Fuck this fascist bs!

[Silverhandorder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_clinton_movie

So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?

[Vessol]

Don't question. That story is all a lie. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

[wertyn]

your sig is retarded op

[Apex Vertigo]

Umm for one it hasn't gone through yet so your post is misleading.

[Villageninja]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_clinton_movie

So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?

I don't see where it says anything about individuals not having the right to express themselves? But no, the people have no say in whether it goes into effect in law. Why would it matter anyway? They're already following the beck and call of the media which is all nice and controlled anyway so what exactly are you bitching about? Why don't you go rant on the biased media or something?

If it passes nothing changes for our voices. We will simply be yelling at the top of our lungs to be heard over the guy in the truck next to us with two 18 inch subwoofers playing their message over and over.

[Apex Vertigo]

I don't see where it says anything about individuals not having the right to express themselves? But no, the people have no say in whether it goes into effect in law. Why would it matter anyway? They're already following the beck and call of the media which is all nice and controlled anyway so what exactly are you bitching about? Why don't you go rant on the biased media or something?

If it passes nothing changes for our voices. We will simply be yelling at the top of our lungs to be heard over the guy in the truck next to us with two 18 inch subwoofers playing their message over and over.

Basically this would allow Corps to use as much money as they want to support a candidate where as the people are limited in how much they are allowed to donate. That's what he means by the people aren't allowed to express themselves but the Corps.

[Rossco]

Wow, butthurt much. It's not like it matters. When has the government actually made your life genuinely better, anyway? Government being the election winner.

(Sure, better taxes, fix the healthcare, eradicate tyranny-these don't count... for obvious reasons.)

[Villageninja]

Basically this would allow Corps to use as much money as they want to support a candidate where as the people are limited in how much they are allowed to donate. That's what he means by the people aren't allowed to express themselves but the Corps.

Still wouldn't matter. Lobbyists decide most of our lives anyway. Different president, same system.

All this will do is push people one step closer to revolution when Viagra starts to promote John Mccain in the next election. "Mccain. Because he's a big hard tough guy who can get the job done and keep coming back for more"

[Teth]

lawl, that's pretty much the polar opposite of what needs to be done in terms of electoral reform.

Hopefully it gets gunned down and pitched in the gutter to moulder before it ever sees the light of legalistic day.

[Villageninja]

Hopefully it gets gunned down and pitched in the gutter to moulder before it ever sees the light of legalistic day.

More than likely, but these days it's a crap-shoot.

[jonyak]

I almost never agree with silver, but this is some mega bullshit.

because we all know that big business needs MORE control over our government.

I don't even understand how something liek this could be even considered.

[88Chaz88]

This is the only reason why Bush was able to stay in government.

Ideally the only control a business should have over the government is the individuals right to vote.

[blindswordsman1]

if this goes through, corporations will rule the country, and then shortly thereafter, the world.

omni-tek anyone?

time for hyper-corporations that control entire planets!

[Baralis]

if this goes through, corporations will rule the country, and then shortly thereafter, the world.

omni-tek anyone?

time for hyper-corporations that control entire planets!

This is where I suspect we have been heading for some time. This will just push us further down that path.

We may all end up like the coal miners of the 1800s. A corporation owns entire towns. You live in a corp house, shop in a corp store, bank in a corp bank and none of your life is yours.

[Teth]

This is where I suspect we have been heading for some time. This will just push us further down that path.

We may all end up like the coal miners of the 1800s. A corporation owns entire towns. You live in a corp house, shop in a corp store, bank in a corp bank and none of your life is yours.
You have just described the nightmare world of the whackjob anti-socialists, except replace "corp" with "government".

[Sqarak]

I find amusing the some people who believe that the government shouldn't legislate corporations too much, cringe at the idea that corporations would be allowed to have more control of the political system.

[88Chaz88]

I find amusing the some people who believe that the government shouldn't legislate corporations too much, cringe at the idea that corporations would be allowed to have more control of the political system.

Yeah I noticed that too.

[Silverhandorder]

I find amusing the some people who believe that the government shouldn't legislate corporations too much, cringe at the idea that corporations would be allowed to have more control of the political system.

To me it makes perfect sense. Why would we want to give corporations the power to set regulations in their favor.

Why would corporations want political control in the first place? If government is weak there is nothing it can do to give them an advantage. If it is strong and regulates heavily then a corporation with control on government can set a monopoly.

[Sqarak]

To me it makes perfect sense. Why would we want to give corporations the power to set regulations in their favor.


And how exactly do you prevent corporations from doing that?

