Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[ralfy]

The global capitalist economy is dominated not by governments or by central banks but by multinational private corporations, especially banks:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

Much of that economy consists of credit, with the largest portion consisting not of securitized debt or even unfunded government liabilities but unregulated derivatives, with a notional value that is likely beyond a quadrillion dollars:

Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

When did you consent to the Constitution? Dunno........maybe it was when you were born in this country, or maybe it was when you realized that the Constitution gave you the right to spew the crap you are currently spewing.

Yes.........the Constitution is a social contract. It was a contract between 13 colonies that eventually became the 48 States of the Continental United States, with the other two being Alaska and Hawaii.

If we're not united, then we fail.

Too bad that Congress (meaning Boehner and McConnell) are trying to bring that social contract down.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

When did you consent to the Constitution? Dunno........maybe it was when you were born in this country, or maybe it was when you realized that the Constitution gave you the right to spew the crap you are currently spewing.

Nope. Never heard of a contract that you agreed to because you were born or because you decided to speak your mind on some issue. You obviously haven't got a fucking clue about what a contract is.

Yes.........the Constitution is a social contract. It was a contract between 13 colonies that eventually became the 48 States of the Continental United States, with the other two being Alaska and Hawaii.

The Constitution is not a contract, so how can it be a "social contract." It was agreed to by a few dozen men, not the entire populations of 13 states. As a matter of fact, only 9 states actually ratified the Constitution.

A valid contract has to be consented to by all parties bound by its terms. The Constitution doesn't meet the test.

If we're not united, then we fail.

Meaningless horseshit slogan.

Too bad that Congress (meaning Boehner and McConnell) are trying to bring that social contract down.

Obama is the one who wipes his ass on the Constitution, numskull.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interesting...................

BritPat is someone who is against the Constitution.

No fear..................he's just another tea bagger who is not of this country.

 

[bripat9643]

Interesting...................

BritPat is someone who is against the Constitution.

No fear..................he's just another tea bagger who is not of this country.

Whether I'm against it or for it is beside the point. It's not a social contract. The implication that I a consented to be ruled by the government because of the Constitution is obviously a scam.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So........ You are a teabagger who thinks that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a bunch of bullshit?

Good to know.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is a social Contract, enforcible at law.

ROFL! It's not a contract, so how can it be a social contract? A basic principle of contract law is that all parties subject to a contract must consent to it. When did I consent to the Constitution?

Of course, you are just going to blabber endlessly that the Constitution is a social contract. What is a social contract if it's not a real contract? Is it just any document you decide to call a "social contract?" So far, that's what we have to conclude from what you've posted. You have no facts or logic, just your imbecile dogma. You can only regurgitate it, not explain it.

You're a drone incapable of committing logic.

When did you consent to the Constitution? Dunno........maybe it was when you were born in this country, or maybe it was when you realized that the Constitution gave you the right to spew the crap you are currently spewing.

Yes.........the Constitution is a social contract. It was a contract between 13 colonies that eventually became the 48 States of the Continental United States, with the other two being Alaska and Hawaii.

If we're not united, then we fail.

Too bad that Congress (meaning Boehner and McConnell) are trying to bring that social contract down.

Yes, our social contract is for those who are loyal to our supreme law of the land and claim to be American. Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

 

[bripat9643]

So........ You are a teabagger who thinks that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a bunch of bullshit?

Good to know.

ROFL! Now where did I say the Constitution is "a bunch of shit?" You like to make things up, don't you cupcake?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

does anyone recognize that gibberish as intelligible English??

 

[danielpalos]

Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

does anyone recognize that gibberish as intelligible English??

everyone and anyone who has a clue and a Cause.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

does anyone recognize that gibberish as intelligible English??

everyone and anyone who has a clue and a Cause.

if you find even one person who can understand your english please let me know.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

does anyone recognize that gibberish as intelligible English??

everyone and anyone who has a clue and a Cause.

if you find even one person who can understand your english please let me know.

everyone else who does have a clue and a Cause.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

does anyone recognize that gibberish as intelligible English??

everyone and anyone who has a clue and a Cause.

if you find even one person who can understand your english please let me know.

everyone else who does have a clue and a Cause.

dear, what are you trying to say? use short but complete sentences

 

[bripat9643]

Our Founding Fathers could Only make our social Contract idiot proof, not willful appeal to ignorance proof.

does anyone recognize that gibberish as intelligible English??

Nope. Danielpos thinks it means something, however.

 

[danielpalos]

it helps if those of the opposing view have a clue and a Cause, dears.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it helps if those of the opposing view have a clue and a Cause, dears.

a clue and a cause??? do you ever speak English????

 

[danielpalos]

yes, i do; you can tell by the lack of fallacy or my Cause (unlike those of the opposing view), in any given language.

i love modern times and modern translation software.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

yes, i do; you can tell by the lack of fallacy or my Cause (unlike those of the opposing view), in any given language.

i love modern times and modern translation software.

what is your first language?. Modern translation software will never work on conceptual issues. You come as more retarded than anything.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

yes, i do; you can tell by the lack of fallacy or my Cause (unlike those of the opposing view), in any given language.

i love modern times and modern translation software.

what is your first language?. Modern translation software will never work on conceptual issues. You come off as more retarded than anything.

tell me your first language and I'll shoot you back something to help you understand.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, i do; you can tell by the lack of fallacy or my Cause (unlike those of the opposing view), in any given language.

i love modern times and modern translation software.

what is your first language?. Modern translation software will never work on conceptual issues. You come off as more retarded than anything.

tell me your first language and I'll shoot you back something to help you understand.

not sure what you mean, dear; you are the one who Only seems to fallacy for your Cause.