APP - what constitutes a foreign corporation

[midcan5]

We should all become corporations, form our lives into corporations, that way we are not responsible for anything. Foreign, local, anywhere don't matter.

Individual freedom means nothing if you don't incorporate, join us today. Rape pillage and plunder and then change your name, or ask for money, or say it was someone else's fault. It was that darn free market, jeez, we didn't know it was toxic, oh well sorry you're dead, we'll try harder next time. Those darn Chinese! Lead you say? Asbestos you say! Go bankrupt and start over clean, well not clean but you get the picture.


An Open Letter to President Bush
We the Corporations ... By Ralph Nader

Dear President Bush:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02162008.html

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008 By Robert Weissman
http://www.counterpunch.org/weissman12292008.html

"As dollars for journalists vanish and the numbers of reporters decline, another creepy phenomenon is occurring. Surviving reporters are expected to be experts on everything. They are expected to write about every issue as if they know what they are talking about.

Another interesting phenomenon in the newsroom is the old refrain: "Get the other side of the story." When a reporter writes an article quoting only politicians or corporations, an editor doesn't say, "Get the other side of the story," or "Get the grassroots side of the story." Yet, when a reporter writes from the point of view of the people, the grassroots people, editors say, "Get the other side of the story." Too often, this means publishing the lies of politicians and corporations. It is censorship, silencing the voices of the people. These editors, too, are the darlings of the energy companies, because their paper publishes what the corporation or politicians say, with little regard for truth. Corporations and elected politicians are considered credible, while the people on the street, or the people on the land, are not considered credible. It is stale snobbery. More often than not, being a print or radio journalist who is actually out there on a news story means financial disaster these days. We're not just talking low pay; we're talking complete and total financial disaster."

http://www.counterpunch.org/norrell10012009.html

 

[Litmus]

Great post.

And we see here on the board how conveniently the globalist fascist corporatist logic is destroyed with actual open debate.


of course now, all the corporate money flowing in will price regular voices of people out of the market. but this is by design, and the fascists hiding behind the constitution, perverting it's very meaning, know it.

 

[Litmus]

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.

I do know what Im talking about. Fascism is the melding of corporate and government power. WHether it's business taking over government or government taking over business is irrelevant.

 

[Litmus]

Good luck sucks at thinking and has been jizzed all over by me.

 

[Litmus]

This issue really shows who is a fascist traitor to the nation and who is not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hey Mudcan, why are you still posting letters to President Bush? Last I checked, former presidents do not have a lot of political power in Washington. Should we all forget Bush is gone and we ousted his entire Congress and gave Democrats complete control of Washington?

I just wandered in here to see if you pinheads had decided which way we're going... Do foreigners HAVE Constitutional rights, or NOT? Do we deny Constitutional rights to foreigners, or allow them? This is something we really need to settle on one way or the other, because you can't have a system that cherry-picks which constitutional rights are granted to which groups of foreign people. It either has to apply to all or none, and either all of it applies or none of it applies, you don't get to mix and match.

If you are going to disallow "foreign corporations" the right of free speech, you can't allow free speech for "foreign activists" like George Soros. If you are going to disallow "foreign political speech" you have to also disallow "trial by jury" and all the other constitutional rights as well. So, which is it going to be?

 

[Damocles]

Hey Mudcan, why are you still posting letters to President Bush? Last I checked, former presidents do not have a lot of political power in Washington. Should we all forget Bush is gone and we ousted his entire Congress and gave Democrats complete control of Washington?

I just wandered in here to see if you pinheads had decided which way we're going... Do foreigners HAVE Constitutional rights, or NOT? Do we deny Constitutional rights to foreigners, or allow them? This is something we really need to settle on one way or the other, because you can't have a system that cherry-picks which constitutional rights are granted to which groups of foreign people. It either has to apply to all or none, and either all of it applies or none of it applies, you don't get to mix and match.

If you are going to disallow "foreign corporations" the right of free speech, you can't allow free speech for "foreign activists" like George Soros. If you are going to disallow "foreign political speech" you have to also disallow "trial by jury" and all the other constitutional rights as well. So, which is it going to be?

We're supposed to forget that and believe that the traditional Ds (Blue Dogs) are actually republicans so they can blame republicans for what they couldn't pass with a supermajority.

 

[Litmus]

If you are going to disallow "foreign political speech" you have to also disallow "trial by jury" and all the other constitutional rights as well. So, which is it going to be?

We do get to mix and match. Actually we can disallow foreign political speech yet still maintain their right to trial by jury.

Only in your oddly and idiotically oriented worldview is this impossible.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We do get to mix and match. Actually we can disallow foreign political speech yet still maintain their right to trial by jury.

Only in your oddly and idiotically oriented worldview is this impossible.

So in your view, you see nothing wrong with parsing the Constitution and allowing certain rights to be granted to certain foreign people, while other rights are denied to other foreign people? And WHO becomes the "Bestower of Freedom" under your system of government, AssClown?

