Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

supream cUrt gives libs 1 more blow

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 3:26:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
After brown victory which is a introduction for the amarican retaliation and revolution that we will expiriance next midterm election . The libs got one more blow from the supream curt...! Now handing over a victory to capitalists who are the bigest enemies of libs..! Curt ruled that buisiness owners have the same right as communist unions to support political organizations..!
This will allow capitalists to defand themselves from libs who use the gov as chineese agents to panalize manufacturing who don't want to sellout our workers for china...!

Here is what newsmax reports about it for the story:
Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system. The ruling will transform the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in this year's congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 4:01:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 3:47:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
I heard this today. Made me sad inside.

So you're against free speech?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 4:33:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 4:01:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 3:47:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
I heard this today. Made me sad inside.

So you're against free speech?

Totally.
http://www.w3bbo.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 4:34:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 4:01:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 3:47:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
I heard this today. Made me sad inside.

So you're against free speech?

I'm actually against buying political seats and votes. If you define that as "free speech" then I'm against 100% free speech.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:27:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ore if in your opinion contributions is amoral ,then you have the same opinion about labor unions contributions..! However the last election the libs like obama and clinton who where loded with cash where was it coming from .? Well not from american companies..! Is this the selution...? Its obvious that even if you believe contributions is amoral ,its still batter if our corporations are doing it then if china is doing it..!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:33:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 4:34:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 4:01:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 3:47:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
I heard this today. Made me sad inside.

So you're against free speech?

I'm actually against buying political seats and votes. If you define that as "free speech" then I'm against 100% free speech.

Nobody buys political seats and votes (Unless they are Illinois democrats.).

What they do buy is advertising for the candidates of the seats-- i.e., in essence, they buy a means to speak their political opinions. This occurs whether or not this ruling happens, except that without this ruling some people are discriminated against, and only the privileged parties can speak in this manner.

If you support public funding of elections, you seek to discriminate against even more people, as only government officials are permitted to buy such advertising-- except they don't do it with their own money, they force other people to buy it for them. (which is kind of like forcing students to say the Pledge of Allegiance, except it costs money).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't. The idea that corporations deserve the same rights as individual citizens is one of the most preposterous in the history of ideas. There is no deep political philosophy, nor need there be, behind understanding corporations=/=autonomous responsible moral agents.
Don't I take care of them all?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:37:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't.
I'd like to see you speak with zero money,.

The idea that corporations deserve the same rights as individual citizens is one of the most preposterous in the history of ideas.
A corporation is nothing more and nothing less than multiple individuals who agree on something and choose to cooperate. The only way to claim that the corporation cannot exercise the effects of rights is to claim that none of the individuals involved in the corporation has those rights, since rights do transfer (If I have the right to speak, it follows I have the right to say someone else speaks for me, provided they accept any responsibilities that may be involved in the bargain).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:38:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And by zero money I mean zero any material of monetary value. You can be rich without being liquid :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:42:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, your computer isn't an autonomous entity. Neither is your mouth. Does it follow that all autonomous entities can have freedom of speech and yet, since your mouth and your computer aren't autonomous entities, I can control whether they say something?

Or are those YOUR property, and does impinging on speech they create mean impinging on your speech?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:46:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A mix of a court and a c***
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:48:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I thought this was pretty sad. I like the Canadian system, even if it is pretty restrictive (especially for my party) - maximum of $1,100 per year, per person, no corporate or union donations. In the US, the donation would max. donation would need to be a lot higher just by virtue of the offices being fought for over populations 6-7x larger than Canada's representative districts, but its really helped out with the corruption in Canada, which was pretty bad before, with entire campaigns being run on the money from the Desmarais family.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't.
I'd like to see you speak with zero money,.

In our context, you can't really, unfortunately. A good reason to keep the unlimited pockets of corporations out of direct contact with politics as much as possible.

The idea that corporations deserve the same rights as individual citizens is one of the most preposterous in the history of ideas.
A corporation is nothing more and nothing less than multiple individuals who agree on something and choose to cooperate. The only way to claim that the corporation cannot exercise the effects of rights is to claim that none of the individuals involved in the corporation has those rights, since rights do transfer (If I have the right to speak, it follows I have the right to say someone else speaks for me, provided they accept any responsibilities that may be involved in the bargain).

