Corporations Will Choose Leaders Now

[Mark@Sea]

What do we have right now?

We've got a president who just awarded 25 million in public funds to an advertising company (coincidentally -yeah, sure - the same one that got him elected). These public funds will be used to influence public opinion in favor of his agenda. Short story? Obama is using public funds in an attempt to improve his poll ratings.

We've got a DOJ Attorney General using public funds to pay people to infiltrate networking sites and forums such as this one, spreading centrally directed propaganda and directly attacking his political opposition.

We've got a majority of the "free" press owned by a handful of corporations and individuals who are slanting coverage, directing 'opinion' pages, and lying by omission to cover for the administration - because they're making millions in public funds to do so.

We've got a president and his hand-picked treasury secretary directing the hostile takeover and dismantling of American companies, and funneling the pieces to their own corporate backers.

The SCOTUS decision is just going to allow the other side to fire back in the war on truth. As someone pointed out, the people crying about this the loudest are the far left - and maybe their paid cointel infiltrators.

[sigmtnman]

"We've got a president and his hand-picked treasury secretary directing the hostile takeover and dismantling of American companies, and funneling the pieces to their own corporate backers."

And this is different from W and Henry Paulson forcing hostile takeovers and doing the same dismantling how? It is not. It is criminal by both admins. Is this not evidence enough that both parties are in this together?

As far as the "free" press, it is not just owned by the the X(left/right). If you look at public records it is owned equally and the ceos and directors have incestuous relationships with the majority of multi national corps, so it is what it is. A megaphone for whoever owns it.

Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss. Obama and Bush were/are owned and owe allegiance to the same people Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Nixon,___ did.

The SCOTUS decision upholds corporate rights, not our god given rights and puts them closer to having super rights over ours. It is in how the decision came down and the wording chosen, we could have had the same decision on a more narrow ground, that would have supported all free speech, not just corporate.

[eapking]

Something I left out...

MANY "U.S" corporations are not U.S. owned or controlled. And many just barely are, with almost the controlling shares owned by other countries.

And those countries have influence over those foreign corporations.

So you can now have NON citizens (hell, not even US residents) influencing US politics in a way like never before.

- OS

Well don't think the Big O didn't get his '08 campaign loaded up with foreign donations. He received a whole lot more than McCain. When was the last time a Democrat pulled that off?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well don't think the Big O didn't get his '08 campaign loaded up with foreign donations. He received a whole lot more than McCain. When was the last time a Democrat pulled that off?

The trouble with those donations is nobody knows where they came from.

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Elvis Presley, Joe Abdumallamutab, George Jetson, some fine donors. Worldwide community organizing, compliments of ACORN International, or whatever they call themselves this week.

[Smith]

The trouble with those donations is nobody knows where they came from.

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Elvis Presley, Joe Abdumallamutab, George Jetson, some fine donors. Worldwide community organizing, compliments of ACORN International, or whatever they call themselves this week.

We know. The same place Al Gore and Clinton got theirs...... China.

[sigmtnman]

If we were all truly free and the fed was left to do what the constitution set out we wouldn't need those jackoffs up there all the time screwing stuff up for the rest of us. We could treat it like jury duty where every citizen could be called to serve in some capacity. Dorms to live in, and food covered while there. With no laws to pass it shouldn't take much time at all.

Our offices of Trust have become offices of Profit...

[Guest Rockman]

Personally, I cannot think of anything that a corporation could do that would match the sleazy actions of moveon.org (funded primarily by the socialist George Soros) in attacking General Petraeus or the actions of yet another ultra-liberal billionaire, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC in attacking the right of the people to attend gun shows. While we may not agree on the court's decision, it will at least help to level the playing field.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If we were all truly free and the fed was left to do what the constitution set out we wouldn't need those jackoffs up there all the time screwing stuff up for the rest of us. We could treat it like jury duty where every citizen could be called to serve in some capacity. Dorms to live in, and food covered while there. With no laws to pass it shouldn't take much time at all.

Our offices of Trust have become offices of Profit...

That's similar to what some of the founders had in mind.

[Oh Shoot]

That's similar to what some of the founders had in mind.

Yep.

The concept of career politician just didn't occur to them, otherwise I'm confident they would have put term limits in from the git go.

- OS

[Guest Drewsett]

C'mon, OS, don't turn commie/hippie on us. We need you on our side. Don't pull an Arlen Spector.

See...I would argue that the corporations are the ones using the tools of communism in this case, not OS. Take from all of us because they *need* it. I guess they *need* that house in the hamptons or the new yacht.

