Strange This? And I Do Like Strange!
This is making the rounds as the OWS manifesto?
I’ll admit I have no idea what the last item even means, but I like the rest of it. In fact I’ve read similar from The TEA Party??
If it wasn’t so dang cold I think I’d organize an Occupy Rock Cave thing myself.
ETA: Note to self – Never again do a post at TAH after imbibing peach ‘shine! I get smarter when drinking beer; NOT the good stuff. Life lesson #267394
Category: Geezer Alert!
Now now.
The Left isn’t out to fix any issues with Corporate America. They are just butthurt that they are not in power so that they can screw things up a hell of a lot worse.
I think the last one refers to their disdain that the USSC and the IRS have determined that corporations are people, too.
Wasn’t going to say it quite like that 😉 but essentially what I was thinking, too, Jonn
Thanks for the clarification(s).
I was told on FB that ideology separates the two? Gee, golly, whiz!
Two groups saying essentially the same thing, and one shits in the street?
Yeah. Gotta admit that sharing bodily functions with 200 of my closest friends is not part of my ideology.
Ending corporate personhood is the most dangerous goal on that list. It would end capitalism and America as we know it. I know this is a pretty outrageous claim, but let me try to explain. There are many different legal areas concerning corporations. There is corporate formation, corporate ownership, corporate governance and corporate business transaction. Personhood is necessary for a corporation to conduct business. Destroy it and the corporate business form is neutered. This is the goal of the communists, socialists anarchists, antifas and other extreme leftists. So, what is it and why? It’s contract law. A corporation does business through contracts. When you sign up to receive electricity, you contract with the electric company where you get it and are obligated to pay for it. If you don’t pay, they can sue you for payment. If they have a culpable interruption and your shit rots in the frige or your iron lung stops working and you croak, you can sue them. Buying a car or house is the same. Big stuff is by written contract, little stuff like at the grocery store is by oral contract and also by implied contract like food from the grocery store has an implied warranty that it’s fit to eat. If you get sick on food, you can sue for your losses. This is what the commies are trying to destroy, the ability for a corporation to do any business and prevent you from entering into any relationship with the corporation. These fuckers are literally trying to take away your bacon and eggs. That food gets on your table through a series of contracts from the chicken and pig farmers through processors, middlemen, suppliers and grocers. They all contract with each other and almost all are corporations. If they can’t contract, you can go eat shit until that runs out. So what does that have to do with personhood? Over 800 years of Anglo Saxon contract law, each case building on the last case forming a giant body of contract law says only persons can form contracts. Before the mid 19th century, there… Read more »
While my asshole is on a gurgle, let me make a few more comments. Corporate money out of politics. Last year the Supreme Court said again that corporations are persons and can give as much money as they want to political causes. The commies are using this case to get the sheeple to go along with ending corporate personhood without understanding the consequences. Closing of tax loopholes. The commies figure that if businesses cannot deduct business expenses, they will fail. That’s largely true of businesses that have a low profit margin like your grocery store (1%) or automaker (3%). Can you imagine if your grocery store had to pay taxes on their gross receipts? They would be out of business in a week. PS one of the biggest tax loopholes is the home mortgage deduction. Commies don’t mind taking that away from you because they’re going to take your house from you anyway and give it to some hippie or welfare queen. Anti trust breakups. Bad grammar. They want to break up trusts, monoplies. That’s what Teddy Roosevelt did. The laws are in place for over a hundred years to do this. The commies want mom and pop everything, they’re easy to take from. White collar crimes. A few years ago I had a client who stole about 11/2 mil from his trucking company. I got him 22 months. It would have been less but he got a 3 point enhancement for employing a special skill: driving a truck. No shit. But I can see a point here. A guy could steal 5 mil from me and get about 6 years Fed. If I pistol whipped him for doing it I would get life. Local control over food and water. Vegan hippie pleasing shit. In the past local government never controlled food and water very much other than drinking water, sewage and flood control. There was never much inspection of food except for restaurants. The commies want to put big government right on your front porch. Nonsensical shit for foolish people. Where’s the hype about global warming? Did they run… Read more »
well there was another manifesto not too long ago that talked about caping the max amount earned to $90/hr, and min was $19/hr. There was a 5% “wealth” tax, end of personal property only tax payer dollars for campaigns (which would actually Hurt Dems btw) and a whole host of other things that no sane person would EVER propose.
faboutlaws # 6,7: Thanks. While my over-all post was meant to be facetious I really didn’t ‘get’ the last one as worded. I did, however, recognize the balance as being worded so as to appear curiously TEA Party like. They have slippery tongued lawyers as well.
After Jonn’s comment I had a DOH! moment and did some reading. Candidly your explanation was clearer than what I found.
Again, thanks.
