APP - what constitutes a foreign corporation

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
a corporation that does business in the u s of a but has its home office in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in the u s of a but is owned by non-u s of a citizens or by a majority of non-u s of a citizens

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus
 
DonQuixote said:
a corporation that does business in the u s of a but has its home office in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in the u s of a but is owned by non-u s of a citizens or by a majority of non-u s of a citizens

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus
Click to expand...

I thought Eric Holder, the Attorney General, had already determined that foreigners have Constitutional rights. Isn't that the basis and reasoning for bringing the terrorists to NY for trial? Giving them Constitutional rights to due process? So, how can you 'pivot' and argue against rights in the same Constitution to some other foreigner, on that basis? I don't understand this, if we are going to allow foreigners to have the right to a criminal trial, how can we deny foreigners the right to free speech? It seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
 
DonQuixote said:
a corporation that does business in the u s of a but has its home office in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in the u s of a but is owned by non-u s of a citizens or by a majority of non-u s of a citizens

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus
Click to expand...
They should all be prohibited from spending a dime on american elections.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They should all be prohibited from spending a dime on american elections.
Click to expand...

Then foreigners should also not be given Constitutional rights to due process in US courts, or... Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants who aren't American citizens. We need to decide which way we're going here, we simply CAN'T have it BOTH ways... this right, you are entitled to, but this right, you're not entitled to! Either foreigners ARE or ARE NOT entitled to our Constitutional rights... make up your minds which way you want it to be!
 
Dixie said:
Then foreigners should also not be given Constitutional rights to due process in US courts, or... Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants who aren't American citizens. We need to decide which way we're going here, we simply CAN'T have it BOTH ways... this right, you are entitled to, but this right, you're not entitled to! Either foreigners ARE or ARE NOT entitled to our Constitutional rights... make up your minds which way you want it to be!
Click to expand...

No.

Only you suffer from these bizarre sticky logic situations where one thing automatically means something else.

Your internationalist fascism is showing again.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
No.

Only you suffer from these bizarre sticky logic situations where one thing automatically means something else.

Your internationalist fascism is showing again.
Click to expand...

What? Bizarre sticky logic??? You mean CONSISTENCY?

Look, we don't have a Kingdom, where our King can determine which rights to bestow on which people at his personal whim! Maybe that's the America YOU want to live in, and that's fine, it's just NOT the America we currently live in!

Seems to me, if you are going to give constitutional rights and protections to terrorists and illegal immigrants, you can't deny constitutional rights and protections to foreign corporations. I say we pass a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Constitution is only applicable to US Citizens, that's fine by me... it takes care of several other issues as well!
 
IRS regs
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia.

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus
Click to expand...

if a person legally residing in the US who is not a citizen has a right to free speech in the US, then logically also, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the US holds the same right of free speech that a domestic corporation has......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
IRS regs
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia.



if a person legally residing in the US who is not a citizen has a right to free speech in the US, then logically also, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the US holds the same right of free speech that a domestic corporation has......
Click to expand...

wrong.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
IRS regs
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia.



if a person legally residing in the US who is not a citizen has a right to free speech in the US, then logically also, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the US holds the same right of free speech that a domestic corporation has......
Click to expand...
Including unions? You realize it's a sword that cuts both ways?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Im not. but many are. And they should be protected from fascist rhetoric to save the society from fascism.
Click to expand...
Protection from "harmful" ideas is the hallmark of totalitarianism from many different camps, all of which detest freedom, including fascism. People who want to mandate what is or is not allowed for people to hear for ANY reason are on the side of totalitarianism. Do you REALLY want the government determining what rhetoric is "harmful" for you (or anyone else) to hear? What if they decide that any rhetoric that criticizes the federal bank and its fiat money is "harmful" - therefore outlawed to "protect" the people - because it can reduce confidence in the monetary system?

And, do you even know what fascism is? The last thing corporations would want is to make themselves subservient to the state (that is what fascism really is) - therefore corporations are very unlikely to be spouting "fascist" rhetoric.
 
Good Luck said:
Protection from "harmful" ideas is the hallmark of totalitarianism from many different camps, all of which detest freedom, including fascism. People who want to mandate what is or is not allowed for people to hear for ANY reason are on the side of totalitarianism. Do you REALLY want the government determining what rhetoric is "harmful" for you (or anyone else) to hear? What if they decide that any rhetoric that criticizes the federal bank and its fiat money is "harmful" - therefore outlawed to "protect" the people - because it can reduce confidence in the monetary system?

And, do you even know what fascism is? The last thing corporations would want is to make themselves subservient to the state (that is what fascism really is) - therefore corporations are very unlikely to be spouting "fascist" rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Corporations won't be subservient to the state, they will control it.

