Liberal Forum

Brattle Street » 02 Dec 2014 11:02 pm » wrote: Clearly corporations would NEVER lie or cheat or steal or put human lives at risk.

the phony FREE MARKET god even says so.

Careful.

Merely expressing DOUBT, merely QUESTIONING the justice and wisdom of the Invisible Hand, can get you sent to a communist inferno when you die.

You need to come to the Market, and purge Stalin from your soul. He is speaking through you and you don't even KNOW it!

Come to the Market and pray. You can cast your liabilities into a bottomless pit, and they will be no more. All you have to do is say the commy's prayer: I know that I am a laborer, and that the Invisible Hand has called me to be a capitalist. I was given bootstraps which I did not use, and to pay my debt I shall stand for no capital gains tax higher than, "Good to see ya, Bob - how're they bitin'?"

In Adam Smith's name, Amen.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 4:16 am » wrote: ^^^ What an idiot.... He hasn't figured out how the government protects corporations and businesses....

That's what I thought. Hedging plus emoticons.

Old Strain/Hedge and his whoppers, at it again.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 4:18 am » wrote: He still doesn't get it. He thinks it has something to do with juries.....

So, no argument, no evidence, no proof - just a strained hedge to support your whopper?

Shocking, Strain/Hedge - just shocking. How's the weather in Alaska, by the way? You still own four houses?

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 4:33 am » wrote: That's what I thought. Hedging plus emoticons.

Old Strain/Hedge and his whoppers, at it again.

Start with the legal protections incorporation gives first. If you can make it through that, we'll continue with ALL the OTHER protectionism government offers corporations. Then if you get through ALL that, we'll start discussing how they control the legislative system.

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 4:37 am » wrote: So, no argument, no evidence, no proof - just a strained hedge to support your whopper?

Shocking, Strain/Hedge - just shocking. How's the weather in Alaska, by the way? You still own four houses?

Start with the legal protections incorporation gives first. If you can make it through that, we'll continue with ALL the OTHER protectionism government offers corporations. Then if you get through ALL that, we'll start discussing how they control the legislative system.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 5:20 am » wrote:
Start with the legal protections incorporation gives first. If you can make it through that, we'll continue with ALL the OTHER protectionism government offers corporations. Then if you get through ALL that, we'll start discussing how they control the legislative system.

Oh, goodie goodie.

I have backed bluffy mcblufftard into such a tight corner that he is now coming out swinging by agitating for society doing away with articles of incorporation. His next move will be to claim that he has ALWAYS stood for that - and that if I can't find a post of him openly defending the legal maneuver known as incorporating, that means he has been a tireless and zealous advocate of abolishing the practice his entire board career.

I wonder if this **** shaved ape understands that he just joined my team and is now openly advocating for the absolute abolition of every Wall Street firm in America? I wonder if the moron understands that is literally - not figuratively or arguably but LITERALLY - impossible for Walmart, Bayer Aspirin, Ford Motor Company, Procter & Gamble, Frito Lay, Coca Cola - ANY Wall Street company - to operate within any recognizable paradigm that allows for anonymous funding, if the radical-progressive change which he calls for is granted?

I wonder if this bluffing **** is really too stupid to grasp that without incorporation, every Wall Street investor is accountable for every mistake made by every employee of the company - and to the entire extent of damages suffered, with no set limit to their liability? I wonder if he thinks that a class of investors exposed to those risks can truly fuel an exchange?

I see a moron digging a deeper moron hole in response to having his bluff called. He's doubling down on stupid.

Wait. I hear brakes squealing. I hear a clunker someone should have gotten cash for being thrown into reverse.

He'll insist that he was merely lecturing me on the evils of incorporation - not suggesting that we shoudl do anything ABOUT those evils.

Oh, that bluffy. He's such a strain-hedge, with all the amusing whoppers and all the zany bluffs.Oh, ACME, why does he keep buying arguments from you?

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 5:29 am » wrote: Start with the legal protections incorporation gives first. If you can make it through that, we'll continue with ALL the OTHER protectionism government offers corporations. Then if you get through ALL that, we'll start discussing how they control the legislative system. :

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 5:20 am » wrote: Start with the legal protections incorporation gives first. If you can make it through that, we'll continue with ALL the OTHER protectionism government offers corporations. Then if you get through ALL that, we'll start discussing how they control the legislative system.

