what constitutes a foreign corporation

[Don Quixote]

a corporation that does business in the u s of a but has its home office in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in the u s of a but is owned by non-u s of a citizens or by a majority of non-u s of a citizens

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

a corporation that does business in the u s of a but has its home office in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in the u s of a but is owned by non-u s of a citizens or by a majority of non-u s of a citizens

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus

I thought Eric Holder, the Attorney General, had already determined that foreigners have Constitutional rights. Isn't that the basis and reasoning for bringing the terrorists to NY for trial? Giving them Constitutional rights to due process? So, how can you 'pivot' and argue against rights in the same Constitution to some other foreigner, on that basis? I don't understand this, if we are going to allow foreigners to have the right to a criminal trial, how can we deny foreigners the right to free speech? It seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

a corporation that does business in the u s of a but has its home office in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign nation

a corporation that is incorporated in the u s of a but is owned by non-u s of a citizens or by a majority of non-u s of a citizens

and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus
They should all be prohibited from spending a dime on american elections.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They should all be prohibited from spending a dime on american elections.

Then foreigners should also not be given Constitutional rights to due process in US courts, or... Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants who aren't American citizens. We need to decide which way we're going here, we simply CAN'T have it BOTH ways... this right, you are entitled to, but this right, you're not entitled to! Either foreigners ARE or ARE NOT entitled to our Constitutional rights... make up your minds which way you want it to be!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Then foreigners should also not be given Constitutional rights to due process in US courts, or... Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants who aren't American citizens. We need to decide which way we're going here, we simply CAN'T have it BOTH ways... this right, you are entitled to, but this right, you're not entitled to! Either foreigners ARE or ARE NOT entitled to our Constitutional rights... make up your minds which way you want it to be!

No.

Only you suffer from these bizarre sticky logic situations where one thing automatically means something else.

Your internationalist fascism is showing again.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No.

Only you suffer from these bizarre sticky logic situations where one thing automatically means something else.

Your internationalist fascism is showing again.

What? Bizarre sticky logic??? You mean CONSISTENCY?

Look, we don't have a Kingdom, where our King can determine which rights to bestow on which people at his personal whim! Maybe that's the America YOU want to live in, and that's fine, it's just NOT the America we currently live in!

Seems to me, if you are going to give constitutional rights and protections to terrorists and illegal immigrants, you can't deny constitutional rights and protections to foreign corporations. I say we pass a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Constitution is only applicable to US Citizens, that's fine by me... it takes care of several other issues as well!

[Good Luck]

They should all be prohibited from spending a dime on american elections.
Why? Because you are too fucking brain dead to resist their rhetoric?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Why? Because you are too fucking brain dead to resist their rhetoric?

Im not. but many are. And they should be protected from fascist rhetoric to save the society from fascism.

[PostmodernProphet]

IRS regs
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia.


and do any of the above have the same rights to free speech in the u s of a ala the right to support any elected office seeker or simple free speech per scotus

if a person legally residing in the US who is not a citizen has a right to free speech in the US, then logically also, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the US holds the same right of free speech that a domestic corporation has......

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

IRS regs
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia.



if a person legally residing in the US who is not a citizen has a right to free speech in the US, then logically also, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the US holds the same right of free speech that a domestic corporation has......

wrong.

[Mott the Hoople]

IRS regs
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia.



if a person legally residing in the US who is not a citizen has a right to free speech in the US, then logically also, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the US holds the same right of free speech that a domestic corporation has......Including unions? You realize it's a sword that cuts both ways?

[Good Luck]

Im not. but many are. And they should be protected from fascist rhetoric to save the society from fascism.
Protection from "harmful" ideas is the hallmark of totalitarianism from many different camps, all of which detest freedom, including fascism. People who want to mandate what is or is not allowed for people to hear for ANY reason are on the side of totalitarianism. Do you REALLY want the government determining what rhetoric is "harmful" for you (or anyone else) to hear? What if they decide that any rhetoric that criticizes the federal bank and its fiat money is "harmful" - therefore outlawed to "protect" the people - because it can reduce confidence in the monetary system?

