Why are corporations evil?

[noose4]

I am just amazed at Americans defending allowing foreigners having HUGE influence on our elections.

They have lost all their logical moorings

OUTRIGHT LIE. Foreign Corporations can not donate to US politicians or to PAC's. The Supreme Court did not change that law at all.

Corporations are multinational, what may be in the best interest of a multinational "American" corporation may not be in the best interests of the U.S.

 

[RodISHI]

That's the point I've been trying to make. The legal structure of a business whether a proprietorship or a mutli-national corporation is not evil. In both cases, the people owning and operating the business may be the most civic minded, altruistic, honest, and ethical souls on Earth or they may be the Devil personified. Changing corporate structure will not make the people involved more or less honest and ethical.

Our government, itself rife with graft and corruption, encourages graft and corruption in business through subsidies, various kinds of tax benefits, bribes, gratuities, and other forms of manipulation. Each encourages such behavior in the other.

The Founders intended for the government to put in such laws and regulation necessary to prevent one entity, private or public, from doing physical, social, or economic violence to another, and to resist showing favoritism to any constituency or group.

All we have to do to correct most of the problems with big or small business now, is to get back to that fundamental concept. When we make it illegal for government to dispense charity or favors to ANY individual or group, we will mostly eliminate most of the corruption and unethical practices that now exist.

Well, in all fairness rape is evil and a savage brutality whenever it occurs.

However, to imply condemnation of an entire mega corporation because somebody associated with it was raped is akin to condemning the entire Navy because one drunken sailor got into trouble. Some people do think like that I guess, though they resist having all liberals or all Democrats or all of anything they are associated with being thrown into the same pot.

The hypocrisy in your two postings is showing.

Just as each individual is responsible for their own actions when an individual is under the authority of another or company that company or individual holds the liability of the actions of those whom work for the company. By what you are saying using the Navy as an example is that this company/Halliburton is comparable to a government entity that has a whole set of rules to handle such matters< apples and oranges.. From what you have posted I gather that in your view a company has no obligation as to the actions of their employees while those employees were working for this company in protecting this woman's safety while she was there working for them. Condemning that whole "mega-corporation" for not owning up to it's responsibilities and obligations is perfectly acceptable when they refuse to do so.

I did not say that a company has no obligation as to the actions of the employees. But I daresay you do not know any more about the circumstances of this case than I do, so neither of us is in any position to know whether Halliburton's legal team is out of line or not. If the rape occurred outside the jurisdiction or scope of operations of Halliburton, then they absolutely would not be liable even if it was a Halliburton employee any more than you are liable or responsible or guilty if your employee or family member or friend or neighbor commited a crime unrelated to your business or authority or knowledge or complicity.

In any case I was not referring to the case itself as I don't know anything about it other than the one paragraph sketchy comment posted. I was saying that you cannot honestly condemn an entire organization or group, no matter what it is, because one member sins or errs or commits a crime. That is an entirely separate issue from liability. Remember, the Bible says judge not lest you be judged also, meaning if you're going to condemn somebody or something, you're supposed to know for sure whether he or she or it is guilty.

The Bible also says ignorance is no excuse.

Jesus said if he judges he does so in righteousness. Hence we are to do the same if we make a determination on any given situation do so in righteousness.

The example of Halliburton/KBR was used you went with it. Read about the case and you will know the details. And yes I believe that many corporations can be and are evil.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Haliburton will win.


I'll answer your question with a question. Are you stupid?

Well, in all fairness rape is evil and a savage brutality whenever it occurs.

However, to imply condemnation of an entire mega corporation because somebody associated with it was raped is akin to condemning the entire Navy because one drunken sailor got into trouble. Some people do think like that I guess, though they resist having all liberals or all Democrats or all of anything they are associated with being thrown into the same pot.

nice try but a complete fail......that corporation is trying to cover up a crime by using it's money and influence to block the trial.

