Reaching out to the Occupy People

[Intense]

And?

A corporation is not a person..it's a collection of people. It should not have the same rights as a person.

Free Speech, is as much a Right for the Audience, as a Right for Any Institution. You want to selectively and arbitrarily want to Censor what you personally don't approve of. That's just not right.

Oh..and money is not speech.

Money is a multi-functional tool. It buys ink, paper, air time. What is your point? Let me guess. People and Organizations that are like minded with you can't do anything wrong, and People and Organizations that are not, can't do anything right. Got Ya.

 

[Intense]

And without forethought that someone [The RICH this ASSHOLE despises], already pays for.

With the money they've been siphoning off from the the middle class for the last 30 years.

In this context, define siphoning and give examples.

Going to the Mall. Shopping. Dining.

 

[code1211]

How does a private entity take away freedom?

Justices Affirm Property Seizures

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A]Mitt Romney- Corporations Are People! - YouTube[/ame]

Yessiree..

That was a ruling by the government. The protections of property rights are obviously stopped by this ruling and, just as obviously, a ruling inspired, endorsed and affirmed by liberal ideologies.

As in all things, if a Liberal is behind it, it is likely an erosion of the basic rights that the Founders tried to guarantee and that the Liberals are constantly and relentlessly trying to erase.



From your link:

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

 

[skookerasbil]

JPMorgan CEO: Occupy Wall Street Has 'Legitimate Complaints' | ThinkProgress

But nobody cares asshole..................OWS has officially branded itself as "A Band of Dicks"

And Think Progress is a k00k left website by the way.................

The only thing left that is interesting about this story is seeing the video of these fucks getting busted up...................

And is that expression not classic? It screams "FACE OF THE NAIVE ASSHOLES!"



Public service message to these lazy loser fuck-ups....................if you show up at these things and be a dick, your going home with bandages on your head AND your balls.

 

[squinch]

And without forethought that someone [The RICH this ASSHOLE despises], already pays for.

With the money they've been siphoning off from the the middle class for the last 30 years.

In this context, define siphoning and give examples.

"Trickle down" tax cuts. Leveraged corporate buyouts. Banking transaction fees. Tax breaks for outsourcers.

 

[Sallow]

Free Speech, is as much a Right for the Audience, as a Right for Any Institution. You want to selectively and arbitrarily want to Censor what you personally don't approve of. That's just not right.

Oh..and money is not speech.

Money is a multi-functional tool. It buys ink, paper, air time. What is your point? Let me guess. People and Organizations that are like minded with you can't do anything wrong, and People and Organizations that are not, can't do anything right. Got Ya.

Naw.

Corporations are not people.
Money is not speech.

Simple.

 

[Sallow]

No I would not agree. Laws a need for illegal activities but regulation is used more for killing competition than to protect.

Corporations are writing the laws. I can understand people not trusting the government but I cringe at how many people have a child like faith in the private sector. An underregulated Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. If you don't acknowledge the potential for private sector abuse and disaster then there's no reason to take you seriously.

To be clear, Wall Street is regulated.

The Housing bubble was caused because the lending industry was not regulated. I recall that when I refined my house to get a lower interest rate in the 90's, it was done in the rented offices of a loan originator, not a bank.

That loan was made and then sold, 3 times before it was paid off, and that is what created the housing bubble.

The loans made created a risk, but that risk was not born by the original lender. The loans were bundled and sold and a large enough percent were bad and became the now famous "Toxic Assets" that TARP was supposed to clear up, but that are still in existence and still a ticking time bomb thanks to the ill directed and probably corrupt Obama administration dupes.

Banking and Wall Street are both pretty regulated. The Loan originators were not in such rigid constraints and the Congress of the USA passed laws to push lenders into lending to this who could not repay and should never have been given the loans in the first place.

Do you want to know who is responsible? I'll tell you. It is the people and the government of the USA. We all had a hand in it and trying to deflect blame to others is pointless and Liberal.

