Nader to Ryan: Time to Debate

[georgephillip]

King Bush didn't display much fiscal responsibility either.

If Republicans AND Democrats are profligate, shouldn't we be asking who profits?

You know, I remember federal budgets under Bush.

Obama is beyond the need for things like budgets, the constitution, checks and balances.

The desire, the mad yearning, of the left for dictatorship never ceases to amaze me.

What's your view on state capitalism?

I know your hatred of all things Chomsky; however, can you put that aside and reflect on this particular accusation of his:

"It wasn't until the early twentieth century that courts and lawyers designed a new socioeconomic system.

"It was never done by legislation.

"It was done mostly by courts and lawyers and the power they could exercise over individual states. New Jersey was the first state to offer corporations any right they wanted.

"Of course, all the capital in the country suddenly started to flow to New Jersey, for obvious reasons. Then the other states had to do the same thing just to defend themselves or be wiped out. It's kind of a small-scale globalization."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

Are corporations people, my friend?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's your view on state capitalism?

It's an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" just means fascism.

I know your hatred of all things Chomsky; however, can you put that aside and reflect on this particular accusation of his:

I've read Chomsky, I've read Marx, I've read Engles. I read a great deal.

Are corporations people, my friend?

According to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) they are.

If you don't want to imbue corporations with personification, then stop taxing them.

My opinion is that corporations are not distinct entities and simply manifestations of the interests of the owners/stock holders. However, that means that corporations cannot be taxed, as the owners are already taxed.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[thanatos144]

Nader is a communist and any who would support him are ether a communist as well or just plain stupid that cant understand the obvious.

 

[bobcollum]

Thanatos144 is a moron and any who would support him are either a moron as well or just another form of stupidity that can't understand the obvious.

 

[thanatos144]

Thanatos144 is a moron and any who would support him are either a moron as well or just another form of stupidity that can't understand the obvious.

Awww look at you personalizing a attack LMAO I dont need peoples support I am not a egocentric progressive ass like you.

 

[bobcollum]

^

 

[georgephillip]

What's your view on state capitalism?

It's an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" just means fascism.

I know your hatred of all things Chomsky; however, can you put that aside and reflect on this particular accusation of his:

I've read Chomsky, I've read Marx, I've read Engles. I read a great deal.

Are corporations people, my friend?

According to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) they are.

If you don't want to imbue corporations with personification, then stop taxing them.

My opinion is that corporations are not distinct entities and simply manifestations of the interests of the owners/stock holders. However, that means that corporations cannot be taxed, as the owners are already taxed.

You can't have it both ways.

According to a headnote in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad authored by court reporter, Bancroft Davis a former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway, "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

This confirms the point Chomsky and others make that courts and lawyers, not legislators, created corporate personhood.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sarah G]

Why did Romney have a fundraising breakfast in Israel?

Because they don't know him that well there?

 

[georgephillip]

Why did Romney have a fundraising breakfast in Israel?

Because they don't know him that well there?

Most Israelis probably don't know much about Romney and vice versa.
However, Mitt and Bibi go back to 1976.

"The ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government.

"And that history could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in such an action.

"Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel."

Romney is another rich Republican who dodged the fight in Vietnam.
Should he become Commander-in-Chief his base will demand proof of his "courage under fire."
If that translates into an attack on Iran, it won't be Mitt's family or his base shedding their blood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Uncensored2008]

According to a headnote in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad authored by court reporter, Bancroft Davis a former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway, "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

This confirms the point Chomsky and others make that courts and lawyers, not legislators, created corporate personhood.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And?

Who ever questioned that? The courts overstepping boundaries is nothing new.

But realize that this was done so that they could TAX corporations as an entity separate and distinct from the shareholders. Corporations are "people" only because the federal government are money grubbing bastards.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanatos144 is a moron and any who would support him are either a moron as well or just another form of stupidity that can't understand the obvious.

I thought ad hom like this was a no-no in the CDZ?

 

[bobcollum]

It was a return volley, followed by another return from him. Sue me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was a return volley, followed by another return from him. Sue me.

Nah, I get no pleasure out of calling you "Sue," nor even "Shirley."

 

[thanatos144]

I think Ron Paul and Nader should Debate... We can call it the freak fest or wakos at Waco

 

[bobcollum]

^ Hates what country has become, loves the status quo.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think Ron Paul and Nader should Debate... We can call it the freak fest or wakos at Waco

Paul would tear old Ralph to shreds. But it would be entertaining.

 

[thanatos144]

I think Ron Paul and Nader should Debate... We can call it the freak fest or wakos at Waco

Paul would tear old Ralph to shreds. But it would be entertaining.

Do you think they would have souvenir tinfoil hats?

 

[bobcollum]

I think Ron Paul and Nader should Debate... We can call it the freak fest or wakos at Waco

Paul would tear old Ralph to shreds. But it would be entertaining.

Paul and Nader have shown a mutual respect for each other from what I've seen.

There's also a long discussion that was on C-Span between Nader and Judge Napolitano, which is somewhere on youtube.

Fairly interesting.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you think they would have souvenir tinfoil hats?

I think you misstate both of them.

Paul has many valid points, in fact most of his points are valid. He misses the mark on fiat currency, a growing economy cannot exist without fiat currency. But he's dead right on the federal reserve and the open theft that fractional reserve banking promotes under the Fed.

Nader too has some legitimate points. I think Nader is essentially an extortionist, but he was right about TARP as public assumption of losses with private realization of profits. Bailing the banks out was criminal, by both Bush and Obama.

 

[georgephillip]

According to a headnote in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad authored by court reporter, Bancroft Davis a former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway, "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

This confirms the point Chomsky and others make that courts and lawyers, not legislators, created corporate personhood.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And?

Who ever questioned that? The courts overstepping boundaries is nothing new.

But realize that this was done so that they could TAX corporations as an entity separate and distinct from the shareholders. Corporations are "people" only because the federal government are money grubbing bastards.

The courts overstep boundaries on behalf of the richest 1% of (rugged) individuals.
All federal governments yet created serve the interests of their richest individuals.
Unless you see a way to construct human societies without private wealth, only government has the power to control the greediest of the money grubbing bastards.