Breaking News: Coors Decides To Run For President

[amrchaos]

What is wrong with having a six pack as president?

We already had a Southern Giggolo, A Dry Drunk
And now a "Do Nothing but Spend Your Money" socialists........

 

[Ragnar]

Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep the robber barons a little more free.

FIXED. Come on, you know this does not help the majority of US citizens even one little bit. If anything, our voice has been all but silenced... sold to the highest bidder.

The majority is only aided by the fact there there will be more points of view. It's always been up to individuals to do the homework themselves and we each can only cast one vote.

My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.

However, just for the record, I'm pro-"robber barron".
The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep the robber barons a little more free.

FIXED. Come on, you know this does not help the majority of US citizens even one little bit. If anything, our voice has been all but silenced... sold to the highest bidder.

The majority is only aided by the fact there there will be more points of view. It's always been up to individuals to do the homework themselves and we each can only cast one vote.

My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.

However, just for the record, I'm pro-"robber barron".
The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

I hope lots of folks see that quote of yours.

My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.

You deserve thousands upon thousands of rep points for that one!

 

[xotoxi]

Isn't Coors plural?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Isn't Coors plural?

Great Bootblack joke.

A tourist was visiting a pub in Scotland, and at the end of the bar was a sick looking local holding his stomach and moaning. The tourist asked, "What's the matter?"
The local moaned some more and said "I'v got the Yoooors"
The tourist asked "What's Yoors?"
The local said "Thank you kindly, stranger. I'll have a double Glenfidich"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know you are trying to be fecitious.. but this is plain stupid.

Not really. I am only trying to follow the logical applications of a GOP led SCOTUS ruling, that conservatives say extends/grants the equal protection and equal speech rights enumerated in the US Constitution, to corporate entities.

Conservatives argue that non citizens and non combatant enimies are not covered by the US Constitution...so, I assume conservatives argue that corporations are equal to citizens, since corps are entitled to the same rights as citizens.

Where am I wrong?

uh---maybe because corporations haven't been given ALL the rights that an individual citizen has ?

Can a legal entity have free speech rights and no others? Aren't the rights enumerated and unenumerated within the US Constitution granted to citizens only? Or do places and things have rights? (persons, places and things?)

 

[Mr. Peepers]

My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.

Yes it has, and yes it is. Of course you side with the robber barons like a good little neocon.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Isn't Coors plural?

No more than Edwards is.


D.

 

[xotoxi]

Isn't Coors plural?

No more than Edwards is.


D.

I always assumed that it was.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

U.S. Supreme Court
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company

Argued January 26-29, 1886

Decided May 10, 1886

118 U.S. 394

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

USSC corporate citizenship history....
USSC corporate citizenship history - Google Search

Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep us all a little more free.

Some legal scholars are of the opinion that the ruling only granted some of the rights, not all...and that the case is specific to the state of CA.

but, if corporations are protected with the equal protection clause...are they eligible to vote and run for office...and if not, why not?

 

[Ragnar]

My voice has neither been silenced... nor is it for sale.

Yes it has, and yes it is. Of course you side with the robber barons like a good little neocon.

The USSC ruling does not stop me from writing letters, on blogs, printing flyers, marching or a hundred other forms of speech including buying my own ads. Most voters are not led around by the media by the nose and that goes for both parties. Most votes are not for sale and as a matter of fact, more often than not, "most" voters don't even bother to vote.

Of course you would confuse capitalist with neocon.

 

[Ragnar]

U.S. Supreme Court
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company

Argued January 26-29, 1886

Decided May 10, 1886

118 U.S. 394

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

USSC corporate citizenship history....
USSC corporate citizenship history - Google Search

Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep us all a little more free.

Some legal scholars are of the opinion that the ruling only granted some of the rights, not all...and that the case is specific to the state of CA.

but, if corporations are protected with the equal protection clause...are they eligible to vote and run for office...and if not, why not?

I'd agree with those scholars however, that case was only the begining (so far as I can tall) of a long stretch of laws and precidents regulating the so called personhood of corporations.

And treating corporations as "persons" in some matters of law is not the same as treating corporations as individuals. Most of the legal protections they enjoy (or liability they incur) have to do with the prevention of discrimination or holding them accountable for violating the rights of others. (this corporate group, violated the rights of that one etc.)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.

Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?

Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.

Your logic fails DanteNell, why?


Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

What is a natural born citizen? Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Coors is not a natural born citizen, as you clearly stated they are a corporate entinty.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Of course you would confuse capitalist with neocon.

Capitalist, corporatist, neocon. No difference from where I sit. When corporations are buying nominees, parties and whole elections, you don't consider that a problem? How is anyone supposed to run for us (real living citizens) if they are up against the deep pockets of big business that wants nothing more than more and more profits and will do ANYTHING to get their sympathizer in office. Do you have the voice (money) to take on pharmaceutical and oil companies? Didn't think so.

 

[Nonelitist]

The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.

Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?

Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.

More Breaking News

Stop your fricken whining. Get your pacifier and then sit down and read the founding documents for the first time in your life.

After that.... shut up.

 

[Ragnar]

Of course you would confuse capitalist with neocon.

Capitalist, corporatist, neocon. No difference from where I sit. When corporations are buying nominees, parties and whole elections, you don't consider that a problem? How is anyone supposed to run for us (real living citizens) if they are up against the deep pockets of big business that wants nothing more than more and more profits and will do ANYTHING to get their sympathizer in office. Do you have the voice (money) to take on pharmaceutical and oil companies? Didn't think so.

I'm a Laissez Faire Capitalist, so yeah, big difference. I don't believe in welfare for people or for corporations. "Buying" nominees, parties and whole elections ought to be illegal (and is). That is what proper government if for, i.e. protecting individuals from force or fraud. Buying advertising, newspapers and television is just fine.

I have the voice and money to support and/or patronize the pharmaceutical and oil companies I choose. (and "boycott" or trash the ones I dislike) That's about as much as I care to "take on" a private business. What should one do? Stand in the street and wave signs at them screeching "stop saving my life" or "stop filling my car with cheap gas"?

On edit:
http://www.capitalism.org/

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.

Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?

Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.

More Breaking News

Stop your fricken whining. Get your pacifier and then sit down and read the founding documents for the first time in your life.

After that.... shut up.

I've read then elitist papers written by the elitist founding fathers. Get a life, bozo.

btw, I've always admitted to being an elitist.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

USSC corporate citizenship history....
USSC corporate citizenship history - Google Search

Nothing really new, radical or activist going on here. Just slapping down some bad law and helping keep us all a little more free.

Some legal scholars are of the opinion that the ruling only granted some of the rights, not all...and that the case is specific to the state of CA.

but, if corporations are protected with the equal protection clause...are they eligible to vote and run for office...and if not, why not?

I'd agree with those scholars however, that case was only the begining (so far as I can tall) of a long stretch of laws and precidents regulating the so called personhood of corporations.

And treating corporations as "persons" in some matters of law is not the same as treating corporations as individuals. Most of the legal protections they enjoy (or liability they incur) have to do with the prevention of discrimination or holding them accountable for violating the rights of others. (this corporate group, violated the rights of that one etc.)

Interesting. The ruling has made people more curious and aware of the Constitution, law and society. All around, it is a good thing.




D.

 

[The Rabbi]

The GOP led SCOTUS says Coors has the same free speech as every citizen.

Doesn't the Coors Corporation, a corp with all the free speech rights as every citizen, have the constitutional right to exercise that free speech right to it's full extent?

Doen't Coors as a Corporate entity meet all the legal requirements needed to run for political office? It's old enough and natural, and native born.

You are rapidly becoming the biggest know-nothing idiot on this board. Quite an achievement.

Coors (or what used to be. They merged with the Canadian Molson company as I recall) has been engaged in productive work for many years.
Obama lived off other people's money.

Coors has hired many people and made sure they paid their taxes.
Obama has hired a few people who have turned out to be tax cheats.

Coors offers a consistent product year after year.
Obama changes his programs weekly.

Coors has helped the economy.
Obama has hurt the economy.

Coors is anathema to Muslims.
Obama is beloved of Muslims.

Europeans hate Coors.
Europeans love Obama.

Coors is cheap
Obama has been very very expensive

Coors urges you to drink responsibly
Obama urges you to vote irresponsibly

I think the choice is pretty clear

 

[Modbert]

Coors is anathema to Muslims.
Obama is beloved of Muslims.

We know full well that a President who hates Muslim is at the top of the reasons when you go to vote.