Glass-Steagall would have prevented the mortgage back derivative bonanza from happening.

But let me get this straight. Because of lax regulation, people exploited and got rich off, knowing they were doing something extremely risky (So much so..they hedged their bets by taking out insurance)..it's the "government's fault".

Really?

At what point is it the "Greedy Unethical Bastard's" Fault?

 

[occupied]

Corporations are writing the laws. I can understand people not trusting the government but I cringe at how many people have a child like faith in the private sector. An underregulated Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. If you don't acknowledge the potential for private sector abuse and disaster then there's no reason to take you seriously.

To be clear, Wall Street is regulated.

The Housing bubble was caused because the lending industry was not regulated. I recall that when I refined my house to get a lower interest rate in the 90's, it was done in the rented offices of a loan originator, not a bank.

That loan was made and then sold, 3 times before it was paid off, and that is what created the housing bubble.

The loans made created a risk, but that risk was not born by the original lender. The loans were bundled and sold and a large enough percent were bad and became the now famous "Toxic Assets" that TARP was supposed to clear up, but that are still in existence and still a ticking time bomb thanks to the ill directed and probably corrupt Obama administration dupes.

Banking and Wall Street are both pretty regulated. The Loan originators were not in such rigid constraints and the Congress of the USA passed laws to push lenders into lending to this who could not repay and should never have been given the loans in the first place.

Do you want to know who is responsible? I'll tell you. It is the people and the government of the USA. We all had a hand in it and trying to deflect blame to others is pointless and Liberal.

Glass-Steagall would have prevented the mortgage back derivative bonanza from happening.

But let me get this straight. Because of lax regulation, people exploited and got rich off, knowing they were doing something extremely risky (So much so..they hedged their bets by taking out insurance)..it's the "government's fault".

Really?

At what point is it the "Greedy Unethical Bastard's" Fault?

These people hire autistic math savants to design investment schemes that defy regulation or even understanding by our regulators, they know they are being devious.

 

[Katzndogz]

Corporations are legal personages so they can pay taxes. They are legal personages so they can be sued. They are legal people for the protection of the public not the protection of the corporations. Without corporations being legal people, there would be no multimillion dollar lawsuits against corporations.

Thankfully intelligent people will be in charge for the foreseeable future and we won't ever see corporations lose their legal personhood. Some might whine and cry for it, but that's because they don't know any better.

 

[saveliberty]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

 

[occupied]

Corporations are legal personages so they can pay taxes. They are legal personages so they can be sued. They are legal people for the protection of the public not the protection of the corporations. Without corporations being legal people, there would be no multimillion dollar lawsuits against corporations.

Thankfully intelligent people will be in charge for the foreseeable future and we won't ever see corporations lose their legal personhood. Some might whine and cry for it, but that's because they don't know any better.

Corporate personhood has given us too big to fail and a 100 to 1 ratio of lobbyists to congressman, it's great. How long does it take to sue a bank? The only accountability measure real persons have against big corporations is a joke.

 

[PredFan]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

Corporations are people. They are all the people who work there, and all of the consumers who buy the product. That isn't a hard concept.

 

[PredFan]

Corporations are legal personages so they can pay taxes. They are legal personages so they can be sued. They are legal people for the protection of the public not the protection of the corporations. Without corporations being legal people, there would be no multimillion dollar lawsuits against corporations.

Thankfully intelligent people will be in charge for the foreseeable future and we won't ever see corporations lose their legal personhood. Some might whine and cry for it, but that's because they don't know any better.

Corporate personhood has given us too big to fail and a 100 to 1 ratio of lobbyists to congressman, it's great. How long does it take to sue a bank? The only accountability measure real persons have against big corporations is a joke.

Complete garbage.

Unions gave us "too big to fail" in the cases of Chrysler and GM. The ratio of lobbyists to congressmen has always been high. It didn't just start with corporate personhood.

 

[Sallow]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

Good point.

