• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%

  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%
  • Total voters
    64
misterman said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...


Nope...The fact it happens in America and other places isn't because of DEMOCRACY...corruption yes, democracy no. That was my point. Please don't slander Democracy...
 
misterman said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

Why would he be kidding? Citing to the dictionary definition of an abstract concept that is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand is a powerful and classic debate tactic.

I remember back when Douglas was making a point about tariffs and Lincoln interrupted to say "I don't see tariffs anywhere in the definition of AMERICA, do you? I've got the dictionary right here, and it says that AMERICA is about FREEDOM and PATRIOTISM, not tariffs."

Some scholars suggest that that very line is what gave him the edge he needed among Horse n' Buggy Moms to take the exurbs and by proxy the White House.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
Nope...The fact it happens in America and other places isn't because of DEMOCRACY...corruption yes, democracy no. That was my point. Please don't slander Democracy...
Click to expand...

So doing anything to get someone's vote is corruption?
 
RightinNYC said:
Why would he be kidding? Citing to the dictionary definition of an abstract concept that is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand is a powerful and classic debate tactic.
Click to expand...

Let's continue and see where this thread leads.
 
misterman said:
So doing anything to get someone's vote is corruption?
Click to expand...

Depends on what doing anything means. To push bills that favors only those who supported you rather then bills that favor the entire state you represent might be corruption depending on the situation. The subjects to broad to have a definite right or wrong in a easy posting.
Reguardless, buying favors isn't part of Democracy, which can be defined as its not subject to just America but is a process so my posting a definition is valid and appropriate.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
Depends on what doing anything means. To push bills that favors only those who supported you rather then bills that favor the entire state you represent might be corruption depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

You realize that you're on the edge of saying pretty much all democracy is corrupt, right?
 
misterman said:
You realize that you're on the edge of saying pretty much all democracy is corrupt, right?
Click to expand...

Nope because democracy is a process where one man gets one vote. the majority votes deciede.

What you are talking about is corruption, not democracy. Its not democracys fault that a Corp runs a ad slandering a candidate based on lies. nor is it Democracys fault that a Senator promises special things to a Corp during a closed door meeting. Democracy is not the culprit here, dispite how you try to twist my words or meaning.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
Nope because democracy is a process where one man gets one vote. the majority votes deciede.

What you are talking about is corruption, not democracy. Its not democracys fault that a Corp runs a ad slandering a candidate based on lies. nor is it Democracys fault that a Senator promises special things to a Corp during a closed door meeting. Democracy is not the culprit here, dispite how you try to twist my words or meaning.
Click to expand...

People are the culprit. Mess up the perfection that is democracy, how dare they.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
Nope because democracy is a process where one man gets one vote. the majority votes deciede.

What you are talking about is corruption, not democracy. Its not democracys fault that a Corp runs a ad slandering a candidate based on lies. nor is it Democracys fault that a Senator promises special things to a Corp during a closed door meeting. Democracy is not the culprit here, dispite how you try to twist my words or meaning.
Click to expand...

I'm not twisting anything. You just have no idea what democracy really is. How do candidates get the most votes?
 
The Mark said:
People are the culprit. Mess up the perfection that is democracy, how dare they.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people go off and vote for their own interests - "special" interests if you like. Corruption, I tell ya, corruption.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

At least IMO.
Click to expand...
That and they can shut out or drown out the opposition. Not very democratic. Corporatist yes, democratic no.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

repeter said:
But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.

The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals. I'm sure politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would do this, because its just good business. And from what I can tell, it would be perfectly legal, and the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

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

NoJingoLingo said:
That and they can shut out or drown out the opposition. Not very democratic. Corporatist yes, democratic no.
Click to expand...

How could they shut out or drown out the opposition?

From my read of this ruling, it only allows corporations to fund political ads, not eliminate other corporation's political ads...

I suppose you meant “drown out” in the sense of “run a lot more ads than”?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
I'm not by any means well versed in this area, but aren't there anti-slander laws? Or do they not apply to political ads?


I didn't say it was the optimum situation, I just find it better than it was before.

