WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[Vast LWC]

Whey can't we do that? Remove all corporate income taxes and just tax everyone working in that company the normal individual income tax.

That is a wonderful idea he came up with!

Of course what I really said was we would tax the Corporation's profits with a high bracket income tax rate, pre-dividend, since the corporation is claiming to be a separate person, with all the rights thereof.

Any corporation that engaged in the political process would be taxed at this rate, with no corporate loopholes available.

And any corporation that stays out of the political process, will be allowed to retain their current, near non-existent, loophole-filled, corporate tax rate.

 

[Vast LWC]

My definition stems from the facts that you clearly have little to no idea what you are talking about, viz. corporate v. individual taxation, who really pays taxes, and adherence to general leftist ignorance of even the most basic of economic models.

I quit posting because it was just as amusing watching others slap your naïvete around as participating.

And yet, neither you, nor anyone on the thread proved me wrong.

You just kept saying "no it's not", and making assertions with no concrete evidence or links to prove your points.

Just like you're doing right now.

Just because there are more conservatives that post on this board doesn't make them correct. And just because more of them talked in a thread than their opponents, doesn't make the debate in question an "ass-kicking". Especially if you don't even come near proving any point at all.

 

[rachidelaidi]

Whey can't we do that? Remove all corporate income taxes and just tax everyone working in that company the normal individual income tax.

That is a wonderful idea he came up with!

Of course what I really said was we would tax the Corporation's profits with a high bracket income tax rate, pre-dividend, since the corporation is claiming to be a separate person, with all the rights thereof.

Any corporation that engaged in the political process would be taxed at this rate, with no corporate loopholes available.

And any corporation that stays out of the political process, will be allowed to retain their current, near non-existent, loophole-filled, corporate tax rate.

Why?

 

[del]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

there's no such thing as bad publicity

 

[Vast LWC]

Why?

Because if any corporate "individual" wants to be part of the political process, they must bear the responsibilities of an actual individual.

If corporations want to use their massive amounts of wealth to control society, then they must contribute to society like everyone else.

 

[bobbcat]

WHen are progressives going to realize that you do not compromise the integrity of something so you can ALWAYS get the benefit?

They always go for the edge, and they don't care how they obtain it. Moral relativism is a central theme with the left. 'Cheat' should be their middle name; it's all they know.

If corporations want to use their massive amounts of wealth to control society, then they must contribute to society like everyone else.

How in the world is the act of buying ads during campaigns (as this is what this whole thing, the SCOTUS decision, is all about) that of 'controlling' society? Don't tell me you are just another lib who has bought into the notion that most people don't have the sense to keep from being misled by ads which are in support of or criticisms against a given candidate. I'd be willing to bet that if McCain/Feingold had been left intact but exempted unions, you'd be applauding. Personally, I am delighted that ol' George Soros will now be facing some real competition in the realm of political influence. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Look for the next big Supreme Court decision to go in favor of the Left. I think they have us all duped into thinking it's a "Liberal Court" or "Conservative Court." I don't think it's either one. How could a "Conservative" or "Right Wing" Court rule in favor of granting Foreign Terrorists U.S. Constitutional Rights? Just doesn't make any sense to me. The Left is still jumping for joy over that awful ruling. No i think it's a bit rigged at this point. They give one to the Right then they give one to the Left and it goes back and forth like that. This ruling was perceived as being a good decision for the Right so that means the next Supreme Court decision should go to the Left. I know this seems like a wacky theory but i really do subscribe to it at this point. I can't wait to see what their next big ruling will be.

 

[rachidelaidi]

Why?

Because if any corporate "individual" wants to be part of the political process, they must bear the responsibilities of an actual individual.

If corporations want to use their massive amounts of wealth to control society, then they must contribute to society like everyone else.

I don't believe that. Because the first problem , is the lobby who living ,rooting and pumping the blood the citizens honest in society, and into any societies in the world.

