tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post1364851502308355857..comments2024-03-27T21:14:20.537-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Progress...And The Opposite Dave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-24475123105483866952013-04-17T10:53:10.056-04:002013-04-17T10:53:10.056-04:00The inner party with its privilege
Gee, would tha...<i>The inner party with its privilege</i><br /><br />Gee, would that be li'l ol' me?<br /> <br />Couldn't be the Wall Street swindlers, and wealthy corporate elites who write legislation and lobby for corporate friendly trade agreements, tax breaks, sweetheart no-bid contracts and such?<br /><br /> <i>Under the laws you support we'd have to go crawling to the O'Brians of the world for permission to speak.</i><br /><br />More Drama Queen talk again.<br /><br />“We'd have to..." <br /><br />You’re talking about "we the corporations" not "we the people". And nobody’s talking about limiting their free speech to advertise their products. <br /><br />Speaking of Big Brother, corporations profit from the surveillance state, don’t they? Corporations are becoming government's Big Brother. That puts them in power over we the people and our government.<br /><br />You act like I would reduce any individual rights to less than what we the 99% have. <br /><br />The law of humans over corporations, or the tyranny of corporations over humans. Take your pick. Guess which way we’re heading.<br /><br />Your case of "individual rights" is becoming more Orwellian. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".<br /><br />By being CEO's and board members, they become "more equal", don't they? It's called corruption.<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-11189904304782681912013-04-17T01:37:14.847-04:002013-04-17T01:37:14.847-04:00They don't become more of anything, accept lim...They don't become more of anything, accept limited by your frankly fascist system. Who decides just who the press is? Government. Who is too rich or too poor? Government. Who decides what is even speech? Government.<br /><br />That's Orwell all right. Big Brother calling the shots. The inner party with its privilege. Under the laws you support we'd have to go crawling to the O'Brians of the world for <i>permission</i> to speak. Meanwhile guys like Moore, Stewart and Maher are going to have to shut up. free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-42918645002284196792013-04-16T20:07:01.456-04:002013-04-16T20:07:01.456-04:00Mr. Board of Directors has access to having his op...Mr. Board of Directors has access to having his opinion printed in the press as an editorial. <br /><br />Mr. Board of Directors has the money to hire a phalanx of lobbyists. Mr. Board of Directors can attend thousand dollar plate campaign lunches. <br /><br />Mr. Board of Directors may even own the TV, radio, and print as well. Hello, Murdoch. <br /><br />Mr. Board of Directors has all kinds of "free speech" that millions of Americans will never have. <br /><br />Oh and Mr. Board of Directors can even vote, which is about all the free speech and influence most of us can afford.<br /><br />Your case of "individual rights" is becoming more Orwellian. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".<br /><br />By being CEO's and board members, they become "more equal", don't they? It's called corruption.<br /><br />Now why don't you go correct the court on what democracy really is. Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-15332744234675445692013-04-16T19:37:37.691-04:002013-04-16T19:37:37.691-04:00All animals are equal, but some animals are more e...<i>All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others</i><br /><br />I would think so. Saying, "You're the press. You have freedom of speech. Now you over there Mr. Board of Directors, now you don't." would seem to be a perfect example of that. That being one more equal than the other.<br /><br />Hence the ruling. <br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-60425534870266947982013-04-16T15:14:23.481-04:002013-04-16T15:14:23.481-04:00What language in the opinion do you specifically o...<i>What language in the opinion do you specifically object to?</i><br /><br />Are you seriously saying you don't know the quotes are from the link you posted?<br /><br /><br />Your case of "individual rights" is becoming more Orwellian. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".<br /><br />By being CEO's and board members, they become "more equal", don't they? It's called corruption.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-24579040257575011472013-04-16T14:55:56.428-04:002013-04-16T14:55:56.428-04:00As I've said many times, showing films, even “...<i>As I've said many times, showing films, even “Hillary” is fine. Got that?</i><br /><br />What <i>you want</i> is one thing, what McCain Feingold did was totally different. We're dealing with the law, not Dave Dubya's utopian dream world.<br /><br /><i>I have issues with the Court’s endowment of corporations with the rights of persons.</i><br /><br />What language in the opinion do you specifically object to?<br /><br /><i>Either way it is opinion</i><br /><br />Yes, your opinion. What actually happened is fact. Fact is, Citizen's United was getting beat up by the FEC and had to sue to release their movie during an election season.