MITT ROMNEY says "corporations are people"

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.

LOL! At least this way, private prisons can get their quotas filled much quicker and keep their profits without getting police in certain states randomly stopping people that look like an immigrant.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think to some extent a corporation is a body, with a mind. If you issue one "Vote" to the company, who decides? I think it should be done by external polling third party style. Poll the employees of what they want, average out the numbers, and cast the vote in that set of perspectives.

But of course, that's only if you consider a cooperating entity a person, or vice versa.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,283
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
71
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
there are many more than just 3 corporations who destroy our planet and the quality of our lives. if you would bother to check on corporate activities in the huffington post, for example, you would see why CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. As to Obama, the wall street money is going for ROMNEY. look at the most recent financial reports of the candidates , including the President. Money speaks louder than media reports on charisma or impressions.
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
851
Media
29
Likes
4,073
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think to some extent a corporation is a body, with a mind. If you issue one "Vote" to the company, who decides? I think it should be done by external polling third party style. Poll the employees of what they want, average out the numbers, and cast the vote in that set of perspectives.

But of course, that's only if you consider a cooperating entity a person, or vice versa.

If you poll the employees of ANY large corporation about what they want, the results will be diametrically opposed to what the board of directors wants.

Guess who wins.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If you poll the employees of ANY large corporation about what they want, the results will be diametrically opposed to what the board of directors wants.

Guess who wins.

Bound to be the people, because the board would be bound by the third party decision, the board would only get a 1 per person count, just as each employee.

EG, 1000 people employed, 746/1000 want one thing, 254/1000 want another, .746 in favor of A, .254 in favor of B, or however the split goes between.

Final vote is cast officially by the third party after data collection is completed, if the board tries to alter it, all they do is poison their workforce with the bitterness of "You fucked us over, your company is doomed now". That is to say, if the board usurps a democratically based authority, the employees will flip them the bird and start throwing shoes in the gears.

If any board be so STUPID to not realize that it takes an OCEAN of people to achieve the POND of will of the board, they deserve whatever comes of it. Keep the rebellion tied inside the company, and the fat cats reap their just desserts if they try to taint a noble ideal.
 
Last edited:

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
851
Media
29
Likes
4,073
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Bound to be the people, because the board would be bound by the third party decision, the board would only get a 1 per person count, just as each employee.

EG, 1000 people employed, 746/1000 want one thing, 254/1000 want another, .746 in favor of A, .254 in favor of B, or however the split goes between.

Final vote is cast officially by the third party after data collection is completed, if the board tries to alter it, all they do is poison their workforce with the bitterness of "You fucked us over, your company is doomed now". That is to say, if the board usurps a democratically based authority, the employees will flip them the bird and start throwing shoes in the gears.

If any board be so STUPID to not realize that it takes an OCEAN of people to achieve the POND of will of the board, they deserve whatever comes of it. Keep the rebellion tied inside the company, and the fat cats reap their just desserts if they try to taint a noble ideal.


LOL!!! How incredibly idealistic!


yeah, wouldn't work that way.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
If corporations are people too, then they should be subject to the same income tax rates that we all pay and no special "corporate deductions" or loopholes.

Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.

Google paid 2%? Damn, they got shafted! Most U.S. corporations don't pay ANY tax!

They need to get them some new accountants.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
For one, what a presidential candidate may say to an audience of primary voters is likely to differ from what he/she may say to the general electorate and even more likely to differ from what he/she will do as POTUS.


Obviously. But we have to go on something, don't we? If put to it, I'm likely to vote for the candidate who promises to help me over the one who promises to screw me.
 

B_enzia35

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
863
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
53
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If corporations are people too, then they should be subject to the same income tax rates that we all pay and no special "corporate deductions" or loopholes.

Google paid 2% tax last year. If corporations are people too, lets throw google in jail for tax fraud.
Can we throw the welfare people in jail too? Oh wait...
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
53
Gender
Male
Alright, just for logistics sake- take 34 of your closest friends from Facebook, head on down to Best Buy, and see how many of their 100 employees are even willing to tell you that they voted, let alone who they voted for and where, if anywhere, they donated money. I think you'll be surprised at how difficult getting people to relinquish that information actually is- and that's just retail. You're talking about News Corp, a considerably larger and politically charged entity, where no one would be under any obligation to discuss with anyone where they donated money, let alone where their family members donated money. My point in saying this that likely as not this wasn't a study- it was a sampling; out of 25 or 50 News Corp direct contributions, contributions from employees and their family members who voted and donated money to a campaign, that was the number they came up with... not exactly as accurate as calculating gravity. The Sunlight Foundation has 34 employees as of right now and they've only been around since 2006. For what you've quoted to be credible beyond reproach I'd need a little more data than what's been provided insofar as how they pulled it off.