And, do you even know what fascism is? The last thing corporations would want is to make themselves subservient to the state (that is what fascism really is) - therefore corporations are very unlikely to be spouting "fascist" rhetoric.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Protection from "harmful" ideas is the hallmark of totalitarianism from many different camps, all of which detest freedom, including fascism. People who want to mandate what is or is not allowed for people to hear for ANY reason are on the side of totalitarianism. Do you REALLY want the government determining what rhetoric is "harmful" for you (or anyone else) to hear? What if they decide that any rhetoric that criticizes the federal bank and its fiat money is "harmful" - therefore outlawed to "protect" the people - because it can reduce confidence in the monetary system?

And, do you even know what fascism is? The last thing corporations would want is to make themselves subservient to the state (that is what fascism really is) - therefore corporations are very unlikely to be spouting "fascist" rhetoric.

Corporations won't be subservient to the state, they will control it.

Fascism is the blending of state and corporate power, regardless of how you perceive who is really in control. It's the same people.



I still support globalist idiot information being freely available if people want to read it, but allowing them unlimited spending to project the corporate agenda into people's minds should be disallowed.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Corporations have no nation. That's why none of them should be able to spend a single red cent on elections.

[PostmodernProphet]

wrong.

???...which one, the definition of "foreign", or the logical conclusion drawn therefrom......

[PostmodernProphet]

Including unions? You realize it's a sword that cuts both ways?

are you denying my logic or are you denying their rights.....

if the sword cuts both ways can you deny one without denying the other?.....

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

are you denying my logic or are you denying their rights.....

if the sword cuts both ways can you deny one without denying the other?.....

No. So we should deny both.

[Good Luck]

Corporations won't be subservient to the state, they will control it.

Fascism is the blending of state and corporate power, regardless of how you perceive who is really in control. It's the same people.



I still support globalist idiot information being freely available if people want to read it, but allowing them unlimited spending to project the corporate agenda into people's minds should be disallowed.
I strongly suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about. Fascism is not a "blending" of state and corporate power. Fascism, by definition, is the GOVERNMENT taking dictatorial control of industry - whether it be corporate or a mom & pop business - and making it subservient to the needs of the state. In fact with fascism the government takes dictatorial control of everything. The difference between fascism and socialist totalitarianism and most other types of totalitarianism is ownership of industry - and much of the profits - remains in private hands, though the business owner has little or no say in how they direct their business. If the state decides a factory needs to start making plastic bottles instead of plastic toys, then they start making bottles - or the owners are arrested, usually executed for treason, and someone else buys the place at a discount and retools the factory to make bottles.

Only totalitarians deliberately use fear of the messages of others to demand controlling their ability to speak out as they wish. And on panty-wetting cowardly morons support the idea.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I strongly suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about. Fascism is not a "blending" of state and corporate power. Fascism, by definition, is the GOVERNMENT taking dictatorial control of industry - whether it be corporate or a mom & pop business - and making it subservient to the needs of the state. In fact with fascism the government takes dictatorial control of everything. The difference between fascism and socialist totalitarianism and most other types of totalitarianism is ownership of industry - and much of the profits - remains in private hands, though the business owner has little or no say in how they direct their business. If the state decides a factory needs to start making plastic bottles instead of plastic toys, then they start making bottles - or the owners are arrested, usually executed for treason, and someone else buys the place at a discount and retools the factory to make bottles.

Only totalitarians deliberately use fear of the messages of others to demand controlling their ability to speak out as they wish. And on panty-wetting cowardly morons support the idea.

i agree for the most part, but are you actually suggesting that corporations and the state can never blend to create a totalitarian state?

such a notion, is not only plausible, it is a reality, in that, since the corporation does not exist without power from the state, the two must be as one, or at minimum, best friends in order to exist.

azzhattle just believes the worse is already here, though he has no proof.