<br /><br />I understand you don't like soft money. Okay, fine. But how do you propose to regulate it without as the court put it "Chilling free speech?"<br /><br /><i>corporate powers may spend all the “free speech” money they want “to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints”.</i><br /><br />Yes, they can. So can you for that matter. Its a free country. Your freedom is equal, its only your bank account that is not.<br /><br /><i>Let’s just turn all power over to the ever trustworthy and honest corporations</i><br /><br />Thats your strawman argument. I happen to like it when government does its job and protects a little organization like Citizen's United from the big, bad FEC.<br /><br /><i>is never required to serve in a jury, vote, or be held accountable for wrongdoing by imprisonment or execution. </i><br /><br />Thats laughable. People who own corporations serve on juries, vote, and just ask Bernie Maddoff if you can't be imprisoned for doing bad things with a corporation.<br /><br /><i>Only one non-person entity is allowed the free speech of individuals. That is the press. </i><br /> <br />And there you have the inequality. By naming "the press" you've created an elite with more rights than others. What happens to the speech of the non-press? I gave you some scenarios where this line of thinking leads to. John Stewart, Michael Moore, Bill Maher are all in the crosshairs because they work for Disney, Viacom and Time Warner. Those companies aren't the press. Do you want to risk their freedoms for your good intentions?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-78569905447672729432013-04-16T11:05:24.544-04:002013-04-16T11:05:24.544-04:00Then why don't you show us where "what it...<br />Then why don't you show us where "what it actually did was ban a movie company from making a movie"?<br /><br />Is this how your understanding of postponing the broadcast of a film? "Banned from making a movie"?<br /><br />As I've said many times, showing films, even “Hillary” is fine. Got that? I never opposed that and told you so repeatedly.<br /><br />I have issues with the Court’s endowment of corporations with the rights of persons.<br /><br />Apparently you also have disagreement with the court’s opinions.<br /><br /><i>Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy</i><br /><br />They meant “Because speech is an essential mechanism of mob rule”, right? <br /><br /><i>Political speech is “indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.”</i><br /><br />They meant, “Political speech is “indispensable to decision-making in mob rule”, right?<br /><br /><i>”Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content.</i><br /><br />They ignore the existence of corporate power the founders never imagined. <br /><br />Either way it is opinion. Now they’re away from “We the people” and are in the imaginary “we the corporations” part of the Constitution. When calibrated by wealth, rights of corporations shall always supersede the rights of individuals. <br /><br />And talk about assumption. <br /><br /><i>this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.</i><br /><br />Right. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.<br /><br />There’s more:<br /><br /><i>Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.</i><br /><br />But the sacred and pure corporate powers may spend all the “free speech” money they want “to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints”. That money is already smothering the scientific consensus of climate change. It appears corporations have more right to deceive than scientists have in reporting the evidence. <br /><br />Well, then, there’s no reason for government at all. Let’s just turn all power over to the ever trustworthy and honest corporations who always have the public good in their interests.<br /><br />Do you get it yet? Our individual right of free speech is diminished by corporate power of wealth combined with a status of super-personhood with greater rights than entire towns of people. <br /><br />This decision is about more than that damn movie. It cements assumptions and opinions that a corporation is a person, or even more a citizen. Never mind it can only corrupt with money, and is never required to serve in a jury, vote, or be held accountable for wrongdoing by imprisonment or execution. <br /><br />Only one non-person entity is allowed the free speech of individuals. That is the press. <br /><br />Your case of "individual rights" is becoming more Orwellian. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".<br /><br />By being CEO's and board members, they become "more equal", don't they? It's called corruption.<br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-7811238636856951692013-04-16T05:25:20.073-04:002013-04-16T05:25:20.073-04:00We'll just make this easy. Here is the SCOTUS...We'll just make this easy. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here is the SCOTUS opinion</a> that gave rise to this portion of this debate, among others. Simply read it, and highlight for me what portions of the opinion you actually disagree with. Because of your statements Dave, you would seem to be a big fan of it.<br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-80742468004472785662013-04-16T05:15:36.520-04:002013-04-16T05:15:36.520-04:00This is news indeed.
