Something that I think deserves it's own thread.

[bripat9643]

Respectfully, how are people denied rights if corporations are not fully vested with the same personal rights?

People can still donate money, vote, move .. do anything.

But, I don't deny the fact that unions were considered differently than corporations.

So no one's rights are violated if the government expropriates the property of a corporation?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Your quoting obvious propaganda. What facts have we failed to make disappear?

American Bar Association link is propaganda?

Okay

 

[Dante Reawakened]

So no one's rights are violated if the government expropriates the property of a corporation?

go away

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I simply don't suffer from the delusions you accept as reality.

again, go away

 

[dblack]

both of you ignore any links explaining facts. Okay.

No, you're linking to other opinions - those that are the same as your opinions.

Again, I'm not interested in the legalese here. I'm talking about the reality of the situation. The owners, operators and employees of corporations are real people. You want to pretend they're not so you can disregard their rights. I object to that.

 

[elektra]

Why don't you move out of the country?

Because being the richest most powerful country in the world we drive inflation worldwide. You can not escape the consequences of Democrat policies simply by moving to another country. It is very naive to believe so.

 

[bripat9643]

American Bar Association link is propaganda?

Okay

That's a notorious leftwing propaganda operation.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

No, you're linking to other opinions - those that are the same as your opinions.

Again, I'm not interested in the legalese here. I'm talking about the reality of the situation. The owners, operators and employees of corporations are real people. You want to pretend they're not so you can disregard their rights. I object to that.

Facts are not opinions: It's obvious you're commenting upon something you didn't even read. Very Trump-like. congrats

 

[bripat9643]

again, go away

Make me.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

That's a notorious leftwing propaganda operation.

It's obvious you too are commenting upon something you didn't even read.

 

[elektra]

No, you're linking to other opinions - those that are the same as your opinions.

Again, I'm not interested in the legalese here. I'm talking about the reality of the situation. The owners, operators and employees of corporations are real people. You want to pretend they're not so you can disregard their rights. I object to that.

Dunce Unawakened seems to be just trolling and flaming. I am not sure if he/she ever post anything that is other than opinion. I have not seen those posts with facts if Dunce Unawakened has posted them.

 

[dblack]

Facts are not opinions: It's obvious you're commenting upon something you didn't even read. Very Trump-like. congrats

Mkay. It's also obvious you're going to keep ostriching up here. But I'll keep raising the issue. Business owners have the same rights as anyone else. They don't become wards of the state merely because they engage in trade.

 

[Michelle420]

This was posted on another thread. But it's so deep, and spot on, I think it would be worth wild to discuss this topic on it's own (since it wasn't really on topic of the OP in the other thread)

The political divide in this country, especially on forums like this stems from a lot of issues. Some are legit disagreements. And some are merely political loyalty. "Sticking it to the other side" seems to be the going thing. Revenge politics, as they say. But on a social level.



The proof in this statement can be seen in the many MANY flip flops the party's have taken in the last several decades. Used to be, the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism. They still campaign on being fiscal conservatives. But the fact is, the right has spent more money and increased the debt ceiling more times since at least 1980, than the democrats have.
And as far as the democrats go, they used to be the party of border security. They're the ones who come up with the idea of fencing off the border and putting large amounts of border patrols on it. This was back when they seem to care about the working class Americans and wanted to protect their jobs.

Those are just two examples. But FA_Q2 nailed in his statement.

What republican is going to stand up against Trumps spending problem, in favor of keeping our economy from collapsing from inflation created by all the money he's going to borrow when he's re elected? What democrat is going to stand up against Biden's lax border problem, in favor of the American working man? Are these issue important enough for anyone to strongly oppose their party and it's leaders and decide for yourself, instead of being told what and who to support?

I will oppose both parties. The problem is they won't allow more than two parties to win the election. I am an independent. I have voted left and right and Green party. For me, my votes were about what I supported and needed at that given time. No Candidate or party ever fully represents me or my needs. I just pick someone who is closest to what my needs and values are.

 

[dblack]

I will oppose both parties. The problem is they won't allow more than two parties to win the election.

It's allowed. People just don't vote for them because they fall for the partisan fear-mongering.

I am an independent. I have voted left and right and Green party. For me, my votes were about what I supported and needed at that given time. No Candidate or party ever fully represents me or my needs. I just pick someone who is closest to what my needs and values are.

And that's how any civic minded person should vote. But way too many people are trying to game the system, voting "strategically" to manipulate the outcome to favor their party. That's the real "voter fraud" as far as I see it.

 

[Michelle420]

It's allowed. People just don't vote for them because they fall for the partisan fear-mongering.

And that's how any civic minded person should vote. But way too many people are trying to game the system, voting "strategically" to manipulate the outcome to favor their party. That's the real "voter fraud" as far as I see it.

I agree.

 

[bendog]

Mkay. It's also obvious you're going to keep ostriching up here. But I'll keep raising the issue. Business owners have the same rights as anyone else. They don't become wards of the state merely because they engage in trade.

I'm not sure Dante is being unresponsive. Bripat posts about "expropriat(ing)" from corporations, but since all property owned by a corporation is legally owned by shareholders in % to their shared ownership .... there are individual rights at issue.

So, are we talking about a 1st amendment right that is inherent to a corporation or union? Or a right to buy and own property outside shareholder rights?

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure Dante is being unresponsive. Bripat posts about "expropriat(ing)" from corporations, but since all property owned by a corporation is legally owned by shareholders in % to their shared ownership .... there are individual rights at issue.

So, are we talking about a 1st amendment right that is inherent to a corporation or union? Or a right to buy and own property outside shareholder rights?

I'm not talking about any particular rights, just the presumption that people forfeit rights if they join together and act as a group.

 

[The Duke]

{{meta.fullTitle}}

www.oyez.org

If only complicated arguments regarding campaign finance law were so simple. Corporations were never granted citizenship. Corporations being people? The ruling was about 'corruption' and Justice Kennedy came from a family of lobbyists.



Explainer: Citizens United Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

Citizens United Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

{{meta.fullTitle}}

www.oyez.org

Well that's kinda cool, it led to this:



Thanks!

 

[bendog]

I'm not talking about any particular rights, just the presumption that people forfeit rights if they join together and act as a group.

Well, don't we? Shareholder suits don't usually work out so well. I can, however, sell my shares. I don't lose any "rights" beyond I've given control of my money to others .... like Disney. (and that's not to mention giving up speech rights for employment)

If I own shares in BP, I've given my speech rights to another. Even without citizens united, corporations could make political donations.

At the most basic, we collectively hired teachers in one room schoolhouses, and in doing so we gave up some part of our right to raise our kids as we see fit (I'm stongly against child abuse too, btw. lol)

 

[dblack]

Well, don't we?

We shouldn't. That doesn't mean current regulation doesn't violate those rights all over the place. And it's been justified largely with the notion that a corporation, or even individuals who own a business, have a limited set of rights, as determined by the current regime.

At the most basic, we collectively hired teachers in one room schoolhouses, and in doing so we gave up some part of our right to raise our kids as we see fit (I'm stongly against child abuse too, btw. lol)

Choosing someone to speak on your behalf, or educate your children, isn't giving up your rights.