If you could add one amendment to the United States Constitution, what would it be?

[ThunderKiss1965]

What would it be?

LET'S RUMBLE!

Balanced budget Amendment.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

Bet you have no issue with the Unions political contributions and lobbying ?

 

[progressive hunter]

I'd like to give the Constitution some teeth, make it a felony for any public servant to willfully commit any act that openly violates the Constitution.

there is already a law about that,,,its called treason,,,

No. That has nothing to do with what treason is. See Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The correct term for the crime I am describing would be malfeasance. Every public servant swears an oath, above all else, to uphold the Constitution, adn to defend it against all enemies, foreign or domestic. They agree to this, as a condition of their job, and it is a primary duty. Yet our public servants violate this oath, and the Constitution, with impunity,and face no adverse consequences for so doing. They are the very enemies against whom they swore to defend the Constitution.

and yet morons still vote for them,,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There should be an amenment to outlaw socialism and communism. I'll leave the final draft up to a board of American patriots.

Already covered in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[MisterBeale]

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

One most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundations of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

 

[martybegan]

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

One most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundations of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

 

[MisterBeale]

One most things I agree with you.

OTH, there was a ruling in this nation that erroneously extended the corporate person-hood constitutional rights. THIS, is absolutely absurd. Corporate personhood should only be a consideration as far as legal protections in the market place, it SHOULD NOT EXTEND the legal protections of NATURAL RIGHTS to commercial entities, which is the very foundations of this nation. Why does Amazon have the right to bear arms?

This, is why dirigism and fascism have been allowed to fester in both parties, and that awful Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has extended campaign contributions to PACS and companies, interest groups, etc. justifying them as a form of free speech bullshit, rather than limiting them to individuals. It is destroying the fabric of the nation.

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An amendment declaring corporations are not people and restricting their rights concerning political contributions and lobbying as well as a corporate "death penalty" for large corporations convicted of serious financial or environmental crimes.

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying

Yeah, free speech and petitioning government is such a drag, eh comrade?

 

[martybegan]

How does Amazon have the right to bear arms? The people who own it, do, the stockholders do.

Where in the constitution does it say that once you band together to try to sell something, you have to give up some forms of your rights, especially the right to redress grievances with the government.

The problem with any ham handed attempt to regulate political speech, is that it will always result in the speech of those the people in power currently don't like. The speech of those they do will always somehow be given a pass. So if Dems do it, corporations get the hose, but unions don't (and corporations that are progressive get a wink wink nudge nudge pass on it).

The counter to speech you don't like is ALWAYS more speech. Trying to eliminate speech you don't like is bad no matter how noble the goals.

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so basically you want to destroy the economy.

Good idea.....

So basically you think the economy would collapse without political corruption and a rigged financial system?

No, it would collapse if business couldn't conduct basic transaction because you decided to prevent them from being entities that CAN conduct business.

The whole "corporations are people" thing is a lie made up by progressive hacks such as yourself. any "remedies" would make it impossible for them to conduct basic transactions.

Of course for commie morons like you this a is a feature, not a bug.

I propose only to curtail their actions concerning politics and lobbying and have real penalties if they break the law. Things have gone so far down the road to corporate plutocracy that an amendment is what it would take to fix it. The plutocrats thank you for your continued support.

Why? Why does selling something mean a person of group of people lose their political rights?

I assume you would apply the same rules to unions, right?

I'm trying to get big dark corrupt money out of politics. If corporations reported their contributions like unions do there would not be so much of a problem here.

I'm trying to get big dark corrupt money out of politics.

Excellent plan. First, get the government out of the economy.

 

[MisterBeale]

You have the right to your political speech as an individual just like you have the right to bear arms. I think you get that.

Now, I was drawing an analogy, which you understand, Amazon doesn't have the right to bear arms, PRECISELY! The folks who own it do! The same should work for the exercise for the First Amendment as well. THANK YOU!

What Sparky, Occupied, and I are telling you, is that corporations do not have the right to unlimited funding of that speech, any more than corporations should have the right to hire and arm their own private armies to "protect their interests" because they have corporate person hood and the right to bear arms.


What they have a right to is limited liability protection. This makes it so they can preforem COMMERICIAL activity ONLY.

"Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore, corporations have always had a "legal personality" for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e. protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation)."Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist repeatedly criticized the Court's invention of corporate constitutional "rights," most famously in his dissenting opinion in the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; though, in Bellotti, Justice Rehnquist's objections are based on his "views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States" and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment

We should have a separation of commerce and politics.

Are you telling me you LIKE and ENJOY Hollyweird and propaganda involved in your politics? Is that it?

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

 

[martybegan]

What is the difference between the person(s) owning the corporation spending the political money, vs the corporation spending it itself? The money is going to be spent one way or another, and by banning one group, you are opening up the ability to allow targeted suppression, which always leads to abuse.

I worry far less about people who want to make money trying to mess with me than people who desire power and "change" wanting to mess with me. The mechanics of government suppression scare me far more than hollywood adding their prog morality to their movies.

I worry about things like unrestricted "qualified immunity" allowing government officials to ignore the rights of people, civil asset forfeiture, that basically gives a funding incentive to law enforcement to grab assets from people merely accused of a crime, and the chaos that will occur if a progressive SC comes to power and decides to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments in the name of "social justice.

My sig covers my view on this.

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

 

[DGS49]

Repeal the 26th; it was a mistake. 18's are not invested as a general proposition.

Term limits for Congress; age limits for federal judges/justices.

Abolish the DP.

Make health care a "right."

Cap FIT at $100,000 per person, per year.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What would it be?