I'm so hoping this is sa...<i>This is news indeed.</i><br /><br />I'm so hoping this is sarcasm I'm missing.<br /><br /><i>Citizen's United: Hillary the Movie</i>? It got banned because it was considered a soft money contribution. Have you ever read the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision? Ever? Its not long or hard to understand. <br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-31512986920198220042013-04-15T16:11:09.006-04:002013-04-15T16:11:09.006-04:00And what it actually did was ban a movie company f...<i>And what it actually did was ban a movie company from making a movie.</i><br /><br />This is news indeed.<br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-12443410254257948372013-04-15T15:49:06.383-04:002013-04-15T15:49:06.383-04:00But that was never our argument, of course.
Your...<i>But that was never our argument, of course. </i><br /><br />Your argument is irrelevant Dave. Its what the law <i>actually did</i> that matters, not your good intentions.<br /><br />And what it actually did was ban a movie company from making a movie. If that wasn't your intention, you should have been the first on in line to cheer the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United.<br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-58287202222480396602013-04-15T11:39:16.101-04:002013-04-15T11:39:16.101-04:00Jerry,
Free has jumped the shark.
Free's a sh...Jerry,<br /><i>Free has jumped the shark.</i><br /><br />Free's a shark jumper. He’s needs to jump around because I disprove his assertions and accusations, like “Corporatist is a word you just made up,” and I “dehumanized the board of directors... trample their rights”.<br /><br />He loves to build a big straw man and show us how smart he is.<br /><br />This particular one was a classic rebuttal to our argument to silence FOX(R) and Right Wing talk radio... Or movies, or commentary on talk shows, or other individual political opinions on public airwaves. <br /><br />But that was never our argument, of course. <br /><br />Let's just examine his conclusion:<br /><br /><i>Life and free speech isn’t fair. I certainly don’t have a voice as well heard as John Stewart – but I’m not suggesting he be muzzled because he does.</i><br /><br />Very noble, considering his voice is the NRA, and whatever the Koch’s say through their tea party and other corporate entities. <br /><br />“Life and free speech isn’t fair:” <br /><br />“Life is not fair” does not justify unfairness.<br /><br />If free speech is not fair to individuals, but is for corporations, then it is less a right for individuals, and more power and privilege for corporations and the wealthy elites. <br /><br />This is why we have individual and minority rights in the first place. This is why we have the 13th Amendment. This is why we have the “Equal Protection” clause in the 14th Amendment. <br /><br />This is why voting rights were expanded to blacks, women and the poor. Note the Right’s efforts to reverse that trend.<br /><br />Rights are not rights unless they are equal rights. Individual rights are not rights, or are greatly diminished, when superseded by corporate rights. <br /><br />And for contrast, my previous conclusion:<br /><br />Your case of "individual rights" is becoming more Orwellian. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".<br /><br />By being CEO's and board members, they become "more equal", don't they? It's called corruption.<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-60226384850165543762013-04-15T02:44:08.822-04:002013-04-15T02:44:08.822-04:00Free has jumped the shark.Free has jumped the shark.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-91595228498003627642013-04-15T00:10:24.468-04:002013-04-15T00:10:24.468-04:00Think those things can't happen? After all, M...Think those things can't happen? After all, Moore's film sure did come out during the era of McCain/Feingold in 2004? Well, only because regulators gave him a pass. Citizen's United – a film company- attempted to make a film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2007 - and the Federal Elections Commission told them if they aired the film during election season they would face penalty of law. They sued and won the right to show the film. <br /><br />If it can happen to Citizen's United, it can happen to freak'n Miramax. If it can happen to a movie company, it can happen to print media, or even this blog if it were incorporated. Like say, Huffington Post is. <br /><br />You might say, well those scenarios won't happen, because government will wield its power ethically... well if you think that you are crazy. That’s the same as saying "Oh those warrantless wire taps are no big deal, because the government will wield that authority ethically."