A true fiscal conservative (read libertarian) wanted those banks to fail. Let them pay for their own mistakes, not Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

[sigmtnman]

^^^^ * 1E10

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke were the ones that went to President Bush for the original TARP funds allegedly claiming a financial meltdown would occur fast. I don't know if they are considered fiscally conservative or not. I suspect not. Obama did his number on the banks, also, and we know he isn't a fiscal conservative. John McCain is a progressive, not a fiscal conservative. Did the evil corporations go running to Bernanke, Paulson? Maybe, but I don't know. I wanted no TARP, but that was a political decision made by people that believe FDR did the right thing, which was wrong.

If you think they should be punished for wanting that home in the Hamptons

or a new yacht, wait until you have the opportunity to buy that yacht and get punished yourself. That's just not right to target a corporation, unless you have proof of wrongdoing. The criminal courts should settle that. You're generalizing all corporations into oblivion because of perceived public opinion, that probably doesn't

apply to most. There are looters and moochers, of course. Are you willing to rise to

that level of success and let the "little people" say you are just a crook with no evidence to back it up except public opinion? If you wish to target a corporation,

try naming one. GE comes to my mind, at least Jeffrey Immelt, who is the CEO and

board member of the New York FED. There's a conflict of interest if there ever was.

Goldman Sachs, maybe, but I don't know the facts. Lehman Brothers got hung out

to dry. You can take it from there but don't accuse generically because of public

opinion.

How does McCain-Feingold change any of this? Corporations are going to do what they do with or without this SCOTUS decision, make a profit. It just leveled the playing field for some who were restricted by a law that was decided to be unconstitutional. Political free speech should be the same as individual free speech,

but it's not. Politicians can lie and slander to get elected. If you and I are lie and slander we can get sued. It's the politicians that are causing most of the problems

we're facing. It's corporations and individuals that feed the economy and the monster government. If everyone went carte blanche against corporations, we wouldn't have an economy left, no matter what soil their corporation is chartered. Corporate taxes

and the minimum wage laws and unions ran a lot of companies out of the US.

I wanted those banks to fail, too, but they didn't ask me. We elected people and trusted them to make the right decision. They appointed people to make the right decision. Both let us down.

[sigmtnman]

If you are unsure, just read up on Old Hank and the Goldman Sachs revolving-door relationship with government.

[trblmkr13]

I think some companies win regardless of who is in office

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you are unsure, just read up on Old Hank and the Goldman Sachs revolving-door relationship with government.

I should but his actions kind of give him away, makes

me not want to bother. I doubt it would change my

opinion, also. It's the politicians to me.

[sigmtnman]

My problem is that in the constitution it goes so far as to say slaves were three fifths of a person but never says that a fictitious legal entity is a person.

The government we love and trust created corporations with statutory law and politicians worked them into having person hood somehow.

Everyone and every company has free speech. If a Company wants to say something, they just pick one of the members of the company to volunteer to attach their name to it. The ceo or owner/owners would be the obvious choice to me, because I would think they would support any message that was promoted by their company. Not some bogus, government created, faceless, mindless, corporate person with all of our rights AND a shield, which is used for just that; to shield the offenders...

[Smith]

My problem is that in the constitution it goes so far as to say slaves were three fifths of a person but never says that a fictitious legal entity is a person.

The government we love and trust created corporations with statutory law and politicians worked them into having person hood somehow.

Everyone and every company has free speech. If a Company wants to say something, they just pick one of the members of the company to volunteer to attach their name to it. The ceo or owner/owners would be the obvious choice to me, because I would think they would support any message that was promoted by their company. Not some bogus, government created, faceless, mindless, corporate person with all of our rights AND a shield, which is used for just that; to shield the offenders...

You really need to get a grasp on reality. The government did not "create" corporations. They are businesses. Now the government did create tax laws to manipulate business, ala corporate tax code. That is why career politicians are so dangerous. Over time they eventually figure out how to manipulate private business for their own business.

I'm always amused at people calling business/corporations evil and inhuman, all the while claiming we need more business/corporations to employ people and make our "human" economy run. How exactly does that work? :rolleyes:Corporations are people tied to other people through specific business and interest. The only difference between them and the NRA, a Church, or a local Vet group is they produce tangible marketable products.

I still believe those invested in the country should be the ones with a voice and buisness is one of those voices. Think about what would happen if buisness were completley nullified politically and all that was left was the "workers". How many government programs would we have then...... Wait that has already been tried, it's called Russia, Cuba, Venezuala, China,......COMMUNISM! You can't reduce one area and not reduce the other. Limiting buisness influence without limiting welfare influence would be catastrophic.... ala Obama (Just a glimpse).

