Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 17 Jan 2017 7:37 am » wrote:Let's see how accurate your **** is.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/force?s=t

FORCE

...power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power

Now, then. We have a definition of FORCE.

You say no one FORCES us to invest in G.E. But G.E. is not the only Wall Street corporation granted "rights" under C.U. They all were. G.E. is one EXAMPLE.

Your refutation - if it were one - would ride on no one "forcing" us (influencing, affecting or controlling; using efficacious power) to invest in Wall Street.

Yet a look at the WORLD (as opposed to your partisan map of it) quickly informs us that government (on it's own, no doubt - not because they were lobbied) has created legislation which favors stock market investments over real estate, kewpie dolls and home laboratories as a means of creating a retirement account. And THAT is a form of force.

Not only do those who invest in the market get tax incentives for doing so, but government has ALSO (completely uninfluencd by lobbyists) incentivized EMPLOYERS to match employees'contributions to their retirement accounts - BUT ONLY IF THEY INVEST IN THE STOCK MARKET.

Using federal legislation - the government gun - to direct main street's retirement money to wall street has a certain smell of "force," kid.

Edit - Even if your claim were not utterly demolished by the above correction, your objection that I am not "forced" to invest in G.E. in no way imputes for your previously debunked thesis that G.E. is representing MY freedom of speech when it uses my money to say **** that I disagree with. So even if you had been right - and you were not, - you would still have been wrong.