<br /><br />It’s only a matter of time as <b>you should know</b>, before that power gets perverted. And if I was a politically minded President or regulator with no ethics, that's exactly how I'd use McCain Feingold to destroy at least three Democrat voices of the left. Lucky for me, while I disagree with Moore, Maher, and Stewart... I think they are more than the sum parts of their parent corporation and I don’t think those companies should be penalized for airing their films. I think just because those individuals work for big a company doesn’t mean they lose the right to free speech. And I would think you would too. But you don’t.<br /><br />Free speech is not apportioned equally. You have the right to say whatever you want to. You don’t have the right to have everyone hear it. If you think the money that Disney or Comedy Central or Citizen’s United has gives them an unfair advantage… tough shit. Life and free speech isn’t fair. I certainly don’t have a voice as well heard as John Stewart – but I’m not suggesting he be muzzled because he does. <br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-28949318912655627062013-04-15T00:10:00.645-04:002013-04-15T00:10:00.645-04:00Now pretend I'm your regulator, and I have no ...Now pretend I'm your regulator, and I have no morals. Look out.<br /><br />First, can you imagine say - Bill Maher - during a Sarah Palin election? What do you think his jokes during his show would be like? Critical of Palin? Yeah, we know they would be.<br /><br />Bad news. Bill Maher is a corporation now… under your thought process. He's not Bill, he's the Home Box Office network’s mouthpiece, which is owned by the Time Warner Network. A network that is funded largely through advertising from other corporations. Bill Maher by any reasonable standard is <i>not a journalist</i> and HBO is <b>not a news network</b>. Freedom of the press? Nope. Any mention of the press is nowhere in HBO's corporate charter. It’s just a corporation out for profit. Bill Maher cannot say anything negative about Sarah Palin during the election season, because he's no longer a person. He's an employee of a legal instrument. He works for <i>an entity</i> and HBO is not the press. He is not a journalist, he's a comedian, so his rights are moot. Sure he can say whatever on his own dime. He can’t use the Home Box Office’s dime. That’s election intervention by a non-press corporation. So now any show Maher airs critical of a candidate Palin during election season is in violation of election law because he's not airing it - HBO and Time Warner is. He's not fair, he's not balanced and he's clearly partisan non-reporter. So sorry bill, the corporation you work for might influence the election against Sarah Palin. If you air any nasty jokes about her or make a case against her, the corporation HBO is now influencing the election outcome. The money HBO spent on that show is as good as a corporate soft money campaign contribution to Palin's opposition. If you air it, you will face a fine and penalty of law.<br /><br />It gets better. Michael Moore isn't a guy; he's an employee of Lion's Gate which is owned by Miramax. Nowhere in either company’s charter, is any hint of press affiliation. Miramax is in turn owned by the Disney Corporation... clearly not a news agency. The film <i>Fahrenheit 9-11</i> was released during the 2004 election season and clearly designed to influence that election. Michael Moore isn't an individual your school of thought tells us, he's Miramax and fucking Disney. His film must be postponed till after election season or face penalty of law. Walt Disney cannot be allowed to swing a Presidential race.<br /><br />John Stewart isn't just some comedian. He belongs to Comedy Central which is owned by Viacom. Nowhere in their corporate charters does it mention the press, and Stewart himself admits his show is "fake news," meant to be comedy.<br /><br />If he's critical of our theoretical candidate Palin during our theoretical 2016 election cycle, his show is basically a soft-money contribution to Palin's opposition. He must hold that show till after election season, or face penalty of law.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-40522036117227088592013-04-15T00:08:52.373-04:002013-04-15T00:08:52.373-04:00No, a corporation is a legal entity that is separa...<i>No, a corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners</i><br /><br />And it has members. Those are people. I’ll get to that and how thinking the opposite can be applied in a minute.