We don't know how they went about it, we don't know if they hired externally at all, we don't know if they used New Corp's internal datebase to reach the employees. Anything we say on the possibility or impossibility of this is pretty much speculation.

Again, beside the point I was trying to make- I even went so far as to say they were likely exaggerations in some cases. But you Google his name for a list of quotes and what do you get but commentary from over the years on those topics, regarded in a way by bloggers and the media as "extreme" and out of touch with reality. That is his public perception to the people who are actually going to vote (rather than abstain after years of voting Green and getting nowhere) on election day. Which leads to the final point...

I was trying to refute what you said before other people in the thread would go ahead and actually argue that he believes all of that.

His own statements, where they have been quoted accurately and in full or not, have given the media all they need to eviscerate his credibility. The damage is done. It would have been the same story for anyone else commenting in the fashion he has commented on the topics he has chosen to engage over the years. If you want to be elected you have to play the game and regardless of whether or not his statements and stances on various governmental topics are sound, they've been presented in such a fashion as make it clear he has no ability to navigate the politics.

In other words, you're celebrating the status quo. You're arguing what I'm arguing, except you agree with the notion that certain subjects shouldn't be touched simply because people don't like them and therefore, it's fair game for the media to ridicule these views. If you don't believe that reflects poorly on your country's political climate, then that's fine, but I'm very hesitant to agree with that.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Can we throw the welfare people in jail too? Oh wait...

I don't know where you live in Texas --- but I strongly suggest you go down to your local inner city Saturday soup kitchen, sit down and really talk with some of these people you so casually "dis" as lazy, good-for-nothings (and think our jails would be a good place for them!) When I left Philadelphia in 1989 there were 10,000 homeless on the streets -- MOST of them were mentally ill. Some had been CEO's of companies who just "snapped" one day! Reagan's de-funding of lots of institutions got those people thrown out of those places onto the streets. Jesus, Mary & Joseph pal -- these are REAL people we're talking about and EACH ONE has a different story! EACH ONE is a human being "entitled" to the same pursuits of life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. Personally, I believe that the CHARACTER of a nation should be judged by how they treat their MOST vulnerable! The rest of the world thinks we are just a little "high handed" in accusing THEM of human rights violations when they start calculating the people in each of our states that lives below the poverty level!
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Can we throw the welfare people in jail too?

No. Many of them earned the right to collect as they were once people who had jobs and now find themselves in financial difficulty. None of them are born, already entitled to Welfare... despite your obvious negativity towards people who are below you on the monetary scale.

Oh wait...

Too late. Your hatred is noted, and rather expected. It was only a matter of time before you exposed more of it. :rolleyes:
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Can we throw the welfare people in jail too? Oh wait...

Yes oh wait. I love the deception conservatives masterfully execute as they weave in religion and Christianity while simultaneously spitting in its face with their message. And yet the rubes still can't connect-the-dots. Yes Jesus loves the rich and think poor people should be in jail. And yes you can be pro-life, pro guns and pro war all at the same time.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
53
We don't know how they went about it, we don't know if they hired externally at all, we don't know if they used New Corp's internal datebase to reach the employees. Anything we say on the possibility or impossibility of this is pretty much speculation.

The original statement was that the President is the number one benefactor of News Corp. If you're as in the dark as I am in regard to how the Sunlight Foundation came to that conclusion, I don't think the statement can be considered any less speculatory. I can't find anything else to corroborate the study (or poll) nor can find the actual poll itself. Stating something as a fact without any evidence to back it up has a name I've no doubt you're familiar with.


In other words, you're celebrating the status quo. You're arguing what I'm arguing, except you agree with the notion that certain subjects shouldn't be touched simply because people don't like them and therefore, it's fair game for the media to ridicule these views. If you don't believe that reflects poorly on your country's political climate, then that's fine, but I'm very hesitant to agree with that.


I don't know you reached the conclusion that I'm celebrating the status quo. But that is how it is- for all politicians. Should it be that way? Maybe not... probably not, but that's irrelevant because numbers lie; the nation says its sick of a sex scandal but newspapers featuring the story break sales records. The sorts of candidates I'm talking about are irreparably damaged goods thanks to their own inability to navigate the system. If you can't traverse the minefield of American politics in the media so far as the Presidency is concerned it doesn't say much about your ability to realistically grapple with anything else.


One last thing- the "The media picks on me" argument was copyrighted a few years ago. See: Sarah Palin.



