APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

should corporations have the same rights as citizens

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
 
Dixie said:
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
CORPORATIONS = CITIZENS!
Click to expand...

People work at corporations, but that doesn't mean the candidate the ceos want to promote is the one all employees want to.

The employees might actually prefer a candidate which would give them more rights in the workplace.

bottom line: you're a moron.
 
AssHatZombie said:
People work at corporations, but that doesn't mean the candidate the ceos want to promote is the one all employees want to.

The employees might actually prefer a candidate which would give them more rights in the workplace.

bottom line: you're a moron.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Top to bottom, our corporations are our people. It's our jobs, our salaries, our way of living, our future. Corporations are US, the people of the United States of America. If they fail, we fail. What is good for them, is also good for us.

What you are doing, is much the same as Desh is doing, you are projecting class envy, resentment, and hate, toward the CEO's, who you feel hostile toward because they make a lot of money.... or in Desh's case, because they don't look like her! The CEO is only a single individual in a company... the larger the company, the more of US there are!
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't matter. Top to bottom, our corporations are our people. It's our jobs, our salaries, our way of living, our future. Corporations are US, the people of the United States of America. If they fail, we fail. What is good for them, is also good for us.

What you are doing, is much the same as Desh is doing, you are projecting class envy, resentment, and hate, toward the CEO's, who you feel hostile toward because they make a lot of money.... or in Desh's case, because they don't look like her! The CEO is only a single individual in a company... the larger the company, the more of US there are!
Click to expand...

No. You're playing loose with abstractions, blurring the real relationship and pretending they're the same thing.

People work at corporations. It doesn't mean the ceo's wishes represents the will of all his employees.

These tricks work on stupid people, but not on me.

Your thinking is 100% fascist, dangerous, and unamerican.
 
I don't like the poll question...it's too general.

This is a bad ruling. I would like to see candidates have to raise money for campaigns the old fashioned way. I don't think we should have PAC's either. I think if a candidate wishes to run they should create a political fund where "individual donations" can be given. That any donations that look supicious are tied up until cleared up. Let's get ALL special interest out of politics! You cannot have a candidate for the people by the people if he/she is paid for by the union, corporation, or lobby...PERIOD!

I would also like to remove ALL tax exempt status on any organization that does not provide charity relief. That these orgs are regularly audited to ensure compliance.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. You're playing loose with abstractions, blurring the real relationship and pretending they're the same thing.

People work at corporations. It doesn't mean the ceo's wishes represents the will of all his employees.

These tricks work on stupid people, but not on me.

Your thinking is 100% fascist, dangerous, and unamerican.
Click to expand...

LMAO... I am speaking the truth, I can't help that you see it as a blurred abstraction! That's not my fault! People do work at corporations, they run them too! The better the corporation does, the better off the people who work there are!

No one argued that the CEO's views reflect those of all the employees, but one view they all have in common, the better the business does, the better off they are. It takes a really stupid person not to understand that.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I don't like the poll question...it's too general.

This is a bad ruling. I would like to see candidates have to raise money for campaigns the old fashioned way. I don't think we should have PAC's either. I think if a candidate wishes to run they should create a political fund where "individual donations" can be given. That any donations that look supicious are tied up until cleared up. Let's get ALL special interest out of politics! You cannot have a candidate for the people by the people if he/she is paid for by the union, corporation, or lobby...PERIOD!

I would also like to remove ALL tax exempt status on any organization that does not provide charity relief. That these orgs are regularly audited to ensure compliance.
Click to expand...


Since when does making something more rare, make it less important? The more you try to remove financial influence from politics, the more you ultimately exasperate the problem, because financial influence is vital to any campaign. I understand what you are saying, it is essentially what Dick Armey proposed to McCain during CFR.... let's just ban ALL political contributions! I could go for that, but honestly, that will never happen, and even if it did, the "money" people would still find a way to influence politics. It's just the world we live in, and we should just accept that.

In light of that reality, I say... let the money pour! From wherever and whomever... no limits or restrictions on ANY political free speech! Let the chips fall where they may!
 
Dixie said:
Since when does making something more rare, make it less important? The more you try to remove financial influence from politics, the more you ultimately exasperate the problem, because financial influence is vital to any campaign. I understand what you are saying, it is essentially what Dick Armey proposed to McCain during CFR.... let's just ban ALL political contributions! I could go for that, but honestly, that will never happen, and even if it did, the "money" people would still find a way to influence politics. It's just the world we live in, and we should just accept that.

In light of that reality, I say... let the money pour! From wherever and whomever... no limits or restrictions on ANY political free speech! Let the chips fall where they may!
Click to expand...

No. You fascist fucker. Wer'e not just gonna accept it. Take your cynical fascism then go fuck off and die.
 