<br /><br /><i> created by law, or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members</i><br /><br />Authority of law? That’s irrelevant. As individuals we're under authority of law too. Continuing existence? The New York Yankees have been in existence since... hell I don't even know when that ball club was founded. Are the NY Yankees not made up of people? If we ban baseball teams are the players still free to play baseball?<br /><br /><i> It would not exist if not for the state.</i><br /><br />Nor would the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Those rights are still real. As are the members of a corporation, or the NY Yankees.<br /><br />But let’s play this tape all the way through. Let’s give you what you want. Corporations can't influence elections. Poof, I waved my wand. Let us pretend for a minute.<br /><br />Now let’s also assume a nightmare for you guys. Sarah Palin is running for President in 2016, and I'm your election regulator. You are now fucked, because for this analogy we'll assume I think like you do. I'm not free0352; I'm a guy who thinks corporations who are not part of the press have no business influencing elections.<br /><br />So first off, it’s <b>currently illegal</b> -can’t stress that enough- for a corporation or an individual to give more than a few thousand dollars to a candidate. If you doubt me simply try donating 100,000 dollars to a candidate of your choice. Don’t worry if you don’t have the money, because the campaign won’t accept the check anyway – that would be a violation of FEC regulations. What we're talking about...<b> what you're talking about</b>... is soft money. When an individual or <i>other entity</i> that could be a corporation, union, 501C or whatever; takes out advertising or other political activity that helps or hurts a given candidate. That’s what you mean when you say "Money is free speech." This is what McCain Feingold regulated - the law <i>Citizens’ United vs FEC</i> overturned.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-8721297678292808232013-04-14T09:23:20.721-04:002013-04-14T09:23:20.721-04:00Depends on how the Democracy is practiced. If cons...<br /><br /><i>Depends on how the Democracy is practiced. If constrained by law and not unlimited in power, its fine.</i><br /><br />Ah. The enlightenment at last.. Democracy is not always "mob rule" after all. In fact it is essential to freedom in a constitutional democratic representative republic.<br /><br />But democracy is replaced by corporatocracy when corporations have more rights and representation than the majority of individuals. <br /><br />Funny how democracy is seen as mob rule, and corporate political “free speech” money is not corruption. That view does little to support individual rights.<br /><br /><i>So you're saying John Adams signed the Constitution to help disabled seamen?</i><br /><br /> No, but you do need your straw men don’t you?<br /><br />Oh, yes. How about another?<br /><br /><i> Thats like saying - sure we have freedom of the press. We've only banned typewriters. </i><br /><br /> It fails a basic logical test.<br /><br /><i>A corporation isn't an individual<br /><br />No, its a group of individuals. </i><br /><br />...with a lot of money. So are unions, by the way. But you hate their collective rights. A union is not a person. A corporation is not a person.<br /><br />And therefore certain groups of wealthy individuals have more "free speech money" and right to representation than the vast majority of individuals. <br /><br />But in your world:<br /><br />I am "trampling the rights" and "dehumanizing" the poor board of directors because, as individuals they not only have the same rights as I do, but more "collective rights" to representation as corporate owners. <br /><br />You hate unions working for collective bargaining and representation rights. But it’s fine for corporate money to have collective right to representation. We need to remove unions, but not corporations, from politics. <br /><br />Yes, we see that trampling of rights and dehumanizing all right. And it ain't the little guy doing it to the elites.<br /><br />Your case of "individual rights" is becoming more Orwellian. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".<br /><br />By being CEO's and board members, they become "more equal", don't they? It's called corruption.<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-72035464300218212212013-04-14T07:06:06.765-04:002013-04-14T07:06:06.765-04:00Free0352: "No, [a corporation is] a group of ...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>No, [a corporation is] a group of individuals.