Ahhhhh. Ummmm. I think i am hitting the bed.

I feel like you should know what corporate personhood actually means and why the supreme court ruled like it did.

I mean, you can argue that the ruling was a bad thing... but the logic behind the ruling was pretty flawless. 

Well i'm aware that the purpose of corporations is to assume legal liability, making it possible for individuals to build business on a scale that no one person could ever possibly be liable for as with a truly private enterprise (if Kaz Hirai were personally responsible for paying all of Sony's debts, for instance), but that doesn't mean that they should afford all rights of individuals including the unbounded ability to influence politics. It's purely a financial role, which does serve itself well.

it's like always, big nations/empires/forces/whatever come and go. just ask alexander the great or so...we will see china, in 50 years it will be india, in 200 years greenland which means denmark!

Right... except that's NOT what corproate personhood is in this case.  It's completely unrelated. 

You never actually read the citizens united ruling?  It was based on some pretty simple and logical assumptions that pretty much everybody would agree with despite disliking the outcome.

1) Political speech is the most important form of free speech as all other free speech essentially flows from it.

2)  People are free to assemble in groups... shutting down a groups free speech is just like shutting down an individuals right to free speech.  (IE you can't stop what the ACLU or NRA say.)

3) Corporations are groups of people.

Pretty easy 1-2-3 logic that you can't really rebut... a ruling otherwise, while convienent would be negligent.

Not to mention

4) There is no legal difference between Corproations and New Corporations, and a number of New corporations tv shows could essentially be considered "Campain contributions."

I mean, MSNBCS and Fox News are practically 24/hour campaign add stations.

thought this was going to be about United States Asians, not Americans.

Actually I do recall that. However one must be aware that  there is precedent for speech, if sufficiently damaging to the nation, to be curbed.

Although that could be that i've always interpreted the first amendment's "speech" as being "opinion," and not the actual act of expression, so I would be in support of legislation that regulated the activity of speech so long as it was undiscriminating in the opinions covered (e.g., i'd be for a total ban on certain types of campaign contributions, but against legislation against "professions of atheism" or something like that)

I came in here expecting at least one picture of a hot Asian-American girl.

I leave disappointed.

Not... really.  Or at least if you want to use that... that's about the looooongest stretch arguement that's been made.

I mean, you'd have to argue that it directly incites people into doing something specifically damaging to the country and even then you'd have to essentially prove that it caused problems when it happened like....

I can't even imagine anyone making such an arguement with a straight face.

If one could make the argument that the excess of campaign contributions undermines the basis of democracy by putting disproportionate ability to influence outcomes in the hands of the few.

It simply requires acknowledgement of the economic realities of the day, to then realize that it is indeed a "speech" activity that is damaging to national discourse.

Apparently there is a proposal for a 27th Amendment on Citizens United floating around out there.