• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will Romney be the Next President?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Pure jingoistic nonsense as usual.
Thanx! That just might be this nicest & most thoughtful response you've ever given me.

I've finally discerned the WorkInProgress way:
- I'm entitled to my opinion.
- You are also entitled to my opinion.

There, now that the personal stuff is out of the way, we may get back to issues.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it became better. I distrust governmental authority which takes away rights of
people to associate & act in concert, be they unions, corporations, lobbies, clubs, etc.
Why don't we all admit what's really behind opposition to corporate (partial) personhood,
ie, that legal opposition is a smokescreen for their dislike of money influencing politics.
I corrected the underlined part. The reason is simple. In democracy, it's one man one vote, not one dollar one vote. That would be plutocracy.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Thanx! That just might be this nicest & most thoughtful response you've ever given me.

I've finally discerned the WorkInProgress way:
- I'm entitled to my opinion.
- You are also entitled to my opinion.

There, now that the personal stuff is out of the way, we may get back to issues.

Let me know how that works out for you. ;)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I corrected the underlined part. The reason is simple. In democracy, it's one man one vote, not one dollar one vote. That would be plutocracy.
i must correct your correction, for I intended it exactly as posted. Critics of business (specifically of corporate ownership)
generally have no problem with money from sources they favor, eg, Soros's samolians, government's greenbacks, labor
unions' lettuce, Hollywood celebrities' smackers. Money is just the method of funding publication of the messages these days.

Let me know how that works out for you. ;)
Been peachy quiet so far.
 
Last edited:

Indira

Member
I thought the Dems had the most money these days. What's your source for Romney outspending Obama 2 to 1?

I think it will be very close.
Hi there...I`ve done some research on the overall wealth of both parties and the Dems have amassed a great deal more than the Repubs since the well planned take over of the Party by the radical anarchist in the 1920s. They`ve used, among other things, the `Trust Foundations` started by a lot of conservatives that were successful and when they died their liberal children or grand children took control and changed the priorities of the original intention of the `Trusts`. My gut feeling is BHO does not have the total backing of his Party..to bad, so sad.. by a little, by a lot just give that traitor the boot! BTW, I`m an independent and am not a fan of the Repubs, they dropped the ball and let this happen, along with the apathy of the voters. GET OUT THE VOTE!!!
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I'm betting that Romney will be the next president. Romney is projected to out spend Obama by at least 2 to 1. In American politics, the odds that an outspent candidate, such as Obama, will win are 6 in favor to 94 against (or roughly 1 chance in 15). Hence, I'm betting Romney will win the presidency.

Who do you think will win? And why?

Romney won't win because Republicans won't vote for him.
 
i must correct your correction, for I intended it exactly as posted. Critics of business (specifically of corporate ownership)
generally have no problem with money from sources they favor, eg, Soros's samolians, government's greenbacks, labor
unions' lettuce, Hollywood celebrities' smackers. Money is just the method of funding publication of the messages.
Your tu quoque, aside from being a logical fallacy, is not even accurate here. The Citizens United decision did not distinguish labor unions or Hollywood from business and, therefore, opponents of that decision are not against business but against money spoiling democracy, from any source.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Thanx! That just might be this nicest & most thoughtful response you've ever given me.

I've finally discerned the WorkInProgress way:
- I'm entitled to my opinion.
- You are also entitled to my opinion.

There, now that the personal stuff is out of the way, we may get back to issues.
So, where are the issues? You tried to make an emotional appeal on behalf of corporate personhood. If you have a case to make that "corporations are people too, my friend" then let's hear it!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, where are the issues? You tried to make an emotional appeal on behalf of corporate personhood. If you have a case to make that "corporations are people too, my friend" then let's hear it!
Emotional? I note that you're the one objecting to "corporate personhood" without providing a cogent argument.
Corporate personhood is an old legal construct which allows groups of people to act in concert with limited liability.
I see no reason, legal or practical, to justify infringing upon their rights of these people to spend money on political speech.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Your tu quoque, aside from being a logical fallacy, is not even accurate here. The Citizens United decision did not distinguish labor unions or Hollywood from business and, therefore, opponents of that decision are not against business but against money spoiling democracy, from any source.
Hah! Tis easy to chirp "logical fallacy", but that barb fails when you merely disagree with my opinion about how some people feel.
If I see hypocrisy in a political position, & find it relevant, then I will point it out. Some things labeled as logical fallacies aren't fallacious
at all. Looking at your attempt, should we ignore all hypocrisy just because there's a fancy pants Latin term for exposing it? Of course not.

