Question for democrat Socialists

[dblack]

Fascism and socialism are opposite ends of the spectrum son. Fascists are on the far right. Your team.

No...they aren't. They are the same thing......government control of the means of production. Fascism is socialism........Mussolini, who coined the term Fascism...was a marxist to his core........

Fascism is nationalism carried to the extreme.

RWNJs in other words.

Fascist, Marxist, Communist and Socialist are all different ways of saying "I love Big Brother Government"

Democratic Socialists take the worship of democracy over the top. They want every-fucking-thing controlled by "democracy". Everything subject to a vote. I'll pass.

Where democracy is defined by the whim of the Party leaders

Even if it's the pure and sacred "will of the people", I'll pass. Government is there to protect our freedom, not to "run" society.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Stalin said Fascism was "right wing" and Uncle Joe is always right

/----/ "The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

 

[HappyJoy]

View attachment 306771

I don't think Norway has a shortage of any of those things. Trump's best buddy's country however is another matter.

If I wanted to live in Norway I'd move there

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody asked you where you want/have to live.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Question for democrat [sic] Socialists”

All three of them.

 

[edthecynic]

I will give you credit for using an ellipsis to deceptively edit out the fact that What Rehnquist said was NOT what the USSC RULED, but was HIS dissent.
Your own link unedited:
The legacy of the 14th amendment.
Not everyone agrees with this expanding interpretation of corporate personhood. In his dissent in Bellotti, Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that corporations were “artificial” persons rather than “natural” persons, and that granting them the right to political expression could “pose special dangers in the political sphere.”

You should know by now I check EVERYTHING you professional liars post, you glittering jewel of colossal DittoTard ignorance.

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything. You accused me of making up the term artificial person to describe corporations and I provided one of many sources. Take that designation away and you can’t tax, regulate or sue a corporation any more than you could an inanimate object.

No, now you are just lying! YOU claimed the USSC RULED that corporations are "artificial" persons and I called you out on that LIE! You then edited a DISSENTING opinion by Rehnquist to look like a USSC ruling, and I caught you on that LIE also!!!!!
You glittering jewel of colossal DittoTard ignorance.
Let me refresh your memory:

Let me enlighten you, the US supreme Court has ruled "corporations are ARTIFICIAL people!"

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything. You accused me of making up the term artificial person to describe corporations and I provided one of many sources. Take that designation away and you can’t tax, regulate or sue a corporation any more than you could an inanimate object.

No, now you are just lying! YOU claimed the USSC RULED that corporations are "artificial" persons and I called you out on that LIE! You then edited a DISSENTING opinion by Rehnquist to look like a USSC ruling, and I caught you on that LIE also!!!!!
You glittering jewel of colossal DittoTard ignorance.
Let me refresh your memory:

Let me enlighten you, the US supreme Court has ruled "corporations are ARTIFICIAL people!"

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, now you are just lying! YOU claimed the USSC RULED that corporations are "artificial" persons and I called you out on that LIE! You then edited a DISSENTING opinion by Rehnquist to look like a USSC ruling, and I caught you on that LIE also!!!!!
You glittering jewel of colossal DittoTard ignorance.
Let me refresh your memory:

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Nice work, Celly!

Goes back even further: 1819.

“Citizens United wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court extended First Amend- ment protections beyond living, breathing human beings. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights.

The ruling in Bellotti upheld a long tradition on the Court of recognizing personhood for corporations, which started in 1819 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward and extended all the way through the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

And in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down some of the individual spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Each of these cases gave corporations direct, usable economic (and thus political) power over the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

The Supreme Court’s rulings and reinterpretations of federal law fundamentally changed our political system, allowing “unlimited political bribery” reaching every level of government—from the president all the way down to local school boards.”
Thom Hartmann

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Nice work, Celly!

Goes back even further: 1819.

“Citizens United wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court extended First Amend- ment protections beyond living, breathing human beings. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights.

The ruling in Bellotti upheld a long tradition on the Court of recognizing personhood for corporations, which started in 1819 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward and extended all the way through the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

And in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down some of the individual spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Each of these cases gave corporations direct, usable economic (and thus political) power over the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

The Supreme Court’s rulings and reinterpretations of federal law fundamentally changed our political system, allowing “unlimited political bribery” reaching every level of government—from the president all the way down to local school boards.”
Thom Hartmann

/——-/ Thank you, Politicsl Chic. I couldn’t find the 1819 case. I need to bookmark it for the next time a libtards runs his/her mouth off.

It seems Libs would like the artificial personhood status since it gives them the right to tax, sue and regulate corporations. Don't they realize without it corporations would pay no corporate taxes, couldn’t be sued for discrimination or regulated for environmental emissions?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Nice work, Celly!

Goes back even further: 1819.

“Citizens United wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court extended First Amend- ment protections beyond living, breathing human beings. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights.

The ruling in Bellotti upheld a long tradition on the Court of recognizing personhood for corporations, which started in 1819 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward and extended all the way through the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

And in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down some of the individual spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Each of these cases gave corporations direct, usable economic (and thus political) power over the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

The Supreme Court’s rulings and reinterpretations of federal law fundamentally changed our political system, allowing “unlimited political bribery” reaching every level of government—from the president all the way down to local school boards.”
Thom Hartmann

/——-/ Thank you, Politicsl Chic. I couldn’t find the 1819 case. I need to bookmark it for the next time a libtards runs his/her mouth off.

