Were fucking owned

I've always been of the opinion that we should recognize our government officials are owned, but make it public who owns them....I want coveralls with logos on them like NASCAR drivers wear......ah, this one is UAW, Teamsters, NEA and Sierra Club......that one is AMA and Phizer......here comes Big Oil high on the outside....
 
The ranting and raving over the freedom given to business....wow...

How about the politician that takes the bribe, sells his vote, the in your face corruption you've witnessed just in the past few weeks with the healthcare vote....isn't that corrupt politician the REAL CRIMINAL....rather than those exercising their Constitutional rights of free speech....
I just don't quite get the lefts logic....

Don't listen to Epi; I like when you chime in.

Of course the politician who is corrupted by money (see: all of them) is guilty. You're trying to make this a partisan issue - surprise, surprise - but it's not.

Money has ruined politics. Corporations write bills, and buy votes. The interests of average Americans are secondary.

Rant, rant, rave, rave...
 
Don't listen to Epi; I like when you chime in.

Of course the politician who is corrupted by money (see: all of them) is guilty. You're trying to make this a partisan issue - surprise, surprise - but it's not.

Money has ruined politics. Corporations write bills, and buy votes. The interests of average Americans are secondary.

Rant, rant, rave, rave...

Thus the saying, "Money is root of all evil"....

I recognize that offering a bribe is against the law but I consider the politician that accepts the bribe the more corrupt....and of course its not a partisan issue....if that was the case , our war hero, Mr. Cunningham(R) would be free today.....

I can see Congress addressing this issue in the future, drafting a Constitutional law that places limits on the money in politics....how? I don't know....as long as it applies to everyone...business, corporations, unions, pacs, etc.....
but in the meantime, its up to us voters to do our best to remove those corrupt congressmen that take those bribes and sell their votes....
 
As I said, I don't really understand consitutional law, and I'm not really pissed at SCOTUS. I'm not necessarily saying that they ruled incorrectly, according to the letter of the law, because I'm just not informed enough on that topic to make that judgment.

However, I can say conclusively that the decision itself, and corporate money in general, is bad for America, and bad for the ideals of democracy.

fair enough
 
The framers of the Consititution didn't even know what a corporation is, much less have any idea that it would someday control the government.

Maybe that's why.
What? You clearly have no idea what you are spouting off about now. Corporations have been around for, quite literally, centuries. They have had a say in politics since Monarchs were the "thang"...

In fact, the oldest corporation still running today is the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, which obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Yes 1347...

The founders knew what corporations were. Back then churches incorporated so that they could survive past any living member (so that they didn't end when the pastor "ended"). Shoot, it was corporations that FUNDED much of the discovery and trips to the "New World"...

Some examples:

The Dutch East India Company
Hudson's Bay Company

In the late 18th Century (when our nation was founded) English law defined a corporation as follows:

"a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."

In 1600 (yeah, before the founding) the British Monarchy granted the British East India Company (yeah, real original there eh?) a monopoly on trade to India. In a very short time they were earning 150% return on their investment... They were politically powerful and had "rights" granted through law.

The founders, in fact, severely limited the powers of the government and the States limited and legislated corporations (not the feds). In most cases it took an act of legislation to create one. Thus the huge monopolies were created as Limited Partnerships (Andrew Carnegie) and Trusts (Rockefeller) which exercised the owners personal rights as well as those of the company.

States were actually the ones that used permissive corporate registration in order to gain more revenue from the registration fees and taxation.

Anyway, saying that the founders had no idea the power and influence corporations could wield ignores actual history.
 
See "apples to apples" comment shortly thereafter.

Trying to compare corporate size & influence in the 1700's to the present day is idiotic.

Ergo, you are an idiot.
 
What? You clearly have no idea what you are spouting off about now. Corporations have been around for, quite literally, centuries. They have had a say in politics since Monarchs were the "thang"...

In fact, the oldest corporation still running today is the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, which obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Yes 1347...

The founders knew what corporations were. Back then churches incorporated so that they could survive past any living member (so that they didn't end when the pastor "ended"). Shoot, it was corporations that FUNDED much of the discovery and trips to the "New World"...

Some examples:

The Dutch East India Company
Hudson's Bay Company

In the late 18th Century (when our nation was founded) English law defined a corporation as follows:

"a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."

In 1600 (yeah, before the founding) the British Monarchy granted the British East India Company (yeah, real original there eh?) a monopoly on trade to India. In a very short time they were earning 150% return on their investment... They were politically powerful and had "rights" granted through law.