[Good Luck]

i agree for the most part, but are you actually suggesting that corporations and the state can never blend to create a totalitarian state?

such a notion, is not only plausible, it is a reality, in that, since the corporation does not exist without power from the state, the two must be as one, or at minimum, best friends in order to exist.

azzhattle just believes the worse is already here, though he has no proof.
When you can show me that WalMart and Costco are butt buddies behind the curtains, you may have a point. Bringing about better products through the necessity of making yours better than the other guy is but one positive aspect of competition in a capitalist economy. As long as we have reasonable anti-trust laws preventing full blown monopolies from establishing themselves, we will not see the kinds of back-room conspiracy level negotiations and power sharing required to form a totalitarian state from corporatism.

Again, corporations DO have undue influence over the way our government is being run. But the types of influence most detrimental come from areas that do not include corporate ability to plaster us with various forms of rhetoric. Do you honestly think the average registered democrat is going to start voting libertarian because they start seeing all kinds of political commercials coming from Exxon, Walmart, or (gasp!) Haliburton?

Meanwhile, the types of undue influence they do have is not exactly working in harmony toward a commonly conceived goal. Exxon isn't going to willingly powershare a totalitarian government with Conoco, and Walmart is not going powershare with Target. Greed for power (when you're 10X billionaire or more, it's no longer about money) is just that: GREED - and the greedy are not known for their sharing abilities.

And let us not forget that the people in power over these corporations are not stupid men (or women). They fully recognize how they came to achieve what has led them to the power they now hold, and the political background that allowed them to get where they are, and to keep them where they are. It did NOT come from, nor possibly COULD have come from any kind of totalitarian dictatorship. It is good old demonized by the left CAPTIALISM running in a FREE state that have set these people on their seats of economic power. They are NOT so stupid as to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

If we are to survive with the principles of liberty this nation is founded on, then we MUST accept that liberty of some is going to make others uncomfortable. "I do not like what you are saying, but will fight to the death for your right to say it." means everyone, individually, and as groups. Saying to one group of people "you can say what you like about politics" (ie: 527s and the like) then saying to another group "You need to keep the hell away from politics, because you're too rich." is a direct violation of the constitution (14th), as well as spitting on the foundational principles that led to our Bill of Rights in the first place.

[midcan5]

We should all become corporations, form our lives into corporations, that way we are not responsible for anything. Foreign, local, anywhere don't matter.

Individual freedom means nothing if you don't incorporate, join us today. Rape pillage and plunder and then change your name, or ask for money, or say it was someone else's fault. It was that darn free market, jeez, we didn't know it was toxic, oh well sorry you're dead, we'll try harder next time. Those darn Chinese! Lead you say? Asbestos you say! Go bankrupt and start over clean, well not clean but you get the picture.


An Open Letter to President Bush
We the Corporations ... By Ralph Nader

Dear President Bush:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02162008.html

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008 By Robert Weissman
http://www.counterpunch.org/weissman12292008.html

"As dollars for journalists vanish and the numbers of reporters decline, another creepy phenomenon is occurring. Surviving reporters are expected to be experts on everything. They are expected to write about every issue as if they know what they are talking about.

Another interesting phenomenon in the newsroom is the old refrain: "Get the other side of the story." When a reporter writes an article quoting only politicians or corporations, an editor doesn't say, "Get the other side of the story," or "Get the grassroots side of the story." Yet, when a reporter writes from the point of view of the people, the grassroots people, editors say, "Get the other side of the story." Too often, this means publishing the lies of politicians and corporations. It is censorship, silencing the voices of the people. These editors, too, are the darlings of the energy companies, because their paper publishes what the corporation or politicians say, with little regard for truth. Corporations and elected politicians are considered credible, while the people on the street, or the people on the land, are not considered credible. It is stale snobbery. More often than not, being a print or radio journalist who is actually out there on a news story means financial disaster these days. We're not just talking low pay; we're talking complete and total financial disaster."

http://www.counterpunch.org/norrell10012009.html

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Great post.