[jonyak]

And how exactly do you prevent corporations from doing that?

silver is under the silly impression that eliminating all forms of gov't will somehow solve all of the worlds problems. Its the same delusion almost all radical libertarians suffer from.

[Fuzzball]

This is how conspiracy theories start.

[Silverhandorder]

And how exactly do you prevent corporations from doing that?

By not setting regulations in the first place. Corporations use regulations to attack competition.

[Apex Vertigo]

By not setting regulations in the first place. Corporations use regulations to attack competition.

If there is no government intervention in Corporate affairs then it would be very easy for Corps to set monopolies all by themselves. Removing government does not somehow magically make everything level.

[Silverhandorder]

If there is no government intervention in Corporate affairs then it would be very easy for Corps to set monopolies all by themselves. Removing government does not somehow magically make everything level.

Give me an example of one monopoly that lasted without government protecting it.

[Villageninja]

Give me an example of one monopoly that lasted without government protecting it.

Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and the government didnt protect it. They destroyed it.

[jonyak]

Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and the government didnt protect it. They destroyed it.

same with the meat packing industry in america at the turn of the century.

[Ziegler]

Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and the government didnt protect it. They destroyed it.

Ma Bell is another one.

the original intention of a lobbyist was to give people of a fellow belief a way to send an advocate to the representative to voice their concerns. This has since been subverted and taken over by corporations on BOTH SIDES.

Corportations should not be able to give any money at all to anything government/election related other than the IRS.

[Apex Vertigo]

He said ONE, not a list, people you're tearing down his argument.

[ColonelTEE3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_clinton_movie

So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?

Readers digest version pls.

[Villageninja]

He said ONE, not a list, people you're tearing down his argument.

I'll feel sorry for him when... no... I probably never will.

[Tenebrion]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_clinton_movie

So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?

Bush could. You remember protest zones, don't you?

[Tenebrion]

your sig is retarded op

This. Absolutely this.

[Sqarak]

By not setting regulations in the first place. Corporations use regulations to attack competition.


So by not setting regulations corporations will be halted from having even more ties with politics...remarkable. Odd logic, but still remarkable.

[Silverhandorder]

http://mises.org/story/2694 <--- Apex you need to read this.


Rockefeller and Standard Oil, and the government didnt protect it. They destroyed it.

You mean the Standard Oil that used vertical expansion model to become the dominant company in the entire country? You mean the Standard Oil that specialized in processing and did not even bother to "monopolize" the production of oil. You mean the standard oil that saw a declining share of the market by the time anti trust laws were brought against it?

Standard Oil before the forced break up into 34 different companies has provided the lowest prices for it's products for decades. They have been a boon to the consumer.
same with the meat packing industry in america at the turn of the century.
The meat packing industry that voluntarily broke up their trust because otherwise they would be divided into many pieces by POS like you?

I read up on some case in 2002 where the evidence for a trust establishment was that several companies worked together to reduce prices for their shipments which in turn allowed them to undercut their competition. Yeah big scary monopoly my ass.
Ma Bell is another one.

the original intention of a lobbyist was to give people of a fellow belief a way to send an advocate to the representative to voice their concerns. This has since been subverted and taken over by corporations on BOTH SIDES.

Corportations should not be able to give any money at all to anything government/election related other than the IRS.

Nothing has been subverted. I assume you are a little bit conservative. In this case you should realize that the fault squarely lies with the politicians and the constituents. It is our responsibility to keep them in check.

Fortunately if we are to not lay regulations on the industries then they would not be able to lobby for regulations that favor them.

Bush could. You remember protest zones, don't you?
Can someone explain to this liberal partisan that most people in Off-Topic can no stand Bush and this also includes the conservatives here.

So by not setting regulations corporations will be halted from having even more ties with politics...remarkable. Odd logic, but still remarkable.
Well why would they have ties when they can't use politics to their advantage.

[Lotharr]

your sig is retarded op

Hahah, agreed.

[Ziegler]

[
Nothing has been subverted. I assume you are a little bit conservative. In this case you should realize that the fault squarely lies with the politicians and the constituents. It is our responsibility to keep them in check.

Fortunately if we are to not lay regulations on the industries then they would not be able to lobby for regulations that favor them.


No...we regulate industries. They should have no power over that, they are NOT individuals, they have no rights, they are a made up institutions that have no sentience. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people.

If we didnt regulate industries, we would have industrial dumpsites in every creek in america. What we have to do is to make an effort to not make it impossible for them to operate but do be their conscience. Completely unfettered companies that watch over themselves is as idealistic as socialism is. Neither can truly exist in the perfection they are thought of by their own adherants.

