Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mcgraw_wv, Nov 15, 2010.
Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress - NYTimes.com
First tv ad to launch campaign in link.
Free speech is apparently for unions and media corporations only.
Corporations exist to serve the needs of the People. That includes unions, IMO. People are individual piles of organs and tissue wrapped in skin. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is for the People.
That was the reason for the suit. The restrictions did not apply to media organizations (for-profit-corporations) or PACs. Some of them are foreign corporations (any concerns about that, people?)
It was unequal treatment.
Note: I incorrectly included unions in my previous post. They, along with other non-profits were under the rule that was being challenged in the suit.
Ah, we drift ever close to my prediction: The House of Shareholder Representatives (and of course, the "upper house," the Board Senate.)
It is not really a corporation running for office, it is a political advocacy group trying to make a point. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I thought the same thing...
I feel helpless about this subject. Tilting against this windmill feels like being a woman in Afghanistan trying to buy a bikini...what's the fuggin point, huh?
Pesky thing that first amendment, huh? Really sucks how everyone gets to practice it - even all those azzholes you disagree with.
Yeah, if you're talking about people.
Well who the heck is running corporations? Dogs? Cats? Robots?
So if a corporation is a person, is it male or female? If I want to marry Microsoft, would it be a gay marriage?
I mean, if the corporation is a person, it's got to be a man or a woman. This doesn't really get into the question of whether a marriage must be between one man and one woman. It's just a question of which a corporation is.
Also, having established the gender of various corporations, could you incorporate a corporation of a dozen women and marry it?
If the CEO of a parent corporation marries one of his subsidiaries, is it incest?
A "person" under the law is a quaint little category that lets corporate entities be treated for legal purposes by the same rules as an individual. It does not extend to the right to vote or enjoy constitutional protections, although the individuals working for that corporation, and of course their shareholders, do enjoy said rights.
But now that the rights we ascribe to people apply to "persons" - they have to have free speech, the right to vote, the right to marry, whatever other rights you and I enjoy - it would seem we have to settle all these new areas of law.
I drive a truck. That doesn't make my truck my equal.
You can't imagine a corporation run by robots?...really?
Let's go with that just for sh!ts and giggles. We now have entire factories being run by robots (which is a dream of corporations 30 years ago that no factory worker could have more than fantasizes about- but corporations knew it would happen. Somewhere in the dark recesses of some corporate boardroom, there is a process being developed that will result in a corporation being run, managed, and executed by a set of digital entities. This structure is difficult to define, but I can be fairly certain that it is in the works. It may be happening right before our eyes. There are on-line banks that exist without branches, offices, or addresses other than a PO box for formality sake. Soon, that won't even be a requirement. Humans no longer have to sign documents. Buy-outs and mergers are largely calculated by computers. Decisions that have life-and-death consequences are routinely made by, and executed by computers with no human involvement.
Why is it so hard to imagine a corporations of robots?
Would these robots be required to pay for other people's health insurance?
It depends on whether or not they want to. If not, they could just kill all of us...
Well when robots are on the board of directors and robots are the primary stockholders then I will support your efforts. In the meantime since we are living in the real world (that is, most of us are), I will favor the ridiculous, radical notion that freedom of speech extends to everyone.
No one is saying a corporation is a person - except the reactionary moonbats screaming that the sky is falling who are trying to frame the discussion in that manner.
A corporation is a collection of individuals. For further examples, I submit that the RNC is a collection of individuals. The DNC is a collection of individuals. So are special interest groups such as the NRA or NOW. Labor unions. They are all groups of people.
I know you hate to hear it, but people have rights to free speech, both individually as well as when they are in groups. And also, I know you hate to hear it, but that even includes all the azzholes you disagree with.
Is it your contention that a corporation isn't a person, therefore it shouldn't have free speech rights? Is that really what you are saying here?
"So let me get this straight... this "death panel" was composed of robots from the future?"
Your silly, talk radio adjectives don't really describe people who oppose the equality of corporations to them, but you know that, don't you? You also know that you only use those stupid terms like "moonbat" and "bleeding heart" because you're unable to have an adult discussion and you feel the need to made your simplistic and idiotic distinctions between honest Americans who oppose your political POV. That's a lot easier than actually thinking about something. It's one thing to have a POV...
So in answer to your last question: YES!
That's what most people believe. You can disagree all you like, but here's the truth: People are people. A baseball team is a baseball team. An army is an army. Do you think a baseball team should have as much influence as the people of the city they share? Should the Marine Corps be able to influence the votes of Congress by contributing to a campaign? After all, the Marines are people, right? How about al Queda? They're people...
I'm no moonbat, and somehow, I think people matter more than corporations.
And try to be a grownup and realize that my discussion about robots running corporations was merely speculative and arguementative...not actually literal. Your attempt at making it seem like I believe that robots run corporations reveals that you can't deal with abstract concepts, which isn't good for you.
So corporations, which are made up by a group of people, should not have free speech. Then heck, let's just take away free speech from all those other annoying groups I can't stand! Like NOW, NARAL and the DNC. After all, groups don't deserve free speech!
Don't tell me you oppose free speech for those groups and lecture me on how your opinion somehow represents the majority. Please try to be a grownup.
I think a baseball team has every right to lobby for policies that benefit them. Now I don't see the Red Sox getting involved in the abortion debate anytime soon, but I have no problem with them making commercials advocating for a new Fenway Park if they want to (and actually did for a while in the 90's).
But nope! Not in WPF's world! No freedom of speech for anyone today!
Gee, call me crazy, but yeah I think Marines should be allowed to vote for and support the political candidates of their choice.
If you mean the Marine Corps as a group, then my position has always been that government agencies should not be able to use taxpayer funds to advocate for a specific political position. For example, the Department of State cannot all of a sudden start making commercials opposing a fence along our southern border. The Marines can't make a commercial supporting abortion. Because now we're talking about taxpayer funds instead of private funds.
So your analogy is epic fail. Too bad you're not intelligent enough to understand why.
Last time I checked, al Qaeda wasn't a group of American citizens. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not extend to the right to threaten, harass or slander anyone. So even an American contingent of al-Qaeda would not have the freedom of speech to threaten our nation. The fact that you have to use al-Qaeda as an example shows how idiotic your statement are.
So your analogy is epic fail. Too bad you're not intelligent enough to understand why.
You're the one who brought up the moronic analogy of robots, and now you're telling me to "try to be a grownup"? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You just got beaten at your own game - and followed it up with the incredibly weak "try to be a grownup" card. :rofl: :rofl:
The fact that you have brought up robots running corporations and al-Qaeda shows just how idiotic your stance is.
I could have written your response myself because you're so predictable when you're cornered. Insults combined with a total lack of rebuttal other than the requisite insult! Classic Brian!
BTW, Brian, you're the one who brought up robots:
..."Well who the heck is running corporations? Dogs? Cats? Robots?"...
Too bad you aren't interested in discussing things outside of the realm of "the real world". You should try it sometime. It's fun!
Separate names with a comma.