Oh, my goodness. Bluffy is so stupid that he actually pulled a nighthawk and just copy-pasted the same response, so enamored of it he was. He got the delivery from ACME and RUSHED the product to market, on the premise that he was finally going to get that road runner THIS time.

He really was even dumber than I thought. He is convinced that the best way to restore his credibility is by agitating against the EXISTENCE of the corporations he recently said should have the same rights as human beings. He thinks we're all his neighbors at the memory Hole, puking up last week's memes like his fellow bulemic bitches.

WTF, man? I got Methy Magoo over here for a debate opponent. This **** lame is going to drag my game into the toilet.

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 5:38 am » wrote: Oh, goodie goodie.

I have backed bluffy mcblufftard into such a tight corner that he is now coming out swinging by agitating for society doing away with articles of incorporation. His next move will be to claim that he has ALWAYS stood for that - and that if I can't find a post of him openly defending the legal maneuver known as incorporating, that means he has been a tireless and zealous advocate of abolishing the practice his entire board career.

I wonder if this **** shaved ape understands that he just joined my team and is now openly advocating for the absolute abolition of every Wall Street firm in America? I wonder if the moron understands that is literally - not figuratively or arguably but LITERALLY - impossible for Walmart, Bayer Aspirin, Ford Motor Company, Procter & Gamble, Frito Lay, Coca Cola - ANY Wall Street company - to operate within any recognizable paradigm that allows for anonymous funding, if the radical-progressive change which he calls for is granted?

I wonder if this bluffing **** is really too stupid to grasp that without incorporation, every Wall Street investor is accountable for every mistake made by every employee of the company - and to the entire extent of damages suffered, with no set limit to their liability? I wonder if he thinks that a class of investors exposed to those risks can truly fuel an exchange?

I see a moron digging a deeper moron hole in response to having his bluff called. He's doubling down on stupid.

Wait. I hear brakes squealing. I hear a clunker someone should have gotten cash for being thrown into reverse.

He'll insist that he was merely lecturing me on the evils of incorporation - not suggesting that we shoudl do anything ABOUT those evils.

Oh, that bluffy. He's such a strain-hedge, with all the amusing whoppers and all the zany bluffs.Oh, ACME, why does he keep buying arguments from you?

With a free market we wouldn't have large corporations. They'd collapse under the weight of their own bureaucracy. That's WHY they need the government to protect them.

Str8tEdge » 03 Dec 2014 8:25 am » wrote: With a free market we wouldn't have large corporations. They'd collapse under the weight of their own bureaucracy. That's WHY they need the government to protect them.

You stand against a free market, little trick. The very corporations whose collapse you anticipate in your effeminate fantasy world, you were insisting should be enfranchised with all the rights of flesh and blood people, last week.

You can't call for their elevation to human status one week and pretend to oppose them the next, in order to weasel out of an earlier inconsistency.

But that's how you operate - pile lie on top of lie. You get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth, your response is to keep doing it but do it faster. This is your third double down on stupid. I would say you're raising the stakes, but you no longer have anything on the line. You're buck naked in front of the board. You have no clothes

And just think: You used to be an emperor.

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 11:08 pm » wrote: You stand against a free market, little trick. The very corporations whose collapse you anticipate in your effeminate fantasy world, you were insisting should be enfranchised with all the rights of flesh and blood people, last week.

You can't call for their elevation to human status one week and pretend to oppose them the next, in order to weasel out of an earlier inconsistency.

But that's how you operate - pile lie on top of lie. You get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth, your response is to keep doing it but do it faster. This is your third double down on stupid. I would say you're raising the stakes, but you no longer have anything on the line. You're buck naked in front of the board. You have no clothes

And just think: You used to be an emperor.

No. My stance is people don't lose their constitutional right when they're part of a business, *******.

Have you EVER accurately represented one of my positions?

Str8tEdge » 04 Dec 2014 1:23 am » wrote:
No. My stance is people don't lose their constitutional right when they're part of a business, *******.