 

[occupied]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

Corporations are people. They are all the people who work there, and all of the consumers who buy the product. That isn't a hard concept.

A corporation is not held to the same standards of justice as an individual. It cannot be sentenced to the death penalty for instance.

 

[Sallow]

Corporations are legal personages so they can pay taxes. They are legal personages so they can be sued. They are legal people for the protection of the public not the protection of the corporations. Without corporations being legal people, there would be no multimillion dollar lawsuits against corporations.

Thankfully intelligent people will be in charge for the foreseeable future and we won't ever see corporations lose their legal personhood. Some might whine and cry for it, but that's because they don't know any better.

Corporate personhood has given us too big to fail and a 100 to 1 ratio of lobbyists to congressman, it's great. How long does it take to sue a bank? The only accountability measure real persons have against big corporations is a joke.

The worst part of it..is that Corporations have limited liability. For example, Exxon and the Alaska oil spill. Tax payers paid for that debacle. And Bhopal India? Union Carbide? Thousands dead..and the company was basically shielded from any wrong doing.

 

[occupied]

If a corporation was an actual person and he lived next door you would hate his guts. Playing his stadium sized stereo system in the middle of the night and dumping his garbage over your fence.

 

[Katzndogz]

If we had really intelligent people, they would also understand a corporation cannot have an individual thought, therefore should not be allowed to contribute to political individuals directly or indirectly.

So corporations would not be allowed to support social programs? There would not be such a thing as being a good corporate citizen? No corporate gay friendly policies. No corporate foundations or charities. What liberals want is corporate personhood, but only in very select areas. They can't oppose any liberal ideals, but can support all liberal ideals.

If corporations cannot support political candidates neither should unions.

 

[Katzndogz]

If a corporation was an actual person and he lived next door you would hate his guts. Playing his stadium sized stereo system in the middle of the night and dumping his garbage over your fence.

Corporations do live next door to people and they do play the stereo in the middle of the night and throw garbage over the fence. Then they get sued. If they weren't legal personages they couldn't be sued. You would be required to identify the one person turning up the stereo and thowing the garbage and be limited to that person only.

 

[HUGGY]

I keep hearing what you are looking for is free food, housing, education, health care, transportation etc…. But I want to make sure you realize there is a cost to free stuff. Yes I know you have heard enough about the cost to taxpayers and you probably should care about that but probably don’t. However, I’m not talking financial costs. I’m talking a different type of cost.

Let me try to explain in a way everyone can understand. When you live at home with your parents they provided you with the food, housing, transportation, etc…. Well your parents being the providers they have/had certain powers over you. Your parents get to pick what you eat because they are the ones buying the food. They get to tell you to clean your room or what time you need to be in because they provide the housing. They can decide where you can go because they provide the transportation.

Now if you already don’t know where I’m going with this, then read the previous paragraph again. When you are dependent on anyone for things you need then you lose your freedoms. Now maybe you still live at home and don’t have those freedoms already but your parents will lose theirs and therefore you will be affected through them.

If the government provides your food the government can decide what you eat. Sure currently it is done through food stamps and you can purchase pretty much anything. But trust me when I say once government is providing all food that will no longer be the case. Currently they want you to want them providing the food for everyone so they are going to make food assistance as comfortable as possible. But once everyone is dependent of the government providing the food they can start forcing you to only eat food they feel make you healthier. And trust me when I say health food I’m not talking expensive health food but cheap healthy food.

Now that is the cost I’m talking about the cost of your freedoms. I know a lot of you don’t realize the control government can take over you because you have been fed lies about how nice it is to live in a country where government provides you what you need. But I assure you they are not free like you are free. They are not free to eat whatever they want. They are not free to go wherever they want to go. They are not free to get whatever health care they want. They are not free to live wherever they want. Just now this truth that when you are dependent on anything or anyone then your life depends on those that provide and they therefore control you.

Reaching out to Thomas

I see you are looking for a short cut to an ability to understand a subject before you state an opinion on it. Good luck with that.