Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Extremist Left attack on the Constitution

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4461769]Is everything 'manned' or staffed by people, considered people?

    Are The New York Jets a person?

    Does a John Deere tractor become a person once someone starts 'manning' it?

    And do you think it's good for the United States that the next Presidential race will likely see both candidates spending about a billion dollars each to get elected?[/QUOTE]

    If people raise mone to campaigh - fine.
    The Jets are owned by a person.
    Corporations are owned by groups of people. The ownership can decide corporate policy.
    A tractor is not a person. But the driver CAN express his opinion. A tractor is also not a corporation.

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461826]Hate to say this Para, but I think you need to go back to school and take a Business 101 class and rehash the benefits/restrictions/legallity of Corporations and Individuals and how they operate in businesss. TLDR: Yes, Microsoft can and does sign contracts, own land and commit crimes. All rather basic in the ways a Corporation operates, and why they're so common, partly due to the protections it offers it's owners and employees in terms of liabillity.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps evidence that I didn't major in a business field and never took a business class. :P

    I'll defer to the business and legal gurus in terms of non-living entity personhood status, but I still think Citizens United has terrible implications for the country's political system and would support less sweeping legislation to counter its effects.

  3. #23
    This proposal is classic overreach. We have a percieved problem in that the Citizens United case has unleashed the "Super PAC" which many would agree is a bad thing. There are reasons for limits to political donations and such and the CU ruling is troubling. That said this proposal has far reaching "unintended consequences". It is no different then the well intentioned community reinvestment act which led to the housing collapse. Or thousands of "well intentioned" regulations that lead to reduced jobs and business activity.

    There was a bill recently whose intention was to regulate IP on the internet. If passed the law would have crushed small businesses operating websites and would have led to an avalanche of lawsuits.

    For me its more proof (as if more proof was necessary) that government is best when it gets out of the way and allows the free markets to work their magic.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,194
    If corporations want the same right as an individual that's cool.

    But I also want the same rights as a cooperation. Like being able to do wrong and illegal stuff and then absolve myself from blame by merely changing my name.

    [B]"Sorry boss. I don't know why that stuff didn't get done last week. You'd have to ask PK Inc. I'm just PK2 Inc....I can't speak for that other guy."[/B]

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461826]Giving money to a party or candidate is not speaking. It's a rather basic position I take, non-individuals providing non-tracked money in exchange for political power is corruption, not speech. Speaking is speech. Volunteering your own personal time is speech. [/quote]


    I understand your position, i just think it's inconsistent.

    First, we agree, money is not speech. However money empowers and facilitates speech. Corporations fund political entities in order to make their message more powerful. the money is being used for "speech". That's why i gave the example of electricity. My television cannot speak, but it is used by others to speak to me.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461826]
    Handing a large check to the player of your choice is not, IMO, speech. If it were (as you claim), I could legally hand a Judge a few tens of thousands of dolalrs at a court proceeding, and call that simply "speaking" to the judge to make my "speech" on my charges more powerful, right? Of course not.

    Because money is inherantly differeant than speaking.
    [/quote]
    I don't like your bribery analogy because the purpose of bribing the judge is to change the outcome of the court case. I'm sure you could work speech in there, but it seems rather convoluted.

    A better example is how if i were on trial for murder, i could not pay someone go around threatening to kill any juror that found against me. That is indeed a limitation of my freedom of speech. I am also not allowed to personal (no money involved) threaten to kill juror's who find against me. This is another limitation of my freedom of speech. If you feel there is a need to put limits on a corporations ability to speak with it's wallet (i don't), then fine, legislate it. Make a constitutional change if you have to. Don't pretend the money doesn't facilitate speech. Politically it is the [b]primary[/b] facilitator of speech, and that is exactly why you don't like it.


    [QUOTE=Warfish;4461826]
    I don't disagree, but it's naive to claim the system in place was not put there specificly by the two parties in power the past few hundreds years, to keep the two parties in power.

