- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
If they're a person, then I support them being taxed as a person.
I'm saying that it's a great analogy; I'm not speaking for danarhea. Again, words being placed in to other people's mouths without even inquiring to see if it's true. :roll:No, it isn't. It's a dumb joke which doesn't stand up the slightest bit of actual scrutiny. danarhea, I think, actually understands that. You don't seem to.
I'm saying that it's a great analogy; I'm not speaking for danarhea. Again, words being placed in to other people's mouths without even inquiring to see if it's true. :roll:
OK. I'm glad that's cleared up. :thumbs::doh
I didn't say you were speaking for him. Yes, you said it was a great analogy -- and it's not. It's a dumb joke.
I also said that danarhea probably gets that. You, however, don't.
I find it bizarre how liberals believe the first amendment excludes business. How does that work exactly?
I suppose, but in that case it's still telling the shareholders how to run their business and their property or restricting their right to speak as a group. I don't think it changes anything really.
As, and only when, ordered by the judicial system of Texas.
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.
Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.
Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:
Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
I will agree that corporations are people just as soon as Rick Perry executes one of them. :mrgreen:
You're missing the point. UNIONS do not have the right to speak for me collectively and say that it is a person -- a unit of one. If the UNION BOSS wants to come out and say what he/she believes than fine -- just don't include the UNION as a whole because there will be dissent somewhere. :shrug:
He still gives the order. Or would you believe that John Gotti was innocent because others clipped his enemies?
OK. I'm glad that's cleared up. :thumbs:
No, the court does. He signs off on it.
Wrong. A court does condemn the inmate, but the execution cannot take place until the governor signs the order,No, the court does. He signs off on it.
and of course, the governor can pardon a condemned criminal instead of signing the order too.
Fact remains that I will believe that corporations are people only when Perry executes one.
The problem with this is that it assumes that their isn't an equal and opposite force on the other-side. What this does is enable corporations to lobby in the same way that the pro-democrat unions do.
If the honchos went to prison than how did Enron go with them?The honchos at Enron went to priso, purdy much making Enron a person.
Indeed, Agent. Just consider all rights to a person here. Business will never be the same if Scalia sides with Hobby Lobby.
If the honchos went to prison than how did Enron go with them?
Indeed, Agent. Just consider all rights to a person here. Business will never be the same if Scalia sides with Hobby Lobby.
The problem with this is that it assumes that their isn't an equal and opposite force on the other-side. What this does is enable corporations to lobby in the same way that the pro-democrat unions do.
Which "obligations and restrictions" are corporations not subject to?
Do you also argue that because corporations aren't people, they shouldn't be subject to an income tax, like people? (Whoops -- is that a "can of worms" you don't want to open?)
(And again, all of this stems from people actually having no idea whatsoever what the rulings in Citizens United actually were.)
Corporation unlike people are often not subject to those taxes due to favorable laws.
They can freely move abroad in the search for cheap labor. People cannot freely pass borders legally.
They are in the United States, which actually has the highest corporate income tax rate.
Corporations cannot simply wander in willy-nilly to any country they like and set up shop. So, no, they can't "freely move abroad." (And how do you figure they'd do so without the, um, people who actually run them?)
Not when it comes to my personal religious point of view and he adds it to as his opinion to the business as a whole he doesn't.
Yeah, but they often pay less than that rate.
At any costs, they usually pay less than people.
And, they can freely move about seeking cheap labor.