There's the rub. What responsibility do corporations take? What country is Chevron a citizen of? By your logic, corporations would be allowed to vote. And certainly no collection of individuals, no matter what they agree upon, equals in the eyes of any authority a separate person with separate rights - they (the cooperating members of the collective) each have them individually. Until now, maybe.
Don't I take care of them all?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 5:59:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:33:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 4:34:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 4:01:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 3:47:06 PM, OreEle wrote:
I heard this today. Made me sad inside.

So you're against free speech?

I'm actually against buying political seats and votes. If you define that as "free speech" then I'm against 100% free speech.

Nobody buys political seats and votes (Unless they are Illinois democrats.).

What they do buy is advertising for the candidates of the seats-- i.e., in essence, they buy a means to speak their political opinions. This occurs whether or not this ruling happens, except that without this ruling some people are discriminated against, and only the privileged parties can speak in this manner.

If you support public funding of elections, you seek to discriminate against even more people, as only government officials are permitted to buy such advertising-- except they don't do it with their own money, they force other people to buy it for them. (which is kind of like forcing students to say the Pledge of Allegiance, except it costs money).

When the person with the most money gets the most face time and that in and of itself increases the politician's odds, regardless of their message. (since there is a strong correlation between the amount of money and the success of the campaign, not 100% of the time, but a very large %). And then it is no longer free speech, but pay for speech (you only get a voice if you have the money).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:28:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:42:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Btw, your computer isn't an autonomous entity. Neither is your mouth. Does it follow that all autonomous entities can have freedom of speech and yet, since your mouth and your computer aren't autonomous entities, I can control whether they say something?


Or are those YOUR property, and does impinging on speech they create mean impinging on your speech?

My mouth and computers are extensions of my singular consciousness, something corporations are notoriously lacking in any way you slice it. That consciousness includes plenty of other things that differentiate corporations from individuals, like conscience. They don't create speech apart from that singular consciousness (for the vast majority of persons, anyway). Putting tape over my mouth, so to speak, would be violating my free speech. Taking my computer away would be simply theft, but I see no fs violation as the computer never created anything of its own volition, whereas my mouth is literally a part of my person. I am no free speech expert, I freely admit, but I think your analogy fails. In any case, it is a sad day for American democracy.
Also, you have to agree that corporations get all the perks of personhood but none of the drawbacks.
Don't I take care of them all?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 10:15:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 5:49:09 PM, brittwaller wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't.
I'd like to see you speak with zero money,.

In our context, you can't really, unfortunately.
No, in ANY context, you can't. Plundering won't change that, it just changes who has the money.

A good reason to keep the unlimited pockets of corporations out of direct contact with politics as much as possible.
No one has unlimited pockets, and the closest thing to it is a taxing government, not a corporation. Keep that out of politics first.


The idea that corporations deserve the same rights as individual citizens is one of the most preposterous in the history of ideas.
A corporation is nothing more and nothing less than multiple individuals who agree on something and choose to cooperate. The only way to claim that the corporation cannot exercise the effects of rights is to claim that none of the individuals involved in the corporation has those rights, since rights do transfer (If I have the right to speak, it follows I have the right to say someone else speaks for me, provided they accept any responsibilities that may be involved in the bargain).

There's the rub. What responsibility do corporations take?
The one the shareholders asked them to.

What country is Chevron a citizen of?
Irrelevant. Citizenship isn't the responsibility, it isn't government owned-- Chevron is instead subject to it's shareholder's pockets

By your logic, corporations would be allowed to vote.
Well, remember I don't really believe in democracy. But if I did, what's wrong with the shareholders of a corporation pooling their votes?

And certainly no collection of individuals, no matter what they agree upon, equals in the eyes of any authority a separate person with separate rights - they (the cooperating members of the collective) each have them individually. Until now, maybe.
You'll notice I never said they were "separate." That's your strawman and at best a useful fiction perpetuated because the government you so dearly love has limited ability to conceive of what it actually is-- people cooperating to exercise their rights in a manner they have all agreed to. A corporation exercises its shareholder's rights, not "Separate" ones. It is the shareholders who have the right to attempt spread their message and who have chosen to pool it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 10:20:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago

When the person with the most money gets the most face time and that in and of itself increases the politician's odds, regardless of their message. (since there is a strong correlation between the amount of money and the success of the campaign, not 100% of the time, but a very large %).
You COMPLETELY ignored my point about alternatives I see.

And then it is no longer free speech, but pay for speech
That is one of the stupidest fallacies of equivocation I've ever seen.