Optimum solution IMO would be to separate politics and money completely. But that is impossible. So removing/severely limiting politics is the next possibility. Also impossible. Eliminating money? Possible, but it wouldn’t affect many of the deals which go down…favors could be argued as being a type of money, after all.

All in the name of eliminating corruption, these thoughts are. A nearly impossible goal.
Click to expand...

It's not impossible. We simply must demand from our elected officials that they pass public campaign finance or don't elect/re-elect them until it passes.
 
In another thread misterman said
Judicial activism is when a judge goes beyond the literal words of the law or Constitution and move toward making his or her own law based on his own ideas about what is right or wrong, as if he were a legislator rather than a judge.

The opposite of that is called judicial conservatism. It means sticking to the more narrow interpretation of the law or the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I say that those of you who believe corporations (and for you misterman, everything in the universe) has the same rights protected by The Constitution of the United States of America as a person, I'll even go so far as to argue, a citizen, are practicing the above definition of judicial activism.

The Constitution does mention People and Persons but not corporations. Therefore we should not assume that the lack of mention should mean it's intent is different than it's literal interpretation. It doesn't mention corporations as having their rights protected so we shouldn't assume corporations are meant to be so covered.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
In another thread misterman said

I say that those of you who believe corporations (and for you misterman, everything in the universe) has the same rights protected by The Constitution of the United States of America as a person, I'll even go so far as to argue, a citizen, are practicing the above definition of judicial activism.

The Constitution does mention People and Persons but not corporations. Therefore we should not assume that the lack of mention should mean it's intent is different than it's literal interpretation. It doesn't mention corporations as having their rights protected so we shouldn't assume corporations are meant to be so covered.
Click to expand...

I am still wondering how People believe a non-living thing such as a Corp has human rights...OHHHH I just figured it out..they listen to Rush, Fox news and the like that whisper that and other lies in their ears..no, no..strike that, they don't whisper anything but YELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

NoJingoLingo said:
It's not impossible. We simply must demand from our elected officials that they pass public campaign finance or don't elect/re-elect them until it passes.
Click to expand...

Requiring that only public funds should finance a campaign doesn’t address the issue of favors outside of campaigns.

I was speaking of the overall political corruption issue, not exclusively campaign finance.

And you can’t tell me that politicians won’t find some way around any such law.

Not to mention, the potential for such a law to be overturned in court because it violates the 1st amendment.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
I am still wondering how People believe a non-living thing such as a Corp has human rights...OHHHH I just figured it out..they listen to Rush, Fox news and the like that whisper that and other lies in their ears..no, no..strike that, they don't whisper anything but YELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'm a liberal who detests Rush and Fox. This decision is solid. And nobody said corporations had "human rights," that's your straw man.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Requiring that only public funds should finance a campaign doesn’t address the issue of favors outside of campaigns.
Click to expand...

What's the definition of a favor?
 
pugetsoundwa said:
I am still wondering how People believe a non-living thing such as a Corp has human rights...OHHHH I just figured it out..they listen to Rush, Fox news and the like that whisper that and other lies in their ears..no, no..strike that, they don't whisper anything but YELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

As I see it, a Corporation has human rights because those who own/run/control it do.
 
Last edited:
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Ah, so you don't support democracy then. Your argument is simply absurd. Everything an elected official does that benefits the people is a "favor."
Click to expand...

I was using the word "favor" to refer to any of the multitude of potential ways other politicians, lobbiests, businesses, and entities of various types can repay a politician for supporting/opposing a bill that they want/don't want.

Favors was the wrong word.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
Ah, so you don't support democracy then. Your argument is simply absurd. Everything an elected official does that benefits the people is a "favor."
Click to expand...

I would say it's their JOB. Of course that's on the assumption that corporations aren't people.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
I am still wondering how People believe a non-living thing such as a Corp has human rights...OHHHH I just figured it out..they listen to Rush, Fox news and the like that whisper that and other lies in their ears..no, no..strike that, they don't whisper anything but YELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not possible for anyone to disagree with you unless they're just a brainwashed moron who listens to Rush. It couldn't be that you don't appear to have a grasp on the nuances of the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom