Warren Explains To Romney Why Corporations Aren’t People: ‘People Have Hearts’

[ConservaDerrps]

No. I'm not happy at all. but I'm principled.

I do think it's a necessary evil to compete with Scrooge McRomney though.

 

[hortysir]

If your mother had told you that you were 1/32 Cherokee, and you were applying for a very desirable job where such information could possibly help your competitive chances of employment, would you have checked the “minority” or “Native American” box on your job application?

If my publicist spread it all over that I was born in Kenya would you believe him or me?

 

[BDBoop]

If your mother had told you that you were 1/32 Cherokee, and you were applying for a very desirable job where such information could possibly help your competitive chances of employment, would you have checked the “minority” or “Native American” box on your job application?

If my publicist spread it all over that I was born in Kenya would you believe him or me?

Answering a question with a question? Abysmally poor form.

 

[hortysir]

Cool. Let's only send corporations off to die in foreign wars...oh wait.

You figure out how to do that, and you have a legion of fellow idiot lib lemmings ready to endorse your absurd mindless sophistry.

Until then, that's not the kind of "person" they are.

"Legal fiction" is an elusive concept for you brain dead trollish libs.

No, you stupid ************. I get exactly why corporations are treated as separate legal entities. No one is arguing that you change that. Removing personal liability from entrepreneurs and business owners is fine. But this bullshit theory that being a separate legal entity entitles you to all the rights of human life is ******* stupid, and you know it.

You know how I know you know it? What if instead of corporations being people, we said unions were people? Isn't that what you or some of your fellow Derps were saying before? That unions are corporations? You'd flip your shit.

So that's how we know it's an equitable set-up. Because you'd lose your top if it was unions pulling this shit.

Who the **** are you???



Rdean? Did you forget to wipe your shoes again?!

 

[hortysir]

If your mother had told you that you were 1/32 Cherokee, and you were applying for a very desirable job where such information could possibly help your competitive chances of employment, would you have checked the “minority” or “Native American” box on your job application?

If my publicist spread it all over that I was born in Kenya would you believe him or me?

Answering a question with a question? Abysmally poor form.

Yet very effective in demonstrating hypocrisy, no??

 

[BDBoop]

You figure out how to do that, and you have a legion of fellow idiot lib lemmings ready to endorse your absurd mindless sophistry.

Until then, that's not the kind of "person" they are.

"Legal fiction" is an elusive concept for you brain dead trollish libs.

No, you stupid ************. I get exactly why corporations are treated as separate legal entities. No one is arguing that you change that. Removing personal liability from entrepreneurs and business owners is fine. But this bullshit theory that being a separate legal entity entitles you to all the rights of human life is ******* stupid, and you know it.

You know how I know you know it? What if instead of corporations being people, we said unions were people? Isn't that what you or some of your fellow Derps were saying before? That unions are corporations? You'd flip your shit.

So that's how we know it's an equitable set-up. Because you'd lose your top if it was unions pulling this shit.

Who the **** are you???



Rdean? Did you forget to wipe your shoes again?!

Just another liberal. Maybe the board will become more balanced.

 

[BDBoop]

If my publicist spread it all over that I was born in Kenya would you believe him or me?

Answering a question with a question? Abysmally poor form.

Yet very effective in demonstrating hypocrisy, no??

No.

Answer the question.

 

[Liability]

Cool. Let's only send corporations off to die in foreign wars...oh wait.

You figure out how to do that, and you have a legion of fellow idiot lib lemmings ready to endorse your absurd mindless sophistry.

Until then, that's not the kind of "person" they are.

"Legal fiction" is an elusive concept for you brain dead trollish libs.

No, you stupid ************. I get exactly why corporations are treated as separate legal entities. No one is arguing that you change that. Removing personal liability from entrepreneurs and business owners is fine. But this bullshit theory that being a separate legal entity entitles you to all the rights of human life is ******* stupid, and you know it.

You know how I know you know it? What if instead of corporations being people, we said unions were people? Isn't that what you or some of your fellow Derps were saying before? That unions are corporations? You'd flip your shit.

So that's how we know it's an equitable set-up. Because you'd lose your top if it was unions pulling this shit.

No no you dead-monkey-dick-gobbler.

Feel obligated to point to the post where I have said that the legal fiction of corporate pesonhood somehow equates with ALL the rights of human life, you dishonest hack quiff.

Actually, you subcretinous babbling buttrash, if a union chose to INCORPORATE, they WOULD be "people" in the very same sense.*

The REASON corporations can sue and BE sued is because they are DEEMD "persons" in the eyes of the law. The reason they should have free speech rights is a bit more complicated, but actually pretty blindingly obvious if you'd ever think about it honestly. Conjoin my free speech rights with my freedom to associate. What is my ownership in a corporation other than an association with other co-owners?

WHY the **** should anybody be able to tell us (i.e., the fictional person known as the corporation we share holders own) that the corporation has no right to speak? **** you and **** anybody who tries to silence our collective oice. You'd shit bricks sideways if anybody said a ******* union had no right to speak.

yet you bombastic asshole liberal hypocrites have NO ******* qualms about compelling workers to join the ******* unions. You mindless drone libbies trample on FREEDOM of association AND freedom of speech.

