The father of corporate personhood?

[Bfgrn]

I've been screaming about this for years, others have for decades. Sad fact is, legal precedent has been written on that little fraud for over a century, and I don't see a century worth of precedent being overturned ever. Corporations Are People, Too

Centuries...

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[onecut39]

You do realize that this is completely irrelevant to the decision the other day, don't you?

And you realize that it shouldn't be?

 

[Tom Clancy]

So you think Corps can just kill at will with NO repercussions yet get most of the priviledges of personhood?

Nope, when did i ever say that?

Repercussion doesn't mean they should be put to Death.

Nope, I'm all for the Death Penalty when it comes to the right reasons.

But this? Not even close.

Why do you insist that these 11 people were not murdered?

11 Were Murdered, Again, where did I ever say 11 People Weren't?

The Corps should be Punished, but not by Death Penalty.

Then again, I'd find it surprising if you had this same view on another Important Issue in America..

 

[Truthmatters]

They are killing people

If they corps can have personhood rights they should personhood risks.

 

[Tom Clancy]

They are killing people

So are Abortion Doctors, should they put to Death?

And again, I'd like you to answer my Question about the Bankers..

 

[Truthmatters]

fetuses have no rights under our laws.

Corporations have more rights than a fetus.

They have nearly all of the benifits and NONE of the responsibilites.

How is that right?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You do realize that this is completely irrelevant to the decision the other day, don't you?

A decision which will one day be overturned.

ROFLMNAO... Well not before ROE. So be careful what ya wish for, sis...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

fetuses have no rights under our laws.

Corporations have more rights than a fetus.

They have nearly all of the benifits and NONE of the responsibilites.

How is that right?

Law does not determine human rights. You're speaking of civil rights; which are fleeting cultural whims and hardly worth discussion.

The Fetus has every right that you have Sis.

And Corporations have the same rights as the human beings which comprise them. Corproations also have many civil rights, ALSO directly correlated to the individuals which comprise them... Beyond that, the Corporation has many RESPONSIBILITIES, which are the same as those which comprise them.

FTR: Are you aware of any particular point that you're driving at in this discussion?

I've been unable to recognize anything approaching such... if you've got one, it would be helpful if you'd just state it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

They are killing people

If they corps can have personhood rights they should personhood risks.

As the CEO of several Corporations and a person, I feel compelled to inform you that Corporations sustain vastly more 'risk' than does a 'person'.

It seems fairly certain that you're using the wrong word... Perhaps the word you're searching for is "RESPONSIBILITY"... Which Corporations AGAIN are held to vastly higher levels of responsibility.

Finally, you seem to have absolutely NO Understanding of what a Corporation is, its purpose or scope of such.

Have ya considered looking into it? Maybe form one; operate it and get some experience in it, before ya further expose yourself as a foolish braying ass.

 

[Barb]

Death threats?

the death penalty is part of our existing laws

Yes Death Threats. You're threatning to Kill these CEO's and People who work there..

That's ridiculous.

Let's just kill everyone why don't we? Criminals and this Fiasco are two different Stories.

Answer the Question, What should we have done about those giving Loans to People who couldn't pay them back? When the Banks knew that themselves? Kill them?

Actually, he's suggesting that a corporation, as a "person," should also be held under the same liability as any other "person" and liable for a capital crime. I agree with that. If "one" has the rights, one should also have the responsibility. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Alpha1]

Death threats?

the death penalty is part of our existing laws

Yes Death Threats. You're threatning to Kill these CEO's where in the fuck did I talk of killing CEOS, STOP LYINGand People who work there..

That's ridiculous.

Let's just kill everyone why don't we? Criminals and this Fiasco are two different Stories.

Answer the Question, What should we have done about those giving Loans to People who couldn't pay them back? When the Banks knew that themselves? Kill them?

Thes coprs killed 11 people, try them and upon conviction kill the Corporation by disolving it.

Then try the CEOs as acessories to murder.

So you're gonna provide PROOF that the Corporation murdered 11 people?

By methane gas explosion, I suppose ? with intent (or malice aforethought)?

You really need to take the meds on a regular basis desh....

 

[Tom Clancy]

Death threats?

the death penalty is part of our existing laws

Yes Death Threats. You're threatning to Kill these CEO's and People who work there..

That's ridiculous.

Let's just kill everyone why don't we? Criminals and this Fiasco are two different Stories.