[sigmtnman]

You really need to get a grasp on reality. The government did not "create" corporations. They are businesses. Now the government did create tax laws to manipulate business, ala corporate tax code. That is why career politicians are so dangerous. Over time they eventually figure out how to manipulate private business for their own business.

I'm always amused at people calling business/corporations evil and inhuman, all the while claiming we need more business/corporations to employ people and make our "human" economy run. How exactly does that work? :rolleyes:Corporations are people tied to other people through specific business and interest. The only difference between them and the NRA, a Church, or a local Vet group is they produce tangible marketable products.

I still believe those invested in the country should be the ones with a voice and buisness is one of those voices. Think about what would happen if buisness were completley nullified politically and all that was left was the "workers". How many government programs would we have then...... Wait that has already been tried, it's called Russia, Cuba, Venezuala, China,......COMMUNISM! You can't reduce one area and not reduce the other. Limiting buisness influence without limiting welfare influence would be catastrophic.... ala Obama (Just a glimpse).

The constitution does not allow for "government programs" so that part is easy, can't and don't do it.

The church and the nra are not a person either and should not be treated as such. A Corporation no more expresses the political opinion of all of it's people then Barry represents the votes of all of us. How does it become all workers if corporations are no longer a person? Do the owners suddenly die?

I never said business was evil, just that it is not a person.

Where did I say anything about limiting business, you are mistaken. I don't think the government should be involved in business. That's why I don't like corporations having person hood.

Nowhere in the constitution does it grant person hood to a fictitious legal entity created under the authority of a state, be it Tennessee or Nevada.

Edited January 27, 2010 by sigmtnman

[Smith]

How bout the media (1A) or militias (2A) or religion? Are they a person? The thing is, these "entities" are made up of a collective of people that share values. The only way to limit them is to limit the people who make up the collective. Our country is based on people getting together to have a sphere of influence. Business is just one of those. The non person argument is nonsense and goes against the very foundation of the Constitution. It's not in the Constitution because it didn't need to be said....... well.... evidently it did for you.

[sigmtnman]

No they are not, that is why they are spelled out. I guess I am not as progressive in my interpretation.

[Smith]

No they are not, that is why they are spelled out. I guess I am not as progressive in my interpretation.

No your super-progressive. If they aren't "human" than they can be taxed without regard and regulated without care. Are you for that? Only "people" can be taxed. That's why dogs aren't taxed..... yet.

[sigmtnman]

If No tax money. No programs. No nation building. No victim less crimes. Lots more personal accountability and responsibility.

is super progressive. so be it. I would call it libertarian others call it anarchy? Free enterprise without tethers.

[sigmtnman]

If the constitution is so clear on corporations being natural persons why does the US Code start out with:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the

context indicates otherwise -

...

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/01C1.txt

Corporations as legal entities enjoy the free speech of the respective state they are incorporated in and have always been able to perform commercial activity and enjoy what every other rights allowed by the state constitution and law. However, nowhere in the US constitution does it say what the very beginning of the United States Federal felt it needed to say.

In this republic I feel our founding fathers felt if you wanted to be represented, you better get off your ass and show up. Instead we get corporations like acorn, goldman sachs, et al directly controlling everything claiming they represent a collective koombaya feel good bullcrap.

[Smith]

Bottom line is the ruling is a Constitutional victory and nothing has changed since the inception of this country to the overall understanding of business, persons, and their position within their Constitutional framework.

[sigmtnman]

Bottom line is the ruling is a Constitutional victory and nothing has changed since the inception of this country to the overall understanding of business, persons, and their position within their Constitutional framework.

Constitutional victory I am not sure about... I feel it just goes further to ad case law supporting a cajillion lines of federal code. A corporation has no more standing in my opinion under the US constitution than a Panamanian. So I feel my rights were watered down. In 1886 case law changed that and started recognizing the legal entities known as corporations as natural persons.

You see it as repealing a bad law and upholding free speech for everyone. I see it as repealing a bad law and adding supreme court case law to support making a legal entity my equal under the constitution. Read the thing from start to finish and it makes a hell of a lot of sense along with noah's 1828 dictionary.

I have owned businesses and my rights to free political speech were in no way hindered at any point, not counting limitations on donations, but I didn't donate anyway. Why would my business need access to modifying laws for any other reason than favors? That is in my mind not moral business. But if I wanted to, what stops me from going or petitioning as a citizen? nothing...