Now it's my turn to point your logical fallacy. You introduce the red herring about the substance Citizen's United decision as though it
were central to my opinion. But it is not. Of the dreaded straw man fallacy I accuse thee! And I didn't even resort to using Latin.

(Now, after all that....don't forget that I like you.)
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Revoltingest, I see that your peace and quiet was short lived. Hang in there, buddy!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Revoltingest, I see that your peace and quiet was short lived. Hang in there, buddy!
Nah....not a flame war in sight.
I be good....posting a little....landscaping....eating chocolate....enjoying the heat, the sun & my verdant little piece of Heaven here.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Emotional? I note that you're the one objecting to "corporate personhood" without providing a cogent argument.
Corporate personhood is an old legal construct which allows groups of people to act in concert with limited liability.
I see no reason, legal or practical, to justify infringing upon their rights of these people to spend money on political speech.
May as well go back to the beginning and show that opposition to corporate power was one of the issues that all of the Founding Fathers were in agreement on. Likely because of all of the problems that were caused for the American colonies by one of the first international corporations in the world - The East India Company. They wanted corporate charters to be temporary, and subject to regular review to determine if the corporation was serving the public good.

But, the biggest problem with artificial immortal citizens is the creeping expansion of corporate rights that has come at the expense of flesh and blood citizens:

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
Corporate charters are ruled to have constitutional protection. Munn v. State of Illinois (1876)
Property cannot be used to unduly expropriate wealth from a community (later reversed).
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
The substance of this case (a tax dispute) is of little significance, but this fateful case subsequently was cited as precedent for granting corporations constitutional rights. Several articles linked above detail how this happened.
Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893)
A corporation first successfully claims Bill of Rights protection (5th Amendment)
Lochner v. New York (1905)
States cannot interfere with "private contracts" between workers and corporation -- marks the ascension of "substantive due process" (later mitigated after President Roosevelt threatend to add Justices to the Court).
Liggett v. Lee (1933)
Chain store taxes prohibited as violation of corporations' "due process" rights.
Ross v. Bernhard (1970)
7th Amendment right (jury trial) granted to corporations.
U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976)
A corporation successfully claims 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
Marshall v. Barlow (1978)
The Court creates 4th Amendment protection for corporations -- federal inspectors must obtain a search warrant for a safety inspection on corporate property.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
Struck down a Massachusetts law that banned corporate spending to influence state ballot initiatives, even spending by corporate political action committees. Spending money to influence politics is now a corporate "right." Justice Rehnquist's dissent is a recommended read.
Related articles: * Ballot Initiatives Hijacked * Behind the Powell Memo
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm. of NY (1980)
This oft-cited decision concerns a state ban on ads promoting electricity consumption.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Upheld limits on corporate spending in elections.
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
Nike v Kasky (2002)
Nike claims California cannot require factual accuracy of the corporation in its PR campaigns. California's Supreme Court disagreed. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case on appeal, then issued a non-ruling in 2003. See our comprehensive archive on this case.
Randall v Sorrell (2006) While this case dealt with the legality of Vermont's contribution limits, not corporations directly, it carried important implications for corporate political influence, as Daniel Greenwood detailed in our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010). In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Austin and a century of federal legislative precedent to proclaim broad electioneering rights for corporations.
Corporate Personhood-Demeaning Our Bill of Rights - Reclaim Democracy.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: s2a

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You see a problem with corporate personhood.
I see a bigger problem if gov't tries to eliminate it or restrict its speech.
 

MoonWater

Warrior Bard
Premium Member
You see a problem with corporate personhood.
I see a bigger problem if gov't tries to eliminate it or restrict its speech.

if the government doesn't restrict corporate money than corporate money will be used to restrict our free speech because that corporate money will be used to buy up all the media outlets to fund campaigning and advertising for those who will serve their interests, minimizing the exposure of those who would serve the interests of the general population and thus making it nye impossible for them to get elected. We see who the corporations want us to see because they are the ones getting the most money and thus the most exposure allowing the rich voices of a few to drown out the poor voices of the many.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
if the government doesn't restrict corporate money than corporate money will be used to restrict our free speech because that corporate money will be used to buy up all the media outlets to fund campaigning and advertising for those who will serve their interests, minimizing the exposure of those who would serve the interests of the general population and thus making it nye impossible for them to get elected. We see who the corporations want us to see because they are the ones getting the most money and thus the most exposure allowing the rich voices of a few to drown out the poor voices of the many.
I wouldn't worry about running out of media outlets.
It's always been true that those with money can buy more speech.
It's also true that those who own the media have more speech....& it's somewhat free.
Perhaps we should restrict opinion pieces by Fox, NYT, NPR, HufPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc, eh?