What evidence do you have that Haliburton is trying to cover up a crime?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

nice try but a complete fail......that corporation is trying to cover up a crime by using it's money and influence to block the trial.

Nice try, but if I was not guilty of a crime, I would be using any means at my disposal to block a trial too. Wouldn't you?

no, If I wasn't guilty I would defend myself in court to clear my good name instead of trying to stop the trial .......what do they have to hide?

Hey stupid! All employees sign a contract stating that all claims are to be settled through arbitration, not trial. That's why they're attempting to block the trial. And they will win.

 

[RodISHI]

Nice try, but if I was not guilty of a crime, I would be using any means at my disposal to block a trial too. Wouldn't you?

no, If I wasn't guilty I would defend myself in court to clear my good name instead of trying to stop the trial .......what do they have to hide?

Hey stupid! All employees sign a contract stating that all claims are to be settled through arbitration, not trial. That's why they're attempting to block the trial. And they will win.

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Article excerpts---The Raw Story
"The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, arguing that Jones' alleged rape did not fall under the auspices of the employee contract because "her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract,"

 

[Foxfyre]

no, If I wasn't guilty I would defend myself in court to clear my good name instead of trying to stop the trial .......what do they have to hide?

Hey stupid! All employees sign a contract stating that all claims are to be settled through arbitration, not trial. That's why they're attempting to block the trial. And they will win.

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Article excerpts---The Raw Story
"The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, arguing that Jones' alleged rape did not fall under the auspices of the employee contract because "her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract,"

Okay, I read up on the case. IF the allegations she accuses her assailants of are true, then yes, the full brunt of whatever law applies should be brought to bear and the rapists and/or any accomplices should experience the full force of it. If the parent company or its susidiary was negligent, then they should be held accountable.

However, the fact that she pulled her case out of arbitration on the grounds that it had nothing to do with her employment in itself should absolve Halliburton of any legal responsibility. In work comp court in every state I know of, it would also absolve KBR of any responsibility. A corporation is not responsible for the actions of its employees outside the course and scope of their jobs unless it has rules and requirements that put an employee at risk. For instance, if an employer requires employees to be housed in a certain place or to take their meals in a certain place, then the employer is responsible for the employees' safety and welfare in that place even if they are off the clock at the time. It is reasonable for any company to not assume liability that they are not required to assume, especially when it opens the door wide open for every other grievance or personal issue with all employees to become the responsibility of the company.

So, as it appears this one did make into the courts, I'll wait for the court to decide and won't presume to judge.

All that is a totally separate issue from the point I was making, however, and you still don't seem to get the point I was making.

If your brother goes out and robs a bank or commits another crime, the place he works for is not evil or culpable because he did that. You and your family are not culpable because he did that. His friends and neighbors are not culpable because he did that. He is the one who did wrong and he is the one who must be held responsible for his actions.

If any of the rest of you knew he was going to do it and did nothing to prevent it, then you also share some guilt.

If Halliburton had no way of knowing that KBR's employees were capable of the terrible crime they are accused of committing, they are not in any way guilty or evil. And they are liable only if they put an employee at risk.

 

[Jay Canuck]

White House to Alito: Is Too

​

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

 

[Foxfyre]

White House to Alito: Is Too

​

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Yeah, well the White House has told us a whole bunch of crap that has proved to be untrue, and rather than correct their story, they just change it or pretend that they really meant something else.

I trust Justice Alito to know his stuff a whole bunch more than I trust them.

 

[Old Rocks]

With events the last few days it's very clear that some people thing corporations are the face of evil in the world. Why?

What is it that makes corporations so much worse than LLCs, Partnerships, sole proprietorship?

Also, what's so evil about profits? Why is it wrong for companies of any size and shape actually producing a profit?

Corperations are not evil. They are tools, not individuals.

I have a 20" Crescent Wrench. It weighs about 10 lbs. It is very good for turning large nuts.
It would also be quite effective in crushing a skull.

That is the state of corperations. They are good tools, as long as they are used for legitimate purposes. They are also very good at crushing freedom and truth if it interferes with their profit margin.

The Supreme Court decision elevating them to the level of an individual is evil, and will result in much mischief.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey stupid! All employees sign a contract stating that all claims are to be settled through arbitration, not trial. That's why they're attempting to block the trial. And they will win.

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Article excerpts---The Raw Story
"The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, arguing that Jones' alleged rape did not fall under the auspices of the employee contract because "her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract,"

Okay, I read up on the case. IF the allegations she accuses her assailants of are true, then yes, the full brunt of whatever law applies should be brought to bear and the rapists and/or any accomplices should experience the full force of it. If the parent company or its susidiary was negligent, then they should be held accountable.

However, the fact that she pulled her case out of arbitration on the grounds that it had nothing to do with her employment in itself should absolve Halliburton of any legal responsibility. In work comp court in every state I know of, it would also absolve KBR of any responsibility. A corporation is not responsible for the actions of its employees outside the course and scope of their jobs unless it has rules and requirements that put an employee at risk. For instance, if an employer requires employees to be housed in a certain place or to take their meals in a certain place, then the employer is responsible for the employees' safety and welfare in that place even if they are off the clock at the time. It is reasonable for any company to not assume liability that they are not required to assume, especially when it opens the door wide open for every other grievance or personal issue with all employees to become the responsibility of the company.

So, as it appears this one did make into the courts, I'll wait for the court to decide and won't presume to judge.

All that is a totally separate issue from the point I was making, however, and you still don't seem to get the point I was making.

If your brother goes out and robs a bank or commits another crime, the place he works for is not evil or culpable because he did that. You and your family are not culpable because he did that. His friends and neighbors are not culpable because he did that. He is the one who did wrong and he is the one who must be held responsible for his actions.

If any of the rest of you knew he was going to do it and did nothing to prevent it, then you also share some guilt.

If Halliburton had no way of knowing that KBR's employees were capable of the terrible crime they are accused of committing, they are not in any way guilty or evil. And they are liable only if they put an employee at risk.

OK, Foxfyre, you come through loud and clear. Corperations owe their employees no protection whatsoever, no matter what the circomstances of their work.

 

[Jay Canuck]

White House to Alito: Is Too

​

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Yeah, well the White House has told us a whole bunch of crap that has proved to be untrue, and rather than correct their story, they just change it or pretend that they really meant something else.

I trust Justice Alito to know his stuff a whole bunch more than I trust them.

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”



so is it false that last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in U.S elections?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

no, If I wasn't guilty I would defend myself in court to clear my good name instead of trying to stop the trial .......what do they have to hide?

Hey stupid! All employees sign a contract stating that all claims are to be settled through arbitration, not trial. That's why they're attempting to block the trial. And they will win.

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Article excerpts---The Raw Story
"The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, arguing that Jones' alleged rape did not fall under the auspices of the employee contract because "her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract,"

What evidence do you that they "locked her up" other than her allegations of being locked up? And how do you know that they didn't simply provide her with a secure location where she would feel safe?

 

[Foxfyre]

White House to Alito: Is Too

​

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Yeah, well the White House has told us a whole bunch of crap that has proved to be untrue, and rather than correct their story, they just change it or pretend that they really meant something else.

I trust Justice Alito to know his stuff a whole bunch more than I trust them.

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”



so is it false that last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in U.S elections?

Yep. Again I trust Justice Alito a whole lot more to know his stuff than I trust anything that Barack Obama says these days.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, Foxfyre, you come through loud and clear. Corperations owe their employees no protection whatsoever, no matter what the circomstances of their work.

If that is all you got out of my comments, could I recommend a good remedial reading course?

 

[Jay Canuck]

Rape is ok when the individual who is doing the raping is a corporation?

 

[52ndStreet]

With events the last few days it's very clear that some people thing corporations are the face of evil in the world. Why?