Have you EVER accurately represented one of my positions?

Every time, prevaricator. That's why your back has rope burns, bitch.

Your pretense that people lost rights by corporate ownership is a lie - like most of what you say. And it's such a stupid lie: it would mean that for a hundred years, the wealthiest and most influential folks in America have accepted an erosion of their liberties, suffering in silence, You're a total **** queer and a clown.

Cannonpointer » 04 Dec 2014 3:46 pm » wrote: Every time, prevaricator. That's why your back has rope burns, bitch.

Your pretense that people lost rights by corporate ownership is a lie - like most of what you say. And it's such a stupid lie: it would mean that for a hundred years, the wealthiest and most influential folks in America have accepted an erosion of their liberties, suffering in silence, You're a total **** queer and a clown.

Attempting to limit their free speech VIOLATED their constitutional rights. See the Citizens United decision. THAT is what I have argued in terms of incorporation. The rest of your argument is:

more troll crap

Str8tEdge » 04 Dec 2014 5:33 pm » wrote:
Attempting to limit their free speech VIOLATED their constitutional rights. See the Citizens United

decision. THAT is what I have argued in terms of incorporation. The rest of your argument is:

Attempting to limited WHOSE free speech, nanny state? The court said it was the CORPORATION which had the rights- INDEPENDENT FROM those actual, real-life people WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE, whom you lied were being denied their rights. The court did not find ONE HUMAN BEING whose rights were violated, you lying little huey coward.

As a general rule, committed liar, court verdicts are awarded in favor of either PLAINTIFFS, or DEFENDANTS - not in favor of fucking bystanders, you lying little rat-mouth.


Huey clone, if you want to spew koolaid for corporations, SPEW it. But spew it like a goddamned man, you worthless little creep. Don't then try to cocksucker me with your ****-mouthing, you effeminate little insect. The court said the CORPORATION had the right , not the people.

And you cheered and huzzahed and picked your side - which is with the corporations. Trying to both-ways-weasel that you're still a man of the people is exactly what I'd expect from a sneaky, down-low restroom cruiser who runs from his wife's vadge while jeering at well-socialized, competent, honest-in-their-relationships gay people.

Citizens United

The CT legislature paid for a study of the court's ruling in CU to see if the state had existing compliance issues to fix. The motive for the study was apolitical, as were it's methodologies which are made available at the link. The study I am presenting is virtually identical to everything that every nonpartisan study has concluded. The issue was the rights of corporations, NOT the rights of people, as weasels lie who want to walk both sides of the field politically, as WELL as sexually - in an obvious signal of their inability to choose.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm

March 2, 2010



2010-R-0124

SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION






By: Kristin Sullivan, Principal Analyst

Terrance Adams, Legislative Analyst II

You asked for (1) a summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2010) and (2) its impact on state law, including Connecticut
'
s.

This office is not authorized to provide legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.

SUMMARY

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures. Thus, it struck down a federal law banning this practice and also overruled two of its prior decisions. Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.

The Court
'
s decision in Citizens United likely calls into question laws in 24 states, including Connecticut, prohibiting corporations from making independent expenditures from their general treasury. While the ruling
'
s immediate effect is unclear, experts predict it is only a matter of time before these laws will be challenged in court or repealed by state legislatures. Experts also predict that, since the laws are vulnerable, they will be difficult for state election officials to enforce. In Connecticut, CGS §§ 9-613(a) and 9-614(a) prohibit independent expenditures by businesses and unions, respectively.

The decision
'
s impact on Connecticut
'
s lobbyist and contractor contribution and solicitation bans and the Citizens
'
Election Program (CEP) is less clear. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit asked the parties in Green Party of Connecticut, et al. v. Garfield, et al., 648 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Conn. 2009) to file supplemental briefs addressing these issues. The state contends there is little, if any, effect while the Green Party asserts the opposite.

Cannonpointer » 04 Dec 2014 6:40 pm » wrote: Attempting to limited WHOSE free speech, nanny state? The court said it was the CORPORATION which had the rights- INDEPENDENT FROM those actual, real-life people WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE, whom you lied were being denied their rights. The court did not find ONE HUMAN BEING whose rights were violated, you lying little huey coward.

