Which Side Are You On?

[daveman]

Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."

Do you personally think it's coincidental Corporate personhood was enshrined at the same time Jim Crow and the Robber Barrons reared their rich, white conservative heads?

See if you can refute the message and not the messenger, for once.

Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams

The message is self-refuting, as it's not based on reality.

But let me ask you this: Do you think labor unions should engage in political activity and make donations to candidates?

I think US labor has a First Amendment right to donate to US candidates.

Then you're a hypocrite.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you believe corporations like Walmart deserve human rights?

They deserve all the same rights that people enjoy. Corporations are owned by people. Anything you do to a corporation you are doing to the people who own it. If you expropriate a corporation's property, you are expropriating the property of the people who own it.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Antiderivative]

Well lets see. Considering my Retirement is invested in Many of those Evil Cooperation's I think you can guess my side.

God they are so evil, I mean employing Millions, Publicly owned, good god lets destroy them. Who needs cooperation's right. We can all just love each other and live on communes.

Corporations are not natural people, unless you are hard reich wing kook. Then you dishonestly throw out that fact that many corporate powers are derived from the government, all while preaching about free market ideologies.

You people are fucked up.

What ever you say there Wingnut.

Most Cooperation's are literally owned by Millions of people who own their Shares. They all benefit when the cooperation does well. They also employ millions of people, and provide essential Services. Many of them allow the share holders in say in things like who runs the company, and even what the company does at times. Most Cooperation's, Like Energy Companies, Pharmaceuticals, even the auto industry. Literally spend Billions on researching and developing some of the most amazing advances we make.

I just do not see what is so evil about them.

What is your alternative to the way things are now? Government ownership? Some form of communism? What?

Elaborate.

It is called Democracy, which you wing nuts fervently hate. Stockholders should determine the CEO's salary rather than self appointed salaries dictated by self appointed governship.

Why is democracy so distasteful to you?

Additionally, they should stop lobbying and asking for corporate favoritism, but again this idea is distasteful to you. You think that corporate lobbying power is beneficial to our Republic and I simply disagree. I think lobbying power is narrow is filled with greed, but you live in the far off fantasy world where K Street is acting in our best interest.

How the fuck do you live with those contradictions?

 

[daveman]

I can't help wondering what would happen if the US started filling its prisons with the richest 1% of its population?

How would Wall Street react if the first conviction for securities or control fraud resulted in 25 to life, i.e., meaning convicts would serve 25 years BEFORE their first parole hearing?

Many (most?) of those :men without principles" were born believing they are above man's laws.

They need to be disabused of that notion for this country to become free.

Great Gaea, you're eaten alive with envy.

Because I believe freedom stems from no one being above the law?

Can you explain where envy fits in?

Yeah. The part where you want what you haven't earned.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? When have I done that?

You are a prime example of nepotism and crony capitalism.

How so? What have I said that would lead any reasonable person to draw that conclusion?

If you believe in free markets, then you must be opposed to Obama's recent banking "reform." Next to Obamacare, that is the biggest government intrusion into the marketplace since Roosevelt's NRA.

I am a strong critic. Obama's reform will eventually fail us.

So, on principle, you're not opposed to the government controlling banks. You're just opposed to Obama's method of doing it.

Thanks for admitting you're no free marketeer.

How does it do that? Please provide an example.

Are you really this breached from reality?

I'll take that to mean you can't provide an example.

 

[Antiderivative]

Really? When have I done that?

How so? What have I said that would lead any reasonable person to draw that conclusion?

You are a prime example of nepotism and crony capitalism. You got your job in the energy industry since your father "recommended" you. You are a fraud and liar and this is consistently displayed by your posts.

So, on principle, you're not opposed to the government controlling banks. You're just opposed to Obama's method of doing it.

No, I am very against the Fed. However, since you are a fraud and liar, you think otherwise.

Thanks for admitting you're no free marketeer.

lol....and expected response from you, dolt.

 

[bripat9643]

You are a prime example of nepotism and crony capitalism.

However, you have continually failed to post any evidence to support that claim. Furthmore, having your father get you a job may be "nepotism," but it isn't "crony capitalism. The latter is where a company prospers only because of government pull.

You got your job in the energy industry since your father "recommended" you. You are a fraud and liar and this is consistently displayed by your posts.

I worked for two months during the summer on a drilling rig when I was in school. That's the extent of my career in the energy industry. Now I am a software consultant. Once again, your presumptions are off base.

No, I am very against the Fed. However, since you are a fraud and liar, you think otherwise.

You just admitted you're not opposed to vast government intrusion into the banking industry.

lol....and expected response from you, dolt.

Of course you did because you knew beforehand that your position is hypocritical.

 

[georgephillip]

Because I believe freedom stems from no one being above the law?

Can you explain where envy fits in?

Which law do you believe corporations are flouting?

One thing we know: Obama routinely flouts the Constitution.

Why aren't you whining about him?