The founders, in fact, severely limited the powers of the government and the States limited and legislated corporations (not the feds). In most cases it took an act of legislation to create one. Thus the huge monopolies were created as Limited Partnerships (Andrew Carnegie) and Trusts (Rockefeller) which exercised the owners personal rights as well as those of the company.

States were actually the ones that used permissive corporate registration in order to gain more revenue from the registration fees and taxation.

Anyway, saying that the founders had no idea the power and influence corporations could wield ignores actual history.

that is some serious pwnage, i hope onceler is ok after that drubbing
 
not taking your pwning well i see...:)

:kiss2: there, there little buddy

Well, let's have a go at debate then. See if you can stop being a cheerleader for a moment & actually do some thinking.

If the founders were perfectly aware of the dangers that could be posed by global corporations eventually exerting way too much influence over our governance, why did they write the Consitution in such a way that our constitutional scholars here agree allowed for the rather egregious decision today?

Take your time...

:good4u:
 
See "apples to apples" comment shortly thereafter.

Trying to compare corporate size & influence in the 1700's to the present day is idiotic.

Ergo, you are an idiot.
Yeah, back in the day they had even more influence. Again. Pretending they didn't understand corporate influence over those in power is flat ignorant.

You didn't just say that, you said, "The framers of the Consititution (sic) didn't even know what a corporation is, let alone.."

Seriously. I'm embarrassed for you. (italics are mine)
 
Yeah, back in the day they had even more influence. Again. Pretending they didn't understand corporate influence over those in power is flat ignorant.

You didn't just say that, you said, "The framers of the Consititution (sic) didn't even know what a corporation is, let alone.."

Seriously. I'm embarrassed for you. (italics are mine)

It doesn't bother me that someone so idiotic feels embarassed for me.

They had "arms" back then, as well. Are the arms they had then comparable to the arms we have today...do they even mean the same thing?

"Corporation" today means & entails a far different thing today then it did then. See my above question to Yurt; were the founders so dumb that they knew all about the possibilities of how entrenched global corporations could be in our life & politics today, yet didn't see fit to put enough checks in the Constitution to prevent a decision like today's?
 
Well, let's have a go at debate then. See if you can stop being a cheerleader for a moment & actually do some thinking.

If the founders were perfectly aware of the dangers that could be posed by global corporations eventually exerting way too much influence over our governance, why did they write the Consitution in such a way that our constitutional scholars here agree allowed for the rather egregious decision today?

Take your time...

:good4u:

you actually want to debate? i'm proud of you little buddy...you earlier said you had no opinion on the case as you were not knowledgeable enough to discuss it...

the decision today rested on first amendment principles, not necessarily corporate or union power. the line of cases extending the 1st to corp's is extensive.
 
you actually want to debate? i'm proud of you little buddy...you earlier said you had no opinion on the case as you were not knowledgeable enough to discuss it...

the decision today rested on first amendment principles, not necessarily corporate or union power. the line of cases extending the 1st to corp's is extensive.

Yurt, I didn't say I had no opinion on the CASE. I said I wasn't knowledgeable enough on constitutional law to debate the merits of whether or not it was constitutional or not.

If you have read the thread - clearly, I have an opinion on what was decided.

Nice regurgitation of something you read from some poster who is smarter than you; however, it didn't answer the question. At all.

Do you think the founders could have truly known the breadth & extent of what corporate size & influence would be in the 21st century, to write the Constitution in such a way that would allow a decision like today's?

THAT was the question. Man, your answer sounded just like a politician...

:cof1:
 
It doesn't bother me that someone so idiotic feels embarassed for me.

They had "arms" back then, as well. Are the arms they had then comparable to the arms we have today...do they even mean the same thing?

"Corporation" today means & entails a far different thing today then it did then. See my above question to Yurt; were the founders so dumb that they knew all about the possibilities of how entrenched global corporations could be in our life & politics today, yet didn't see fit to put enough checks in the Constitution to prevent a decision like today's?
Man, you are just trying to buy yourself into that hole of ignorance you tried to hide yourself in to begin with. Have you ever wondered what Blackwater is? Do they have arms?

Seriously, there is nothing that says influence than a guaranteed monopoly given by writ of a Monarch (usually because they paid for it directly, openly, with full expectation of quid pro quo.)

You are absolutely out of your mind if you think that they have MORE influence now than they did then. They aren't even close. Back then they didn't even have to hide the bribes, it was simply accepted. Pretending that they didn't understand that money bought political influence is just preposterous. It just doesn't mesh with reality at all.