My mouth and computers are extensions of my singular consciousness, something corporations are notoriously lacking in any way you slice it.
Computers exist that have multiple users. As does the internet. The internet is an expression of many consciousnesses who happen to agree their computers ought to share information. Goodbye free speech on the internet I guess.

Putting tape over my mouth, so to speak, would be violating my free speech. Taking my computer away would be simply theft, but I see no fs violation as the computer never created anything of its own volition,
Neither did your mouth, so that's an ad hoc fallacy. You speak through your computer. If you are forbidden to use your property to speak, you are forbidden to speak.

whereas my mouth is literally a part of my person.
No. Your person is your mind. Your body is mere servant.

In any case, it is a sad day for American democracy.
I am gleeful anytime democrats are sad. After all, they are the ones who so frequently violate my rights.

Also, you have to agree that corporations get all the perks of personhood but none of the drawbacks.
What the hell are you talking about?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 12:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 10:15:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:49:09 PM, brittwaller wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't.
I'd like to see you speak with zero money,.

In our context, you can't really, unfortunately.
No, in ANY context, you can't. Plundering won't change that, it just changes who has the money.

Exactly. The playing field is already biased, why make it more so? So that either only the elitest of the elite or the corporate- sponsored candidates have a chance at being elected. Not that politics isn't ruled in the main NOW by those groups, but actual people still have a slim shot at accomplishing something, sometimes.

A good reason to keep the unlimited pockets of corporations out of direct contact with politics as much as possible.
No one has unlimited pockets, and the closest thing to it is a taxing government, not a corporation. Keep that out of politics first.

Problem is you can't. Isn't our political system based on government? I have to work from work from what is, not from what I wish were so. And relative to the ordinary citizen, a corporation does have unlimited pockets. Hyperbole.

The idea that corporations deserve the same rights as individual citizens is one of the most preposterous in the history of ideas.
A corporation is nothing more and nothing less than multiple individuals who agree on something and choose to cooperate. The only way to claim that the corporation cannot exercise the effects of rights is to claim that none of the individuals involved in the corporation has those rights, since rights do transfer (If I have the right to speak, it follows I have the right to say someone else speaks for me, provided they accept any responsibilities that may be involved in the bargain).

There's the rub. What responsibility do corporations take?
The one the shareholders asked them to. In other words, make money and nothing else.

What country is Chevron a citizen of?
Irrelevant. Citizenship isn't the responsibility, it isn't government owned-- Chevron is instead subject to it's shareholder's pockets

But citizenship is essentially the responsibility in question here. When the interests of two nations conflict, or their laws, or ethics, which standard is going to be followed? And more likely their shareholder's pockets are subject to the whims of their BoD and "the market."
By your logic, corporations would be allowed to vote.
Well, remember I don't really believe in democracy. But if I did, what's wrong with the shareholders of a corporation pooling their votes?

Everyone already has a vote.
And certainly no collection of individuals, no matter what they agree upon, equals in the eyes of any authority a separate person with separate rights - they (the cooperating members of the collective) each have them individually. Until now, maybe.
You'll notice I never said they were "separate." That's your strawman and at best a useful fiction perpetuated because the government you so dearly love has limited ability to conceive of what it actually is-- people cooperating to exercise their rights in a manner they have all agreed to. A corporation exercises its shareholder's rights, not "Separate" ones. It is the shareholders who have the right to attempt spread their message and who have chosen to pool it.
There were no quotes, I was extendeding the argument. But if that is my strawman, then my "love" of our government is yours. I don't necessarily like the government, I just happen to like them better then Chevron and GM, and I have more (however minutely so) say in its operation.
The larger point is, of course, that persons have rights because they are people - not artificial constructions of people intended to aid in the consolidation of money and ease of making profit.
Don't I take care of them all?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 12:26:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 12:15:00 PM, brittwaller wrote:
At 1/22/2010 10:15:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:49:09 PM, brittwaller wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't.
I'd like to see you speak with zero money,.

In our context, you can't really, unfortunately.
No, in ANY context, you can't. Plundering won't change that, it just changes who has the money.

Exactly. The playing field is already biased, why make it more so? So that either only the elitest of the elite or the corporate- sponsored candidates have a chance at being elected. Not that politics isn't ruled in the main NOW by those groups, but actual people still have a slim shot at accomplishing something, sometimes.
You're saying these aren't actual people?
And the majority are not the elitist of the elite. The majority still oppresses the productive plenty. If corporations were so all powerful, taxes would be lower :)


A good reason to keep the unlimited pockets of corporations out of direct contact with politics as much as possible.
No one has unlimited pockets, and the closest thing to it is a taxing government, not a corporation. Keep that out of politics first.

Problem is you can't. Isn't our political system based on government?
It was a joke. I know you can't, all the more reason to have an influence limiting its power.

I have to work from work from what is, not from what I wish were so. And relative to the ordinary citizen, a corporation does have unlimited pockets. Hyperbole.
Relative to the corporation, the ordinary citizen does have unlimited voters.


What country is Chevron a citizen of?
Irrelevant. Citizenship isn't the responsibility, it isn't government owned-- Chevron is instead subject to it's shareholder's pockets

But citizenship is essentially the responsibility in question here.
No, it isn't.

When the interests of two nations conflict, or their laws, or ethics, which standard is going to be followed?
In a corporation? The interest of the corporation. What else do you propose,?

By your logic, corporations would be allowed to vote.
Well, remember I don't really believe in democracy. But if I did, what's wrong with the shareholders of a corporation pooling their votes?

Everyone already has a vote.
And your point? To pool their votes they'd have to give up an independent one, but if they find it in their interest why stop them? Either you believe that using their vote in what manner is their right or you don't. I don't, but I don't claim to care about democacy.

There were no quotes, I was extendeding the argument. But if that is my strawman, then my "love" of our government is yours. I don't necessarily like the government, I just happen to like them better then Chevron and GM
Chevron and GM would both have collapsed by now without government aid. They are essentially tools of government policy.

and I have more (however minutely so) say in its operation.
Nonsense. I can choose whether to participate in Chevron or GM. I cannot choose whether to participate in government. Same with you. Your role is what most concerns you.

The larger point is, of course, that persons have rights because they are people - not artificial constructions of people intended to aid in the consolidation of money and ease of making profit.
If persons have rights, then persons may use them however they wish-- including in cooperating (creating a corporation).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 12:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Brit how are you so convinced that the communists union will give preferance to the everyday guy.? And the private sector buisiness owner will not like the small guy with the pickup truck.?

How is puting unions in charge of ellections more fair then when americans who own companies have the same ability..?
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 12:50:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 12:32:30 PM, banker wrote:
Brit how are you so convinced that the communists union will give preferance to the everyday guy.? And the private sector buisiness owner will not like the small guy with the pickup truck.?

How is puting unions in charge of ellections more fair then when americans who own companies have the same ability..?

banker yu have a gud point especialy since thos commie ethiest libs r out to get us...!

unions are evil big companies are good...!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2010 10:00:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 12:26:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/22/2010 12:15:00 PM, brittwaller wrote:
At 1/22/2010 10:15:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:49:09 PM, brittwaller wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:37:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 5:34:33 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Spare us the "corporations are people, too" and "money is speech" shtick, plz R_R, because they aren't and it isn't.
I'd like to see you speak with zero money,.

In our context, you can't really, unfortunately.
No, in ANY context, you can't. Plundering won't change that, it just changes who has the money.

Exactly. The playing field is already biased, why make it more so? So that either only the elitest of the elite or the corporate- sponsored candidates have a chance at being elected. Not that politics isn't ruled in the main NOW by those groups, but actual people still have a slim shot at accomplishing something, sometimes.
You're saying these aren't actual people?
haha
And the majority are not the elitist of the elite. The majority still oppresses the productive plenty. If corporations were so all powerful, taxes would be lower :)
I am not saying the majority are the elite - quite the opposite. I take the next sentence to mean that only a minority are actually productive, correct?


A good reason to keep the unlimited pockets of corporations out of direct contact with politics as much as possible.
No one has unlimited pockets, and the closest thing to it is a taxing government, not a corporation. Keep that out of politics first.

Problem is you can't. Isn't our political system based on government?
It was a joke. I know you can't, all the more reason to have an influence limiting its power.

Eventually there will be no difference between them - every politician will be handpicked by corporations. Instead of semi-representative oligarchy we'll have corporatocracy.

I have to work from work from what is, not from what I wish were so. And relative to the ordinary citizen, a corporation does have unlimited pockets. Hyperbole.
Relative to the corporation, the ordinary citizen does have unlimited voters.

Good.

What country is Chevron a citizen of?
Irrelevant. Citizenship isn't the responsibility, it isn't government owned-- Chevron is instead subject to it's shareholder's pockets.

But citizenship is essentially the responsibility in question here.
No, it isn't.

It is when Chevron starts influencing elections (in larger ways than it already does) with its deep pockets.