LET'S RUMBLE!

No more lobbying. Anyone caught taking lobby money gets removed from office/fined/prison time.

No more immunity from insider trading laws.

^These things are why Congress is broken. When a politician like Rick Scott says it's broken, it's fucking broken.

 

[MisterBeale]

I worry about both, and the merger of the two. It is bad for Freedom, bad for the poor and middle classes, it is bad for the free market.

It is bad for the Republic.

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

Monetary policy and long-term trends
Monetary policy and long-term trends | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal

Now, if you want to continue with the course you are on? Feel free, but IT WILL destroy the global free markets because the young, the poor, the old, etc. will eventually be seduced by the elites into "social-democracy" and eventually we will have the dictatorships they desire.

The problem is not the free market, we don't have one. The problem is the lack of space for participation, as economics now equals a voice in politics.

The market needs to be divorced from politics if the nations are to survive; THAT is a simple truth. You choose, free markets or socialism.

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

Dude, I'm the one that counters with facts.

You are the one that counters with your feelings.

Maybe YOU need to take a break.

or. .. . . . dig up some logical arguments backed up with hard data and something other than your empty platitudes that were drilled into your head by your government schooling and corporate media?

 

[martybegan]

The problem is any method used to try to fix this ends up controlling this, and then we end up with the power concentrated in the hands of fewer people than we started out with.

The market can't be divorced from politics without eliminating either one or the other.

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

Dude, I'm the one that counters with facts.

You are the one that counters with your feelings.

Maybe YOU need to take a break.

or. .. . . . dig up some logical arguments backed up with hard data and something other than your empty platitudes that were drilled into you head by your government schooling and corporate media?

No you spew graphs and figures at me an expect me to just change my mind and agree with you.

Walls of data isn't presenting an argument, it's letting others present data for you as an argument.

 

[anynameyouwish]

I'd add the Equal Rights Amendment! the way the laws of the times are changing and the way what is up is now down, and what is the truth is now fake and what is false is now true, I want my equality to be emblazoned in the constitution, so you can't take it away....

How would it work?

Democrats are always more equal than Republicans.

but....but.....but the EC favors RED state conservative republicans....

red states get MORE votes than blue states....

so
in reality

REPUBLICANS are more equal than democrats.....

 

[MisterBeale]

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

Dude, I'm the one that counters with facts.

You are the one that counters with your feelings.

Maybe YOU need to take a break.

or. .. . . . dig up some logical arguments backed up with hard data and something other than your empty platitudes that were drilled into you head by your government schooling and corporate media?

No you spew graphs and figures at me an expect me to just change my mind and agree with you.

Walls of data isn't presenting an argument, it's letting others present data for you as an argument.

Facts proving the concentration of wealth, the deteriotion of the free market, and the harm done by giving corporate personhood constitutional rights vs. . . . . . . (sigh. . . . )

You are right.


We need to just get rid of the government. You have convinced me.. . . . You win.

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

Dude, I'm the one that counters with facts.

You are the one that counters with your feelings.

Maybe YOU need to take a break.

or. .. . . . dig up some logical arguments backed up with hard data and something other than your empty platitudes that were drilled into you head by your government schooling and corporate media?

No you spew graphs and figures at me an expect me to just change my mind and agree with you.

Walls of data isn't presenting an argument, it's letting others present data for you as an argument.

I was hoping that by posting the images, it would entice you to READ the links I was posting.

It is clear, you are not.

You have no interest to understand my POV.

Never mind. We are done.

 

[martybegan]

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

Dude, I'm the one that counters with facts.

You are the one that counters with your feelings.

Maybe YOU need to take a break.

or. .. . . . dig up some logical arguments backed up with hard data and something other than your empty platitudes that were drilled into you head by your government schooling and corporate media?

No you spew graphs and figures at me an expect me to just change my mind and agree with you.

Walls of data isn't presenting an argument, it's letting others present data for you as an argument.

Facts proving the concentration of wealth, the deteriotion of the free market, and the harm done by giving corporate personhood constitutional rights vs. . . . . . . (sigh. . . . )

No, we don't need to get rid of government. We need to limit government. We also need to stop trying to silence our political opponents instead of countering them.

No, we defiantly just need to just shit can the whole thing.

It probably just does more harm than good. What ever services it provides can be taken care of by the States or Free Market. You have convinced me, those corporations are much better than the tyranny.

Good job.

There is no way to limit it at this point. Let's just scrap it.

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the internet today.

May I suggest a break from this board for a few hours/days?

Or a snickers bar?

Dude, I'm the one that counters with facts.

You are the one that counters with your feelings.

Maybe YOU need to take a break.

or. .. . . . dig up some logical arguments backed up with hard data and something other than your empty platitudes that were drilled into you head by your government schooling and corporate media?

No you spew graphs and figures at me an expect me to just change my mind and agree with you.

Walls of data isn't presenting an argument, it's letting others present data for you as an argument.

I was hoping that by posting the images, it would entice you to READ the links I was posting.

It is clear, you are not.

You have no interest to understand my POV.

Never mind. We are done.

Sorry, I just don't see the big deal. There will always be wealth inequality until scarcity of resources is eliminated.

I will always be far more scared of big government than big business. As my sig states, dealing with people who just want to make $$ is far preferable to dealing with people who want to "help" me live my life the way they think I should live my life.

And any mechanism used to try to limit speech or government participation based on selling things is a blatant attempt to silence people you disagree with, just because you disagree with them.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'd make myself The King and ruler for life, of course......But besides that.

Term limits for Congress
Balanced Budget
National Election of President