    One only need ask, why is there no third option in the UNited States, the single most diverse Country, in population and ideology, in the World? Are you telling me it's all on us, that the entire U.S. wants a/b only? And that the rules, the system, the laws, have no place in why the two-party system retains it's hold?

    As I said, that seems quite naive to me, and you've never struck me as naive Axil.

    [/QUOTE]

    No Warfish, i don't believe that the entire united states wants A or B. I believe the vast majority of the united states is uninformed, unintelligent or apathetic. I also believe that overwhelming majority of the united states would rather Attack A or B than build C. I believe come November the majority of the votes cast will be cast against Romney or Obama, rather than for anyone.

    I do not believe that corporate money out of politics will severely damage the two party system. For that matter, i find it dubious (naive even?) to believe you can realistically take corporate money out of politics. At best, you limit it's impact by driving the money through complex channels making it difficult to track. You pat yourself on the back for the one or two times you manage to catch a corporation misbehaving and slap them with a fine.

    I wish it were true that America had been corrupted by the evil politicians. I wish we were trapped in a downward spiral despite the best intentions of the "average joe" I wish that third party existed that would unite people and pull the country back on track. I don't believe it though.. i think it might even be a little naive :D. No i believe that the average American doesn't care, or cares about the wrong thing, and that until he sees his country begin to burn around him, he'll be content to cheer for the R or D he voted for.

    Incidentally, i think the closest thing to a silver bullet for the two party system is a federal runoff election.. It wouldn't be enough in and of itself, but it would do a hell of a lot more than taking out corporate dollars.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    [QUOTE=Axil;4461929]No Warfish, i don't believe that the entire united states wants A or B. I believe the vast majority of the united states is uninformed, unintelligent or apathetic. I also believe that overwhelming majority of the united states would rather Attack A or B than build C. I believe come November the majority of the votes cast will be cast against Romney or Obama, rather than for anyone.

    I do not believe that corporate money out of politics will severely damage the two party system. For that matter, i find it dubious (naive even?) to believe you can realistically take corporate money out of politics. At best, you limit it's impact by driving the money through complex channels making it difficult to track. You pat yourself on the back for the one or two times you manage to catch a corporation misbehaving and slap them with a fine.

    I wish it were true that America had been corrupted by the evil politicians. I wish we were trapped in a downward spiral despite the best intentions of the "average joe" I wish that third party existed that would unite people and pull the country back on track. I don't believe it though.. i think it might even be a little naive :D. No i believe that the average American doesn't care, or cares about the wrong thing, and that until he sees his country begin to burn around him, he'll be content to cheer for the R or D he voted for.

    Incidentally, i think the closest thing to a silver bullet for the two party system is a federal runoff election.. It wouldn't be enough in and of itself, but it would do a hell of a lot more than taking out corporate dollars.[/QUOTE]

    In my mind, the primary goal of attempts to remove direct corporate money from politics would be to reduce corruption not to move away from a two party system.

    In my opinion, you are correct about the ultimate failure being with the voters themselves. They hold the absolute power in forming and defining our government.

    But let's not pretend that corporations are not a huge factor in shaping and directing the country's politics. It's impossible to take corporate money out of politics for the simple fact that the almost fully corporate owned media heavily shapes and directs political races, candidates, arguments, and views.

    In regard to making campaign contributions "difficult to track," what could possibly be worse than the current practice of anonymous donations to Super PACs?

  7. #27
    My guess is if we taxed and regulated corporations less they would have less interest in buying influence and more interest in investing in capital improvements and people.

    Corporations don't have the right to vote for their representatives but representatives sure seem to want to regulate and tax them.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=parafly;4461839]I acknowledge that my understanding of the legal implications is far inferior to your understanding. It is, after all, your expertise.

