RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications

RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 7:37:02 AM)
to register a US corporation online in ten minutes as a non US citizen - $89-00 to have more influence on the US electoral process than most US citizens - priceless E

rulemylife -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 7:37:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Watch the whole film. It's an order [8D] . Exploring your dominant side? [sm=mistress.gif]

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 7:38:04 AM)
scratch this post....brain fart LOL

kittinSol -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 7:41:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Watch the whole film. It's an order [8D] . Exploring your dominant side? [sm=mistress.gif] You bring that out in me.

LadyEllen -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 7:54:50 AM)
OK, I've registered my company in Delaware. Now then, which party is offering the best deal in return for my investment I wonder? Just what can I get for a half million pounds? E

willbeurdaddy -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 9:09:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/26/2010 7:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. whats that supposed to mean? How would the dissolution of corporations dry up capital? That does not make any sense

SeekingAZ -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 12:04:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, so this is how the secret handshake goes............(scribbling notes like a motherfucker here)......... LOL Ron what good does it do to post the course of remedy to slaves who think they are free? Ok, can someone translate shitfaced yoda speak for me please ?

SeekingAZ -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 12:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. whats that supposed to mean? How would the dissolution of corporations dry up capital? That does not make any sense And that question is proof that the public education system of the United States has devolved to nothing but a public paid propaganda outlet of the left. Assuming of course you attended public schools in the United States. If you recently became a citizen the exam was too easy. If you went to private school your parents should demand their money back. And don't forget, if you're Conservative you're supposed to vote on Tuesday if you're liberal you're supposed to vote on Wednesday.

SeekingAZ -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 12:14:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen OK, I've registered my company in Delaware. Now then, which party is offering the best deal in return for my investment I wonder? Just what can I get for a half million pounds? E If you're silly enough to convert that to dollars and wait a couple years it won't buy you bloody much.

DarkSteven -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 4:10:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. FDD, you replied to a nonsensical Brain post with one of your own. 1. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no limit on corporate liability. They can escape them through bankruptcy, but that is an option available to individuals as well. 2. Corporations produce value. I'm not sure what you mean by "aggregating capital". 3. Brain's point was that corporations should have complete liability for their actions. Your point was that they shouldn't. Since they do, and things ain't gonna change soon, both arguments are moot.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 5:37:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. FDD, you replied to a nonsensical Brain post with one of your own. 1. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no limit on corporate liability. They can escape them through bankruptcy, but that is an option available to individuals as well. 2. Corporations produce value. I'm not sure what you mean by "aggregating capital". 3. Brain's point was that corporations should have complete liability for their actions. Your point was that they shouldn't. Since they do, and things ain't gonna change soon, both arguments are moot. actually corporations produce nothing and are incapable of producing anything what so ever. people create "everything".

DarkSteven -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 6:26:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne actually corporations produce nothing and are incapable of producing anything what so ever. people create "everything". Let me try that again. Corporations marshal productive resources to produce value. Better?

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 7:18:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne actually corporations produce nothing and are incapable of producing anything what so ever. people create "everything". Let me try that again. Corporations marshal productive resources to produce value. Better? No totally not better! A corporation is nothing more than a "fictitious name" to give it standing in legal land as a singular entity. It refers to a "body politic" or group of people who do business as a group under that fictitious name. If you remove the people there is only the ens legis or fiction. A corporation can do nothing but the people in the corporation are the corpus for the corporation. So it gives us a condition where a body politic or fictitious body that can put nothing into the system is given the rights of a real body who are the only bodies that can put value into the system. So there is a distinction on that and a few other basis's. Dead (of no substance) fiction with the same "political" power as the live body that created them.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 9:22:11 AM)
bummer to late to edit :( a. "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and, b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities: c. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity"", Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 now there is one of these out there that is the wrong quote, I think this is the correct one. aint that a kick in the teeth?

