Who On This Board Thinks

[Steelplate]

Mitt Romney - Who Let the Dogs Out? - YouTube

Not Willard...he makes them ride on the top of the car in a carrier...shitting itself in fear the whole time.

How do you know the dog was shitting itself in fear?

[
As for corporate "personhood", I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

(sigh)

Would you like a list of Texas corporate executives who have been convicted? Does the name Ken Lay ring a bell?

Jeff Skilling?

Andrew Fastow?

As for the Texas corporation Enron, the market executed it.

Yeah... they executed it... after thousands, if not tens of thousands lost their life savings.

 

[JoeB131]

a corporation would exist without people?

nOt sure what your point here is, exactly.

You buy into the Economic Conservative Fallacy that Corporations or investors create jobs.

Nonsense.

Consumer demand creates jobs.

All corporations/investors do if figure out what those demands are and meet it. They sometimes create it through advertising and other manipulation.

Point being, though, that if you get rid of all the good paying unions jobs and replace them with low-paying McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza, you aren't really helping the economy all that much.

 

[Wiseacre]

a corporation would exist without people?

nOt sure what your point here is, exactly.

You buy into the Economic Conservative Fallacy that Corporations or investors create jobs.

Nonsense.

Consumer demand creates jobs.

All corporations/investors do if figure out what those demands are and meet it. They sometimes create it through advertising and other manipulation.

Point being, though, that if you get rid of all the good paying unions jobs and replace them with low-paying McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza, you aren't really helping the economy all that much.

I mean no offense Joe, I realize that increased demand is a necessity but I read some of the stuff like what you're saying and I wonder if you understand the full ramifications. You are implying that we need more good paying union jobs and fewer or no low-paying ones. At a time when many companies are outsourcing jobs overseas to cut labor costs, you want to exacerbate the problem by raising labor and production costs in the form of higher wages and union rules here. Who'd gonna buy American made stuff that is so much more expensive than the foreign made stuff? How can you possibly think that American companies can compete?

 

[Wiseacre]

If corporations are not people, how is it there such a thing as corporate greed?

The answer, as anyone even a nitpicking leftwing loon should know, is that corporations are made up of people who develop the culture and morals of the institution. Any fool should realize that a corporation is a business construct that exists for the sole purpose of making money by providing some good or service. If nothing is provided, it ain't a corporation. I don't know what it is, but it ain't a corporation; if there are no people then it ain't a corporation either, it's just a collection of agreements. This collection serves a purpose, but not for society; corporations serve the purpose of providing some benefit to society, else they couldn't exist. Somebody has to want whatever they got or do. If you do something to reduce the corporation's ability to make money and profit, real people are affected negatively.

 

[JoeB131]

a corporation would exist without people?

nOt sure what your point here is, exactly.

You buy into the Economic Conservative Fallacy that Corporations or investors create jobs.

Nonsense.

Consumer demand creates jobs.

All corporations/investors do if figure out what those demands are and meet it. They sometimes create it through advertising and other manipulation.

Point being, though, that if you get rid of all the good paying unions jobs and replace them with low-paying McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza, you aren't really helping the economy all that much.

I mean no offense Joe, I realize that increased demand is a necessity but I read some of the stuff like what you're saying and I wonder if you understand the full ramifications. You are implying that we need more good paying union jobs and fewer or no low-paying ones. At a time when many companies are outsourcing jobs overseas to cut labor costs, you want to exacerbate the problem by raising labor and production costs in the form of higher wages and union rules here. Who'd gonna buy American made stuff that is so much more expensive than the foreign made stuff? How can you possibly think that American companies can compete?

Two problems with that mentality.

The first is, labor in manufacturing is actually a very small fraction of the cost. I know this, I do purchasing and production planning for a living in a manufacturing environment. Outsourcing is as much about terror as it is about territory. They aren't saving that much. True, the labor is cheaper, but the transportation and tariff and carrying costs eat up most of that savings.

Second, on the subject of trade, every other country- including China- takes efforts to protect their workers from foreign competition through tariffs and quota and just plain old brand loyalty.

Third and final point. Are the saving passed along to the consumer, or handing off to the executive and investors? Why not give the money to the people who did the damned work.

 

[Wiseacre]

nOt sure what your point here is, exactly.

You buy into the Economic Conservative Fallacy that Corporations or investors create jobs.

Nonsense.

Consumer demand creates jobs.

All corporations/investors do if figure out what those demands are and meet it. They sometimes create it through advertising and other manipulation.