    In general, I think a corporation and any other non-living entity should be treated as the property of an individual(s), not a person itself.[/QUOTE]

    The entire purpose of the corporate form is to avoid that result - to create a self-contained entity, ownable by multiple individuals, that can take legal actions, hold legal title to property, and have an existence distinct from the existence of the owners. It's an indispensable element of the economy. A "personhood" amendment is akin to using a nuclear weapon to swat a fly

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4461979]The entire purpose of the corporate form is to avoid that result - to create a self-contained entity, ownable by multiple individuals, that can take legal actions, hold legal title to property, and have an existence distinct from the existence of the owners. It's an indispensable element of the economy. A "personhood" amendment is akin to using a nuclear weapon to swat a fly[/QUOTE]

    Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to give me a better understanding of the details and implications.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,771
    i love these threads

    they always expose the duplicity [B]and[/B] idiocy of the left and their fellow left leaning "independent" travelers

    to that contra band of brothers-

    free speech especially political ads and super-especially right wing political ads funded by private, voluntarily contributed $ - bad
    (pay no mind to b. hussein's 1B+ war chest behind the iron curtain)

    left wing / union speech partially funded by the gov't via taxpayer $ - good

    anything that truly preserves voters rights like voter id - bad

    ***

    i had lotsa laughs powered by reddy kilowatt-that electricity analogy and associated hallucinations above were definitely fueled by an alternative energy source of a 3rd kind

    uh, an ad [B]is[/B] speech. If I and 100 or 1000, 10,000 of people, and they tell two friends, and they tell two others, an' we all chip in to pay for a certain message or message to be electronically broadcast and disseminated more widely than me yelling on a soapbox on a street corner that's my/our business and my/our 1st amendment right, too bad for you "liberty" lovers
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 05-07-2012 at 04:40 PM.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4462018]
    i had lotsa laughs powered by reddy kilowatt-that electricity analogy and associated hallucinations above were definitely fueled by an alternative energy source of a 3rd kind

    [/quote]

    I think i was the only one to use the "electricity analogy"... and i came to the same conclusion you did. Or am i not understanding the criticism correctly?

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4461823]The last time I checked people work for corporations. What about [B]unions[/B] they tell the members who to vote for.[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/01/union-membership-300x248.jpg[/IMG]

    Unions do not have the clout that they used to have. Look at Wisconsin. Obama has been pretty quiet. It's a racket. Just saying.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=parafly;4462011]Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to give me a better understanding of the details and implications.[/QUOTE]

    Any time. For what it's worth, I'm not against regulating corporate donations to the political process. I actually agree with warfish on this - an amendment establishing that money is not speech, and allowing the reasonable regulation of campaign donations and funding, is something I can get behind. But a personhood amendment is not the way to reverse citizens united.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4462089]Any time. For what it's worth, I'm not against regulating corporate donations to the political process. I actually agree with warfish on this - an amendment establishing that money is not speech, and allowing the reasonable regulation of campaign donations and funding, is something I can get behind. But a personhood amendment is not the way to reverse citizens united.[/QUOTE]

    I can definitely get on board with what you are suggesting.

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,771
    [QUOTE=Axil;4462022]I think i was the only one to use the "electricity analogy"... and i came to the same conclusion you did. Or am i not understanding the criticism correctly?[/QUOTE]

    The criticism is of the usual gang of crypto-liberals here hypocritically looking to place limits on politicking they don't like.

    Electrictity has nothing to do with it, if B. Hussein's actual accomplishments, 1B warchest and free MSM/Entertainment industry cheerleading isn't enough to put defeat Ronmey's SuperPAC it's just too bad.

    You might think people are stupid, you're right they were uncritical dopes to put in 0, they're also smart enough to turn over the House with a complete MSM embargo as well.