What is it that makes corporations so much worse than LLCs, Partnerships, sole proprietorship?

Also, what's so evil about profits? Why is it wrong for companies of any size and shape actually producing a profit?

Its not the Corporations that are Evil, it the Greedy White male CEO's that are the Evil
ingredient at many of these Corporations.!

 

[Jay Canuck]

Yeah, well the White House has told us a whole bunch of crap that has proved to be untrue, and rather than correct their story, they just change it or pretend that they really meant something else.

I trust Justice Alito to know his stuff a whole bunch more than I trust them.

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”



so is it false that last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in U.S elections?

Yep. Again I trust Justice Alito a whole lot more to know his stuff than I trust anything that Barack Obama says these days.

True or false is a very easy question to answer.....now try it instead of dodging because you are losing ground very quickly.

 

[RodISHI]

Hey stupid! All employees sign a contract stating that all claims are to be settled through arbitration, not trial. That's why they're attempting to block the trial. And they will win.

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Article excerpts---The Raw Story
"The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, arguing that Jones' alleged rape did not fall under the auspices of the employee contract because "her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract,"

Okay, I read up on the case. IF the allegations she accuses her assailants of are true, then yes, the full brunt of whatever law applies should be brought to bear and the rapists and/or any accomplices should experience the full force of it. If the parent company or its susidiary was negligent, then they should be held accountable.

However, the fact that she pulled her case out of arbitration on the grounds that it had nothing to do with her employment in itself should absolve Halliburton of any legal responsibility. In work comp court in every state I know of, it would also absolve KBR of any responsibility. A corporation is not responsible for the actions of its employees outside the course and scope of their jobs unless it has rules and requirements that put an employee at risk. For instance, if an employer requires employees to be housed in a certain place or to take their meals in a certain place, then the employer is responsible for the employees' safety and welfare in that place even if they are off the clock at the time. It is reasonable for any company to not assume liability that they are not required to assume, especially when it opens the door wide open for every other grievance or personal issue with all employees to become the responsibility of the company.

So, as it appears this one did make into the courts, I'll wait for the court to decide and won't presume to judge.

All that is a totally separate issue from the point I was making, however, and you still don't seem to get the point I was making.

If your brother goes out and robs a bank or commits another crime, the place he works for is not evil or culpable because he did that. You and your family are not culpable because he did that. His friends and neighbors are not culpable because he did that. He is the one who did wrong and he is the one who must be held responsible for his actions.

If any of the rest of you knew he was going to do it and did nothing to prevent it, then you also share some guilt.

If Halliburton had no way of knowing that KBR's employees were capable of the terrible crime they are accused of committing, they are not in any way guilty or evil. And they are liable only if they put an employee at risk.

It is like I told you before I am not a debater. Defend or excuse KBR aka Halliburton if you like I will not. Corporations are fully liable for what they do and for what their employees do while they are working for them. As citizens of this country we are and will be held accountable for the actions of these corporations that have been running wild throughout the world creating mayhem and destruction.

If and when anyone cares more about pleasure and money than they do the people that were created in God's image then they are evil. Mega corps fit that to a tee.

I had an employee who was assaulted at knife point. The perp held the knife to her throat as he made her perform the act. He fully intended on slitting her throat and he would have had he not discovered she was not the person he thought she was when he initially attacked her. His motive and intent of the attack would be revealed later after the act was committed. She was on the job site when this happened. Therefore as an employer I was fully liable for what happened to her. If I had had her locked her up after that happened to her or even one of my other employees had locked her up after that happened I would still be liable and in fact I should be liable for the actions of my employees that did such an evil act. If I or one of my employees hid the matter to try to cover my ass or theirs I would still be held liable and rightfully so but I did not nor did any of my employees.

How anyone could possibly try to defend Halliburton and excuse them in this matter is beyond me. An employer is responsible when they know the possibility even the slightest or even a remote possibility exist that may or could endanger their employees as is any member of any body of people.

Corporations for profit are not people nor are they comparable with family members or neighbors.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

White House to Alito: Is Too

​

The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Yeah, well the White House has told us a whole bunch of crap that has proved to be untrue, and rather than correct their story, they just change it or pretend that they really meant something else.

I trust Justice Alito to know his stuff a whole bunch more than I trust them.

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”



so is it false that last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in U.S elections?

Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."

Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Okay, I read up on the case. IF the allegations she accuses her assailants of are true, then yes, the full brunt of whatever law applies should be brought to bear and the rapists and/or any accomplices should experience the full force of it. If the parent company or its susidiary was negligent, then they should be held accountable.

However, the fact that she pulled her case out of arbitration on the grounds that it had nothing to do with her employment in itself should absolve Halliburton of any legal responsibility. In work comp court in every state I know of, it would also absolve KBR of any responsibility. A corporation is not responsible for the actions of its employees outside the course and scope of their jobs unless it has rules and requirements that put an employee at risk. For instance, if an employer requires employees to be housed in a certain place or to take their meals in a certain place, then the employer is responsible for the employees' safety and welfare in that place even if they are off the clock at the time. It is reasonable for any company to not assume liability that they are not required to assume, especially when it opens the door wide open for every other grievance or personal issue with all employees to become the responsibility of the company.

So, as it appears this one did make into the courts, I'll wait for the court to decide and won't presume to judge.

All that is a totally separate issue from the point I was making, however, and you still don't seem to get the point I was making.

If your brother goes out and robs a bank or commits another crime, the place he works for is not evil or culpable because he did that. You and your family are not culpable because he did that. His friends and neighbors are not culpable because he did that. He is the one who did wrong and he is the one who must be held responsible for his actions.

If any of the rest of you knew he was going to do it and did nothing to prevent it, then you also share some guilt.

If Halliburton had no way of knowing that KBR's employees were capable of the terrible crime they are accused of committing, they are not in any way guilty or evil. And they are liable only if they put an employee at risk.

It is like I told you before I am not a debater. Defend or excuse KBR aka Halliburton if you like I will not. Corporations are fully liable for what they do and for what their employees do while they are working for them. As citizens of this country we are and will be held accountable for the actions of these corporations that have been running wild throughout the world creating mayhem and destruction.

If and when anyone cares more about pleasure and money than they do the people that were created in God's image then they are evil. Mega corps fit that to a tee.

I had an employee who was assaulted at knife point. The perp held the knife to her throat as he made her perform the act. He fully intended on slitting her throat and he would have had he not discovered she was not the person he thought she was when he initially attacked her. His motive and intent of the attack would be revealed later after the act was committed. She was on the job site when this happened. Therefore as an employer I was fully liable for what happened to her. If I had had her locked her up after that happened to her or even one of my other employees had locked her up after that happened I would still be liable and in fact I should be liable for the actions of my employees that did such an evil act. If I or one of my employees hid the matter to try to cover my ass or theirs I would still be held liable and rightfully so but I did not nor did any of my employees.

How anyone could possibly try to defend Halliburton and excuse them in this matter is beyond me. An employer is responsible when they know the possibility even the slightest or even a remote possibility exist that may or could endanger their employees as is any member of any body of people.

Corporations for profit are not people nor are they comparable with family members or neighbors.

The alleged rape didn't occur in the workplace. So should Hlaiburton be responsible for what happens to you while your in your bedroom as was the case with Jones.

Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale wrote in her/his opinion that "Under these circumstances, the outer limits of the “related to” language of the arbitration provision have been tested, and breached. Halliburton/KBR essentially asks this court to read the arbitration provision so broadly as to encompass any claim related to Jones’ employer, or any incident that happened during her employment, but that is not the language of the contract. We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never “relate to” someone’s employment. For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not “touch matters” related to her employment, let alone have a “significant relationship” to her employment contract. "