Dixie said:
LMAO... I am speaking the truth, I can't help that you see it as a blurred abstraction! That's not my fault!
Click to expand...
No. You're being dishonest about the fundamental nature of the relationship.
People are not corporations. People work at corporations.
People do work at corporations, they run them too! The better the corporation does, the better off the people who work there are!
Click to expand...
But it's different people doing the running versus the working, hence the unfair of your disingenous lumping them all together.
No one argued that the CEO's views reflect those of all the employees, but one view they all have in common, the better the business does, the better off they are. It takes a really stupid person not to understand that.
Click to expand...

Not if the new strategy is to elimnate all american workers.



You're just flat dead wrong on your every retarded utterance.
 
I would favor a law that would make eliminating american jobs illegal.

"Oh no", you say, "that will drive away all corporations."

That's just perfect. Let all the traitor fascists leave. We will start all new businesses. nothing is so complicated that we cant' throw out all global players and do it ourselves.

That's the reality.
 
Dixie said:
Since when does making something more rare, make it less important? The more you try to remove financial influence from politics, the more you ultimately exasperate the problem, because financial influence is vital to any campaign. I understand what you are saying, it is essentially what Dick Armey proposed to McCain during CFR.... let's just ban ALL political contributions! I could go for that, but honestly, that will never happen, and even if it did, the "money" people would still find a way to influence politics. It's just the world we live in, and we should just accept that.

In light of that reality, I say... let the money pour! From wherever and whomever... no limits or restrictions on ANY political free speech! Let the chips fall where they may!
Click to expand...

Not quite understanding the direction of your first question?

Your attitude is also one I understand, but I think it is precisely the wrong one; it's the ol' "throw the baby out with the bath water" logic. There is nothing wrong and everything right about reforming government. I am not suggesting banning all contributions, only special interest money from organizations. To create legislation allowing only individual donations is not some impossible ability. As you note there will always be corruption, but the best way to limit it is to get rid of special interest.

Let the vital financial influence in any campaign belong to the people the candiate is representing, not the multi billion dollar org special interest donors.
 
Corporations already do this, they do it through middle women like the BBB. So what changes, maybe we now know why Exxon supports 'trash the environment Ed' for Congress,' maybe not, maybe they still hide in backrooms and dark alleys hoping exploitation gathers a nice smell.

The problem I have with this is power, the individual can only do so much damage, the corporations can really screw up or screw you. Consider our recent financial meltdown for proof positive, now add 'supply side Sallie' and poof, out goes common sense. The Obama administration in contrast to Bush on BPA is an interesting example.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. You're being dishonest about the fundamental nature of the relationship.
People are not corporations. People work at corporations.
Click to expand...

People work at corporation, people run corporations, people are invested in corporations. When corporations prosper, so do the people associated with them.

But it's different people doing the running versus the working, hence the unfair of your disingenous lumping them all together.
Click to expand...

So people who run the corporations do not work for the corporation? That's brilliant, how long did it take you to formulate THAT thought?

Not if the new strategy is to elimnate all american workers.
You're just flat dead wrong on your every retarded utterance.
Click to expand...

I would argue that is precisely the objective of the Socialists! Destroy capitalism, wage war on "evil corporations" until not a soul in this country has a job, and we are all dependent upon the Socialists to take care of us!

I'm not wrong on anything, EVER! Being a Living Legend, you have to be right 100% of the time!
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. You fascist fucker. Wer'e not just gonna accept it. Take your cynical fascism then go fuck off and die.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are going to accept what the SCOTUS rules, you have no choice on that, unless you want to ratify a Constitutional Amendment! ...and it doesn't matter if I go fuck off or die, that will STILL be the case!
 
Yurt said:
dixie, what authority are you using to claim corporations are citizens?
Click to expand...

Common sense. What IS a corporation? Is it not the people who comprise the corporation? Are they not citizens? When we hear pinheads yammering about the "evil corporation" it really just means "the evil people" because corporations ARE people!
 
Ice Dancer said:
Not quite understanding the direction of your first question?

Your attitude is also one I understand, but I think it is precisely the wrong one; it's the ol' "throw the baby out with the bath water" logic. There is nothing wrong and everything right about reforming government. I am not suggesting banning all contributions, only special interest money from organizations. To create legislation allowing only individual donations is not some impossible ability. As you note there will always be corruption, but the best way to limit it is to get rid of special interest.

Let the vital financial influence in any campaign belong to the people the candiate is representing, not the multi billion dollar org special interest donors.
Click to expand...

Well the first question is designed to make you think about your position. Is the act of making money more rare in politics, actually going to make money less important? Of course it won't, it will make what little money they can get, even MORE important and crucial, and the politician even more beholden to the source. You are smart enough to understand, there will always be a loophole... you want to make it where only individuals can contribute... okay, here's $5,000 from the XYZ Corporation for you to donate in your name to the candidate WE support! See how simple that was? And what about The Media? In your idea, do you account for the increased influence the MEDIA will have in telling us about the candidates and issues, now that we've restricted it elsewhere?

As I said, I can see where your idea is wonderful, IF we lived in a perfect world! That is the problem I have with Libertarianism... it all sounds GREAT if the world only worked that way! It doesn't.... simple as that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top