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 10:34:51 AM)
See, here's the thing about your posts. I actually agree with the position that declaring corporations as people for first amendment purposes is an aberration. However, Steven's point is accurate--you ignored it to go back to redeclaring your position. Corporations (fine, those people working under the legal umbrella of the corporation name) do in fact produce goods. A side issue, yes, but correct. Then, you go find yourself some law quotes verifying that governments, as umbrella terms for the people, interact with corporations, "artificial persons," but then the necessity of that interaction. It's a separate issue, and not one helping your case. And that's when I happen to agree with you on the bottom line point.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 5:12:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. whats that supposed to mean? How would the dissolution of corporations dry up capital? That does not make any sense ROFL. I see you understand business very well. Here is a hypothetical ...I assume you at least know what that means.... in a world without limited liability. You are an investor. You receive a prospectus from Pharmavations, Inc. a drug company that has developed a breakthrough anti-depression drug via venture capital that has been thoroughly tested and approved by the FDA. It is now going public and looking for expansion and marketing capital. They provide a link to their TV ad in the prospectus. At the end of the ad they give the standard precautions: "Use of any drug has potential side effects. Pharmajoy has shown rare side effects including suicide, compulsive behavior such as gambling and overeating, loss of sleep.....blah blah blah" And the SEC in this alternative universe requires another disclaimer in the prospectus. "Stock ownership in any company entails certain risks, including the potential for lawsuits against individual shareholders that extend beyond their investment in the company and up to their entire net worth." And you remember the barrage of "Bad Drug Lawyers" ads on TV that encourage anybody who has suffered from any side effect of any drug to call and see if they have a potential claim. There is no business that is immune from lawsuits, no matter how carefully and honestly run. No one with a bit of sense would invest in a company where they didnt personally control its operations and risks if the reach of lawsuits went beyond their investment in the company. Voila, no aggregation of capital.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 5:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. FDD, you replied to a nonsensical Brain post with one of your own. 1. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no limit on corporate liability. They can escape them through bankruptcy, but that is an option available to individuals as well. 2. Corporations produce value. I'm not sure what you mean by "aggregating capital". 3. Brain's point was that corporations should have complete liability for their actions. Your point was that they shouldn't. Since they do, and things ain't gonna change soon, both arguments are moot. We are not talking about the liability of the corporations themselves, we are talking about "limited liability", ie that shareholders are protected from liability for the actions of the corporation beyond their investment. That is the primary benefit of incorporation. You dont understand what I mean by "aggregating capital" when in your next post you talk about "marshalling productive resources"? What do you think gives them that "marshalling" ability? CAPITAL.

DarkSteven -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/27/2010 7:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You dont understand what I mean by "aggregating capital" when in your next post you talk about "marshalling productive resources"? What do you think gives them that "marshalling" ability? CAPITAL. Okay. So you are referring to the ability of a corporation to raise capital through the sale of stock. To answer your other point - I had not realized that "limited' liability referred to the firewall set up between its own assets and those of its investors. I would hope that Brain simply made that same error as well. Investors stand to lose their investment, but no more. However, although company officers are generally held immune from lawsuits related to their actions on the job, note that they can be held liable in egregious cases. Piercing the corporate veil and insider trading are two cases where they act for themselves, not for the company, and are liable for that reason. And there have been officers held liable for committing fraud while on the job.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS - Corporations are People! What are the expected ramifications (1/30/2010 12:43:28 PM)
quote: Voila, no aggregation of capital. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Brain People do not have limited liability so that must be taken away pronto so corporations have unlimited liability like people. Good idea. Dry up all of the means of aggregating capital, so we can devolve to the stone age. whats that supposed to mean? How would the dissolution of corporations dry up capital? That does not make any sense ROFL. I see you understand business very well. Here is a hypothetical ...I assume you at least know what that means.... in a world without limited liability. You are an investor. You receive a prospectus from Pharmavations, Inc. a drug company that has developed a breakthrough anti-depression drug via venture capital that has been thoroughly tested and approved by the FDA. It is now going public and looking for expansion and marketing capital. They provide a link to their TV ad in the prospectus. At the end of the ad they give the standard precautions: "Use of any drug has potential side effects. Pharmajoy has shown rare side effects including suicide, compulsive behavior such as gambling and overeating, loss of sleep.....blah blah blah" And the SEC in this alternative universe requires another disclaimer in the prospectus. "Stock ownership in any company entails certain risks, including the potential for lawsuits against individual shareholders that extend beyond their investment in the company and up to their entire net worth." And you remember the barrage of "Bad Drug Lawyers" ads on TV that encourage anybody who has suffered from any side effect of any drug to call and see if they have a potential claim. There is no business that is immune from lawsuits, no matter how carefully and honestly run. No one with a bit of sense would invest in a company where they didnt personally control its operations and risks if the reach of lawsuits went beyond their investment in the company. Voila, no aggregation of capital. seems like you just did a full circle here.... You claim capital would dry up? Capital is the basis of each person within or that hold stock in the company. So on one hand you claim aggregate capital will dry up and then show there is no aggregation of capital and what you must show here is that the individual would have less capital than the corp body which of course is impossible since the corp body is the sum of the individuals with each individuals capital brought to the body. Even if the corp is dissolved each individual if they did not get fucked as they usually do, would walk away with and hold the same amount of capital. So how can you argue the capital dries up? if it does where does it go?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125