1. First you said they "didn't even know what a corporation is".. Flat wrong, really wrong, and still stupendously wrong. It wasn't even "hyperbole" you honestly thought they didn't exist back then.
2. You pretend that they didn't have influence back in that time that was simply and directly bought with what we now call "bribes" and would sometimes put people in prison for.
3. They made those laws to curtail some of that power, corporations now have LESS power than they did at the founders' time.

You are so fricking wrong you can't even begin to see the sun from the bottom of that hole you dug.

Back in the day, the largest and most successful corporations almost always had their own armies... let alone direct bribes to government. They usually gave loans to the monarchy to wage their wars with full expectation of not just payback, but direct quid pro quo.... directly purchasing "monopolies" in trade as well as territory. The church even had its part in that.

I absolutely cannot believe that you would spout off on something you are so clearly ignorant about yet call somebody else an "idiot"...
 
It doesn't bother me that someone so idiotic feels embarassed for me.

They had "arms" back then, as well. Are the arms they had then comparable to the arms we have today...do they even mean the same thing?

"Corporation" today means & entails a far different thing today then it did then. See my above question to Yurt; were the founders so dumb that they knew all about the possibilities of how entrenched global corporations could be in our life & politics today, yet didn't see fit to put enough checks in the Constitution to prevent a decision like today's?

i can't believe you're claiming there were no global corporations with massive power in the 1700's....they were given power to wage hidden wars, take land etc...i'd posit that the global corporations back then were as powerful, if not more powerful than today's corporations...

The East India Company created further problems for the Government. Its vast expansion in India meant that it not only had a monopoly on trade but was also in charge of the army, the roads, food supply, in fact all the domestic and foreign powers of a government. The East India Company had, through its business activities, conquered and ruled the whole of India. The Government realised that British foreign policy must be reclaimed from the East India Company as well as others such as the Levant Company and Hudson Bay Company.

tell me what corporation today has that kind of power...
 
Yurt, I didn't say I had no opinion on the CASE. I said I wasn't knowledgeable enough on constitutional law to debate the merits of whether or not it was constitutional or not.

If you have read the thread - clearly, I have an opinion on what was decided.

Nice regurgitation of something you read from some poster who is smarter than you; however, it didn't answer the question. At all.

Do you think the founders could have truly known the breadth & extent of what corporate size & influence would be in the 21st century, to write the Constitution in such a way that would allow a decision like today's?

THAT was the question. Man, your answer sounded just like a politician...

:cof1:

so much for the so called request to debate, now you're lying that i simply regurgitated my thoughts on the case from some other poster....that is a flat out lie

see my post above about the east india company in the 1700's....you clearly have no clue what you're talking about
 
Man, you are just trying to buy yourself into that hole of ignorance you tried to hide yourself in to begin with. Have you ever wondered what Blackwater is? Do they have arms?

Seriously, there is nothing that says influence than a guaranteed monopoly given by writ of a Monarch (usually because they paid for it directly, openly, with full expectation of quid pro quo.)

You are absolutely out of your mind if you think that they have MORE influence now than they did then. They aren't even close. Back then they didn't even have to hide the bribes, it was simply accepted. Pretending that they didn't understand that money bought political influence is just preposterous.

1. First you said they "didn't even know what a corporation is".. Flat wrong, really wrong, and still stupendously wrong.
2. You pretend that they didn't have influence back in that time that was simply and directly bought with what we now call "bribes" and would sometimes put people in prison for.
3. They made those laws to curtail some of that power, corporations now have LESS power than they did at the founders' time.

You are so fricking wrong you can't even begin to see the sun from the bottom of that hole you dug.

Frankly, Desh's thread title isn't too far off. I don't have to convince you about the depth & ever-growing breadth of corporate influence in American politics...do I?

And honestly, I won't have you calling the founders of this country fools, for so clearly understanding how expansive & overly influential corporations would be in the 21st century, on legislation, politicians, votes & the direction of policy (both foreign & domestic), but allowing for such influence in the Constitution.

How could they have missed that, understanding the current corporate world as they did?
 
so much for the so called request to debate, now you're lying that i simply regurgitated my thoughts on the case from some other poster....that is a flat out lie

see my post above about the east india company in the 1700's....you clearly have no clue what you're talking about

And you STILL haven't answered the question.

LOL

Why not have a go at it?

:pke:
 
Back
Top