Point being, though, that if you get rid of all the good paying unions jobs and replace them with low-paying McJobs at Staples or Domino's Pizza, you aren't really helping the economy all that much.

I mean no offense Joe, I realize that increased demand is a necessity but I read some of the stuff like what you're saying and I wonder if you understand the full ramifications. You are implying that we need more good paying union jobs and fewer or no low-paying ones. At a time when many companies are outsourcing jobs overseas to cut labor costs, you want to exacerbate the problem by raising labor and production costs in the form of higher wages and union rules here. Who'd gonna buy American made stuff that is so much more expensive than the foreign made stuff? How can you possibly think that American companies can compete?

Two problems with that mentality.

The first is, labor in manufacturing is actually a very small fraction of the cost. I know this, I do purchasing and production planning for a living in a manufacturing environment. Outsourcing is as much about terror as it is about territory. They aren't saving that much. True, the labor is cheaper, but the transportation and tariff and carrying costs eat up most of that savings.

Second, on the subject of trade, every other country- including China- takes efforts to protect their workers from foreign competition through tariffs and quota and just plain old brand loyalty.

Third and final point. Are the saving passed along to the consumer, or handing off to the executive and investors? Why not give the money to the people who did the damned work.

Not doubting your experience or knowledge, whatever your end of the economy is may very well be that labor is not that much of a major factor. However, I would suggest that there has to be some reason why so many companies outsourced certain functions. True, there are numerous other factors, regulatory costs and who knows what else. But I have to think that the savings from lower labor costs just has to be in the equation, otherwise we wouldn't be losing that many jobs overseas.

We can get into a very long discussion about tariffs and protectionism, suffice it to say that IMHO it doesn't work. There are things we should be doing to get fair and balanced treatment, but anything that increases prices is a bad outcome, cuz that means your consumers have less money to spend on anything else. IOW, a lower standard of living.

As far as where the savings go, I suppose that depends on the level of competition the individual company has to deal with. And whether the company is private or public, how big and how stable, political connections, you know the drill. But I think you're talking about paying the employees more than the benefit is worth that they might bring to the company, or whatever their replacement cost might be. The business might make any number of decisions, from employees bonuses to pay raises, to dividends to stockholders or large compensation packages to the top execs. If it's the latter, that's really their call; I only care about making sure the stockholders are made aware of how much is being awarded. If they don't care, I don't either.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, there is a reason. It's called "Doing a beat-down on the middle class".

Come on, guy, this is about making us all glad we have a job, so we put up with any abuse they inflict.

Now, there is plenty of blame to go around. The government does make regulation too difficult, and the trade treaties make it to easy to move your plant, to be sure. And consumers are at fault. If we all refused to buy stuff that isn't made in the US, there would be no incentive to move product. So we've made this mess ourselves.

But neither party is ready to tell the Corporations that they are going to put Americans first.

 

[Article 15]

Talking about the class warfare being waged on the middle and lower class is worse than the class warfare being waged on the middle and lower class.

 

[candycorn]

CandyassCorn you lost the argument a long time a go SCOTUS.. has ruled.

Yet again you miss the point.

The legal question (what case was that again?) is one thing...the political ramifications are another. The courts have upheld flag burning. So are you for flag burning? If not, why not? It's legal after all

PS: I voted yes on your poll. We're not having an argument. You're just having a meltdown and can't understand things. They'll be clearer for you around the middle of the Summer.

Willow, you never answered this...are you for flag burning? You are for corporate personhood only because the SCOTUS said it is the law. They said there is no prohibition to flag burning so can we assume you're all for lighting up Old Glory too?

Is Willard for it?

http://youtu.be/KlPQkd_AA6c

He's for one....so he must be for the other.

 

[Cowman]

CandyassCorn you lost the argument a long time a go SCOTUS.. has ruled.

Clever... Clever. CandyassCorn.

You sound like a real bonafide internet tough guy.

 

[candycorn]

CandyassCorn you lost the argument a long time a go SCOTUS.. has ruled.

Yet again you miss the point.

The legal question (what case was that again?) is one thing...the political ramifications are another. The courts have upheld flag burning. So are you for flag burning? If not, why not? It's legal after all

PS: I voted yes on your poll. We're not having an argument. You're just having a meltdown and can't understand things. They'll be clearer for you around the middle of the Summer.

Willow, you never answered this...are you for flag burning? You are for corporate personhood only because the SCOTUS said it is the law. They said there is no prohibition to flag burning so can we assume you're all for lighting up Old Glory too?

Is Willard for it?