Even though corruption & money go hand in hand, eliminating money & putting all in
the hands of gov't speech regulators & info dispensers is a solution I'd rather not see.
 
I corrected the underlined part. The reason is simple. In democracy, it's one man one vote, not one dollar one vote. That would be plutocracy.

i must correct your correction, for I intended it exactly as posted. Critics of business (specifically of corporate ownership)
generally have no problem with money from sources they favor, eg, Soros's samolians, government's greenbacks, labor
unions' lettuce, Hollywood celebrities' smackers. Money is just the method of funding publication of the messages these days.


Been peachy quiet so far.

Your tu quoque, aside from being a logical fallacy, is not even accurate here. The Citizens United decision did not distinguish labor unions or Hollywood from business and, therefore, opponents of that decision are not against business but against money spoiling democracy, from any source.

Hah! Tis easy to chirp "logical fallacy", but that barb fails when you merely disagree with my opinion about how some people feel.
If I see hypocrisy in a political position, & find it relevant, then I will point it out. Some things labeled as logical fallacies aren't fallacious
at all. Looking at your attempt, should we ignore all hypocrisy just because there's a fancy pants Latin term for exposing it? Of course not.

Now it's my turn to point your logical fallacy. You introduce the red herring about the substance Citizen's United decision as though it
were central to my opinion. But it is not. Of the dreaded straw man fallacy I accuse thee! And I didn't even resort to using Latin.

(Now, after all that....don't forget that I like you.)
I did not introduce Citizens United, you were discussing it with uu sage. Your claims about how opponents of Citizens United are anti business are half truths at best. Again: the decision was about money from unions, Hollywood, etc. influencing politics, not just money from business. It's about money and democracy, it's not about unfair prejudice against business.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Emotional? I note that you're the one objecting to "corporate personhood" without providing a cogent argument.
Corporate personhood is an old legal construct which allows groups of people to act in concert with limited liability.
I see no reason, legal or practical, to justify infringing upon their rights of these people to spend money on political speech.
Corporate personhood is a legal status that is different from that of "natural persons". Historically, corporations have not been accorded the same rights as citizens, but only a limited subset. This extension of First Amendment rights is radical and unprecedented. Individual citizens do not usually have anything like the financial resources of a major corporation, so they cannot compete with corporations in any petition to government officials, who know that they must raise large sums of money to remain in office. Since the Court has seen fit to equate money (not business) with "free speech", they have twisted themselves into legalizing the bribery of public officials. Is that where your libertarian ideals lead you--to a system of government in which the welfare of corporations becomes the "general welfare" that Congress is charged with providing? That is where we are rapidly heading now.
 
You see a problem with corporate personhood.
I see a bigger problem if gov't tries to eliminate it or restrict its speech.

Cause a corporation like walmart whose owners make billions and whose employees think 28 hours is a normal work week without health care can spend billions to market an opinion which any of their 28 hour employees can't equally market.

That makes no sense except to place you in a category of people who believe not in democracy but rather in plutocracy... (You understand that some dude who has been working a farm and maintaining a farmers market just to pay taxes the country imposes on him and who votes every year might be a little insulted that you think a corporation should have the same rights he does?)

Still you might not get it... corporations want profit... They are not loyal to the country they are founded in... they will outsource an expand globally to make as much money as they can... arguing that entities that can live anywhere that is convenient and whose primary goal is profit is equivalent to just an everyday legally born person in america is ignorant, silly, sad and expected... In god we trust! Represent. Support Coca Cola and Pepsi and Christianity. (That was sarcasm in case your ability to detect that is somehow broken)

Corporations are not people. They are not your kids. They don't lose their virginity or have their dads looking out for them or their moms worrying about them. They are not concerned with the city or state or even country they were spawned in... How can you not see how silly your argument is?
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Cause a corporation like walmart whose owners make billions and whose employees think 28 hours is a normal work week without health care can spend billions to market an opinion which any of their 28 hour employees can't equally market.
Speaking of Walmart, I was reminded of this in a speech by Bernie Sanders:
The Vermont senator discussed income inequality, “Today,” he said, “the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America – 150 million people. Today, the six heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune own more wealth than the bottom 30 percent.
Bernie Sanders Storms the Senate Floor and Challenges Congress' Koch Whores

It is ridiculous to call your society a democracy, when it has this level of concentration of wealth!
 
Top