

01-06-2008, 03:12 PM

Told to post?

hahaahahahahaha you are so foolish.

The point was made in the first post of the thread.

It was denied as if it was an insane assumption and now it has been proven true.

Lott left early ( he resigned his sworn duty to the people who elelcted him) to make money being a lobbiest Much earlier. He left for the big quick buck.

So what you are actually disclaiming here is that Lott is out to make money? What a silly and foolish position to take.

It wasn't denied, it was questioned because you simply had no way to know. What I am pointing out is that it is no big deal if Lott DID resign to become a lobbyist. Unlike you and your friends who have completely communist leanings would like us to believe, capitalism is alive and well and certainly isn't evil.

Point out, for once, actually prove the terrible evil behind your assertion. I will be waiting....

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 03:52 PM

Trigg

01-06-2008, 06:18 PM

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9120

Yes it was denied go read the thread.

OK I will now record that you think lobbiest are great for the country.

Ill remember that one.

Why dont you have the republican nominee run on that and see how far they get in the elelction?

You are without a doubt the dumbest person I have ever had the displeasure to attempt to correspond with.

You made an assumption, with no proof. Now you have proof and have been proven correct.

No one called you a lier, they simply said you HAD NO PROOF.

IT is legal for him to quit

IT is legal for him to lobby

He has done nothing against the law.

If he quit now to avoid the new laws because he knew they were changing there is nothing illegal about it. Please attempt to pull your head out of your ass.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 06:39 PM

Keep beating that strawman.

I did not say what he is doing is illegal.

I drew a conclusion from his actions which proved to be true. People here defended him and insulted me.

If this was a democrat you would be screaming for their head.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 06:43 PM

Sorry, but she's made it quite clear what she is implying in this thread, and her sarcastic addition about " We all know he really just needs to spend more time with his family" AFTER she implied he was resigning for other reasons makes it even clearer. Not my problem if you haven't figured out her MO on this board, or that you don't care, but some of us rather enjoy pointing out what a biased moonbat she is at times.

To be biased it would mean you turned out to be wrong about the speculation.

To be right is not an indication of bias but insight.

Kathianne

01-06-2008, 07:11 PM

To be biased it would mean you turned out to be wrong about the speculation.

To be right is not an indication of bias but insight.

Only you would go back 2 months for support. Are you that desperate?

jimnyc

01-06-2008, 07:14 PM

To be biased it would mean you turned out to be wrong about the speculation.

To be right is not an indication of bias but insight.

The fact remains, you were still wrong at the time you posted. You posted it as a fact and you never posted anything but opinion. Just because your thoughts turned out to be correct does not mean you wrote facts at the time. If I said "the Patriots are SB champs" - it is my opinion that is not supported by the facts, as there is nothing to backup my statement. If they do in fact win it all in a month from no, my statement is still incorrect as it has a timestamp on it.

And please, spare me with the insight. You are the most blind old retard I have ever come across on the entire internet, and that's saying a lot!

BoogyMan

01-06-2008, 07:42 PM

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9120

Yes it was denied go read the thread.

OK I will now record that you think lobbiest are great for the country.

Ill remember that one.

Why dont you have the republican nominee run on that and see how far they get in the elelction?

This is the kind of crap we run into every time you are involved in the debate TM. You take an innocuous statement and twist and turn it to make it something that it isn't. Oh well. Go back and tell the collective your posted as they wished and get your scratch behind the ears.

5stringJeff

01-06-2008, 08:09 PM

So do you think that former Congressmen should be banned from petitioning Congress, as the First Amendment gives them the absolute right to do?

TM, you never answered this particular question, so here it is again:

Do you think that former Congressmen should be banned from petitioning Congress, as the First Amendment gives them the absolute right to do?

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 08:22 PM

I haved answered this in this thread.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 08:25 PM

This is the kind of crap we run into every time you are involved in the debate TM. You take an innocuous statement and twist and turn it to make it something that it isn't. Oh well. Go back and tell the collective your posted as they wished and get your scratch behind the ears.

So what you are actually disclaiming here is that Lott is out to make money? What a silly and foolish position to take.

It wasn't denied, it was questioned because you simply had no way to know. What I am pointing out is that it is no big deal if Lott DID resign to become a lobbyist. Unlike you and your friends who have completely communist leanings would like us to believe, capitalism is alive and well and certainly isn't evil.

Point out, for once, actually prove the terrible evil behind your assertion. I will be waiting....

You seemed to think it was a great idea in this post.

Dilloduck

01-06-2008, 08:34 PM

I haved answered this in this thread.

I'd ask where but that would be silly. Your powers of irritation are awesome .:laugh2:

BoogyMan

01-06-2008, 08:38 PM

You seemed to think it was a great idea in this post.

There is a huge chasm of reason between "no big deal" and "great for the country" that the typical methane breathing liberal simply will never be able to comprehend.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 08:59 PM

5stringJeff

01-06-2008, 09:33 PM

I haved answered this in this thread.

I'm looking through the posts you've made since I answered the question, and I still don't see an answer. I've copied them below, so you can point out to me exactly where you answered the question.

When I started this thread all the cons on here told me it was a lie he quit to avoid the new laws effecting his ability to cash in.

He obviously did it for just that reason.

Say whatever silly thing you want. It does not change the fact that he is cashing in.

It OK with you as long as its the republicans doing it huh?

Lets see you defend the dems hwo become lobbists at your expense?