Answer the Question, What should we have done about those giving Loans to People who couldn't pay them back? When the Banks knew that themselves? Kill them?

Actually, he's suggesting that a corporation, as a "person," should also be held under the same liability as any other "person" and liable for a capital crime. I agree with that. If "one" has the rights, one should also have the responsibility. Wouldn't you agree?

When did I ever say they shouldn't?

 

[Oddball]

An 1886 Supreme Court decision ruled corporations are persons - FALSE - De-fact-o.com - Untangling The Web One Fact At A Time


Michael Kinder recently uncovered a letter from Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite to court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis informing Davis that it didn't really matter whether or not he included a comment about the arguments before the court that corporations were persons "as we avoided meeting the constitutional questions in the decision."


It looks like a Court Reporter at the time added the language after the fact.

Oooooooold news.

Question then becomes when anyone on SCOTUS will point that out.

Answer: Never....Both sides of the fake political dichotomy profit from corporate "personhood".

 

[Barb]

Yes Death Threats. You're threatning to Kill these CEO's and People who work there..

That's ridiculous.

Let's just kill everyone why don't we? Criminals and this Fiasco are two different Stories.

Answer the Question, What should we have done about those giving Loans to People who couldn't pay them back? When the Banks knew that themselves? Kill them?

Actually, he's suggesting that a corporation, as a "person," should also be held under the same liability as any other "person" and liable for a capital crime. I agree with that. If "one" has the rights, one should also have the responsibility. Wouldn't you agree?

When did I ever say they shouldn't?

For most of the thread.

It is understandable. If a corporation can't actually BE a person, then how can its members be held accountable to the same laws a person would be held liable to? But if a corporation cannot be held accountable to the same laws a person would be held liable to, how can it be a person? Quite simply, it cannot.

That was the point. Honestly, I'm surprised you missed it. You seem a likely fellow...

 

[Tom Clancy]

Please, show me where I have said they shouldn't have the Same Liability as a Normal Person?

Then again, show me how this differentiates from the Bailouts and the Banks.. And of course, she completely ignored that question.. I'd say about 4 times?

 

[Barb]

Please, show me where I have said they shouldn't have the Same Liability as a Normal Person?

Then again, show me how this differentiates from the Bailouts and the Banks.. And of course, she completely ignored that question.. I'd say about 4 times?

Murder isn't Killing? You're threatening to Convict the corps of Murder, then put them to Death.

Are you not suggesting that putting them on trial the same as any other person would be "murder?"

And how does liability for death equate to the bank bailout? I would agree that they should face trial for that, under a different set of charges, but it isn't the same as immediate action or inaction causing the death of someone. Again, you seem a likely fellow, obviously you aren't STUPID. So, the only other explanation is that you are being willfully misleading. Why would that be?

 

[Tom Clancy]

That doesn't Prove me defending the Corps saying they should be treated like normal people.

Convict them, then put them to death, with what Proof? Is Exactly why I'm outraged for her coming out against the Corps like this..

How is not? Didn't the Banks willingly give Loans to People knowing more than half couldn't pay them back? Didn't they Refinance people's home when they knew people couldn't afford it? And then guess who ended up with the House and Cars? The Banks.

Sure caused some Havoc eh?

 

[Barb]

That doesn't Prove me defending the Corps saying they should be treated like normal people.

Convict them, then put them to death, with what Proof? Is Exactly why I'm outraged for her coming out against the Corps like this..

How is not? Didn't the Banks willingly give Loans to People knowing more than half couldn't pay them back? Didn't they Refinance people's home when they knew people couldn't afford it? And then guess who ended up with the House and Cars? The Banks.

Sure caused some Havoc eh?

TRY them. If convicted....
you've obviously been against that idea.

The banks should be tried, I already agreed with that. And not for nothing, it was the redlining people with perfectly respectable credit into loans that would balloon into unmanageable payments that was the problem. SO many had credit worthy of decent fixed rates, but the banks were playing Vegas games instead of looking after their fiduciary responsibilities. That is not a capital crime. It falls under a whole other category of liability though, and one they too should have been held to.

You're backpedaling furiously. Wouldn't it be easier to cede the point?

 

[Tom Clancy]

Which is the point of the whole Thread.. Yet, I still have to see some Proof.

 

[Barb]

That doesn't Prove me defending the Corps saying they should be treated like normal people.

Hell, how did I miss this? Your point has been that they shouldn't. Opposing points have been that they should.