If they really wanted corporate and special intrest money out of Washinton then they would limit the power of the federal government. That way it would not be worth lobbyist’s time to bribe public officials.
I agree that the most important line on the placard is the last one but for different reasons. The import of the American corporation as a person—the same as you and me—is that corporations are entitled to many of the constitutional safeguards and protections against government intrusion that we are. Can the government prohibit our political activity? No, because the 1st amendment, extended to us through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause protects us. Can the government raid your home or business without a warrant? No, thanks to the 4th amendment extended to us through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. You get the picture. The point is that the same is true of corporations: As persons, they are entitled to most—but not all—of these protections as well. If you take away the corporation’s personhood, you take its constitutional protections. And once that is accomplished, state, local, and Federal governments could do damn near anything they wished to a corporation—which is what OWS wants. For instance, a locality could outlaw WalMart. A state could outlaw advertising it doesn’t like. The list is endless and it would, indeed, fundamentally change America as we know it.
I honestly had no idea corporate personhood was the contract making power and such. What appeal does that have for non-communists? I mean, most of the others are pretty appealing, at least on the bare surface. How are they going to persuade people that corporations suddenly having no legal rights is a good thing?
Corporate Personhood is one of the major issues destroying our nation. I found the above history very intersting. However, the word “Ficticious” would indicate that the freedoms given to corporations a persons would be limited. Conceivably to contract issues. However the Supremes have decided that coporations are people with rights out ranking the rest of us. A single corporation can now purchase an election, which we are likely to see in the next election.
The idea that corporations have rights beyond that of a single citizen is dangerous and erodes our freedoms. The population as a whole does not benefit from this relationship yet the corporation does.
#11: SUch a situation would only be true if the individuals that make up a Corporation do not have constitutional rights. Whether the search warrant has the name of the corp or the name of the individual on it, there is still a protection there.
@13. I’ll put this as succinctly as I can: You have no rational idea what you are talking about. When you are sober, read what you wrote. Then rethink it. Then rewrite it. Then delete it.
All of these address symptoms, not causes.
White collar crime? Is there any human that can add to ‘thou shalt not lie/steal/bear false witness/covet?’
Yes, by all means close all the tax loopholes, but should we demonstrate mercy on the few who live below poverty, and aren’t the governmnet dole? Otherwise yes, close ALL of the tax loopholes. Otherwise, it’s poor people selling their votes for other people’s money. It’s that whole coveting/stealing commandments getting broken. Of course, welfare as the US practices destroys the concept of honoring fathers and mothers by replacing fathers and pushing mothers into becoming baby factories, further exacerbating the poverty problem.
If corporations aren’t people, then corporations should not pay taxes, as only people pay taxes. We do not tax rocks, trees, and cattle. They are not persons either. If a corporation is not a person, then it can not be taxed. I’m 110% behind this concept, as soon as I incorporate myself.
All of this to say, and with an observation toward the TEA Party in Congress: you can’t cure the symptoms if you can’t cure the cause.
“If corporations aren’t people, then corporations should not pay taxes,”. Good point, Dave, and well put. I wonder what those who would deny corporations a chance to be heard would think of that concept..
No I don’t. They would say variations of “screw them, make them pay”.
#14, I was thinking the same thing about you.
Dave O: If we start talking about commandments, then we need to leave some crops in our fields for the poor. We also need to ensure that no one in our camp is without a tent.
Not sure what you are talking about with replacing fathers. But, I will say that the way we practice “welfare” we punish people for getting work. I am on the board of a food pantry and we see people loosing food stamps because they got a job. Regardless of whether they can afford housing etc. they are not elligble for assistance. So there is a disincentive to find work. I agree that the system is broken, but killing off the poor is not the answer.
Corporations are not people and should not pay taxes. The people running the corps are and should, thus we don’t have a problem. Some of the largest corps, including defense contractors, avoid taxes all together.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/business/280-big-public-firms-paid-little-us-tax-study-finds.html
@17 You are apparently unaware that the gleaning of fields occurs all over this country, most often being donated to the poor either directly or indirectly through food pantries. But you should know that, being on a food pantry board and all. That’s where I learned about modern day gleaning.
OWB: I didn’t say I wasn’t familiar with the concept. We get a portion of our product from Second Harvast. Yet, the amount of usable food thrown out every day is still significant. In the nation that DaveO imagines, Gleaning swould be mandatory for everyone. Unless we are only going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.
Evidently you are pulling from sources the rest of us don’t have or at least is unavailable to me. I just didn’t really get anything from what DaveO wrote that makes your response appropriate.
In other words, huh? What does the gleaning of fields, or Jewish dietary restrictions (if that’s what you are talking about) have to do with our system of laws being pretty much variations on the theme of the ten commandments? It is not US law which imposes dietary restrictions upon us but regulation coming from the executive branch.