    Ever so libertarian-ly I could care less what group pays how much for how many ads from contributions, even from the likes of the odious storm troppers aka Occupukes (although it's the likes of the Soros, Hollyweirdos, Chicoms ands other assorted fruits nuts and flakes who would be paying for them) - better they should advertise their "cause" then defecate their narco-vegan detritus on my ATM as a calling card

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,892
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4462026][IMG]http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/01/union-membership-300x248.jpg[/IMG]

    Unions do not have the clout that they used to have. Look at Wisconsin. Obama has been pretty quiet. It's a racket. Just saying.[/QUOTE]

    lol - teachers' unions in NY prove you wrong.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4462026][IMG]http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files/2011/01/union-membership-300x248.jpg[/IMG]

    Unions do not have the clout that they used to have. Look at Wisconsin. Obama has been pretty quiet. It's a racket. Just saying.[/QUOTE]

    Where economics allow consumers to buy elsewhere...union participation is down, no question. Look at the auto industry expanding in the south. (BMW and Toyota for example).

    Public employee unions ...spare us.

  18. #38
    The moonbattedness continues...

    Advocating the adoption of the new Constitution drafted in Philadelphia, the authors of “The Federalist Papers” mocked the “imbecility” of the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation.

    Nearly 225 years later, critics across the spectrum call the American political system dysfunctional, even pathological. What they don’t mention, though, is[B] the role of the Constitution itself in generating the pathology.[/B]

    :rotfl:
    [SIZE="1"]holy crap these people are bonkers!
    [/SIZE]

    Ignore, for discussion’s sake, the clauses that helped to entrench chattel slavery until it was eliminated by a brutal Civil War. Begin with the Senate and its assignment of equal voting power to California and Wyoming; Vermont and Texas; New York and North Dakota. Consider that, although a majority of Americans since World War II have registered opposition to the Electoral College, we will participate this year in yet another election that “battleground states” will dominate while the three largest states will be largely ignored.

    Our vaunted system of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” — a legacy of the founders’ mistrust of “factions” — means that we rarely have anything that can truly be described as a “government.” Save for those rare instances when one party has hefty control over four branches — the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court — gridlock threatens. Elections are increasingly meaningless, at least in terms of producing results commensurate with the challenges facing the country.

    But if one must choose the worst single part of the Constitution, it is surely Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world. The last truly significant constitutional change was the 22nd Amendment, added in 1951, to limit presidents to two terms. The near impossibility of amending the national Constitution not only prevents needed reforms; it also makes discussion seem futile and generates a complacent denial that there is anything to be concerned about.

    [url]http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/our-imbecilic-constitution/[/url]

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4461774]Para - yes. Absent "personhood" status, businesses can't contract, can't own property, can't be free from warantless searches and seizures, etc.

    Do any of those sound like good outcomes?

    Do any of those - let alone all of those - sound like a fair tradeoff for eliminating corporate campaign contributions?[/QUOTE]

    Why does it have to be a tradeoff? Why can't a Constitutional Amendment be constructed that defines businesses and unions in a way that strips their personhood status (thus eliminating ability to make campaign contributions and be taxed), but maintains their ability to form contracts, own property, etc., etc.?

    By the way, none of this would affect the ability of individuals of any corporation or union to donate political monies. I'd much prefer if the Board of Directors and CEO of the huge corporation I work for donate to candidates out of their own deep pockets than from company funds if they see a potential benefit to the company. Especially since those benefits to the company will personally affect them far greater than it would me or any other average employee. More often than not, that budgeted money goes to candidates or causes I oppose, and I have no say in how it is spent. But if Joe CEO wants to give millions, be my guest. Just don't do it with money we could otherwise use to hire some help or that pass on to our customers.

    And on the flip side of the coin, losing that aspect of personhood eliminates the government's ability to tax the corporation, only the incomes that actual persons associated with it take out of it. Would go a long way in helping our jobs problem.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 05-31-2012 at 10:08 AM.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4461843]A tractor is also not a corporation.[/QUOTE]

    SRSLY? :confused:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us