</i>" <br /><br />No, a corporation is a <i>legal entity</i> that is separate and distinct from its owners. They are created by law, or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. Got that? It would <i>not exist</i> if not for the state.<br /><br />Jerry's analogy was perfect. When you drive a car, you're <i>not</i> the car. You're <i>only</i> the owner and the operator. You don't earn <i>additional</i> legal status -- or protections -- for owning and driving the car, and nor do those who may also be riding in the car with you. Additionally, you're bound by the laws and rules governing the highways, roads and byways of the state. <br /><br />Certainly, corporations enjoy many of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes, but that's where their legal rights should cease to exist. They <i>shouldn't</i> have the power to influence government, provide support to political candidates or parties, or enter into any realms outside of the commercial reasons their charters defined. I'm absolutely positive that <i>none</i> of the charters of the Fortune 500 corporations mention anything in their business purpose related to these. <br /><br />You said, "No one is suggesting cars have first amendment rights. Corporations are a group of people self organized and bound by law and corporate charter for a given purpose, which is generally commercial in nature. That's all." <br /><br />I totally agree with your second sentence, but I disagree with your first. You <i>are</i>, in effect, suggesting that cars <i>should have</i> First Amendment rights -- <i>if</i> you're supportive of the same First Amendment protections for corporations.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-89974536140719292872013-04-14T03:14:05.777-04:002013-04-14T03:14:05.777-04:00A corporation isn't an individual
No, its a g...<i>A corporation isn't an individual</i><br /><br />No, its a group of individuals. <br /><br /><i> In 1798 the 5th Congress passed, and Adams signed, "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman" into law. </i><br /><br />So you're saying John Adams signed the Constitution to help disabled seamen? Try actually reading the federalist papers to get a clear picture of how John Adams wanted to run the government. As for Thomas Jefferson, he was initially an anti-federalist. As in he didn't support The Constitution. It took him quite some time to come around to it. He and John Adams definitely didn't see eye-to-eye on it. Ever.<br /><br /><i>Yeah, those Wall Street swindlers are under my jackboot all right.</i><br /><br />It certainly sounds as if you wish they were.<br /><br /><i> Tell us the difference between democracy and mob rule if there is any difference at all.</i><br /><br />Depends on how the Democracy is practiced. If constrained by law and not unlimited in power, its fine. Individual rights should <i>always</i> trump any collective claim.<br /><br /><i>Ever wonder why so many legislators become lobbyists? </i><br /><br />I would go with millions of dollars. People like to bitch about <i>other people's lobbyists.</i> They always have great excuses for why the lobbyists they support are A-okay.<br /><br /><i>A corporation is also an inanimate object</i><br /><br />So what are the board of directors? And if government control only covers individual people and not the property they use to... well do whatever... how can there be freedom. Thats like saying - sure we have freedom of the press. We've only banned typewriters. Typewriters have no rights. The author on the other hand is free to say anything - so we have freedom of speech. Only an inanimate object is banned, in this case his typewriter. Its like saying a football team is an inanimate object. It fails a basic logical test. Its like saying we aren't banning your religion when we outlaw or constrict the freedoms of say, the religion of Islam. Islam isn't a person, and the individuals who happen to be Muslim can still practice their religions on their own. They simply cannot use the organization of the Islamic faith to do that.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-28925372272656292652013-04-13T22:28:27.739-04:002013-04-13T22:28:27.739-04:00A corporation is also an inanimate object and a bu...A corporation is also an inanimate object and a business tool. It is used by people, it is not people. It should not have the rights of people, any more than a car should have the rights of people..Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-50773637353271640852013-04-13T22:28:19.517-04:002013-04-13T22:28:19.517-04:00The founding father's didn't write the Con...