When the interests of two nations conflict, or their laws, or ethics, which standard is going to be followed?
In a corporation? The interest of the corporation. What else do you propose?

Oh, I don't know, maybe what is in the best interest of whatever nation it happens to be operating in?
By your logic, corporations would be allowed to vote.
Well, remember I don't really believe in democracy. But if I did, what's wrong with the shareholders of a corporation pooling their votes?

Everyone already has a vote.
And your point? To pool their votes they'd have to give up an independent one, but if they find it in their interest why stop them? Either you believe that using their vote in what manner is their right or you don't. I don't, but I don't claim to care about democacy.

Ok, it isn't anything about pooling votes I am really concerned with. It is the fact that a corporation can spend as much as they like in support of or in opposition to candidates. Any candidate not endorsed or funded by a corporation will be either drowned out or trashed by expensive media campaigns.

There were no quotes, I was extendeding the argument. But if that is my strawman, then my "love" of our government is yours. I don't necessarily like the government, I just happen to like them better then Chevron and GM
Chevron and GM would both have collapsed by now without government aid. They are essentially tools of government policy.

Oh.
and I have more (however minutely so) say in its operation.
Nonsense. I can choose whether to participate in Chevron or GM. I cannot choose whether to participate in government. Same with you. Your role is what most concerns you.

To "participate" in GM I have to be a shareholder; if I cannot afford to be a shareholder, I cannot "choose." We all have a vested interest in government, unlike the various minorites of shareholders that have vested interest in their companies making profits, and the interests of business and states often conflict.

The larger point is, of course, that persons have rights because they are people - not artificial constructions of people intended to aid in the consolidation of money and ease of making profit.
If persons have rights, then persons may use them however they wish-- including in cooperating (creating a corporation).

I don't necessarily mind the creation of corporations, I just don't think they have the same rights as people or should be viewed as such.

Brit how are you so convinced that the communists union will give preferance to the everyday guy.? And the private sector buisiness owner will not like the small guy with the pickup truck.?

I haven't said anything like this. In fact, I haven't said anything about unions. Apply everything I've said about corporations to unions if it makes you feel better.

How is puting unions in charge of ellections more fair then when americans who own companies have the same ability..?

What?
Don't I take care of them all?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2010 1:47:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And the majority are not the elitist of the elite. The majority still oppresses the productive plenty. If corporations were so all powerful, taxes would be lower :)
I am not saying the majority are the elite - quite the opposite. I take the next sentence to mean that only a minority are actually productive, correct?
Productive compared to their consumption? Yes.


Eventually there will be no difference between them - every politician will be handpicked by corporations.
That's been said how long now? And yet Obama is the prez.

]
It is when Chevron starts influencing elections (in larger ways than it already does) with its deep pockets.
Perhaps it would be a concern if elections weren't influencing Chevron first.


When the interests of two nations conflict, or their laws, or ethics, which standard is going to be followed?
In a corporation? The interest of the corporation. What else do you propose?

Oh, I don't know, maybe what is in the best interest of whatever nation it happens to be operating in?
Nations don't have interests. Unlike corporations, they are not made up of volunteers who get together because of shared interests that can be conveniently summed as one.They are made up of nonvolunteers, most of whom are born there, some of whom are only there because they fled from a place they liked even less. Nonvolunteers whose interests do not agree.

Ok, it isn't anything about pooling votes I am really concerned with. It is the fact that a corporation can spend as much as they like in support of or in opposition to candidates.
So can an individual.

Any candidate not endorsed or funded by a corporation will be either drowned out or trashed by expensive media campaigns.
I don't think it's possible to find a candidate that no corporaiton endorses. Corporations do not all agree with each other.

and I have more (however minutely so) say in its operation.
Nonsense. I can choose whether to participate in Chevron or GM. I cannot choose whether to participate in government. Same with you. Your role is what most concerns you.

To "participate" in GM I have to be a shareholder; if I cannot afford to be a shareholder, I cannot "choose."
Oh that's right, you can't choose to enslave them. You have to pay for it to serve you.

the point, however, is that you may opt out at nothing but will. Opting in wasn't supposed to be in that equation.

We all have a vested interest in government
In getting it out of my hair maybe.


I don't necessarily mind the creation of corporations, I just don't think they have the same rights as people or should be viewed as such.
I.e., you don't think people who create corporations have the same rights as people who don't. If people can cooperate, and people have the right to speak, then people have the right to cooperate in speaking.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.