 

[Vast LWC]

How in the world is the act of buying ads during campaigns (as this is what this whole thing, the SCOTUS decision, is all about) that of 'controlling' society? Don't tell me you are just another lib who has bought into the notion that most people don't have the sense to keep from being misled by ads which are in support of or criticisms against a given candidate. I'd be willing to bet that if McCain/Feingold had been left intact but exempted unions, you'd be applauding. Personally, I am delighted that ol' George Soros will now be facing some real competition in the realm of political influence. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

So, it's your assertion that blanketing the media would not have an effect on public opinion?

What planet is it that your currently talking about?

 

[Vast LWC]

Look for the next big Supreme Court decision to go in favor of the Left. I think they have us all duped into thinking it's a "Liberal Court" or "Conservative Court." I don't think it's either one. How could a "Conservative" or "Right Wing" Court rule in favor of granting Foreign Terrorists U.S. Constitutional Rights?

Because the Court follows the LAW, not "Gut Feelings".

Even in this Corporation decision, they decided it based on legal precedent. I believe their interpretation of a corporation being an individual entity is morally wrong, and will become the downfall of the US political system, but I can't argue with the fact that they used a valid legal avenue to reach the conclusion, which is why I'm coming up with a new solution to the after-effects

Not giving prisoners rights, either as POWs or US Criminals, is an anathema to everything the Law represents. Trying to strip them of all rights is a purely political decision, and has nothing to do with the Law. The SCOTUS probably wanted to make sure that our country didn't start down the path that leads to death camps and Gulags.

Just doesn't make any sense to me. The Left is still jumping for joy over that awful ruling. No i think it's a bit rigged at this point. They give one to the Right then they give one to the Left and it goes back and forth like that.

This ruling was perceived as being a good decision for the Right so that means the next Supreme Court decision should go to the Left. I know this seems like a wacky theory but i really do subscribe to it at this point. I can't wait to see what their next big ruling will be.

No, it doesn't "go back and forth like that". You don't base the rule of law on what the latest polls say. To do so would be a hideous perversion of the office.

 

[Intense]

the icky sticky wiki dictionary definition is close enough to the actual mark:

judicial activism (uncountable)

(law, pejorative) the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of existing law with the judge's personal feelings about what the law should be

judicial activism - Wiktionary

How the hell can reading the literal words of the First Amendment be "replacing" an impartial interpretation?

A literal application of the clear and direct command of the First Amendment doesn't constitute ANY "interpretation." It has nothing to do with substituting a personal feeling.

I mean, sure: it's great that a guy like Justice Scalia's personal feelings happen to perfectly coincide with the clear directive of the Constitutional language. But that only makes it easier to abide by that command.

Thou shalt pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress DID pass a law abridging the freedom of speech. Then, the Supreme Court nullified that "law" because it was passed in derogation of the Constitutional prohibition.

That's the antithesis of "judicial activism."

Bullseye!!!

 

[Intense]

My definition stems from the facts that you clearly have little to no idea what you are talking about, viz. corporate v. individual taxation, who really pays taxes, and adherence to general leftist ignorance of even the most basic of economic models.

I quit posting because it was just as amusing watching others slap your naïvete around as participating.

And yet, neither you, nor anyone on the thread proved me wrong.

You just kept saying "no it's not", and making assertions with no concrete evidence or links to prove your points.

Just like you're doing right now.

Just because there are more conservatives that post on this board doesn't make them correct. And just because more of them talked in a thread than their opponents, doesn't make the debate in question an "ass-kicking". Especially if you don't even come near proving any point at all.

It's like You accidentally walked into the Ladies Room by mistake, You can't find the Urinals, You are in denial, You want proof, and you will not accept as evidence the sign on the door.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Intense]

Why?

Because if any corporate "individual" wants to be part of the political process, they must bear the responsibilities of an actual individual.

If corporations want to use their massive amounts of wealth to control society, then they must contribute to society like everyone else.

It's called Advertising.

