the wealthiest presidents

[Rune]

The revolution was a fight for our English constitutional rights which the colonists believed were being trampled on. It included such perceived abuses as direct taxation, restrictions on free movement, violations of property rights, restrictions on trade and commerce, loss of right to a fair jury trial, and so forth. Blaming the East India Company is pretty fucking retarded.

Admittedly I should have said "the first incident" as opposed to "the very basis", however, you were the last I would have thought of as "least observant". You deny collusion between The English East India Company (along with it's partner corporation The Dutch East India Company) and King George III?

In fact, that the East India Company, the first multinational corporation comprised the first acts of fascism and the Corporation was granted the rights ordinarily and previously only held by government, such as the right to maintain armies, to make war or peace, to establish colonies and rule them.

These very effects were without doubt central to the concerns of the founding fathers, and main reason for their disdain of as well as restraint of corporate power.

Furthermore, many of the reasons you suggest for revolution were direct results of actions by or legislation promulgated by or for the Corporation, so you know I am right.

 

[Rune]

What bullshit....just WHAT CORPORATE POWERS were the founders in fear of in 1776....??? The Newspapers, the local stables, or was it Big John's 2 cow dairy farm ?

Already did retard duty this morning Bravo.
Save your incredulity and ignorance for someone else, OR, do some research before you open your blubbering chasm. Remember Bravo, Google is your friend.

OR read my post above to see just a select few corporate powers at the time of the American Revolution, and why thinkers would be afraid of such.

 

[Rune]

But when its all said and done...its the people with the capital and foresight to risk their wealth on what may or may not turn out to be successful....
Its the Carnegie's, Rockefeller's, Vanderbilt's, J.P. Morgan's of the world that built this country, like it or not.....not the English or Irish immigrants, they came because of
the opportunity's created by the rich....only pinheads insist on keeping alive the class war and Marxist bullshit from 200 years ago...

Bravo, why? Does the koolaid taste that fucking good?
All the entrepreneurs you mentioned were simply the most famous, the most successful of hundreds if not thousands of competitors who ALL built the country, not just the few who AMASSED the most capital during the operation of their enterprises, not vice versa as you would have it.

Idiot, being robber barons created the capital, the capital did not create the robber barons.

 

[NOVA]

The revolution was a fight for our English constitutional rights which the colonists believed were being trampled on. It included such perceived abuses as direct taxation, restrictions on free movement, violations of property rights, restrictions on trade and commerce, loss of right to a fair jury trial, and so forth. Blaming the East India Company is pretty fucking retarded.

Already did retard duty this morning Bravo.
Save your incredulity and ignorance for someone else, OR, do some research before you open your blubbering chasm. Remember Bravo, Google is your friend.

OR read my post above to see just a select few corporate powers at the time of the American Revolution, and why thinkers would be afraid of such.

The point was...The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments do not explicitly mention corporations, at all.....these documents are the backbone of the creation
of the country and for the most part limit the power of the gov. and not the citizens to control the gov.

 

[NOVA]

Bravo, why? Does the koolaid taste that fucking good?
All the entrepreneurs you mentioned were simply the most famous, the most successful of hundreds if not thousands of competitors who ALL built the country, not just the few who AMASSED the most capital during the operation of their enterprises, not vice versa as you would have it.

Idiot, being robber barons created the capital, the capital did not create the robber barons.

All the entrepreneurs you mentioned were simply the most famous, the most successful of hundreds if not thousands of competitors who ALL built the country.....

No shit Charlie Chan....you didn't think I was gonna list every entrepreneur that used their capital and foresight to build the nation in one post did you?

The point is made and though you think you didn't agree with it, in reality, you did....
I'll even include the Kennedy wealth gained through boot-legging, stock-market shenanigans and ties with Frank Costello, that helped.

 

[Rune]

The point was...The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments do not explicitly mention corporations, at all.....these documents are the backbone of the creation
of the country and for the most part limit the power of the gov. and not the citizens to control the gov.

Again, idiot, they revolted against international corporate power being brought to bear against them at a time when corporations had all the power of government and them some. Just because 3-D can't make the connection as to who the revolution was really against, you can't make the connection that such corporations even existed, that their existence was unnecessary, unethical, or dangerous in any way.
Neither of your mental limitations are my problem.

 

[NOVA]

Again, idiot, they revolted against international corporate power being brought to bear against them at a time when corporations had all the power of government and them some. Just because 3-D can't make the connection as to who the revolution was really against, you can't make the connection that such corporations even existed, that their existence was unnecessary, unethical, or dangerous in any way.
Neither of your mental limitations are my problem.

So you, being a typical moron, think the Revolution was between the American Colonies and some 'international corporate power' .....?

It REALLY wasn't against the British Empire for independence, it was against some international corporation over tea taxes ...is that your story ?

How lame.

 

[Airstrip One]

Admittedly I should have said "the first incident" as opposed to "the very basis", however, you were the last I would have thought of as "least observant". You deny collusion between The English East India Company (along with it's partner corporation The Dutch East India Company) and King George III?