"Corporate lawbreaking far outpaces street crime in this country.
According to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime
Reporter, while 16,000 Americans are murdered in street crimes
every year, 56,000 Americans die of diseases or injuries caused by
corporate recklessness, often rising to the level of criminal
misconduct.

"Yet rarely are corporate crimes prosecuted, and even
when they are, the victims of such crimes receive little justice.
For example, although it is possible for crime victims to obtain
financial compensation through state restitution or victim
compensation programs, these options rarely provide adequate
relief. "

http://www.centerjd.org/archives/studies/CorpCrimeWhiteP_F.pdf

Obama imho is the biggest threat to progressive policies that I've seen in my lifetime.
If it's up to me, he's one and done and America is safer.

As far as the Imperial Presidency goes, that's a bipartisan crime that neither Republicans NOR Democrats have interest in addressing.

Maybe that's what Goldman Sachs is paying for?

 

[georgephillip]

The message is self-refuting, as it's not based on reality.

But let me ask you this: Do you think labor unions should engage in political activity and make donations to candidates?

I think US labor has a First Amendment right to donate to US candidates.

Then you're a hypocrite.

Because I oppose Citizens United?

It's fine with me if you want to ban all corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Is it Constitutional?

 

[Antiderivative]

You just admitted you're not opposed to vast government intrusion into the banking industry.

Lmfao....ok........lol

 

[daveman]

I think US labor has a First Amendment right to donate to US candidates.

Then you're a hypocrite.

Because I oppose Citizens United?

It's fine with me if you want to ban all corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Is it Constitutional?

Let's compare unions and corporations.

A union is a group of people united by a common purpose.

A orporation is a group of people united by a common purpose.

Yet you, in your own private reality, insist one group is evil and should have no say in the political process, while the other group is beneficent and should have a say in the political process.

That pretty much cover it?

 

[georgephillip]

Then you're a hypocrite.

Because I oppose Citizens United?

It's fine with me if you want to ban all corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Is it Constitutional?

Let's compare unions and corporations.

A union is a group of people united by a common purpose.

A orporation is a group of people united by a common purpose.

Yet you, in your own private reality, insist one group is evil and should have no say in the political process, while the other group is beneficent and should have a say in the political process.

That pretty much cover it?

Except for whether corporations are "creatures of law" or "associations of citizens?"

Are unions corporations?

I don't think it's reasonable either institution deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual; however, that doesn't preclude the individuals within those institutions from engaging in political activity or making donation$ to candidates.

"Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of campaign finance laws, faults the five-justice majority for judicial activism in its January ruling. 'They threw out 100 years of national policy, and they did it by inventing a brand-new right for corporations to participate in politics,' he said.

"But Allison Hayward, a George Mason University law professor and critic of the campaign funding laws, said the court's decision stood up for the very old right of free speech in politics.

"'This was a moment for them to say, "Enough is enough," ' she said. 'There's been a constitutional cloud over the expenditure bans for a very long time.'"

Which side are you on?

Corporate Free Speech | Corporate free-speech ruling speaks of shift in Supreme Court - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times

 

[daveman]

Because I oppose Citizens United?

It's fine with me if you want to ban all corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Is it Constitutional?

Let's compare unions and corporations.

A union is a group of people united by a common purpose.

A orporation is a group of people united by a common purpose.

Yet you, in your own private reality, insist one group is evil and should have no say in the political process, while the other group is beneficent and should have a say in the political process.

That pretty much cover it?

Except for whether corporations are "creatures of law" or "associations of citizens?"

Are unions corporations?

Corporations are associations of citizens. What do you think they are, disembodied spirits or evil robots?

 

[TheBrain]

Because I oppose Citizens United?

It's fine with me if you want to ban all corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Is it Constitutional?

Let's compare unions and corporations.

A union is a group of people united by a common purpose.

A orporation is a group of people united by a common purpose.

Yet you, in your own private reality, insist one group is evil and should have no say in the political process, while the other group is beneficent and should have a say in the political process.

That pretty much cover it?

Except for whether corporations are "creatures of law" or "associations of citizens?"

Are unions corporations?

I don't think it's reasonable either institution deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual; however, that doesn't preclude the individuals within those institutions from engaging in political activity or making donation$ to candidates.

"Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of campaign finance laws, faults the five-justice majority for judicial activism in its January ruling. 'They threw out 100 years of national policy, and they did it by inventing a brand-new right for corporations to participate in politics,' he said.

"But Allison Hayward, a George Mason University law professor and critic of the campaign funding laws, said the court's decision stood up for the very old right of free speech in politics.

"'This was a moment for them to say, "Enough is enough," ' she said. 'There's been a constitutional cloud over the expenditure bans for a very long time.'"

Which side are you on?

Corporate Free Speech | Corporate free-speech ruling speaks of shift in Supreme Court - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times

Are unions corporations? I assume that they could incorporate if they wanted to.

 

[daveman]

Let's compare unions and corporations.