 

[Intense]

How in the world is the act of buying ads during campaigns (as this is what this whole thing, the SCOTUS decision, is all about) that of 'controlling' society? Don't tell me you are just another lib who has bought into the notion that most people don't have the sense to keep from being misled by ads which are in support of or criticisms against a given candidate. I'd be willing to bet that if McCain/Feingold had been left intact but exempted unions, you'd be applauding. Personally, I am delighted that ol' George Soros will now be facing some real competition in the realm of political influence. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

So, it's your assertion that blanketing the media would not have an effect on public opinion?

What planet is it that your currently talking about?

You mean like Air America?

 

[Truthmatters]

Advertising by fictitious legal entities that only exist on paper that can be owned by any person with enough money to buy it.

The Bin Ladin Family thanks the 5 of the 9 on the court.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's like You accidentally walked into the Ladies Room by mistake, You can't find the Urinals, You are in denial, You want proof, and you will not accept as evidence the sign on the door.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you didn't read the thread I pointed to at all.

I was not arguing the constitutionality of corporate personhood, or the abridging of the freedom of speech of the same. I was saying that if a corporation wanted to have the rights of an individual, they needed to be taxed as an individual, at the proper income tax tier.

 

[Vast LWC]

You mean like Air America?

Yes, or MSNBC, or FoxNews, or Rush Limbaugh.

 

[cawacko]

Advertising by fictitious legal entities that only exist on paper that can be owned by any person with enough money to buy it.

The Bin Ladin Family thanks the 5 of the 9 on the court.

Through what group will the bin Laden's be funneling their money?

 

[Intense]

Why?

Because if any corporate "individual" wants to be part of the political process, they must bear the responsibilities of an actual individual.

If corporations want to use their massive amounts of wealth to control society, then they must contribute to society like everyone else.

The following is a partial list of some of the bigger names that are contributing to relief efforts. At the bottom is the complete list as compiled by the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

American Express - $250,000
Amgen - $2 million
AT&T Foundation - $50,000
Bank of America - $2 million
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - $1 million
Campbell Soup - $200,000
Canon - $220,000
Cisco Foundation - $250,000
Citigroup - $2 million
Coca-Cola - $1 million
Comcast - $950,000 (in kind services)
ConocoPhillips - $1 million
Dell - $500,000
Discover Financial Services - $100,000
Dow Chemical - $500,000
FedEx - $2 million
General Electric - $2.5 million
Go Daddy - $500,000
General Mills Foundation - $250,000
General Motors - $100,000
Google - $1 million
Home Depot Foundation - $100,000
Honda - $300,000
John Deere Foundation - $250,000
Jolie-Pitt Foundation - $1 million
JP Morgan Chase - $1 million
Kellogg Corporation - $250,000
Lance Armstrong Foundation - $250,000
Lowe’s - $1 million
Major League Baseball - $1 million
Microsoft - $1.25 million
Morgan Stanley - $1 million
Motorola - $100,000
National Basketball Association - $1 million
National Football League - $500,000
National Football League Players Association - $500,000
Nestle - $1 million
Panasonic - $110,000
Pepsi - $1 million
Scottrade - $100,000
Sprint - $50,000
Staples - $100,000
Starbucks Foundation - $1 million
Target - $500,000
The Shell Oil Company - $100,000
Toyota - $500,000
Toys R Us - $150,000
UPS Foundation - $1 million
US Bancorp - $100,000
Verizon Foundation - $100,000
Walgreens - $100,000
Wal-Mart - $100,000
Wal-Mart Foundation - $600,000
Walt Disney Corporation - $100,000
Wells Fargo - $100,000
Western Union Foundation - $250,000

January 20, 2010 - Complete list of donors to Haiti earthquake recovery

Haiti earthquake relief: Private corporations and trusts donate millions of dollars

 

[Vast LWC]

Through what group will the bin Laden's be funneling their money?

I guess that depends on what corporations they own stock in.