View Poll Results: Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    18 18.18%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    81 81.82%
Page 47 of 71 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #461
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Exactly, let's not forget that Xcompany can spend whatever they want on a complete lie.

    Sure someone could sue for slander but large corporations can afford the lawyers necessary to win.
    How can a corporation do that when, according to you, corporations can't do anything, and only people can?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #462
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    How can a corporation do that when, according to you, corporations can't do anything, and only people can?
    Yeah, and how can lawyers do anything for corporations if they have no legal rights anyway?

  3. #463
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    As you should know quite well, voting is not terribly meaningful if the choice is between corporate lackey red and corporate lackey blue. Take the health care debate....
    What difference does it make if it's "corporate lackey red" and "corporate lackey blue" or "really rich guy red" and "really rich guy" blue?

    I'm not, by the way, buying into your premise of corporate control of elections at all. Just pointing out that under your construct, the only thing which would change, if your premise is correct, is the name on the checking account. What does it matter if it's "Inc." or "Jim Smith"?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #464
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    The history of corporations suggests otherwise. Corporations were formed for a public purpose and at the pleasure of the sovereign; their charter was subject to revocation when they had served their purpose. The Framers would never have imagined that such grandiose power could be granted to corporations. The 1886 decision which appeared to announce that corporations were persons, was never argued. It simply makes no sense that they could have imagined the concept of corporate personhood.
    By the way, not only have you not shown this to be true (see my earlier post), you're equivocating on the point. Even if the Framers didn't or wouldn't view corporations as "persons," you have not, in any way, come close to showing that they wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to them, or to groups of people in general.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #465
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What difference does it make if it's "corporate lackey red" and "corporate lackey blue" or "really rich guy red" and "really rich guy" blue?

    I'm not, by the way, buying into your premise of corporate control of elections at all. Just pointing out that under your construct, the only thing which would change, if your premise is correct, is the name on the checking account. What does it matter if it's "Inc." or "Jim Smith"?
    I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.

  6. #466
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.
    Contributors don't have the power to alter elections. Only voters do.

  7. #467
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    I think all campaign contributions should have limitations. I would suggest a cap equaling the average yearly individual earning. I don't want Bill Gates to have the power to alter the results of an election anymore than I want Cargill to be able to do that.
    How much free speech is "enough," in your estimation? Should there be a limit, too, to how much a media organ can editorialize for its pet cause or candidate? Including, of course, "news" content extolling its/their virtue?
    Last edited by Harshaw; 01-28-10 at 02:46 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #468
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Contributors don't have the power to alter elections. Only voters do.
    Contributions and ads have the power to alter votes. Let me remind you, the majority of America is downright stupid.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #469
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Contributions and ads have the power to alter votes. Let me remind you, the majority of America is downright stupid.
    I do not believe that to be true, and history is replete with many examples of the bigger money and bigger campaign blitz losing. Look at MA, last week.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #470
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    By the way, not only have you not shown this to be true (see my earlier post), you're equivocating on the point. Even if the Framers didn't or wouldn't view corporations as "persons," you have not, in any way, come close to showing that they wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to them, or to groups of people in general.
    I would think that the judges who call themselves "originalists" would have to show that the Framers viewed corporations as "persons". They did not do that because they cannot. I actually don't give a toss about originalism. What concerns me is the obvious perversion of democracy that has resulted from the flow of money into the process.

Page 47 of 71 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •