RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 7:06:04 AM

Sanity

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Good point. Another example of that is General Electric owns NBC / MSNBC, which MSNBC employs Chris Mathews and Keith Obermann.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to servantforuse)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 7:06:19 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I am going to assume that you are on the dissenting side of the ruling then?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 7:13:58 AM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

If you're going to quote me, use the whole quote.

'For a party that professes itself to adhere to the Constitution and worship the “founding fathers” so much, I guess they missed when Thomas Jefferson said, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

It was Jefferson talking about even then corporations using money to crush anyone who got in their way and how they will take over this country if they have no control over how they can effect elections

(in reply to DomImus)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 7:14:10 AM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Does anyone really believe that labor unions used 'their own' money for campaign ads. Every penny they get is from members dues. By law it should be separated from campaigns and union business but it is all in one pot. Big labor or corporations should each have the same rights.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 7:20:05 AM

housesub4you

Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

Actually if you disagree with the position of your labor union on an election or campaign contribution you can request your portion of funding back and you will receive it.

(in reply to servantforuse)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 7:25:23 AM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

If a union budgets a certain amount for campaigns, that amount is spent regardless. I requested a portion of my dues back several times. CWA still spent millions with no oversight. By the way. The current president of CWA sits on the board of the DNC. Who's watching who ?

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 8:43:40 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Got to love the Roberts court. Probably be the single most destructive legacy of GWB. Hopefully scalia will buy some agricultural land soon and we can get a justice who doesn't think this is a good idea.

Got to love those left wingers wishing death on those they disagree with....

Better than the right wingers who are actually killing the people they disagree with.

(in reply to luckydawg)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 8:53:16 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Sir, a corporation does not bleed- can not go to jail- is not a human and is not a person - simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Corporations are not human- thus have no constitutional rights. Absolute Bull shit.

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't be accountable for taxes, lawsuits, civil liberties, or any other right or responsibility? If a corporation is not protected by the Constitution, then why should they be subject to other laws and regulations?

Just sayin...

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 8:57:47 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

A corporation is a legal, not a natural, person - as such it exists only in law and as such it may be subjected to whatever laws are thought fit to enact to govern its existence, since it only exists under those laws. Absent those laws it ceases to be.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 8:58:02 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

In fact, Thadius, the reason for a corporation is already to shield it from personal liability.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 8:59:24 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Sir, a corporation does not bleed- can not go to jail- is not a human and is not a person - simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Corporations are not human- thus have no constitutional rights. Absolute Bull shit.

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't be accountable for taxes, lawsuits, civil liberties, or any other right or responsibility? If a corporation is not protected by the Constitution, then why should they be subject to other laws and regulations?

Just sayin...

In short because that is the basis under which they were incorporated.

More fully a corporation is a legal fiction created by the government to provide certain benefits to the owners of a business, limit of liability primarily. Such an entity is not a person and therefore does not receive the rights of a person. What rights and responsibilities it has should be spelled out in the law that creates them. They certainly have no recourse to the individual rights granted by the US Constitution. That 5 SCOTUS justices have twisted themselves into knots finding a way to turn a legal fiction into a person is one of the lowest points of US history.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 9:31:20 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

So what limits should be in place on the opinions or speech of a corporation? Where do we set the lines? Which types of corporations should such limits apply to? Are those limits going to be based on gross or net receipts, or possibly based on the sector?

I completely understand the desire to try and keep corps (US and international) out of the purchasing a seat for the candidate they feel will best suit their bottom lines or agendas. I further understand the arguments from the other side about not limiting any political speech.

For the record, I wrestle with both of these issues on a much smaller basis as I have to worry about what I say or handout and how it may harm my incorporated church's tax exempt status. I know it's a different issue but the effect is still the same. My speech, and the speech of my corporation are limited based on laws passed by Congress, which is why these cases are of interest to me.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 9:34:08 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Thadius,

Well, what was wrong with the limits we had already passed into law?

And that stood in some form since 1907?

We've already answered those questions.

Tim

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 9:42:55 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Its very simple Thadius - the CEO of a corporation can say what he pleases and donate what he pleases of his personal monies, to any campaign or party - just the same as any other citizen. He may frame his views and make his donations on any grounds he sees fit, to any end he sees fit.

But a corporation is not a natural person with a right to vote. If it has no vote, then how can it be right for it to otherwise participate in the process? And it can have no vote, because it doesnt exist in reality but only as a legal entity. A corporation has no mind and therefore cannot form an opinion nor express one, and therefore cannot be said to have mental capacity to vote, even if one considers it to have such a right in theory.

I also have no vote. On the reasoning here, this should not and does not prevent me from taking part - as far more than an observer and commentator - in the process of elections in the US. All I need to do is set up a front company somewhere in the US and then use my considerable wealth (yeah. right) to exercise a greater influence on policy making than you or any other private citizen has.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 9:51:26 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Sir, a corporation does not bleed- can not go to jail- is not a human and is not a person - simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Corporations are not human- thus have no constitutional rights. Absolute Bull shit.

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't be accountable for taxes, lawsuits, civil liberties, or any other right or responsibility? If a corporation is not protected by the Constitution, then why should they be subject to other laws and regulations?

Just sayin...

What I am saying is that the state needs to start pulling corporate charters. A thing can never be equal to a human...EVER.

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 9:51:44 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

Tim,

I suppose the only thing that was wrong with the limits that were in place, is how they affected the actions of that group that wanted to release the movie last cycle. Should the limit be on when or how much is spent?

I agree with the point you made about a corp or group monopolizing a particular market or group of markets, however I am not sure that a complete 30 day ban or limit is the answer. Something definitely needs to be done to balance the scales so that individuals have an oppurtunity to speak their minds or not speak their minds. The only way to accomplish something like that would be via refferendums, as I don't believe Congress is capable of passing gas if they went on an all bean diet.

By the way, shouldn't you or I also be allowed the same access to the White House as the head of SEIU or other corps? It ain't gonna happen, but illustrates another flaw with the current system.

Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 9:54:32 AM

pyroaquatic

Posts: 1535
Joined: 12/4/2006
From: Pyroaquatica
Status: offline

I'm just waiting for the fallout.

All it is going to take to really screw things up is three major natural/man made disasters this year and we will really be hurting. Unless of course you are already prepared for such things.

_____________________________

You are what your deep, driving desire is.
As your desire is, so is your will.
As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destiny.
-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV.4.5

(in reply to housesub4you)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 10:01:44 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Hi Thadius,

Yeah, and if we can use work for political purposes, I should teach classes this year about whom they should elect, grading them on their knowledge of the proper candidates' achievements and goals, right? And since teachers can buy stuff for class w/o sales tax, backers can funnel their money through me and we'll get them all the campaign stuff they need. [Before someone jumps on the liberal bias thing, incidentally, not a one of my students could tell you a thing about my political/social views--that's neither my job nor my place.]

I'd love to see libel laws and truth in advertising restrictions apply to campaign ads. That would never pass muster with the Supreme Court, and it's probably effectively unenforceable anyway, but it sure would speak to one main root of the problem.

Tim

(in reply to Thadius)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 10:05:50 AM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Its very simple Thadius - the CEO of a corporation can say what he pleases and donate what he pleases of his personal monies, to any campaign or party - just the same as any other citizen. He may frame his views and make his donations on any grounds he sees fit, to any end he sees fit.

But a corporation is not a natural person with a right to vote. If it has no vote, then how can it be right for it to otherwise participate in the process? And it can have no vote, because it doesnt exist in reality but only as a legal entity. A corporation has no mind and therefore cannot form an opinion nor express one, and therefore cannot be said to have mental capacity to vote, even if one considers it to have such a right in theory.

I also have no vote. On the reasoning here, this should not and does not prevent me from taking part - as far more than an observer and commentator - in the process of elections in the US. All I need to do is set up a front company somewhere in the US and then use my considerable wealth (yeah. right) to exercise a greater influence on policy making than you or any other private citizen has.

E

The only flaw with that argument is the current situation with the government also controlling what a corp can pay certain executives. This is where it starts to cross into the grey area.

I do understand your premise, and agree with much of it. Front companies (with national and international backers) already participate in that way. Be it hiring lobbyists, setting up PACs, 527s, or donating massive ammounts of money via individual donations through employee names (real or fictional).

Let's even look at the individual side of the coin. If by some stroke of luck I win the lottery later this year, I am limited in how much I can donate to any individual candidate. As a private citizen I cannot donate what I want to a particular federal candidate, or even to oppose a candidate. Is this a good or bad thing? Some would suggest that it is a good thing because then I wouldn't be drowning out the voice of poor old Jack who makes minimum wage. Others would suggest that this definitely violates my 1st Ammendment right to free speech. I guess that would leave the option of setting up a corp or PAC.

It is just a confusing way to go about things, and the tax laws and campaign finance laws need to be simplified and updated to include modern technology.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Welcome to the United Corporation Of States - 1/22/2010 10:06:29 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Also to be considered is that the assets of a corporation belong to the corporation, not to its officers. As such its officers may not use those assets for any purpose other than the interests of the corporation, according to its particular rules and constitution.

It may then be argued that the officers act correctly in the interests of the company in using the assets to secure a more favourable business environment by lobbying and donating to campaigns in favour of this end. It may equally be argued that should such an opportunity exist to increase shareholder value by such actions, then the officers will have failed in their duty if they do not take such actions.

This argument entirely bypasses the very solid point founded on the fact that a corporation is not a natural person. Instead it has the corporation and its officers acting not in a political way per se, but in a practical business-like way to increase shareholder value, which is the purpose of its existence and the nature of their duty. It also bypasses the whole freedom of expression argument in a like manner, reducing the matter to one of investment in policies more likely to aid the profit making activity.

In this it would seem the only way to combat corporate interests may be to enact legislation which amends the nature of corporations such that their primary purpose is maintained - the growth of shareholder value - but they are forbidden to lobby for and donate towards governmental policies in their favour, which are the exclusive right of the people to determine. This however brings us back to the point that some seem to view a legal person as a natural person.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 40