In fact, that the East India Company, the first multinational corporation comprised the first acts of fascism and the Corporation was granted the rights ordinarily and previously only held by government, such as the right to maintain armies, to make war or peace, to establish colonies and rule them.

These very effects were without doubt central to the concerns of the founding fathers, and main reason for their disdain of as well as restraint of corporate power.

Furthermore, many of the reasons you suggest for revolution were direct results of actions by or legislation promulgated by or for the Corporation, so you know I am right.

English corporations at the time were typically exclusive monopolistic charters, such as the Virginia Company of London and Massachusetts Bay Colony. There were corporations equal to the EIC that operated in the same manner, such as the Musgrove Company that operated in Russia.

The problem wasn't with the company. The problem was with the Tea Act. Tea had been taxed under the Townsend Acts, along with indigo, glass, and a few other items. The Townsend duties were repealed in response to protests, but the duty on tea was kept in place. Parliament then passed the Tea Act allowing the EIC to sell tax free in the colonies. That was the problem American colonists had - they felt all of the duties should have been repealed, and they didn't like Parliament offering a bailout to the EIC utilizing an unpopular tax and at the expense of competing companies who would be taxed.

 

[Rune]

So you, being a typical moron, think the Revolution was between the American Colonies and some 'international corporate power' .....?

It REALLY wasn't against the British Empire for independence, it was against some international corporation over tea taxes ...is that your story ?

How lame.

Yeah, pretty much. Bearing in mind that the EIC had a large and powerful lobby in Parliament, that it's shareholders were Lords and other members of parliament, and that the specific acts the colonists found unreasonable were passed as a result of the EIC lobby.

Perhaps this will help you understand what really happened Bravs,

The Boston Tea Party (initially referred to by John Adams as "the Destruction of the Tea in Boston"[SUP][2][/SUP]) was a political protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, on December 16, 1773. Disguised as American Indians, the demonstrators destroyed the entire supply of tea sent by the East India Company in defiance of the American boycott of tea carrying a tax the Americans had not authorized. They boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into Boston Harbor, ruining the tea. The British government responded harshly and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and other political protests such as the Tea Party movement after 2010 explicitly refer to it.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation," that is, be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain.
The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, or Intolerable Acts, which, among other provisions, ended local self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce. Colonists up and down the Thirteen Colonies in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

 

[Rune]

English corporations at the time were typically exclusive monopolistic charters, such as the Virginia Company of London and Massachusetts Bay Colony. There were corporations equal to the EIC that operated in the same manner, such as the Musgrove Company that operated in Russia.

The problem wasn't with the company. The problem was with the Tea Act. Tea had been taxed under the Townsend Acts, along with indigo, glass, and a few other items. The Townsend duties were repealed in response to protests, but the duty on tea was kept in place. Parliament then passed the Tea Act allowing the EIC to sell tax free in the colonies. That was the problem American colonists had - they felt all of the duties should have been repealed, and they didn't like Parliament offering a bailout to the EIC utilizing an unpopular tax and at the expense of competing companies who would be taxed.

Then as now you deny corporations had/have unreasonable control over government. You remember the debate in APP where I proved to you that CU is incorrect? Not sure why you are blind to Fascism.

 

[Airstrip One]

Are we using pretend jurisprudence to claim that CU is unconstitutional, or the actual body of constitutional and case law behind it? Remember, not liking a SCOTUS ruling doesn't equal unconstitutionality. I deny that corporations have "unreasonable" control over government. I think they can have "bad" influence that leads to the government doing bad things, but within a constitutional framework, it's hardly unreasonable.

In the case of the Tea Act, there really wasn't anything wrong with Parliament trying to bail out the East India Company. The manner in which they did so dipped into a matter of contention over Parliament's right to levy direct taxes on the colonists. Viewed as a serious English constitutional issue, the attempt to create a tax exemption on a perceived unconstitutional tax just to benefit one commercial entity was seen as both insulting and corrupt.

If people have a problem with corporations spending money on elections, what it really means is they fear the American public is too stupid to think for itself, and understand the issues, regardless of how much is spent on each one. To this end, the fear is well-placed, as the American public is fucking retarded. However, we do need to sink or swim on our own, because we are a republic with democratic elections. Trying to unconstitutionally limit the rights of corporations is a short-term solution to a serious, long-term problem.

 

[Rune]

Are we using pretend jurisprudence to claim that CU is unconstitutional, or the actual body of constitutional and case law behind it? Remember, not liking a SCOTUS ruling doesn't equal unconstitutionality.

Here is a link to the debate. Refresh your memory
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?41700-Defend-Citizens-United

I deny that corporations have "unreasonable" control over government. I think they can have "bad" influence that leads to the government doing bad things, but within a constitutional framework, it's hardly unreasonable.

How can any corporate control of government be reasonable? Again you seem to forget exactly what you refer to later, democratic elections, and representation. The people gave government the power to rule, the people choose the members of the government, and when the government performs the will of the highest bidder rather than the people, that is unreasonable. Surely you are aware that legislation is now written by lobbyists and just handed off to legislators. What could possibly be reasonable about that?

