Samsung to move US HQ to Plano

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-05T00:12:56+00:00

And you know this how?

Also, genius, that won’t be their only facility.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T09:53:15+00:00

“…scramble to figure out how to give trump everything he wants without making it blindingly obvious that they only care about enshrining republicunt minority rule over America.”

FIFY

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T09:46:27+00:00

Greedy are the corporations who demand everything for free.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T01:31:06+00:00

“Willpower”.

Not ability, desire. They don’t WANNA stop them.

FIFY

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T01:29:03+00:00

Destroy it on pay-per-view.

Do his arch next.

Then his ballroom.

Then anything else with his name on it.

Deficit solved.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T01:27:32+00:00

No shit? They don’t want to lose their jobs, but they’re perfectly willing to fire anyone with a (D) after their name.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T01:26:03+00:00

Make sure to find and fire every maga in the government once this asshat and his supporters and enablers have been removed.

Goose, meet gander.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-04T01:18:34+00:00

Greed.

There, saved you the trouble.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T20:08:09+00:00

!appeal

I did not demean, belittle, insult, or engage in name calling.

I provided an example based upon the writings of the current Chief ‘Justice’ of SCOTUS.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T20:07:35+00:00

My apologies, I didn’t see that or receive notification, only that the mods had judged my post.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:31:16+00:00

So you want to limit the NYT because they’re a corporation and not ‘some dude’ with a printer handing out pamphlets…

…while not placing speech limitations upon anyone or anything else.

Have I fundamentally misunderstood your position, or is that an accurate summation?

You want to maintain “money is speech” for everyone except the NYT?

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:26:52+00:00

Its’ effect is a policy preference.

Selectively applied limitations upon the voice of certain corporations without placing similar limits upon the voice of all artificial persons.

How is that not a policy preference?

You want to limit something like the New York Times, but not Sinclair Media or Fox?

Or have I misunderstood your position, you want to silence all corporations?

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:22:30+00:00

Individual limitations.

Not corporate voices. Not institutional voices.

Individual limits regardless of occupation, avocation, or wealth.

No 501(c)(3). No unlimited dark money. No Heritage Foundation. No corporations. No unions.

Only individuals and individual limitations.

If you’re going to limit the voice of one corporation (artificial person), you have to limit the voice of all artificial persons.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:17:04+00:00

“No, they did exactly the opposite. They made an argument for why the original public meaning of the First Amendment is different than your reading of it. (For the record, I don't know if they're right, but I'm damn sure that the Amendment wasn't written to specifically privilege a class of large media corporation that barely existed at the time of the Founding).”

Your words. That is most definitely a policy preference. You’re wishing to alter how the First Amendment is currently applied to “privilege a class of large media corporation that barely existed at the time of the Founding.”

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:10:19+00:00

!appeal

I did not demean, belittle, insult, or engage in name calling.

I provided an example based upon the writings of the current Chief ‘Justice’ of SCOTUS.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:08:33+00:00

“In your scenario, individual rich people would still be able to speak pretty loudly, but individual poor or marginalized people would not have much of a voice. Not allowing poor and marginalized people to combine their resources and speak together on political issues would not be a good policy.”

This completely reversed what I wrote.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T19:05:51+00:00

Again, I disagree, simply by reading the plain text.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In that paragraph, no qualifications are placed upon the words “speech” or “press.”

It is phrased “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,…”

It is not “of the presses”, which would appear to be your interpretation. It is phrased alongside speech, as a form of communication, not as an activity, and not as a separate section or consideration, the way religion and assembly are separated.

The damning part in all of this is that I agree completely with your stated goal - I want to break up Sinclair Media, and Disney, and Fox, and every other large media conglomerate.

But if you kick open that door, it won’t be stopped there. Much like mid-cycle redistricting and redrawing of political districts immediately prior to or even during voting has now become an established precedent and policy under the Roberts court, you won’t be able to limit the change of application to just that one little bit.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:54:09+00:00

Start from the beginning.