Conservative? yeah, by most measures I am. I been thinking of a new moniker though...perhaps jeffersonian.

[Tenebrion]

Can someone explain to this liberal partisan that most people in Off-Topic can no stand Bush and this also includes the conservatives here.

Oh yeah? So what do you think of protest zones, exactly? Because every witless fuck you that support seems to think they're just peachy.

Because, you see, that's how you simple-minded political blabbermouths operate. You create an idea in your head about what it is to be liberal or conservative, probably because daddy told you all about it, and then religiously oppose whichever position the other side operates under.

So, you want to ask a vapid question like "So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?", and then you get all bitchy when you don't like the answer? Tough shit.

The answer to your question remains the same - the paragons of your fatih are all people who would defend that. Palin, Faux News, Bush, Rush, and just about every other corporate fatcat under the sun.

As an addendum, it doesn't surprise me in the least that no one helped you in explaining that the fanatic Republican non-thinkers here dislike Bush.

[Silverhandorder]

No...we regulate industries. They should have no power over that, they are NOT individuals, they have no rights, they are a made up institutions that have no sentience. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people.
Yet you complain about them controlling the levers of politics. You don't see how obviously you contradict your own assertion? These corporations are made up of people. Yes them shielding individuals from law is wrong and should be abolished.

However if you attack their ability to form lobbies you must inevitably attack the lobbies formed by ordinary citizens. What identifies a corporate lobby is indistinguishable to what identifies a lobby you or me can establish. If right now they say it in the open that they represent lobby for Microsoft inc. they will start saying they represent the lobby for concerned citizens about AMD pollution or w/e.

The idea that the mass of people can successfully out maneuver highly organized group with unlimited resources is laughable. Special interests are highly illegal, have no power to enforce contracts, are forced into shadows and are highly persecuted. Yet they work almost perfectly.

What you propose is to make it harder for honest people to lobby their government.

If we didnt regulate industries, we would have industrial dumpsites in every creek in america. What we have to do is to make an effort to not make it impossible for them to operate but do be their conscience. Completely unfettered companies that watch over themselves is as idealistic as socialism is. Neither can truly exist in the perfection they are thought of by their own adherants.

Why didn't paper mill companies have that before EPA was established?

Conservative? yeah, by most measures I am. I been thinking of a new moniker though...perhaps jeffersonian.
Try liberal with different views on how to govern.

[Silverhandorder]

Oh yeah? So what do you think of protest zones, exactly? Because every witless fuck you that support seems to think they're just peachy.

Really? Last time I checked Ron Paul has a better record on free speech then your messiah. I did not vote for Bush or McCain. I think any republican who says there should be protest zones is a neoconservative and has nothing to do with the platform that I support.
Because, you see, that's how you simple-minded political blabbermouths operate. You create an idea in your head about what it is to be liberal or conservative, probably because daddy told you all about it, and then religiously oppose whichever position the other side operates under./QUOTE]

Stop projecting your self on me. You are a sorry ass troll.

[QUOTE]So, you want to ask a vapid question like "So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?", and then you get all bitchy when you don't like the answer? Tough shit.

Uh what? Wtf are you smoking. You claimed I was a Bush supporter and that I support free speech zones. You know nothing about me yet you jumped to the wrong conclusion and then you fucking claim I didn't like you answer? Of course I didn't like it. Who would tolerate a partisan hack claiming to know your position and getting it completely wrong.

The answer to your question remains the same - the paragons of your fatih are all people who would defend that. Palin, Faux News, Bush, Rush, and just about every other corporate fatcat under the sun.

As an addendum, it doesn't surprise me in the least that no one helped you in explaining that the fanatic Republican non-thinkers here dislike Bush.
I think you have been discredited by now.

[Sqarak]

Well why would they have ties when they can't use politics to their advantage.

I sometimes wonder if you actually know how corporations work...

[Silverhandorder]

I sometimes wonder if you actually know how corporations work...

Please enlighten me.

[Sqarak]

Please enlighten me.

No, look it up.

[Silverhandorder]

No, look it up.

And how do you suggest i do that? Is there some fucking beam that can show me what you think I don't know about corporations...

[StainlessSteelRat]

I almost never agree with silver, but this is some mega bullshit.

because we all know that big business needs MORE control over our government.

I don't even understand how something liek this could be even considered.

I concur.

This is the only reason why Bush was able to stay in government.

Ideally the only control a business should have over the government is the individuals right to vote.

