EPT![[image loading]](http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1201/4-more-years-obama-4th-of-all-time-politics-1325620805.jpg)
User was warned for this post
Republican nominations - Page 260
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
I don't see the point of this being here...besides that I wonder how Bush would fare seeing as how his regime got us into this mess. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 12 2012 07:46 DoubleReed wrote: Along with the other people making fun of you for your ignorance, I thought I would add that it's "Jon," not "John." But no, corporate personhood is a real legal thing. Sorry. The world is not as wonderful as you thought. Consider this an answer to all of those making fun of my "ignorance". But here is an article that will serve you all well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-corporations-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html Here are the relevant quotes: Romney explained that one way to fulfill promises on entitlement programs is to “raise taxes on people,” but before he could articulate his position on not raising taxes, someone interrupted. “Corporations!” a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations that have benefited from loopholes in the tax code. “Corporations!” “Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said. Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!” “Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” What he meant, in that statement that got so noticed by everyone everywhere, is simply that it is just a book trick to say that you can tax corporations. You really, really can't. What is there to tax? Are you going to tax the floors? The ceiling? The computers? The tax will either be paid by the people working for the company or by their customers. And it can't be any other way. Legal status and what not can certainly be interesting, but I confess to not knowing much about that. All I know is that in this instance I knew what he meant, but everybody else seems dumbfounded. :o! | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
And yet nothing of that has to do with Obama. Sick flamebait though. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On January 13 2012 02:15 radiatoren wrote: Again it seems more like a nationalistic retoric than actual facts. Changing the constitution in Denmark has happened some times, but 4 different direct votes (+one indirect) on it with 2 of them being "qualified majority" votes, does not seem that easy to me. The major difference to me seems like the american constitution is sort of viewed as "sacred" while I've not really gotten the same impression from other countries where people have a more pragmatic view of theirs0. That's independent of how easy/hard it is to change it. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 12 2012 23:42 Voros wrote: This part in particular is insane: Hate to break it to Justice Nelson, but I don't surrender any of my rights--not one--when I buy stock in a corporation. The leftist fiction of stripping rights from corporations is nothing less than stripping the rights of individuals. He does not say you should surrender any of your rights, that is purely your strawman. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:46 HellRoxYa wrote: And yet nothing of that has to do with Obama. Sick flamebait though. Parts do. Obama's stimulus directly caused the debt/deficit to grow. Obama should be judged for the slow recovery, although giving him blame for job losses during the first two months after inauguration is showing a fair amount of ignorance. But obviously gas prices a) are rising globally due to rapidly growing demand in developing nations and b) are seasonally volatile, and this chart is comparing summer highs against winter lows. (I'd expect proponents of the free market to know such things :/ ) The misery index is a better indicator of the negatives of stagflation; in a deflationary spiral (ie US in 2009) it's not very useful. (I'll allow that this could be an honest mistake that most people who haven't studied any economics could make.) | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:46 HellRoxYa wrote: And yet nothing of that has to do with Obama. Sick flamebait though. Whether it has anything to do with Obama is debatable... but what is not is that the economy has gotten worse on his watch and the president always takes the blame (and rightly should). If he doesn't make things better he won't get re-elected. Obama's good at shifting the blame though... maybe he can fool everyone into thinking it's Bush's fault (everything else is right?). | ||
|
AUGcodon
Canada536 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 12 2012 23:55 xDaunt wrote: That judge's position is extreme because he's saying that corporations should have no Constitutional rights ever. What makes it worse is that his reasoning isn't even based on practical policy considerations. He only states that it is "offensive." I'm getting the sense that people don't really understand why corporations have been given Constitutional rights. The most important reason is that Corporations are "people" in the sense that behind every corporation is at least one person who owns it, runs it, or has some other interest in it. The bottom line is that "corporate assets," while nominally belonging to the corporation, actually belong to individual persons. Now, a whole slew of well-established laws (that aren't going anywhere) exist that mandate that these people with interests in the corporation must "must respect the corporate form," meaning that they are not allowed to freely transfer assets to and from the corporation for non-corporate purposes. This means that property that essentially belongs to individuals is stuck with the corporation. Now, let's assume that corporations have no Constitutional protections. That would mean that the state would be free to come in and seize the property of corporations because they have no Constitutional property rights. Who really gets screwed in this situation? The "corporation" or the people who own or have other interests in the corporation? The correct answer is both. With regards to the people, they would have no redress because the property that was seized from the corporation does not belong to them legally. It belongs to the corporation as a matter of law. Accordingly, the people would be indirectly screwed out of their property interests, and it would be Constitutional. This is why corporations have been afforded Constitutional protections. The protections exist by necessity to protect the property interests of individuals. I knew beforehand why they were given the rights. I just find the justification lacking. I see no problem with the property of individuals being "stuck" with the corporation. The individuals freely decided to put their property into the corporation without any coercion so they can enjoy the limited liability. I see no problem with there being a price for having limited liability. Property rights even in US are often restricted in other cases, I see not problem of restricting them in this case if it is in society's interest. Society created corporations for a specific purpose and with specific responsibilities. It is not like voluntary decisions cannot cause you to basically lose some constitutional rights (joining the army for example) anyway. Notice that I am not deriving my argument at all from existing precedents and US Constitution as I think neither of them has any moral authority, just legal one. Legalism is not a good moral system. You need to show that giving corporations such extensive rights is a good idea without using justification based on constitution or existing law, but using a moral argument. Just to note, if you show that particular conclusion that follows from the Constitution is immoral, then Constitution needs to be changed. Furthermore American Constitution and surrounding system is like the worst one in the first world exactly because it is so hard to change and the whole pseudo-religion that surrounds it and Founding Farther worship. All other countries with easier access to modifying their constitution are not confiscating property of corporations and are not closer to becoming tyrannies than US. Actually recently US is limiting essential liberties faster than other first world countries, interesting. There is no such necessity that you profess. In other countries corporations work just fine without giving them any constitutional rights. I would like to point out that if government starts confiscating property without good reason, it can do so using much easier legal methods anyway. Point is that when government is so far gone as to start violating the laws or creating immoral laws it will not be deterred by US Constitution anymore than any European constitution. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 13 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote: You're missing the critical point. Look to the clause before that where the judge points out that those powers are granted by the legislature. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure certain inalienable rights that no government -- federal or state -- can take away. That's what makes the United States different from most every other country in the world. We are governed by a core set of laws that are very difficult to change by design. If these Constitutional protections did not apply to corporations, then the state and federal governments would have a backdoor to seizing the property of individuals under the guise of seizing property from a "corporation," and they can do this by simply changing the law with majority vote. Having Constitutional protections apply to corporations protects and promotes personal civil liberties. I can't stress enough how important this is, and it's disturbing to me that so many Americans have zero understanding of this concept. They already have backdoors that are much easier to manipulate. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:21 ElMeanYo wrote: What are you trying to say. If you want to blame Obama (and there is a lot that you can blame on him) you need to analyse what he did or should have and did not. Economic indicators do not tell you much as they do not depend only on his policies but on external factors and starting conditions. You can use economical indicators to support your argument not to replace it. | ||
|
Zeburial
Sweden1126 Posts
He surely have invented the time machine! xD | ||
|
gold_
Canada312 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:21 ElMeanYo wrote: How many people actually thought Obama was going to become president and fix everything though? Wasn't the only reason he was elected president was because people wanted to make history by electing the first black man ever to be the president? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:45 ParasitJonte wrote: Consider this an answer to all of those making fun of my "ignorance". But here is an article that will serve you all well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-corporations-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html Here are the relevant quotes: What he meant, in that statement that got so noticed by everyone everywhere, is simply that it is just a book trick to say that you can tax corporations. You really, really can't. What is there to tax? Are you going to tax the floors? The ceiling? The computers? The tax will either be paid by the people working for the company or by their customers. And it can't be any other way. Legal status and what not can certainly be interesting, but I confess to not knowing much about that. All I know is that in this instance I knew what he meant, but everybody else seems dumbfounded. :o! There is a concept of legal person and in most countries that concept also exists, but since it is artificial concept it does not have rights granted by constitutions, but by specific laws that say what it can and cannot do. This concept of legal person is a construct created with some purpose and as all constructs it has only the rights that it needs to fulfill its purpose. Saying that corporations are people is like saying that police or firefighters are people, because they consist of people. They are not, police has strictly limited rights and responsibilities far from the one that person enjoys. That is because police is a construct that serves some purpose and there is no reason to give it any more rights than are needed to fulfill it. Similarly corporation is a construct with very specific purpose. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:45 ParasitJonte wrote: Consider this an answer to all of those making fun of my "ignorance". But here is an article that will serve you all well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-corporations-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html Here are the relevant quotes: What he meant, in that statement that got so noticed by everyone everywhere, is simply that it is just a book trick to say that you can tax corporations. You really, really can't. What is there to tax? Are you going to tax the floors? The ceiling? The computers? The tax will either be paid by the people working for the company or by their customers. And it can't be any other way. Legal status and what not can certainly be interesting, but I confess to not knowing much about that. All I know is that in this instance I knew what he meant, but everybody else seems dumbfounded. :o! You do not seem to have understood the replies made to you, or the status of corporations. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8104 Posts
On January 13 2012 04:38 gold_ wrote: How many people actually thought Obama was going to become president and fix everything though? Wasn't the only reason he was elected president was because people wanted to make history by electing the first black man ever to be the president? or you know, because mccain is a douchebag and his VP was palin do people forget how horrible republican candidates are? also 45+% of the population will always vote dem no matter what pretty much (same with republicans). it was really down to a guarantee of no change at all with mccain or slight change with obama. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
On January 13 2012 04:38 Zeburial wrote: Since I'm from Sweden I don't want to say that I understand everything concerning USA's politics and the republicans. But I find this video with Ron Paul very interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69fYyoMlVk&feature=player_embedded He surely have invented the time machine! xD Very interesting, even if he is pretty vague on some issues | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On January 13 2012 04:48 kwizach wrote: You do not seem to have understood the replies made to you, or the status of corporations. Actually you're right. I just thought it was a comment on Mitt Romney's comment but it wasn't. My bad. Oops. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 13 2012 05:21 ParasitJonte wrote: Actually you're right. I just thought it was a comment on Mitt Romney's comment but it wasn't. My bad. Oops. The issues are intertwined. The people who advocate high taxes on corporations tend to be the same people who believe that corporations shouldn't have any Constitutional protections. | ||
| ||