In the case of the Tea Act, there really wasn't anything wrong with Parliament trying to bail out the East India Company. The manner in which they did so dipped into a matter of contention over Parliament's right to levy direct taxes on the colonists. Viewed as a serious English constitutional issue, the attempt to create a tax exemption on a perceived unconstitutional tax just to benefit one commercial entity was seen as both insulting and corrupt.

Seen as because it was. Read the history of the EIC. By the time of George the III The EIC had become in it's then 160 years of existence an actual part of the government, yet was held for profit privately. Fascism, the very thing we rebelled against, whether you recognize it or not.

If people have a problem with corporations spending money on elections, what it really means is they fear the American public is too stupid to think for itself, and understand the issues, regardless of how much is spent on each one.

No. What it really means is that again, foreign and multinational corporations can influence American politics, under the guise that corporations are people (they are not) and money is speech (it is not).

Show where in the constitution foreign entities are welcomed to guide America's trajectory. You can't, because they are not, in fact (as you know) the document was written exactly to prevent such occurrence.

To this end, the fear is well-placed, as the American public is fucking retarded. However, we do need to sink or swim on our own, because we are a republic with democratic elections. Trying to unconstitutionally limit the rights of corporations is a short-term solution to a serious, long-term problem.

No, we need to follow the Founder's intent as closely as possible, hence the very existence of the SCOTUS. Their intent was clear, A representative republic, with democratic elections, not an oligarchy, an aristocracy, and especially not what we are quickly becoming, a fascist totalitarian government.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

dude millionaires are not automatically bad people .

the ones who think being millionaires makes them better than all other Americans are he problem.

You know the ones who own your party and pay it to cheat in elections

right, wealthy republicans bad, wealthy democrats good. you're such a tool

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah.
Vote for billionaire republicans instead.

did I say that?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

(yes, STY, you really are an idiot to support Citizens United, it proves that despite your best rhetoric you are more of a conservative than a libertarian).

you continue to prove yourself a moron. my claim that CU is not some nation killing decision does not mean I support it. CU is easy to ignore through education, unless you're too apathetic.

 

[Rune]

you continue to prove yourself a moron. my claim that CU is not some nation killing decision does not mean I support it. CU is easy to ignore through education, unless you're too apathetic.

Sure it could be ignored by you or any other critical thinker. Supposedly being such a person, how does it not occur to you that the vast majority of americans are not critical thinkers?

 

[Rune]

did I say that?

let's see, there are two candidates, one is a democrat who you revile Desh for voting for. Do I really need to spell this out for you?

 

[Airstrip One]

Here is a link to the debate. Refresh your memory
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?41700-Defend-Citizens-United
How can any corporate control of government be reasonable? Again you seem to forget exactly what you refer to later, democratic elections, and representation. The people gave government the power to rule, the people choose the members of the government, and when the government performs the will of the highest bidder rather than the people, that is unreasonable. Surely you are aware that legislation is now written by lobbyists and just handed off to legislators. What could possibly be reasonable about that? Seen as because it was. Read the history of the EIC. By the time of George the III The EIC had become in it's then 160 years of existence an actual part of the government, yet was held for profit privately. Fascism, the very thing we rebelled against, whether you recognize it or not. No. What it really means is that again, foreign and multinational corporations can influence American politics, under the guise that corporations are people (they are not) and money is speech (it is not).

Show where in the constitution foreign entities are welcomed to guide America's trajectory. You can't, because they are not, in fact (as you know) the document was written exactly to prevent such occurrence.

No, we need to follow the Founder's intent as closely as possible, hence the very existence of the SCOTUS. Their intent was clear, A representative republic, with democratic elections, not an oligarchy, an aristocracy, and especially not what we are quickly becoming, a fascist totalitarian government.

Influence of one kind is no more a measure of control than influence of any other kind. You will note that the Founders never denounced the manner in which the English government conducted business with the EIC, because they really didn't care. They only cared when it intruded upon a political fight that the colonists were having with Parliament about its constitutional authority to levy direct taxes on items such as legal documents (i.e. Stamp Act), sugar/molasses, tea, spices, paints, glassware, and so forth.

 

[Airstrip One]

Also, Rune, your thread is meaningless when placed next to the SCOTUS text of the majority opinion for CU.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But when its all said and done...its the people with the capital and foresight to risk their wealth on what may or may not turn out to be successful....
Its the Carnegie's, Rockefeller's, Vanderbilt's, J.P. Morgan's of the world that built this country, like it or not.....not the English or Irish immigrants, they came because of
the opportunity's created by the rich....only pinheads insist on keeping alive the class war and Marxist bullshit from 200 years ago...

Hey if you want to sacrifice all your productive energies to make someone else wealthy while you live on a pittance....more power to you. If you think that there is a limit to greed and that those with power and wealth will share that equitably from the kindness of their heart without conflict...then you deserve to be poor! LOL