JSZ
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
One last thing- the "The media picks on me" argument was copyrighted a few years ago. See: Sarah Palin.
Actually I think her fellow Republican Richard Nixon owns the patent on being paranoid about the media. 1962- Nixon is defeated by Brown (Jerry's dad) in the California gubernatorial race, which he was suppose to win. At his press secretary's press conference the next day, Nixon made an impromptu appearance and gave a speech that in hindsight foretold so much of what was to come.-


"Good morning, gentlemen. Now that Mr. Klein has made his statement, and now that all the members of the press are so delighted that I have lost, I'd like to make a statement of my own

He closed by bidding a fond farewell to the press:


"I leave you gentlemen now and you now write it. You will interpret it. That's your right. But as I leave you I want you to know- just think how much you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference . . ."
Mrs. Palin has the same paranoid tendencies and probably has a fairly extensive enemies list by now.
 
Last edited:

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Technically corporations are made up of people, but they are a sub human species. So they don't count. Tax 'em! From what I understand, they want to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000.00 a year. Every thousand dollars over that they want 30 bucks. It's a 3% tax increase on people that wouldn't notice it anyway. Pull these "never raise taxes" people in front of a camera and ask one question "Will you pay 3% more in taxes to help reduce the nations debt?" I dare these pricks to say no.
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't know where you live in Texas --- but I strongly suggest you go down to your local inner city Saturday soup kitchen, sit down and really talk with some of these people you so casually "dis" as lazy, good-for-nothings (and think our jails would be a good place for them!) When I left Philadelphia in 1989 there were 10,000 homeless on the streets -- MOST of them were mentally ill. Some had been CEO's of companies who just "snapped" one day! Reagan's de-funding of lots of institutions got those people thrown out of those places onto the streets. Jesus, Mary & Joseph pal -- these are REAL people we're talking about and EACH ONE has a different story! EACH ONE is a human being "entitled" to the same pursuits of life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. Personally, I believe that the CHARACTER of a nation should be judged by how they treat their MOST vulnerable! The rest of the world thinks we are just a little "high handed" in accusing THEM of human rights violations when they start calculating the people in each of our states that lives below the poverty level!

I am from a large urban area with a population that was heavily on welfare during the Reagan era--which, it so happens, coincided with the beginning of my formative years. Thus, I watched as my mother worked hard to feed us spaghetti whilst the neighbors used their food stamps to buy steak, as my mother made a decent living but struggled to afford our necessities whilst the neighbors on welfare relaxed as their welfare checks paid their living costs. I even recall feeling the base, icy fingers of resentment tickle their way down my spine on the 4th of July as I stuck my 13-year-old head out of my bedroom window and smelled the aromas from neighbors barbecued, food stamp purchased feast of steak, pork chops, and chicken on the grill--all the while knowing that we couldn't have afforded hot dogs and hamburgers, much less the grill and charcoal upon to cook them. All that having been said, I grew up bitter at welfare recipients. And resentful. And doggedly determined to never become like those people, those thieves, those leeches on the good, hard-working people of society who worked like madmen to put food on someone else's table and money in someone else's pockets.

Then I met someone who was a child of one of the "Welfare Queens" that Ronald Reagan so eloquently crowned in the '80's.

He did not have an absentee father who ran out; he had a father who was absentee because he died at a young age from cancer. That same father graduated from an Ivy League university and worked for a large corporation. So his family lived a very nice life (deservedly so) until his father passed. Then, his mother--who did not have a college education or much work experience--lost the house (medical bills and legal fees took the majority of the life insurance), found herself having to move her remaining family to a lower cost area (she lost the house), and turn to welfare when her attempts to find work were fruitless or not adequate enough to provide for a family of 4 solo.

I could go on and wax poetic about how his mother wanted to provide her children with as similar a life as possible so they still ate fine foods and wore chic clothing, but I won't. The point is, I got to to firsthand look in the face of what I thought I saw and what I actually saw. Maturity does that to you. And this occurred recently, mind you--I'm talking last 4 months.

Are there/were there people who abused the welfare system? Of course. But some people fail to realize that one cannot simply walk into an Assistance Office with a baby on their hip and/or a sob story on their lips and walk out with a phat packet of food stamps and a super-dope welfare check of grand proportions. Backgrounds are extensively checked. Requirements must be met. So if anyone "falls through the cracks" it is the fault of the system, not the recipients. And it makes no sense (moral or practical) to punish thousands of truly needy people in the name of idealism--but that is what I did for years and years and years by assuming that welfare recipients are lazy thieves who steal the worms out of the working mama bird's mouth to feed her own chicks.

If one really believes in Reagan's "endearing" picture of a "Welfare Queen", well...I would have to surmise that he/she had about as much firsthand, face-to-face knowledge with someone on welfare than Mr. Reagan did himself. And every knows that Mr. Reagan made a regular practice of driving through urban and rural areas to speak with welfare recipients before he made such a grand, sweeping summation...

Sage, sage advice, Mensch1351.