Fascism is the blending of state and corporate power, regardless of how you perceive who is really in control. It's the same people.



I still support globalist idiot information being freely available if people want to read it, but allowing them unlimited spending to project the corporate agenda into people's minds should be disallowed.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Corporations won't be subservient to the state, they will control it.

Fascism is the blending of state and corporate power, regardless of how you perceive who is really in control. It's the same people.



I still support globalist idiot information being freely available if people want to read it, but allowing them unlimited spending to project the corporate agenda into people's minds should be disallowed.
Click to expand...
I strongly suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about. Fascism is not a "blending" of state and corporate power. Fascism, by definition, is the GOVERNMENT taking dictatorial control of industry - whether it be corporate or a mom & pop business - and making it subservient to the needs of the state. In fact with fascism the government takes dictatorial control of everything. The difference between fascism and socialist totalitarianism and most other types of totalitarianism is ownership of industry - and much of the profits - remains in private hands, though the business owner has little or no say in how they direct their business. If the state decides a factory needs to start making plastic bottles instead of plastic toys, then they start making bottles - or the owners are arrested, usually executed for treason, and someone else buys the place at a discount and retools the factory to make bottles.

Only totalitarians deliberately use fear of the messages of others to demand controlling their ability to speak out as they wish. And on panty-wetting cowardly morons support the idea.
 
Good Luck said:
I strongly suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about. Fascism is not a "blending" of state and corporate power. Fascism, by definition, is the GOVERNMENT taking dictatorial control of industry - whether it be corporate or a mom & pop business - and making it subservient to the needs of the state. In fact with fascism the government takes dictatorial control of everything. The difference between fascism and socialist totalitarianism and most other types of totalitarianism is ownership of industry - and much of the profits - remains in private hands, though the business owner has little or no say in how they direct their business. If the state decides a factory needs to start making plastic bottles instead of plastic toys, then they start making bottles - or the owners are arrested, usually executed for treason, and someone else buys the place at a discount and retools the factory to make bottles.

Only totalitarians deliberately use fear of the messages of others to demand controlling their ability to speak out as they wish. And on panty-wetting cowardly morons support the idea.
Click to expand...

i agree for the most part, but are you actually suggesting that corporations and the state can never blend to create a totalitarian state?

such a notion, is not only plausible, it is a reality, in that, since the corporation does not exist without power from the state, the two must be as one, or at minimum, best friends in order to exist.

azzhattle just believes the worse is already here, though he has no proof.
 
Yurt said:
i agree for the most part, but are you actually suggesting that corporations and the state can never blend to create a totalitarian state?

such a notion, is not only plausible, it is a reality, in that, since the corporation does not exist without power from the state, the two must be as one, or at minimum, best friends in order to exist.

azzhattle just believes the worse is already here, though he has no proof.
Click to expand...
When you can show me that WalMart and Costco are butt buddies behind the curtains, you may have a point. Bringing about better products through the necessity of making yours better than the other guy is but one positive aspect of competition in a capitalist economy. As long as we have reasonable anti-trust laws preventing full blown monopolies from establishing themselves, we will not see the kinds of back-room conspiracy level negotiations and power sharing required to form a totalitarian state from corporatism.

Again, corporations DO have undue influence over the way our government is being run. But the types of influence most detrimental come from areas that do not include corporate ability to plaster us with various forms of rhetoric. Do you honestly think the average registered democrat is going to start voting libertarian because they start seeing all kinds of political commercials coming from Exxon, Walmart, or (gasp!) Haliburton?

Meanwhile, the types of undue influence they do have is not exactly working in harmony toward a commonly conceived goal. Exxon isn't going to willingly powershare a totalitarian government with Conoco, and Walmart is not going powershare with Target. Greed for power (when you're 10X billionaire or more, it's no longer about money) is just that: GREED - and the greedy are not known for their sharing abilities.

And let us not forget that the people in power over these corporations are not stupid men (or women). They fully recognize how they came to achieve what has led them to the power they now hold, and the political background that allowed them to get where they are, and to keep them where they are. It did NOT come from, nor possibly COULD have come from any kind of totalitarian dictatorship. It is good old demonized by the left CAPTIALISM running in a FREE state that have set these people on their seats of economic power. They are NOT so stupid as to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

If we are to survive with the principles of liberty this nation is founded on, then we MUST accept that liberty of some is going to make others uncomfortable. "I do not like what you are saying, but will fight to the death for your right to say it." means everyone, individually, and as groups. Saying to one group of people "you can say what you like about politics" (ie: 527s and the like) then saying to another group "You need to keep the hell away from politics, because you're too rich." is a direct violation of the constitution (14th), as well as spitting on the foundational principles that led to our Bill of Rights in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top