Modern American liberalism is a sign of mental illness.

______________________________________________
* Actually, a few seconds of research shows that MOST unions re NOT incorporated. There is an arcane set of historical reasons for that, but most unions re deemed "voluntary associations" and thus are not able to be sued AS a union nor may they sue. IF you ever had to sue a union, the likelihood is that you would (in the past) have had to have styled the suit as one against every member of the union. But the laws progressed and nowadays, it seems to suffice if you sue the union heads in their ASSOCIATIONAL capacity (i.e., they don't have to risk losing their own homes and bank accounts to do their union honcho jobs).

EDITED again:

In connection with the state law upon the suability at law of unions,
it should be noted that some jurisdictions provide by statute for the
incorporation of labor unions.28

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...l=np#search="private labor unions incorprate" And footnote 28 provides:

28. Iow1A CODE (1935) § 8582; M.ass. GEaN. LAws (1932) c. 10, § 19; ML=cix Comm.
LAwS (1929) § 10277-83.

 

[Liability]

If your mother had told you that you were 1/32 Cherokee, and you were applying for a very desirable job where such information could possibly help your competitive chances of employment, would you have checked the “minority” or “Native American” box on your job application?

If my publicist spread it all over that I was born in Kenya would you believe him or me?

Answering a question with a question? Abysmally poor form.

No it's not. It's damn good form and often quite effective to illuminate the point being made.

This is why you object.

 

[Stephanie]

that's the extent of your posting prowess? Some meaningless drivel and telling me to take a long walk off a short pier?



You really do suck at this.

You silly ****. Does Romney run his campaign? Because his campaign certainly has pissed, bitched and moaned. And even if you don't believe that, I mean why would you, you're a Conservative. Historical record doesn't mean anything to you, just your gut "Feeling" as to what the historical record shows. Even if you don't believe the Rmoney campaign hasn't bitched about the Bain criticisms, your party has.

So yes. You guys whine and ***** far more than we do. Way more. You're giant, gaping, weeping pussies. Ya'all motherfuckers need to stop worrying about whether it's fair game. What ya'all motherfuckers need to be worried about is that they're working.

Battleground states receptive to Obama's Bain Capital attacks - CSMonitor.com

Ook, so, by your logic, everything done by the Obama campaign is the direct fault of Obama as well... right? And by his administration? All his fault.

Or, is that just... different somehow.

Moron. You have the intellectual capacity of a small soap dish, if that is the best you've got.

that soap should be shoved in their vulgar mouth and up their ass too.

 

[hortysir]

Answering a question with a question? Abysmally poor form.

Yet very effective in demonstrating hypocrisy, no??

No.

Answer the question.

Ok.

No.

I'm 1/16th Creek, with the birth certifates to back it up but it would never occur to me to check "Native American".

Cool?


Now.
Answer MY question.

If my publicist (by "my publicist" I mean someone I paid to do as I told him) made it abundantly clear, to everyone he could, that I was born in Kenya and I told you, 40 years later, that I was born in Hawaii.....would you believe me or the publicist?

 

[BDBoop]

You were talking to Lakhota.

 

[hortysir]

You were talking to Lakhota.

Didn't stop you from interjecting, did it?

 

[BDBoop]

Obviously not.

 

[hortysir]

Obviously not.

So you can insist that I answer Lakunta's question to an open forum, but feel no compulsion to answer mine to you.

Disingenuous noted.

 

[BDBoop]

It wasn't TO me. Are you saying that now it is?

I'd believe you.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You figure out how to do that, and you have a legion of fellow idiot lib lemmings ready to endorse your absurd mindless sophistry.

Until then, that's not the kind of "person" they are.

"Legal fiction" is an elusive concept for you brain dead trollish libs.

No, you stupid ************. I get exactly why corporations are treated as separate legal entities. No one is arguing that you change that. Removing personal liability from entrepreneurs and business owners is fine. But this bullshit theory that being a separate legal entity entitles you to all the rights of human life is ******* stupid, and you know it.

You know how I know you know it? What if instead of corporations being people, we said unions were people? Isn't that what you or some of your fellow Derps were saying before? That unions are corporations? You'd flip your shit.

So that's how we know it's an equitable set-up. Because you'd lose your top if it was unions pulling this shit.

No no you dead-monkey-dick-gobbler.

Feel obligated to point to the post where I have said that the legal fiction of corporate pesonhood somehow equates with ALL the rights of human life, you dishonest hack quiff.

Actually, you subcretinous babbling buttrash, if a union chose to INCORPORATE, they WOULD be "people" in the very same sense.*

The REASON corporations can sue and BE sued is because they are DEEMD "persons" in the eyes of the law. The reason they should have free speech rights is a bit more complicated, but actually pretty blindingly obvious if you'd ever think about it honestly. Conjoin my free speech rights with my freedom to associate. What is my ownership in a corporation other than an association with other co-owners?

