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 51 of 71 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #501
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    So I guess you're not against the Christmas day bomber having his miranda rights read to him, right? Because everything and everyone in the universe is covered by our constitution, right? I mean, that's your argument at least.

  2. #502
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Oh nonsense. I made it quite clear that I am talking about quantity not type of advertisements ("speech" if you can really call it that). We are talking about drowning the T.V. viewing audience with advertisements representing one point of view- the point of view of corporations.
    As if all corporations have one point of view.

    Tell me, do you think it's unfair that only Democrats and Republicans have such a big voice? Shouldn't we pass a law limiting their expenditures on ads and give money to all the other parties?

    What about you? Shouldn't you limit the number of posts on this forum so you don't drown out other voices?

    If you're going to ration speech so everything is "fair" get to work.

  3. #503
    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 NoJingoLingo View Post
    So I guess you're not against the Christmas day bomber having his miranda rights read to him, right? Because everything and everyone in the universe is covered by our constitution, right? I mean, that's your argument at least.
    Yes. Of course - if he's being charged with a crime.

    Would you want to skip a trial altogether and just take him out back to be shot?

    Our system has worked so far without compromising our own principles, we can do it now.

  4. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yes. Of course - if he's being charged with a crime.

    Would you want to skip a trial altogether and just take him out back to be shot?

    Our system has worked so far without compromising our own principles, we can do it now.
    Well at least you're consistent in your position. Even if your position is wrong.

  5. #505
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 11:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I am curious.

    If you, NoJingoLingo (or whatever your real name is), were part of writing a new constitution for the USA, what type of free speech protections would you place in it?

    Screw what the founders think, would think, or whatever, what would YOU do?
    Well, the thread is actually on Corporate personhood, we've kinda gotten side tracked with the free speech diversion.

    But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.

  6. #506
    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 NoJingoLingo View Post
    Well at least you're consistent in your position. Even if your position is wrong.
    I'm not afraid to be consistent.

    Let's test your consistency - how do we know when the government can simply ignore constitutional rights and when it can't?

  7. #507
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.
    How do you know that though?

    The idea that corporations are somehow different is silly. They are just bank accounts. Corporations can't speak, as many have noted - they are run by people who do.

  8. #508
    Advisor Rassales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    03-08-10 @ 02:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    564

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    How do you know that though?
    Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)

  9. #509
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Rassales View Post
    Because they didn't exist? (Just a wild guess.)
    So anything that isn't expressly mentioned in the Constitution doesn't exist?

    Not that it matters at all - the First Amendment simply says the government can't limit speech, period.

  10. #510
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Well, the thread is actually on Corporate personhood, we've kinda gotten side tracked with the free speech diversion.

    But to answer your question. I wouldn't change the first amendment at all. It protects freedom of religion (ancillary), freedom of the press (the mechanism of delivery) and free speech of the people. Some people want to include other "entities" based on a flawed premise that if the Constitution doesn't exclude corporations, it means they were meant to be included. I say they weren't included because they weren't meant to be included as religion and the press were.
    "religion" is an entity? Not in the First Amendment. It's a practice, a verb not a noun. Just like speech. It applies to everyone and everything. Individuals AND groups (churches etc.) both have freedom of religion, even though churches and other religious groups aren't mentioned. The same principle applies to speech.

Page 51 of 71 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... 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
  •