It seems Libs would like the artificial personhood status since it gives them the right to tax, sue and regulate corporations. Don't they realize without it corporations would pay no corporate taxes, couldn’t be sued for discrimination or regulated for environmental emissions?

The book is by extreme Liberal Thom Hartmann, the most opposite view from mine on most things.....but we agree about the Supreme Court.



“The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Thom Hartmann

 

[edthecynic]

No, now you are just lying! YOU claimed the USSC RULED that corporations are "artificial" persons and I called you out on that LIE! You then edited a DISSENTING opinion by Rehnquist to look like a USSC ruling, and I caught you on that LIE also!!!!!
You glittering jewel of colossal DittoTard ignorance.
Let me refresh your memory:

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Again NOT a USSC RULING, just an OPINION piece by a law professor.

 

[edthecynic]

I couldn’t find the 1819 case. I need to bookmark it for the next time a libtards runs his/her mouth off.

That is the case where you tried to pass off Rehnquist's DISSENT as the actual supreme court RULING by editing out the part of your own link that pointed out that it was a dissenting opinion that called corporations "ARTIFICIAL" people.

 

[edthecynic]

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Nice work, Celly!

Goes back even further: 1819.

“Citizens United wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court extended First Amend- ment protections beyond living, breathing human beings. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights.

The ruling in Bellotti upheld a long tradition on the Court of recognizing personhood for corporations, which started in 1819 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward and extended all the way through the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

And in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down some of the individual spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Each of these cases gave corporations direct, usable economic (and thus political) power over the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

The Supreme Court’s rulings and reinterpretations of federal law fundamentally changed our political system, allowing “unlimited political bribery” reaching every level of government—from the president all the way down to local school boards.”
Thom Hartmann

It figures your home schooling prevents you from following the conversation. The argument id NOT that the USSC ruled that corporations are people, which BTW is my argument, but "Celly's"
false claim that the USSC ruled that corporations are "ARTIFICIAL" people.
Do try to pay attention!

Let me enlighten you, the US supreme Court has ruled "corporations are ARTIFICIAL people!"

 

[BrokeLoser]

We already have socialism - and we all benefit from it.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

“We swear, we just want a little more socialism...we promise, just give us a little more free shit stolen from our best most productive citizens and we’ll stop begging.”
“We just want you to accept faggots and rug munchers...we swear it ends right there...we’ll never ask you to normalize men in dresses shitting next to little girls.”

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Cellblock2429]

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Nice work, Celly!

Goes back even further: 1819.

“Citizens United wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court extended First Amend- ment protections beyond living, breathing human beings. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights.

The ruling in Bellotti upheld a long tradition on the Court of recognizing personhood for corporations, which started in 1819 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward and extended all the way through the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

And in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down some of the individual spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Each of these cases gave corporations direct, usable economic (and thus political) power over the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

The Supreme Court’s rulings and reinterpretations of federal law fundamentally changed our political system, allowing “unlimited political bribery” reaching every level of government—from the president all the way down to local school boards.”
Thom Hartmann

It figures your home schooling prevents you from following the conversation. The argument id NOT that the USSC ruled that corporations are people, which BTW is my argument, but "Celly's"
false claim that the USSC ruled that corporations are "ARTIFICIAL" people.
Do try to pay attention!

Let me enlighten you, the US supreme Court has ruled "corporations are ARTIFICIAL people!"

/---/ Try reading the ruling and the one in 1819

 

[Cellblock2429]

I couldn’t find the 1819 case. I need to bookmark it for the next time a libtards runs his/her mouth off.

That is the case where you tried to pass off Rehnquist's DISSENT as the actual supreme court RULING by editing out the part of your own link that pointed out that it was a dissenting opinion that called corporations "ARTIFICIAL" people.

/---/ I didn't edit out anything you moron. Can't you ever admit you are wrong?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ I didn’t edit anything in the article. I merely corrected your statement “the US supreme Court has ruled"corporations are people!"

You "corrected" nothing. You lied and I caught you, so you lied some more and you are still lying.

/----/ What lie? BTW, Hamilton even acknowledged it:
Are Corporations People?
In Alexander Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, for instance, we find the nation's first secretary of the treasury observing that to "erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial to a natural person." In other words, when government recognizes a corporation, it effectively creates a "legal or artificial person."

Again NOT a USSC RULING!!!

/---/ Oh, why did you say so, Gomer?
When did corporations become legal persons?
It was the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment.
View attachment 306855

Again NOT a USSC RULING, just an OPINION piece by a law professor.

/----/ WTF is this?
As Political Chick posted earlier:
“Citizens United wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court extended First Amend- ment protections beyond living, breathing human beings. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights.

The ruling in Bellotti upheld a long tradition on the Court of recognizing personhood for corporations, which started in 1819 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward and extended all the way through the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

And in the 2014 case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down some of the individual spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 306771

I don't think Norway has a shortage of any of those things. Trump's best buddy's country however is another matter.

If I wanted to live in Norway I'd move there

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Nobody asked you where you want/have to live.

No they always use Norway as some holy grail government

IDGAF what goes on in Norway and anyone who wants to be a live like they do in Norway can fucking move there

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Answer honestly

DemocratIC socialists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Answer honestly

DemocratIC socialists.

View attachment 306881

In Socialism, the leaders become billionaires while the people sell their kids and eat their pets to survive

In democrat Socialism, the people sell their kids and eat their pets to survive while the leaders become billionaires