WHY the **** should anybody be able to tell us (i.e., the fictional person known as the corporation we share holders own) that the corporation has no right to speak? **** you and **** anybody who tries to silence our collective oice. You'd shit bricks sideways if anybody said a ******* union had no right to speak.

yet you bombastic asshole liberal hypocrites have NO ******* qualms about compelling workers to join the ******* unions. You mindless drone libbies trample on FREEDOM of association AND freedom of speech.

Modern American liberalism is a sign of mental illness.

______________________________________________
* Actually, a few seconds of research shows that MOST unions re NOT incorporated. There is an arcane set of historical reasons for that, but most unions re deemed "voluntary associations" and thus are not able to be sued AS a union nor may they sue. IF you ever had to sue a union, the likelihood is that you would (in the past) have had to have styled the suit as one against every member of the union. But the laws progressed and nowadays, it seems to suffice if you sue the union heads in their ASSOCIATIONAL capacity (i.e., they don't have to risk losing their own homes and bank accounts to do their union honcho jobs).

EDITED again:

In connection with the state law upon the suability at law of unions,
it should be noted that some jurisdictions provide by statute for the
incorporation of labor unions.28

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...l=np#search="private labor unions incorprate" And footnote 28 provides:

28. Iow1A CODE (1935) § 8582; M.ass. GEaN. LAws (1932) c. 10, § 19; ML=cix Comm.
LAwS (1929) § 10277-83.

Who the **** is forced to join a union? If you want to work at a place that has union workers, you either join, or you go somewhere else right? Isn't that personal choice? That's a tenet of Conservative thought, right?

And LOL to the motherfucking max to that crazy beeotch calling me vulgar and then telling me to shove something up my ass. LOLZIMUS MAXIMUS.

 

[Stephanie]

No, you stupid ************. I get exactly why corporations are treated as separate legal entities. No one is arguing that you change that. Removing personal liability from entrepreneurs and business owners is fine. But this bullshit theory that being a separate legal entity entitles you to all the rights of human life is ******* stupid, and you know it.

You know how I know you know it? What if instead of corporations being people, we said unions were people? Isn't that what you or some of your fellow Derps were saying before? That unions are corporations? You'd flip your shit.

So that's how we know it's an equitable set-up. Because you'd lose your top if it was unions pulling this shit.

No no you dead-monkey-dick-gobbler.

Feel obligated to point to the post where I have said that the legal fiction of corporate pesonhood somehow equates with ALL the rights of human life, you dishonest hack quiff.

Actually, you subcretinous babbling buttrash, if a union chose to INCORPORATE, they WOULD be "people" in the very same sense.*

The REASON corporations can sue and BE sued is because they are DEEMD "persons" in the eyes of the law. The reason they should have free speech rights is a bit more complicated, but actually pretty blindingly obvious if you'd ever think about it honestly. Conjoin my free speech rights with my freedom to associate. What is my ownership in a corporation other than an association with other co-owners?

WHY the **** should anybody be able to tell us (i.e., the fictional person known as the corporation we share holders own) that the corporation has no right to speak? **** you and **** anybody who tries to silence our collective oice. You'd shit bricks sideways if anybody said a ******* union had no right to speak.

yet you bombastic asshole liberal hypocrites have NO ******* qualms about compelling workers to join the ******* unions. You mindless drone libbies trample on FREEDOM of association AND freedom of speech.

Modern American liberalism is a sign of mental illness.

______________________________________________
* Actually, a few seconds of research shows that MOST unions re NOT incorporated. There is an arcane set of historical reasons for that, but most unions re deemed "voluntary associations" and thus are not able to be sued AS a union nor may they sue. IF you ever had to sue a union, the likelihood is that you would (in the past) have had to have styled the suit as one against every member of the union. But the laws progressed and nowadays, it seems to suffice if you sue the union heads in their ASSOCIATIONAL capacity (i.e., they don't have to risk losing their own homes and bank accounts to do their union honcho jobs).

EDITED again: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...l=np#search="private labor unions incorprate" And footnote 28 provides:

28. Iow1A CODE (1935) § 8582; M.ass. GEaN. LAws (1932) c. 10, § 19; ML=cix Comm.
LAwS (1929) § 10277-83.

Who the **** is forced to join a union? If you want to work at a place that has union workers, you either join, or you go somewhere else right? Isn't that personal choice? That's a tenet of Conservative thought, right?

And LOL to the motherfucking max to that crazy beeotch calling me vulgar and then telling me to shove something up my ass. LOLZIMUS MAXIMUS.

people like you are a dime a dozen..yawners
zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[hortysir]

Who the **** is forced to join a union? If you want to work at a place that has union workers, you either join, or you go somewhere else right? Isn't that personal choice? That's a tenet of Conservative thought, right?

And LOL to the motherfucking max to that crazy beeotch calling me vulgar and then telling me to shove something up my ass. LOLZIMUS MAXIMUS.

Why does that sound so similar to UHC???

 

[BDBoop]

It wasn't TO me. Are you saying that now it is?

I'd believe you.

Hello.