This makes no sense. How can future legislation or law have kept Bush in power? Pay attention to the tenses involved here, I know it can be tricky.

A business should control the individual's right to vote? Again, I think you are confused.

I find amusing the some people who believe that the government shouldn't legislate corporations too much, cringe at the idea that corporations would be allowed to have more control of the political system.

I don't see how you find those two notions mutually exclusive. The first is all about free market capitalism. The second is all about the people governing, not money.

silver is under the silly impression that eliminating all forms of gov't will somehow solve all of the worlds problems. Its the same delusion almost all radical libertarians suffer from.

All forms of gov't? I don't think that is his position.

Oh yeah? So what do you think of protest zones, exactly? Because every witless fuck you that support seems to think they're just peachy.

Because, you see, that's how you simple-minded political blabbermouths operate. You create an idea in your head about what it is to be liberal or conservative, probably because daddy told you all about it, and then religiously oppose whichever position the other side operates under.

So, you want to ask a vapid question like "So individuals have no right to express them selves but the fucking corporations do. Can anyone even defend this?", and then you get all bitchy when you don't like the answer? Tough shit.

The answer to your question remains the same - the paragons of your fatih are all people who would defend that. Palin, Faux News, Bush, Rush, and just about every other corporate fatcat under the sun.

As an addendum, it doesn't surprise me in the least that no one helped you in explaining that the fanatic Republican non-thinkers here dislike Bush.

Actually, you've been told at least once that OT dislikes Bush. However, you instead choose to project your own partisanship on anyone that attacks your messiah by screaming: "Bush this! Bush that!" I'll say again: your messiah hasn't made any changes to all the shit Bush did in violation of the Constitution. He is only adding to it (or trying).

[Silverhandorder]

All forms of gov't? I don't think that is his position.

I've been moving there for a while now.

[Sqarak]

And how do you suggest i do that? Is there some fucking beam that can show me what you think I don't know about corporations...

You keep thinking as if corporations have some sense of rationality and that from it comes a sense of morality. A corporation is anything but rational.
On one hand you have forces that veer towards sustainability. These are particular strong with small businesses. You also have forces that tend to vie for more expansion. This is particularly noticeable with small to big businesses. Then you have forces that strive for profit. This is most noticeable were there are shareholders.

Sustainability is especially wanted by those that need it for their income. Expansion is particularly interesting to those that manage it and profit is important to those that invested in it.

Sadly these three are rarely in balance. Regardless of the financial crisis the economy is still very much in favour of profit. The investment market has shown that to sustain the profit or an image of profit the sustainability is willingly sacrificed.

Your system of an non-legislated market will only work if sustainability is the primal driving force.

[Villageninja]

You mean the Standard Oil that used vertical expansion model to become the dominant company in the entire country? You mean the Standard Oil that specialized in processing and did not even bother to "monopolize" the production of oil. You mean the standard oil that saw a declining share of the market by the time anti trust laws were brought against it?

Standard Oil before the forced break up into 34 different companies has provided the lowest prices for it's products for decades. They have been a boon to the consumer.


I'm sorry but I don't see your point. Apparently people saw it as a monopoly or it wouldn't have been broken up in the first place. You asked for an example of a monopoly that wasn't HELPED by the government and I gave you one. It lasted, and the government destroyed it, they certainly didn't protect it (We don't really know what would have happened if they hadn't, so don't even go there).

What the fuck do you want from me? It doesn't matter what state the company was in, or even that they helped the consumer (in fact that's completely fucking against that argument. In this case the government is HELPING the people with a superpower). The fact is, they -had- a monopoly, whether you like to admit it or not, and the government broke it up due to public outcry against them. Why would the public outcry against them if they were enjoying it so much?

I gave you an example of what you asked for. Nod your head, take it in stride, and move on to flame the others who actually give a shit about your jaded opinion.

[Apex Vertigo]

http://mises.org/story/2694 <--- Apex you need to read this.

Alright, since I had a few minutes to kill I did, and I'll admit it re-educated me on a few old Monopoly cases that otherwise I would not had looked up for this topic. Still, it seems to me that the article takes far too many assumptions as to how an unregulated company would behave and assumes that the market will correct itself in face of all of its faults, while the market hasn't ever seemed to fix itself as people on the right constantly say it should.