As a general rule, committed liar, court verdicts are awarded in favor of either PLAINTIFFS, or DEFENDANTS - not in favor of fucking bystanders, you lying little rat-mouth.


Huey clone, if you want to spew koolaid for corporations, SPEW it. But spew it like a goddamned man, you worthless little creep. Don't then try to cocksucker me with your ****-mouthing, you effeminate little insect. The court said the CORPORATION had the right , not the people.

And you cheered and huzzahed and picked your side - which is with the corporations. Trying to both-ways-weasel that you're still a man of the people is exactly what I'd expect from a sneaky, down-low restroom cruiser who runs from his wife's vadge while jeering at well-socialized, competent, honest-in-their-relationships gay people.

Citizens United

The CT legislature paid for a study of the court's ruling in CU to see if the state had existing compliance issues to fix. The motive for the study was apolitical, as were it's methodologies which are made available at the link. The study I am presenting is virtually identical to everything that every nonpartisan study has concluded. The issue was the rights of corporations, NOT the rights of people, as weasels lie who want to walk both sides of the field politically, as WELL as sexually - in an obvious signal of their inability to choose.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm

That's a lot of words to admit you misrepresented my position, AGAIN.

Cannonpointer » 03 Dec 2014 4:22 am » wrote: Careful.

Merely expressing DOUBT, merely QUESTIONING the justice and wisdom of the Invisible Hand, can get you sent to a communist inferno when you die.

You need to come to the Market, and purge Stalin from your soul. He is speaking through you and you don't even KNOW it!

Come to the Market and pray. You can cast your liabilities into a bottomless pit, and they will be no more. All you have to do is say the commy's prayer: I know that I am a laborer, and that the Invisible Hand has called me to be a capitalist. I was given bootstraps which I did not use, and to pay my debt I shall stand for no capital gains tax higher than, "Good to see ya, Bob - how're they bitin'?"

In Adam Smith's name, Amen.

Are the psychotics still babbling in idiocy and ignorance? Geez.

Cannonpointer » 04 Dec 2014 6:40 pm » wrote: Attempting to limited WHOSE free speech, nanny state? The court said it was the CORPORATION which had the rights- INDEPENDENT FROM those actual, real-life people WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE, whom you lied were being denied their rights. The court did not find ONE HUMAN BEING whose rights were violated, you lying little huey coward.

As a general rule, committed liar, court verdicts are awarded in favor of either PLAINTIFFS, or DEFENDANTS - not in favor of fucking bystanders, you lying little rat-mouth.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting speech, and Obama's lawyers argued that they could do just that, censoring political books and movies.

Maybe that will fit into your pea brain someday.

RichClem » 04 Dec 2014 10:59 pm » wrote:
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting speech, and Obama's lawyers argued that they could do just that, censoring political books and movies.

Maybe that will fit into your pea brain someday.

Gosh, Clemmie - that was quick

A LOT quicker than your not-yet-delivered response to the fact that unemployment goes DOWN on the heels of raising Minimum Wage - which pretty much refutes your entire sycophantic existence. More important;y, slave, it flies in the face of Heritage Christ, It throws PIES at Heritage Christ. It makes then look like clowns,, clown.

Oh, by the way: Thanks for sharing YOUR view of CU for the 100rth time. You DO understand that the SCOTUS has THEIR view, too - right?

Now, what YOU said about CU is right above where I started typing. It's available , if you ever decide to compare it with what the SCOTUS said. You see, what the SCOTUS said is ALSO available - has been made available on this very board, in this very thread. And that's a good thing, because YOUR theory of CU and the SCOTUS' theory of CU are very different.

The SCOTUS didn't come at it - as you did - from the perspective of Congress' powers. They're educated. They know the Congress has greater or lesser powers based on showing a compelling governmental interest. That's why they don't just dogmatically quote the same few words. over and over and over, like a fifth grader looking for attention.

And what THEY - the SCOTUS - decided is that corporations have rights - their OWN rights, not the people's who work there, AS CORPORATIONS, not as people or a group of people.

That's what they said.