When will you EVER admitt any wrong doing on the part of the people in your party?

It seems you are the one doing just what you are complaining to me about.

where did I ever say it was illegal?

It will be illegal now which is why he left so early in his term.

So doing it so early after leaving office will be illegal.

Just like I said.

Told to post?

hahaahahahahaha you are so foolish.

The point was made in the first post of the thread.

It was denied as if it was an insane assumption and now it has been proven true.

Lott left early ( he resigned his sworn duty to the people who elelcted him) to make money being a lobbiest Much earlier. He left for the big quick buck.

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9120

Yes it was denied go read the thread.

OK I will now record that you think lobbiest are great for the country.

Ill remember that one.

Why dont you have the republican nominee run on that and see how far they get in the elelction?

Keep beating that strawman.

I did not say what he is doing is illegal.

I drew a conclusion from his actions which proved to be true. People here defended him and insulted me.

If this was a democrat you would be screaming for their head.

To be biased it would mean you turned out to be wrong about the speculation.

To be right is not an indication of bias but insight.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 09:44 PM

Try the fifth one down.

I say "I never said it was illegal."

Boogey, you said "capitalism is alive and well and certainly isn't evil." you equate lobying with capitalism. Do you think capitalism is a wonderful thing?

5stringJeff

01-06-2008, 09:50 PM

Try the fifth one down.

I say "I never said it was illegal."

I didn't ask whether you thought it is illegal. I asked if you thought it should be illegal.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 09:53 PM

I didn't ask whether you thought it is illegal. I asked if you thought it should be illegal.

what would make you think I would?

I have never said anything to that effect now have I.

I posted this thread for just as I said I did.

I said it looked to me like Lott was cashing in. It turned out I was right.

You people dont care what he did you are far more interested in trying to insult me.

Its really pretty laughable.

Dilloduck

01-06-2008, 09:54 PM

what would make you think I would?

I have never said anything to that effect now have I.

I posted this thread for just as I said I did.

I said it looked to me like Lott was cashing in. It turned out I was right.

You people dont care what he did you are far more interested in trying to insult me.

Its really pretty laughable.

not me--I'm waiting for my dance !!:dance:

5stringJeff

01-06-2008, 09:56 PM

what would make you think I would?

I have never said anything to that effect now have I.

I know you haven't said anything to that effect. That's why I asked what your personal opinion on the matter is. And you still haven't answered.

I posted this thread for just as I said I did.

I said it looked to me like Lott was cashing in. It turned out I was right.

Congratulations.

You people dont care what he did you are far more interested in trying to insult me.

Its really pretty laughable.

No, I'm asking your opinion on a related topic.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 10:46 PM

not me--I'm waiting for my dance !!:dance:

I hope that doesnt mean something in chat site speak that I did not realise.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 10:49 PM

I dont think businesses should be allowed to work legislators.

I would like to see them only be able to send in written papers about how they feel about legislation.

They are not voters and are not due any representation.

Having the right to send impact reports about how legislation impacts their businesses would be more than fair.

Lott could do that job if he liked.

BoogyMan

01-06-2008, 10:56 PM

Unlike you and your friends who have completely communist leanings would like us to believe, capitalism is alive and well and certainly isn't evil.

Its your own words. To you is just capitalism and Im just a communist for saying lobbiest should not buy and control our democracy.

TM, lobbying IS a capitalist activity.

You ARE a communist leaning indiviual TM, I guess that truth you fail to hold up on a regular basis hurts.

truthmatters

01-06-2008, 11:00 PM

Why should corporations which are not people get represention from our elected officials ?

Is this what the founders had in mind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Controversies_about_corporate _personhood

Since the mid-1800s, corporate personhood has become increasingly controversial, as courts have extended other rights to the corporation beyond those necessary to ensure their liability for debts. Other commentators argue that corporate personhood is not a fiction anymore—it simply means that for some legal purposes, "person" has now a wider meaning than it has in non-legal uses. Some groups and individuals (including the Green Party[2]) and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedomhave objected to corporate personhood. These opponents usually do not actually want to abolish the theory that allows corporations to be governed by the law, be subjected to taxes, sue and be sued, and otherwise be treated as a legal entity.[citation needed] Rather, their objections focus on constitutional protections.

In part as a matter of subsequent interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood don't necessarily want to eliminate legal entities, but do want to limit these rights to those provided by state constitutions through constitutional amendment.[3] Often, this is motivated by a desire to restrict the political speech and donations of corporations, interest groups, lobbyists, and political parties. Social and political commentator Thom Hartmann is among those that share this view.[4] Because juristic persons have limited "free speech" rights, legislation meant to eliminate campaign contributions by juristic persons (notably, corporations and labor unions) has been repeatedly struck down by various courts. Those who believe juristic persons should have the protection of the U.S. Constitution point out that they are just organizations of people, and that these people shouldn't be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively.

what do you think?

manu1959

01-06-2008, 11:39 PM

It OK with you as long as its the republicans doing it huh?

Lets see you defend the dems hwo become lobbists at your expense?

are there no dems that lobby?....do no dems take money from those that lobby?....you did not answer my question....

manu1959

01-06-2008, 11:40 PM

When will you EVER admitt any wrong doing on the part of the people in your party?

It seems you are the one doing just what you are complaining to me about.

When will you EVER admitt any wrong doing on the part of the people in your party?

It seems you are the one doing just what you are complaining to me about.

manu1959

01-06-2008, 11:41 PM