And we see here on the board how conveniently the globalist fascist corporatist logic is destroyed with actual open debate.


of course now, all the corporate money flowing in will price regular voices of people out of the market. but this is by design, and the fascists hiding behind the constitution, perverting it's very meaning, know it.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I strongly suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about. Fascism is not a "blending" of state and corporate power. Fascism, by definition, is the GOVERNMENT taking dictatorial control of industry - whether it be corporate or a mom & pop business - and making it subservient to the needs of the state. In fact with fascism the government takes dictatorial control of everything. The difference between fascism and socialist totalitarianism and most other types of totalitarianism is ownership of industry - and much of the profits - remains in private hands, though the business owner has little or no say in how they direct their business. If the state decides a factory needs to start making plastic bottles instead of plastic toys, then they start making bottles - or the owners are arrested, usually executed for treason, and someone else buys the place at a discount and retools the factory to make bottles.

Only totalitarians deliberately use fear of the messages of others to demand controlling their ability to speak out as they wish. And on panty-wetting cowardly morons support the idea.


I do know what Im talking about. Fascism is the melding of corporate and government power. WHether it's business taking over government or government taking over business is irrelevant.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Good luck sucks at thinking and has been jizzed all over by me.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

This issue really shows who is a fascist traitor to the nation and who is not.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hey Mudcan, why are you still posting letters to President Bush? Last I checked, former presidents do not have a lot of political power in Washington. Should we all forget Bush is gone and we ousted his entire Congress and gave Democrats complete control of Washington?

I just wandered in here to see if you pinheads had decided which way we're going... Do foreigners HAVE Constitutional rights, or NOT? Do we deny Constitutional rights to foreigners, or allow them? This is something we really need to settle on one way or the other, because you can't have a system that cherry-picks which constitutional rights are granted to which groups of foreign people. It either has to apply to all or none, and either all of it applies or none of it applies, you don't get to mix and match.

If you are going to disallow "foreign corporations" the right of free speech, you can't allow free speech for "foreign activists" like George Soros. If you are going to disallow "foreign political speech" you have to also disallow "trial by jury" and all the other constitutional rights as well. So, which is it going to be?

[Damocles]

Hey Mudcan, why are you still posting letters to President Bush? Last I checked, former presidents do not have a lot of political power in Washington. Should we all forget Bush is gone and we ousted his entire Congress and gave Democrats complete control of Washington?

I just wandered in here to see if you pinheads had decided which way we're going... Do foreigners HAVE Constitutional rights, or NOT? Do we deny Constitutional rights to foreigners, or allow them? This is something we really need to settle on one way or the other, because you can't have a system that cherry-picks which constitutional rights are granted to which groups of foreign people. It either has to apply to all or none, and either all of it applies or none of it applies, you don't get to mix and match.

If you are going to disallow "foreign corporations" the right of free speech, you can't allow free speech for "foreign activists" like George Soros. If you are going to disallow "foreign political speech" you have to also disallow "trial by jury" and all the other constitutional rights as well. So, which is it going to be?
We're supposed to forget that and believe that the traditional Ds (Blue Dogs) are actually republicans so they can blame republicans for what they couldn't pass with a supermajority.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

If you are going to disallow "foreign political speech" you have to also disallow "trial by jury" and all the other constitutional rights as well. So, which is it going to be?

We do get to mix and match. Actually we can disallow foreign political speech yet still maintain their right to trial by jury.

Only in your oddly and idiotically oriented worldview is this impossible.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We do get to mix and match. Actually we can disallow foreign political speech yet still maintain their right to trial by jury.

Only in your oddly and idiotically oriented worldview is this impossible.

