Occupy Wall Street vs. Tea Party

[imotion s14]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

It's no magic bullet but that would go a long way to making things better. As it stands now any company can spend any amount to get the guy they want elected.

Sure it will.

Just like hope and change in 2008.

[kingkilburn]

/\douche/\

[T chop]

Originally Posted by RJF

Show where the tea party has made race an issue.

Meanwhile, the Occutards are the most vile, anti-Semitic racists out there that want to destroy this country.

If you can't see it for yourself, I doubt I can help you.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

P.S.
I'm still waiting for a rebuttal on the racism in the tea party.

I could send you hundreds of pictures with no context. At least I presented videos with the words of the scumbags right there for you to hear.

[codyace]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

As it stands now any company can spend any amount to get the guy they want elected.

You make this statement as if it's something new....'money' (regardless of where it comes from) has bought and influenced the seat since day one. In fact it would be tough to find a powerful society that hasn't had powerful funding.

[Walperstyle]

Originally Posted by Matej

Who are these Occutards? I like them already. I do not want my money going to Israel anymore.
Have you heard of Technion? Guess who funded it? America. Even though Jewish people only make up 1.7% of Americans, thanks to the huge influence they have in the US, billions of dollars are spent on pro-Jewish affairs and advancement around the world, even though these expenses are of absolutely no benefit to the average American.

Hey, I found a picture of you


I'm just kidding, and I agree that far too much money leaves the US and never comes back.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

What kind of context do you want? It's all there for you to see.

You telling me witch doctor Obama isn't racist is entirely racist on your part and that's just one of the pictures.

Last I checked white people equating black people to monkeys was still racist as fuck.

Do I really need to explain each and every racist thing?




As for your videos. . . I see no problem with the first. She referring to a political interest not a faith or people.
The second video is just some angry jack ass yelling at the first guy he could think to blame.
The third video seems like more of the same.
The fourth video is a bunch of militant extreme liberals that DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by codyace

You make this statement as if it's something new....'money' (regardless of where it comes from) has bought and influenced the seat since day one. In fact it would be tough to find a powerful society that hasn't had powerful funding.

The something new is that before it was illegal and now it's encouraged. A piece of property is a thing not a person and as such should have no first amendment rights.

[codyace]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

The something new is that before it was illegal and now it's encouraged. A piece of property is a thing not a person and as such should have no first amendment rights.

You've said this before, and am curious as to your definition of what a piece of property is, as one of the points of a coorperation is that it can act as a human entity in it's business ways. It's one of the reasons why they can even exist in the first place, and have a board of trustees in place to make the final decisions....

[kingkilburn]

A group of individuals is not an individual. An entity owned by a group of individuals is not a person.

Why are corporations legally viewed as an individual? Because big business bought itself some law makers and made it so. Why would any one find it dubious that holding companies exist if a corporation is a person? Why can't one group with limited liability acting as a person own another group with limited liability acting as a person? Because that would be slavery and these things were always intended to be property not people.

[EDT007]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

A group of individuals is not an individual. An entity owned by a group of individuals is not a person.

Why are corporations legally viewed as an individual? Because big business bought itself some law makers and made it so. Why would any one find it dubious that holding companies exist if a corporation is a person? Why can't one group with limited liability acting as a person own another group with limited liability acting as a person? Because that would be slavery and these things were always intended to be property not people.

I swear everytime i see that you post something I cringe a little. Did you go to college for politics and just re-verb the liberal trash you learned? Seriously...You remind me of the guy in Good Will Hunting (bar scene). Anyone can easily google political racist pics and say that they were from the Tea-Party movement. Here's a fact..Obama does have some haters..deal with it. People will be people and attack people based on anything including/but not limited to race. As for your definitions you're missing the point. What cody is saying is the "idea" of acting as one. The company's (solo, one entity) views/practices are generally thought of collectively (board). Get it? As for OWS, they're "fight" has no meaning. Half of the kids have never worked and are either in/or just got out of college and the other are mostly unemployed people. Before you start trying to tell me "facts", you can tell me that there are working people in there blah blah blah...because everyone can take off for weeks to go join a "movement" and still get paid by their job. It's been coming out that alot of these ppl are being PAID to be there which completely defeats the whole purpose.