A union is a group of people united by a common purpose.

A orporation is a group of people united by a common purpose.

Yet you, in your own private reality, insist one group is evil and should have no say in the political process, while the other group is beneficent and should have a say in the political process.

That pretty much cover it?

Except for whether corporations are "creatures of law" or "associations of citizens?"

Are unions corporations?

I don't think it's reasonable either institution deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual; however, that doesn't preclude the individuals within those institutions from engaging in political activity or making donation$ to candidates.

"Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of campaign finance laws, faults the five-justice majority for judicial activism in its January ruling. 'They threw out 100 years of national policy, and they did it by inventing a brand-new right for corporations to participate in politics,' he said.

"But Allison Hayward, a George Mason University law professor and critic of the campaign funding laws, said the court's decision stood up for the very old right of free speech in politics.

"'This was a moment for them to say, "Enough is enough," ' she said. 'There's been a constitutional cloud over the expenditure bans for a very long time.'"

Which side are you on?

Corporate Free Speech | Corporate free-speech ruling speaks of shift in Supreme Court - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times

Are unions corporations? I assume that they could incorporate if they wanted to.

They incorporate as non-profits. And some of them are making a hell of a lot of non-profit.

 

[TheBrain]

Except for whether corporations are "creatures of law" or "associations of citizens?"

Are unions corporations?

I don't think it's reasonable either institution deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual; however, that doesn't preclude the individuals within those institutions from engaging in political activity or making donation$ to candidates.

"Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of campaign finance laws, faults the five-justice majority for judicial activism in its January ruling. 'They threw out 100 years of national policy, and they did it by inventing a brand-new right for corporations to participate in politics,' he said.

"But Allison Hayward, a George Mason University law professor and critic of the campaign funding laws, said the court's decision stood up for the very old right of free speech in politics.

"'This was a moment for them to say, "Enough is enough," ' she said. 'There's been a constitutional cloud over the expenditure bans for a very long time.'"

Which side are you on?

Corporate Free Speech | Corporate free-speech ruling speaks of shift in Supreme Court - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times

Are unions corporations? I assume that they could incorporate if they wanted to.

They incorporate as non-profits. And some of them are making a hell of a lot of non-profit.

so see when he said that corporations are evil, he was correct SOME corporations ARE evil.

 

[daveman]

Are unions corporations? I assume that they could incorporate if they wanted to.

They incorporate as non-profits. And some of them are making a hell of a lot of non-profit.

so see when he said that corporations are evil, he was correct SOME corporations ARE evil.

I don't think he feels (not thinks, certainly) that unions are evil. Goes against his programming.

 

[georgephillip]

Except for whether corporations are "creatures of law" or "associations of citizens?"

Are unions corporations?

I don't think it's reasonable either institution deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual; however, that doesn't preclude the individuals within those institutions from engaging in political activity or making donation$ to candidates.

"Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of campaign finance laws, faults the five-justice majority for judicial activism in its January ruling. 'They threw out 100 years of national policy, and they did it by inventing a brand-new right for corporations to participate in politics,' he said.

"But Allison Hayward, a George Mason University law professor and critic of the campaign funding laws, said the court's decision stood up for the very old right of free speech in politics.

"'This was a moment for them to say, "Enough is enough," ' she said. 'There's been a constitutional cloud over the expenditure bans for a very long time.'"

Which side are you on?

Corporate Free Speech | Corporate free-speech ruling speaks of shift in Supreme Court - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times

Are unions corporations? I assume that they could incorporate if they wanted to.

They incorporate as non-profits. And some of them are making a hell of a lot of non-profit.

Are they making as much as Government Sachs?

What role did unions play in crashing the global economy in 2008?

 

[daveman]

Are unions corporations? I assume that they could incorporate if they wanted to.

They incorporate as non-profits. And some of them are making a hell of a lot of non-profit.

Are they making as much as Government Sachs?

Ahhh. So there's a threshold for separating an evil corporation from a good one. What is it?

What role did unions play in crashing the global economy in 2008?

Unions have had a negative effect on the economy for decades. Are you willing to admit that basic fact?

 

[Steelplate]

There is a profound difference between giving a person a Hand up from a Hand out. Nobody has a problem giving a person a hand up there is however a problem giving them a hand out.

Yeah... there is. Back in the 1970's-1990's, welfare was very much an open ended proposition and much more expensive than it is today. In 1996, Clinton signed a sweeping welfare reform bill into law, which ended a lot of the abuses that were going on. Did it eliminate them all? No.

All you welfare beater-uppers... Do you know what the Federal Welfare budget is? In 2010, the cost of TANF(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), was a little over $22B. in 2011, it drops $1B.

So in the conservatives twisted little mind... let's cut off millions of families who need help to save $22B out of a $14T debt. Once again... little minds thing little things are big problems. Just like Family Planning, just like NPR, just like your whole platform.

EDIT:.... here is a Link to the HHS Budget in PDF format http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011budgetinbrief.pdf