Romney: Corporations Are People, My Friend. - YouTube

He's for one....so he must be for the other.

Bears Repeating....

Let me ask you something. I don't know how Newt feels about corporate personhood.
If Newt comes out as something other than Romney on the issue..will you now sway with the prevailing winds or will you muster up some backbone and stick to what Romney said.

Curious.

 

[WillowTree]

Yet again you miss the point.

The legal question (what case was that again?) is one thing...the political ramifications are another. The courts have upheld flag burning. So are you for flag burning? If not, why not? It's legal after all

PS: I voted yes on your poll. We're not having an argument. You're just having a meltdown and can't understand things. They'll be clearer for you around the middle of the Summer.

Willow, you never answered this...are you for flag burning? You are for corporate personhood only because the SCOTUS said it is the law. They said there is no prohibition to flag burning so can we assume you're all for lighting up Old Glory too?

Is Willard for it?

Romney: Corporations Are People, My Friend. - YouTube

He's for one....so he must be for the other.

Bears Repeating....

Let me ask you something. I don't know how Newt feels about corporate personhood.
If Newt comes out as something other than Romney on the issue..will you now sway with the prevailing winds or will you muster up some backbone and stick to what Romney said.

Curious.

I believe in a nation of laws. Do You? I think you believe in a nation of "cherry picked" laws.. Am I right?

 

[candycorn]

Willow, you never answered this...are you for flag burning? You are for corporate personhood only because the SCOTUS said it is the law. They said there is no prohibition to flag burning so can we assume you're all for lighting up Old Glory too?

Is Willard for it?

Romney: Corporations Are People, My Friend. - YouTube

He's for one....so he must be for the other.

Bears Repeating....

Let me ask you something. I don't know how Newt feels about corporate personhood.
If Newt comes out as something other than Romney on the issue..will you now sway with the prevailing winds or will you muster up some backbone and stick to what Romney said.

Curious.

I believe in a nation of laws. Do You? I think you believe in a nation of "cherry picked" laws.. Am I right?

Absolutely not. I believe in a nation of laws. If the law becomes that you have to drive with your headlights on at all times, my headlights will be on. I do not believe in "cherry picked" laws at all.

The question you keep dodging is this. You apparently have embraced Romney's stance that corporations are people. You do so because the Supreme Court says so. Am I right?
So since the Supreme Court is okay with flag burning, are you okay with it? If Romney or Gingrich lit one up on Stage, would you be here tomorrow defending them? If not, why not?

Also, if Gingrich doesn't feel the courts were right in holding that the corporations are people (it's okay to disagree with laws--just don't violate them), will you embrace his views too?

I'm guessing your tap shoes are already laced up.

Dance!

 

[JoeB131]

Absolutely not. I believe in a nation of laws. If the law becomes that you have to drive with your headlights on at all times, my headlights will be on. I do not believe in "cherry picked" laws at all.

The question you keep dodging is this. You apparently have embraced Romney's stance that corporations are people. You do so because the Supreme Court says so. Am I right?
So since the Supreme Court is okay with flag burning, are you okay with it? If Romney or Gingrich lit one up on Stage, would you be here tomorrow defending them? If not, why not?

Also, if Gingrich doesn't feel the courts were right in holding that the corporations are people (it's okay to disagree with laws--just don't violate them), will you embrace his views too?

I'm guessing your tap shoes are already laced up.

Dance!

Actually, I thought the flag burning decision was the correct one - constitutionally. BUt if I ever see a hippy burning my flag, I'm going to kick his ass and dare a jury to convict me. ("Oh, wow, and you're a veteran, and your dad was a veteran!")

I also think Citizen's United was an awful decision, but it was triggered by an awful law. The post-Watergate reforms that limited donations to candidates just shifted the money to Political Parties. That had the result of eliminating much independent thought. Gone quickly were the conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans. Which was a pity, these guys kept the situation fluid where you could reach comprimises.

McCain-Feingold (and seriously, how many bad ideas were McCain Hyphen something) diverted the money away from the parties, and then tried to limit what outside groups could say, which was unconstitutional, absolutely. So now the money goes to these SuperPacs. I think this is making our politics worse, because the candidates aren't really in control of their own message.

Legally, I find the notion that corporations are people to be dubious. They can't be personally held to account. You can't put a corporation in prison, you can only put it out of business.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is a corporation person?

Is it limited to the same campaign contributions as any other one person?

Can it be thrown in jail for 7-10 and not operate for that time?

 

[Amelia]

Bears Repeating....