[kingkilburn]

I didn't bring up the race thing RJF did.

Acting as an individual and being recognized by the supreme court as one are very different. At this point they are a legal person. The law recognizes no difference from me to you to Comcast LLC. That is wrong.

[RJF]

If you can defend the videos then I will make the same statement about your questionable pictures - "They do not represent the majority"

[kingkilburn]

I only defend the first one to a degree. The rest are idiots.

[imotion s14]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

A group of individuals is not an individual. An entity owned by a group of individuals is not a person.

Why are corporations legally viewed as an individual? Because big business bought itself some law makers and made it so. Why would any one find it dubious that holding companies exist if a corporation is a person? Why can't one group with limited liability acting as a person own another group with limited liability acting as a person? Because that would be slavery and these things were always intended to be property not people.

They're not viewed as an individual, they're viewed as a legal persons where as individual is viewed as a natural persons.

A person under the law is an entity that has been granted legal responsibilities. Hence why animals don't have any legal responsibility and hence no legal rights.

Corporations have legal responsibilities hence why they can be SUED hence why they have certain legal rights.

Part of their legal responsibility is their fiduciary responsibility to make shareholders money.

Shareholders are people.

And people is NOT plural of person. The etymology of these words come from 2 distinct and different Greek words; populous and persona

Sheesh go read a law book and learn some English and proper use of language while you're at it.

[kingkilburn]

Why blame all Jews for a handful of greedy people that happen to be Jewish? It's not like the only people doing this stuff are Jewish.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Why blame all Jews for a handful of greedy people that happen to be Jewish? It's not like the only people doing this stuff are Jewish.

RACIST!

[kingkilburn]

Are you all there in the head? Seriously?

You turn a blind eye and make excuses for people you agree with and them call me racist when I disagree with their bashing of Jews.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Are you all there in the head? Seriously?

You turn a blind eye and make excuses for people you agree with and them call me racist when I disagree with their bashing of Jews.

Because you made a racist statement by saying that a handful of greedy people are Jewish.

[kingkilburn]

"a handful of greedy people that happen to be Jewish" is not a racist statement.

[codyace]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Acting as an individual and being recognized by the supreme court as one are very different. At this point they are a legal person. The law recognizes no difference from me to you to Comcast LLC. That is wrong.

As mentioned by imotion s14, I think your lack of formal education in the matter (and over zealousness to believe whatever rags you read online regardless of their sourcing or founding), often sets you up for failure when talking about this stuff -- especially when it comes to business law and classification, as the stuff you can't seem to understand is all 100 level classing.

By your statements, you're saying that we shouldn't respect companies as a legal person(s) in regard to any of their rights or ours? Why is that...should we treat them with less legality or more? Who's to say the people in charge of watching them are any more or less corrupt then those they are watching (catch 22 situation for sure)?? As before big 'influence' has been a part of every single ny major civilization or world power throughout history...screaming foul on them now without accepting that is how it's always been is just silly if you ask me.


And to answer your question of why Zilvia can't have a normal debate: It will never happen when we have Wikipedia Warriors, Blog Barrons, arguing about concepts that are easily answered by entry level collegiate classes. I'm not specifically saying you in this case, but to answer your question in general.

As the old example goes, if you teach a Caveman that a Toaster is Really called a Spark Machine, and all he knows is that if you put metal in it and it sparks he'll believe you...until you show him it's meant to cook and reheat food. The caveman's case he really isn't 'wrong' as it's what he was taught and all he knows...however to the rest of the trained world he's very wrong....but in reality he is. The same can be said about those who hang off random blog writers and youtube videos, without really knowing what they are watching or reading beyond what they've seen in those same videos.

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

"a handful of greedy people that happen to be Jewish" is not a racist statement.

The point he's asking you is why even put in the 'jewish' description in your point? Could you not have just said 'a handful of greedy people'?

[kingkilburn]

That is exactly my point. It's dumb to try and bring race into it because SOME of them HAPPEN to be Jewish.