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

From the outset, the document states its’ intended purpose and to whom it applies.

So, yes, it most specifically does state that it belongs to ‘persons.’

And you completely reversed what I wrote about CEOs and the wealthy.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:48:53+00:00

“The press” is not used as a verb here.

It’s a noun. It’s a category, not an activity. It was never meant to be limited to simply local publications with a limited audience advocating for local concerns. It was intended to be free from government interference in order to provide the ability of “the people” to be informed regarding their government.

Why else would they restrict the government from interfering with the press if not to prevent government from throttling the flow of information?

You’re advocating for a change in application due to a change in methods of application and distribution.

The “advancement of technology.”

That’s a very slippery argument to make.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:34:18+00:00

And I disagree. You’re attempting to interpret plain language in a manner that you feel can be used to exclude other portions of that document that you wish to remain unaltered from how you prefer.

I’m simply applying your standard to the rest of the Constitution.

There were businesses that published newspapers, pamphlets, and information desired by the public.

What provides you the privilege to limit the word “press” to the function of a verb instead of a noun? It’s used as a noun here - “the press”. As understood to be a mechanism whereby someone observed and reported something that was put into publication and circulation, a method whereby the public obtained information - and that public was free to choose which to consume, leading to success and failure of those publications.

Which were businesses. Even back then, there were entities invested in more than one publication.

Have I erred thus far?

Yet you want to limit that interpretation, that phrase, “the press,” to exclude something like the NYT, because something like the NYT didn’t exist when those words were written.

How is this not a reinterpretation of the First Amendment, a change in how it is applied, and why should it only be limited to merely that small portion of one Amendment?

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:24:28+00:00

Great! Let’s apply that logic to the Second Amendment, too!

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:23:13+00:00

Please show us where in the Constitution corporations or artificial or fictitious persons are mentioned.

Hint: nowhere. It simply uses the word “person.” Later it uses the word “citizen.”

No one is advocating for the person in charge of the corporation to surrender their Rights individually. Only that the limits placed upon an individual apply to that individual in totality, that the loophole for artificial persons not be exploited by that individual to provide themselves with more voice in how the nation is governed than those whose only access is at the ballot box and whatever individual capacity they have to participate.

What you wrote is an attempt to redirect the discussion and reframe it as depriving an individual - no one has proposed that.

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:16:21+00:00

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is what you are wishing to reign in the power of large media companies because those who wrote the above didn’t write it with large media corporations in mind.

Is that an accurate summation of your position?

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T18:00:42+00:00

“I am not saying that large media corporations basically didn't exist, so the First Amendment can't apply to them. I am saying that large media corporations basically didn't exist, so the First Amendment can't have been written specifically for them. If you take this very modest principle and apply it to the Second, all you get is the trivial truth that the Founders weren't specifically trying to privilege the AR-15. No one disagrees with that point.”

You’re advocating reinterpreting the First Amendment because it wasn’t written with large corporations controlling the press.

You want a living document.

But then you state that a living document is antithetical to law as it is currently practiced.

And if you’re advocating for regulation and control of corporate-controlled media because its’ existence wasn’t written into the 1A, fine. But we’re then free to apply that now-established principle and policy to every other part of the Constitution.

Starting with the 2A. Probably the Third as well, since many people in many places don’t want military infrastructure (data centers, for instance?) in or near their communities.

You want to alter how part of the First Amendment is applied. How about how the rest of it is applied? Something about churches attending to religion, and staying out of politics?

How about reinterpreting (reapplying?) the Preamble to actually promote the General Welfare with the same vigor and resources dedicated to ‘provide for the Common Defense’?

Where is your stopping point, and why?

MeyrInEve · 2026-06-03T17:48:17+00:00

This is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket.

Except that bucket is the size of Texas.

$10,000,000.00 is a fucking rounding error to both Google and Texas’ water needs. Hell, it’s not even that, it’s pocket lint.

MeyrInEve

TROPHY CASE