Let me ask you something. I don't know how Newt feels about corporate personhood.
If Newt comes out as something other than Romney on the issue..will you now sway with the prevailing winds or will you muster up some backbone and stick to what Romney said.

Curious.

I believe in a nation of laws. Do You? I think you believe in a nation of "cherry picked" laws.. Am I right?

Absolutely not. I believe in a nation of laws. If the law becomes that you have to drive with your headlights on at all times, my headlights will be on. I do not believe in "cherry picked" laws at all.

The question you keep dodging is this. You apparently have embraced Romney's stance that corporations are people. You do so because the Supreme Court says so. Am I right?
So since the Supreme Court is okay with flag burning, are you okay with it? If Romney or Gingrich lit one up on Stage, would you be here tomorrow defending them? If not, why not?

Also, if Gingrich doesn't feel the courts were right in holding that the corporations are people (it's okay to disagree with laws--just don't violate them), will you embrace his views too?

I'm guessing your tap shoes are already laced up.

Dance!

You sound like you're saying that Romney said that a corporation was a person.

Corporations are composed of people. Wasn't that Romney's point?

 

[Dot Com]

I believe in a nation of laws. Do You? I think you believe in a nation of "cherry picked" laws.. Am I right?

Its spelled "amiright"

 

[candycorn]

I believe in a nation of laws. Do You? I think you believe in a nation of "cherry picked" laws.. Am I right?

Absolutely not. I believe in a nation of laws. If the law becomes that you have to drive with your headlights on at all times, my headlights will be on. I do not believe in "cherry picked" laws at all.

The question you keep dodging is this. You apparently have embraced Romney's stance that corporations are people. You do so because the Supreme Court says so. Am I right?
So since the Supreme Court is okay with flag burning, are you okay with it? If Romney or Gingrich lit one up on Stage, would you be here tomorrow defending them? If not, why not?

Also, if Gingrich doesn't feel the courts were right in holding that the corporations are people (it's okay to disagree with laws--just don't violate them), will you embrace his views too?

I'm guessing your tap shoes are already laced up.

Dance!

You sound like you're saying that Romney said that a corporation was a person.

Corporations are composed of people. Wasn't that Romney's point?

"Corporations are people my friend" is the quote. His point was that in the eyes of the law, corporations are, in fact, people. Much the same way the Supreme court sees fetuses not as people though there is a heartbeat, a formation of human appendages, and even kidneys.

The views are legal terms and both are correct; in the eyes of the law.

This is a political message board. The politics of saying either one is not appealing to voters. Why Willow Tree is sponsoring the corporate personhood argument is, well, bizarre. No mater how legal it is; it's unpopular. Romney trying to argue the point even places him into an orbit of greater diameter from the public than he was before (if that was possible).

 

[candycorn]

Absolutely not. I believe in a nation of laws. If the law becomes that you have to drive with your headlights on at all times, my headlights will be on. I do not believe in "cherry picked" laws at all.

The question you keep dodging is this. You apparently have embraced Romney's stance that corporations are people. You do so because the Supreme Court says so. Am I right?
So since the Supreme Court is okay with flag burning, are you okay with it? If Romney or Gingrich lit one up on Stage, would you be here tomorrow defending them? If not, why not?

Also, if Gingrich doesn't feel the courts were right in holding that the corporations are people (it's okay to disagree with laws--just don't violate them), will you embrace his views too?

I'm guessing your tap shoes are already laced up.

Dance!

Actually, I thought the flag burning decision was the correct one - constitutionally. BUt if I ever see a hippy burning my flag, I'm going to kick his ass and dare a jury to convict me. ("Oh, wow, and you're a veteran, and your dad was a veteran!")

I also think Citizen's United was an awful decision, but it was triggered by an awful law. The post-Watergate reforms that limited donations to candidates just shifted the money to Political Parties. That had the result of eliminating much independent thought. Gone quickly were the conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans. Which was a pity, these guys kept the situation fluid where you could reach comprimises.

McCain-Feingold (and seriously, how many bad ideas were McCain Hyphen something) diverted the money away from the parties, and then tried to limit what outside groups could say, which was unconstitutional, absolutely. So now the money goes to these SuperPacs. I think this is making our politics worse, because the candidates aren't really in control of their own message.

Legally, I find the notion that corporations are people to be dubious. They can't be personally held to account. You can't put a corporation in prison, you can only put it out of business.

I think you're spot on in your assessment of this argument. Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

 

[Ravi]

LOL! Willow's support of Mitten didn't last very long. Proving once again that she's nothing but a ho for the Republican party.