I get that there is a distinction between legal and natural personhood. That distinction has been blurred as of late with natural peoples' rights getting squashed for legal peoples' rights. Defending corporations spending millions on campaign funding with free speech is a joke. There is a reason that was regulated but it would seem now the person, be they legal or natural, with the deepest pockets runs the country.

[mantas]

Originally Posted by Mrpopo

I love the United States of America. I also love capitalism. What I don't love is greed. Our justice system is not serving justice the same to everyone.

Give me a break! Life is not fair! I want to ask your parents why they never taught you that....

[RJF]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

"a handful of greedy people that happen to be Jewish" is not a racist statement.

Keep telling yourself that

[codyace]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

I get that there is a distinction between legal and natural personhood. That distinction has been blurred as of late with natural peoples' rights getting squashed for legal peoples' rights.

How so? Again, this has ALWAYS been the case...it's alway been the legal entity representing a company, not any person. How else could even (fairly at least) represent companies? You have to assign some sort of legal 'person(s)' to stand in place of them....it's only fair.

And I don't think people's rights are being squashed at all. Look at every single one of our previous presidents...look who their biggest supporters and financial backers are: Big business. Agian, I can not for one second believe that you honestly do not recognize that point. Fair or unfair, big money brings exposure, which create votes. I don't care if Mother Theresa was running...if she had no previous exposure, and no financial backers...then she'd NEVER ever win anything. Get over the allusion that everyone is equal.

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Defending corporations spending millions on campaign funding with free speech is a joke. There is a reason that was regulated but it would seem now the person, be they legal or natural, with the deepest pockets runs the country.

I really don't see your point with this at all. It is free speech. I don't see why you're willing to 'fight for whats right' yet want to restrict parties you don't agree with...it's contradictory at best.

Scenario: Lets say CEO X from Company Y decides to put all his cash towards a candidate....should he not be allowed to do so?

[Walperstyle]

Originally Posted by RJF

Because you made a racist statement by saying that a handful of greedy people are Jewish.

you are not helping the thread by confusing people, lol

[RJF]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Defending corporations spending millions on campaign funding with free speech is a joke. There is a reason that was regulated but it would seem now the person, be they legal or natural, with the deepest pockets runs the country.

How are corporations different than unions, who steal money from their members, and pump millions into the Democrat party?

If corporations cannot use their money as they wish, why should unions be allowed to take their members dues and do the same thing.

[cdlong]

Originally Posted by codyace

Scenario: Lets say CEO X from Company Y decides to put all his cash towards a candidate....should he not be allowed to do so?

No. Because there are contribution limits.

Corporations however... (I really don't know, feel free to explain what they can do). If GE was limited to donating $2500 to a candidate, I think most people wouldn't care.

[kingkilburn]

Unions vote on how the dues are to be spent. Don't like it don't join. Don't think you fool anyone phrasing it the way you did.

[Walperstyle]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

Unions vote on how the dues are to be spent. Don't like it don't join. Don't think you fool anyone phrasing it the way you did.

Corporations are no different then unions at all. They are both in it for money.


also how exactly do you work at a job that requires you to be a Union member. The unions are a huge problem toward corporations that are trying to make money. General Motors can't turn a profit like they use to because of Union members sucking profits dry via a BS pension plan and benefits that should have never happened. To make matters worse, something like 20% of GM's shareholder is the Union. That is unnecessary Leverage.

As for Union Vote; I don't know about you, but usually the 'members' don't get to vote, its the Union Representatives. Usually the Reps are the ones that look out for themselves before you and I. Thats how it was in every Union Job I was in.

Originally Posted by cdlong

Corporations however... (I really don't know, feel free to explain what they can do). If GE was limited to donating $2500 to a candidate, I think most people wouldn't care.

To a corporation, and avoid being taxed, they contribute money to Non Profit organizations. In some situations, these non-profit organizations are funds to help advertise for political leaders. Is it right or wrong? maybe.

Would you rather pay a bunch of tax money to the government thats in power that you dont like, or to a non-profit to help advertise to get the one you do like? Thats what its about.

Its a 50/50 split across the US on where they want money going.

Fortunately a few good Corporations are out there that donate to charity and actual good things like women shelters and such. Or senior centers like where my wife works.