So in your view, you see nothing wrong with parsing the Constitution and allowing certain rights to be granted to certain foreign people, while other rights are denied to other foreign people? And WHO becomes the "Bestower of Freedom" under your system of government, AssClown?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

So in your view, you see nothing wrong with parsing the Constitution and allowing certain rights to be granted to certain foreign people, while other rights are denied to other foreign people? And WHO becomes the "Bestower of Freedom" under your system of government, AssClown?

We just destroyed the constitution bailing out fascists, everyone thought that was oik. this is ok too. the chaos of the bailout didn't phase you, this shouldn't either.

the law will be simple. No political expenditures by any corporation with one iota of foreign ownership. Period. It's simple, and is in no way hastening the destruction of freedom. You can say they're people, but that's fucking stupid.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We just destroyed the constitution bailing out fascists, everyone thought that was oik. this is ok too. the chaos of the bailout didn't phase you, this shouldn't either.

the law will be simple. No political expenditures by any corporation with one iota of foreign ownership. Period. It's simple, and is in no way hastening the destruction of freedom. You can say they're people, but that's fucking stupid.

We are talking about the Constitution applying to foreigners, not Congressional approval of bailouts for US corporations. Two entirely different subjects!

If you are going to DENY the 1st Amendment rights to foreigners, you have to also deny them 4th Amendment rights! If you are going to allow foreigners 4th Amendment rights, even though they were captured on foreign soil, then you would have to also allow 1st Amendment rights to foreigners who own corporations on American soil. It is convoluted to argue otherwise.

What is simple is the principle... we are either going to say the Constitution applies to foreigners and foreign entities, or it doesn't!
PICK ONE!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

We are talking about the Constitution applying to foreigners, not Congressional approval of bailouts for US corporations. Two entirely different subjects!


But we're also talking about your hysteria about the constitution being violated. The bailout talk was to illustrate your hypocrisy in this matter.



If you are going to DENY the 1st Amendment rights to foreigners, you have to also deny them 4th Amendment rights!

No I don't.






If you are going to allow foreigners 4th Amendment rights, even though they were captured on foreign soil, then you would have to also allow 1st Amendment rights to foreigners who own corporations on American soil. It is convoluted to argue otherwise.


You forget Im not a lib. enemy combatants deserve no contitutional rights.


What is simple is the principle... we are either going to say the Constitution applies to foreigners and foreign entities, or it doesn't!
PICK ONE!

You're creating this false dichotomy. The truth is that we can pick and choose.

I jizzed on you six ways to sunday.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're creating this false dichotomy. The truth is that we can pick and choose.

There is nothing 'false' about the dichotomy, it is a perfectly legitimate one! No, we CAN'T pick and choose which Constitutional rights apply to which groups! Are you THAT fucking insane? Have you COMPLETELY lost all grasp of reality?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

There is nothing 'false' about the dichotomy, it is a perfectly legitimate one! No, we CAN'T pick and choose which Constitutional rights apply to which groups! Are you THAT fucking insane? Have you COMPLETELY lost all grasp of reality?

Yes we can.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes we can.

Not according to the Constitution.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Not according to the Constitution.

Yes according to the constitution.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes according to the constitution.

No, I am sorry, and it doesn't matter how many times you want to childishly refute that with a "No, you're wrong--jizzed in your face" rebuttal, you haven't supported your view, and you can't. The SCOTUS ruled a LONG time ago, the Constitution applies in WHOLE, not PART! You simply can't parse out the rights you don't like and grant the ones you do! It's just not allowed! Can you get through your concrete cranial mass?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

No, I am sorry, and it doesn't matter how many times you want to childishly refute that with a "No, you're wrong--jizzed in your face" rebuttal, you haven't supported your view, and you can't. The SCOTUS ruled a LONG time ago, the Constitution applies in WHOLE, not PART! You simply can't parse out the rights you don't like and grant the ones you do! It's just not allowed! Can you get through your concrete cranial mass?

I believe the constitution has a process for constitutional amendments. So. We can. In fact.

I just jizzed in your face.