I'm not saying government hasn't ever indirectly or directly helped a company form a monopoly over a small area but you can't expect me to believe that killing your competition by cutting prices is unprofitable for the soon to be monopoly holder, or that the small window of time in which prices are lowered should be considered a huge benefit that is not to be regretted by consumers, as the article states. Perhaps in some cases where brand name doesn't matter so much and the product is easily capitalized on, deregulation would work, but when it does matter and the market is difficult to get into, the larger dominant company easily has the ability to stamp it out of existence with its vast resources and effectively closes the market to new producers.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I'm not saying government hasn't ever indirectly or directly helped a company form a monopoly over a small area but you can't expect me to believe that killing your competition by cutting prices is unprofitable for the soon to be monopoly holder, or that the small window of time in which prices are lowered should be considered a huge benefit that is not to be regretted by consumers, as the article states. Perhaps in some cases where brand name doesn't matter so much and the product is easily capitalized on, deregulation would work, but when it does matter and the market is difficult to get into, the larger dominant company easily has the ability to stamp it out of existence with its vast resources and effectively closes the market to new producers.

Gov't regulation prevents access to markets more than any monopoly ever could. A monopoly can only "effectively close" the market if they produce a better or equivalent product at a lower price. That benefits the consumer.

The market will redress and correct any imbalances. It can not prevent the occurence of imbalances but neither can our regulated markets; history shows that the regulation simply increases the order of magnitude of these imbalances/corrections.

[The Critic]

Stainless you don't need to reply anymore.

You smashed this thread for massive massive damage. Giant enemy crab type shit

[Ziegler]

Yet you complain about them controlling the levers of politics. You don't see how obviously you contradict your own assertion? These corporations are made up of people. Yes them shielding individuals from law is wrong and should be abolished.

No contradiction...yet you saying they should have a voice in government and yet decrying their main fucntion (prevent people from being respnosible..thus taking the people aspect out of them)...is contradictory.

However if you attack their ability to form lobbies you must inevitably attack the lobbies formed by ordinary citizens. What identifies a corporate lobby is indistinguishable to what identifies a lobby you or me can establish. If right now they say it in the open that they represent lobby for Microsoft inc. they will start saying they represent the lobby for concerned citizens about AMD pollution or w/e.

No...telling AIG they cant lobby the government in any way shape or form is not the same as saying that the people of tennessee cant lobby their senator. Here's a clue...when jOe Blo and a couple thousand of his compoatriots storm a townhall and voice their disgust...it's no where near the same as a "lobbyist" for Wall street saying...you know, this office is cramped, why dont we discuss this in the bahama's for a week instead?


The idea that the mass of people can successfully out maneuver highly organized group with unlimited resources is laughable. Special interests are highly illegal, have no power to enforce contracts, are forced into shadows and are highly persecuted. Yet they work almost perfectly.
which is exactly why they shouldnt be allowed near the government. <---stress the period




Why didn't paper mill companies have that before EPA was established?

They didnt...they stripped mined country sides with no concern what so ever...fuck man...ask Al Gore, his families mine poisoned a whole county to make them rich.


Try liberal with different views on how to govern.

ROFLMAO...Silver...I've lived on my own in the real world for over 20 years now, never taken government assistance and own more guns that most anybody on this board currently. Dont even think about saying I'm liberal..but I'll gladly tromp the first person that says you dont have to right to call me anything. You drink as much kool-aid as the pansie liberals do on this board and close to as much as the ron pauls. Niether extreme is good, only difference is that we can recover from conservative fuck ups. not so with liberal ones.

[PirateGlen]

Niether extreme is good, only difference is that we can recover from conservative fuck ups. not so with liberal ones.

Can you be more specific with this?

[Apex Vertigo]

ROFLMAO...Silver...I've lived on my own in the real world for over 20 years now, never taken government assistance and own more guns that most anybody on this board currently. Dont even think about saying I'm liberal.

None of those things make you Conservative or non-Liberal.

[wertyn]

ROFLMAO...Silver...I've lived on my own in the real world for over 20 years now, never taken government assistance and own more guns that most anybody on this board currently. Dont even think about saying I'm liberal..but I'll gladly tromp the first person that says you dont have to right to call me anything. You drink as much kool-aid as the pansie liberals do on this board and close to as much as the ron pauls. Niether extreme is good, only difference is that we can recover from conservative fuck ups. not so with liberal ones.

lies.

[Ziegler]

Can you be more specific with this?
Medicare, social security. Not so easy to do away with.


None of those things make you Conservative or non-Liberal.
What do you think makes a conservative?
I believe in the death penalty
I believe abortions should be medically necessary
I believe I should be able to own any gun I want to.
I am anti federal government programs.


lies.

See...Wertyn knows I am a conservative....