The SCOTUS, I mean. The SCOTUS said CORPORATIONS have rights - instead of, "Congress can never, ever, ever, ever, EVER restrict speech" - YOUR ruling in the case, Judge Cletis, made from your most hallowed Porcelain Chamber.

You decided the case differently - after which, presumably, you adjourned (without physically moving) from the Porcelain Chamber of of sag-***-ity to the :"oval office of love," as you call your primary masturbatorium, where you produce all the fap fap fap noises which follow you, elliptically, from thread to thread on THIS board.

Don't take it hard, kid. The SCOTUS is not your enemy. It's not the voices in your head or the guests that never showed for your tea and mud cakes party. It can't check with you on every case.

Cannonpointer » 04 Dec 2014 11:39 pm » wrote: Gosh, Clemmie - that was quick

A LOT quicker than your not-yet-delivered response to the fact that unemployment goes DOWN on the heels of raising Minimum Wage - which pretty much refutes your entire sycophantic existence. More important;y, slave, it flies in the face of Heritage Christ, It throws PIES at Heritage Christ. It makes then look like clowns,, clown.

Oh yeah, we are subjugated to and humiliated by your psychotic brilliance.

And gravity makes things fall up.

There's no hope for stupid.

Oh, by the way: Thanks for sharing YOUR view of CU for the 100rth time. You DO understand that the SCOTUS has THEIR view, too - right?

Now, what YOU said about CU is right above where I started typing. It's available , if you ever decide to compare it with what the SCOTUS said. You see, what the SCOTUS said is ALSO available - has been made available on this very board, in this very thread. And that's a good thing, because YOUR theory of CU and the SCOTUS' theory of CU are very different.

The SCOTUS didn't come at it - as you did - from the perspective of Congress' powers. They're educated. They know the Congress has greater or lesser powers based on showing a compelling governmental interest. That's why they don't just dogmatically quote the same few words. over and over and over, like a fifth grader looking for attention.

I never claimed they did. I've just pointed out that without Citizens United, there would have been an obvious, gross violation of our right to free speech with the federal government banning books, movies and publications.

To which you have yet to respond directly, psycho.

And what THEY - the SCOTUS - decided is that corporations have rights - their OWN rights, not the people's who work there, AS CORPORATIONS, not as people or a group of people.

That's what they said.

The SCOTUS, I mean. The SCOTUS said CORPORATIONS have rights - instead of, "Congress can never, ever, ever, ever, EVER restrict speech" - YOUR ruling in the case, Judge Cletis, made from your most hallowed Porcelain Chamber.

So freaking what? If that's what it took to prevent a horrendously unacceptable violation of our free speech, I can live with it.

People own corporations. They run corporations. So what they are run under a legal framework?

Babble away.

RichClem » 05 Dec 2014 7:37 am » wrote:
So freaking what? If that's what it took to prevent a horrendously unacceptable violation of our free speech, I can live with it.

So men are endowed by their Creator with rights. Rights come from God. You lied to me that you believed that - and you clearly do not.

There is a fixed number of rights on earth at any moment. That number can be stated through a precise mathematical formula. The formula to determine the number of rights on earth at this moment is: X, times the number of human beings on earth at this moment - the value of X being: The precise number of rights God granted to each human being.

This means that any rights a corporation has must be taken from humans, since it is only upon humans that God bestows rights.

For you to defend your "team" taking what God gifted to humankind and robbing their fellows to transfer it to theoretical CONCEPTS which cannot DIE, much less go to heaven, is what selling your birthright for a bowl of gruel looks like, son.

It is clear that you do not believe rights REALLY come from God - you just SAID that because you thought all the cool kids say that.

The cool kids MEAN it, sonny.

Cannonpointer » 09 Dec 2014 4:06 am » wrote:

So men are endowed by their Creator with rights. Rights come from God. You lied to me that you believed that - and you clearly do not. /quote]

I have consistently quoted the first Amendment and its prohibition against Congress restricting speech, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, given that people own corporations and choose managers to run them in their stead, restricting corporate speech also violates individual rights, just like censoring the publication of a union, church or civic group would.

Do you think the federal government should be able to censor books, movies, pamphlets, etc. just because they're done by corporations?