Prisoners can't vote ya know. Is that unconstitutional?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I believe the constitution has a process for constitutional amendments. So. We can. In fact.

I just jizzed in your face.

Prisoners can't vote ya know. Is that unconstitutional?

LMAO, prisoners have been convicted in a court for violating the law, and as a punishment, sacrifice their rights of freedom.

LMAOoo.. Constitutional Amendments take ratification by 3/4 of the states, and I doubt you would have ONE state who would vote to abolish the 1st Amendment. But if you think that is the way to go, don't let me stop you!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

LMAO, prisoners have been convicted in a court for violating the law, and as a punishment, sacrifice their rights of freedom.

Right. So we do pick and choose.




LMAOoo.. Constitutional Amendments take ratification by 3/4 of the states, and I doubt you would have ONE state who would vote to abolish the 1st Amendment. But if you think that is the way to go, don't let me stop you!

it's not abolishing the first amendment, it's just modulating who it applies to, like in the prisoner instance.

You're jizz covered, yet again.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Right. So we do pick and choose.
...it's not abolishing the first amendment, it's just modulating who it applies to, like in the prisoner instance.

No we don't actually. What we do is, remove all Constitutional rights from prisoners... they have been granted "HUMAN" rights, and indeed we have stretched those to include some rights which are also found in the Constitution, but someone convicted and sentenced is stripped of all Constitutional freedoms, that is what prison is all about. This is a punishment for a citizen convicted for doing something wrong, that is why it is an exception. We typically do not parse Constitutional rights and freedoms to law-abiding, non-convicted citizens.

Okay, let me illustrate why it doesn't work... why the Constitution can't be like a Cafeteria Plan... why we can't selectively choose which rights to apply to which people....

We allow the 4th Amendment to apply to a Gitmo detainee, and he is given his "day in court" pursuant to his rights under the Constitution.... BUT, we have ruled that he doesn't get the rights of the 1st Amendment, so he has no freedom to speak. How can he legitimately obtain his 4th Amendment right to a fair trial by a jury of his piers, if he is not allowed to speak? It is impossible, because his piers would also be prohibited from speaking, therefore, unable to reach a verdict in his case, he couldn't be allowed to testify on his own behalf, as that would involve his speaking, and his attorney would not be able to defend him unless he was free to speak. So you have effectively rendered BOTH rights invalid by eliminating one.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights apply as a whole, we don't parse them.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

No we don't actually. What we do is, remove all Constitutional rights from prisoners...


That's picking and choosing.

We already parse them, cunt.

[Good Luck]

That's picking and choosing.

We already parse them, cunt.
There is a vast different between removing a person's right via due process (ie: convicted criminals) and simply making a law diminishing the rights of a person or group. The first is specifically allowed in the Constitution. The second is specifically forbidden by same.

[Good Luck]

I do know what Im talking about. Fascism is the melding of corporate and government power. WHether it's business taking over government or government taking over business is irrelevant.
You can claim pink is really blue until the moon falls out of the sky. All that does is prove you to be a childish twit as well as an ignorant one.

Fascism is a dictatorship, not a "melding" of powers. It is government power embodied in a single dictator that takes over all else, including industry.

What you are describing is an economic oligarchy, in which an economic elite maintains control over government.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

You can claim pink is really blue until the moon falls out of the sky. All that does is prove you to be a childish twit as well as an ignorant one.

Fascism is a dictatorship, not a "melding" of powers. It is government power embodied in a single dictator that takes over all else, including industry.

What you are describing is an economic oligarchy, in which an economic elite maintains control over government.

It could be lead by an oligarchy, that's still fascism.

Let's not parse words, ok dipshit.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

There is a vast different between removing a person's right via due process (ie: convicted criminals) and simply making a law diminishing the rights of a person or group. The first is specifically allowed in the Constitution. The second is specifically forbidden by same.

There is not a vast difference.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I wonder if good luck realizes what a brainwash victim he is.