 

[Litmus]

So in your view, you see nothing wrong with parsing the Constitution and allowing certain rights to be granted to certain foreign people, while other rights are denied to other foreign people? And WHO becomes the "Bestower of Freedom" under your system of government, AssClown?

We just destroyed the constitution bailing out fascists, everyone thought that was oik. this is ok too. the chaos of the bailout didn't phase you, this shouldn't either.

the law will be simple. No political expenditures by any corporation with one iota of foreign ownership. Period. It's simple, and is in no way hastening the destruction of freedom. You can say they're people, but that's fucking stupid.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We just destroyed the constitution bailing out fascists, everyone thought that was oik. this is ok too. the chaos of the bailout didn't phase you, this shouldn't either.

the law will be simple. No political expenditures by any corporation with one iota of foreign ownership. Period. It's simple, and is in no way hastening the destruction of freedom. You can say they're people, but that's fucking stupid.

We are talking about the Constitution applying to foreigners, not Congressional approval of bailouts for US corporations. Two entirely different subjects!

If you are going to DENY the 1st Amendment rights to foreigners, you have to also deny them 4th Amendment rights! If you are going to allow foreigners 4th Amendment rights, even though they were captured on foreign soil, then you would have to also allow 1st Amendment rights to foreigners who own corporations on American soil. It is convoluted to argue otherwise.

What is simple is the principle... we are either going to say the Constitution applies to foreigners and foreign entities, or it doesn't!
PICK ONE!

 

[Litmus]

We are talking about the Constitution applying to foreigners, not Congressional approval of bailouts for US corporations. Two entirely different subjects!

But we're also talking about your hysteria about the constitution being violated. The bailout talk was to illustrate your hypocrisy in this matter.

If you are going to DENY the 1st Amendment rights to foreigners, you have to also deny them 4th Amendment rights!

No I don't.

If you are going to allow foreigners 4th Amendment rights, even though they were captured on foreign soil, then you would have to also allow 1st Amendment rights to foreigners who own corporations on American soil. It is convoluted to argue otherwise.

You forget Im not a lib. enemy combatants deserve no contitutional rights.

What is simple is the principle... we are either going to say the Constitution applies to foreigners and foreign entities, or it doesn't!
PICK ONE!

You're creating this false dichotomy. The truth is that we can pick and choose.

I jizzed on you six ways to sunday.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're creating this false dichotomy. The truth is that we can pick and choose.

There is nothing 'false' about the dichotomy, it is a perfectly legitimate one! No, we CAN'T pick and choose which Constitutional rights apply to which groups! Are you THAT fucking insane? Have you COMPLETELY lost all grasp of reality?

 

[Litmus]

There is nothing 'false' about the dichotomy, it is a perfectly legitimate one! No, we CAN'T pick and choose which Constitutional rights apply to which groups! Are you THAT fucking insane? Have you COMPLETELY lost all grasp of reality?

Yes we can.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes we can.

Not according to the Constitution.

 

[Litmus]

Not according to the Constitution.

Yes according to the constitution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes according to the constitution.

No, I am sorry, and it doesn't matter how many times you want to childishly refute that with a "No, you're wrong--jizzed in your face" rebuttal, you haven't supported your view, and you can't. The SCOTUS ruled a LONG time ago, the Constitution applies in WHOLE, not PART! You simply can't parse out the rights you don't like and grant the ones you do! It's just not allowed! Can you get through your concrete cranial mass?

 

[Litmus]

No, I am sorry, and it doesn't matter how many times you want to childishly refute that with a "No, you're wrong--jizzed in your face" rebuttal, you haven't supported your view, and you can't. The SCOTUS ruled a LONG time ago, the Constitution applies in WHOLE, not PART! You simply can't parse out the rights you don't like and grant the ones you do! It's just not allowed! Can you get through your concrete cranial mass?

I believe the constitution has a process for constitutional amendments. So. We can. In fact.

I just jizzed in your face.

Prisoners can't vote ya know. Is that unconstitutional?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I believe the constitution has a process for constitutional amendments. So. We can. In fact.

I just jizzed in your face.

Prisoners can't vote ya know. Is that unconstitutional?

LMAO, prisoners have been convicted in a court for violating the law, and as a punishment, sacrifice their rights of freedom.

LMAOoo.. Constitutional Amendments take ratification by 3/4 of the states, and I doubt you would have ONE state who would vote to abolish the 1st Amendment. But if you think that is the way to go, don't let me stop you!

 

[Litmus]

LMAO, prisoners have been convicted in a court for violating the law, and as a punishment, sacrifice their rights of freedom.

Right. So we do pick and choose.

LMAOoo.. Constitutional Amendments take ratification by 3/4 of the states, and I doubt you would have ONE state who would vote to abolish the 1st Amendment. But if you think that is the way to go, don't let me stop you!

it's not abolishing the first amendment, it's just modulating who it applies to, like in the prisoner instance.

You're jizz covered, yet again.