<i>The founding father's didn't write the Constitution to start Medicare</i><br /><br />They didn't write the Constitution so a corporation would have a person’s rights either. I thought you were Mr. “Individual Rights”. A corporation isn't an individual. <br /><br />You better lecture John Adams on the Constitution. In 1798 the 5th Congress passed, and Adams signed, "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman" into law. Thomas Jefferson was the President of the Senate during the 5th Congress while Jonathan Dayton, the youngest man to sign the United States Constitution, was the Speaker of the House.<br /><br />The act provided for the Federal Government to build and run hospitals for sick and injured seamen. It was paid for by taxing the sailors. Let this sink in. Adams and other Founders instituted tax funded government run health care.<br /><br />It survives to this day as the Public Health Service under the Surgeon General.<br /><br /><i>dehumanized the board of directors... trample their rights</i><br /><br />LOL! Funniest wild accusations yet.<br /><br />Yeah, those Wall Street swindlers are under my jackboot all right. Yuk yuk. <br /><br /><i>Corporatist is a word you just made up.</i><br /><br />Aww. Another false accusation and distraction. Not an answer. <br /><br />Neo-corporatism and state corporatism are already <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/290136/interest-group/257770/Neo-corporatism-and-state-corporatism" rel="nofollow"> defined </a> .<br />Now we have modern American Republcan/corpo-Dem corporatism and it’s big brother, global corporatism through the IMF and World Bank and other entities.<br />Ever wonder why so many legislators become lobbyists? <br /> <br />And speaking of unanswered questions, tell us this. Is an election a process of democracy? Or is it mob rule? Tell us the difference between democracy and mob rule if there is any difference at all.<br />We await your enlightenment. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-3672727119899031632013-04-13T22:11:04.685-04:002013-04-13T22:11:04.685-04:00No one is suggesting cars have first amendment rig...No one is suggesting cars have first amendment rights. Corporations are <i>a group of people</i> self organized and bound by law and corporate charter for a given purpose, which is generally commercial in nature. That's all.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-46358976608792548622013-04-13T21:17:27.636-04:002013-04-13T21:17:27.636-04:00Free must think cars are people too. After all, w...Free must think cars are people too. After all, who or what do you think runs them? Who makes their decisions?Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-48143195005479735652013-04-13T20:58:48.655-04:002013-04-13T20:58:48.655-04:00All of the things you mentioned Dave, are a means ...All of the things you mentioned Dave, are a means to an end. Not the end. The end is the protection of individual rights. Period. The founding father's didn't write the Constitution to start Medicare.<br /><br /><i>Money, along with land, real estate, buildings, property and a corporate charter</i><br /><br />These things are all inanimate objects. None of them can make decisions. None of them can do anything without human beings. The above things are tools. Who or what do you think runs corporations? Who makes their decisions? <br /><br />Its as if you've so dehumanized the board of directors, they aren't even people to you anymore. Perhaps this makes it easier in your mind, to trample their rights.<br /><br /><i>And what would a “constitutional republic” become with one corporatist party suppressing the vote, while it, and the other corporatist party hold a lock on elections and primarily represent the economic elites?</i><br /><br />Corporatist is a word you just made up. It seems to me, its your label for anyone who isn't a socialist like you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-85391657119123284652013-04-13T14:05:39.005-04:002013-04-13T14:05:39.005-04:00“He was free, free in every way, free to behave li...“He was free, free in every way, free to behave like a fool or a machine, free to accept, free to refuse, free to equivocate; to marry, to give up the game, to drag this death weight about with him for years to come. He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being.”<br />― Jean-Paul Sartre<br /><br />All of Free's contradictions are true to himself as only he can perceive them. He has practiced self delusion beyond the point of self-delusion. Mental masturbation....without Kleenex.okjimmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11013002335848390765noreply@blogger.com