COMMENT 310140
|
2012-08-19 10:22 AM |
|
Do unions fall under this? They contribute alot of money every year to politics and are not an individual.
|
| |
COMMENT 310141
|
2012-08-19 10:24 AM |
|
040 beat me to the punch. Of course unions aren't included. These left-wing demonstrators have to allow money to be funneled to their left-wing candidates somehow.
|
| |
COMMENT 310146P
|
2012-08-19 10:39 AM |
|
When have unions been given the same rights as people? "U.S. constitutional amendment to end “corporate personhood” — a legal doctrine that grants corporations many of the same constitutional rights as individual citizens." If Unions have been given the same constitutional rights as individual citizens, then that should be reversed as well. But, I do not believe that they have. Thus the protest is valid and applies to corporations.
|
| |
COMMENT 310165P
|
2012-08-19 11:32 AM |
|
310146 the protesters didn't seem to care about any rights other than the influence of their money in politics. With that in mind I could support it if it applied to Unions political contributions as well. Since I am a decline to state voter I find it hypocritical for Democrats to complain that one group is buying more influence than others. When they are willing to say that both Corporate and Union money in our political system is hurting democracy I will listen. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans on being sold to the highest bidder, so them actually doing something to gain the moral high ground on this issue is about as likely as World Peace.
|
| |
COMMENT 310174
|
2012-08-19 12:53 PM |
|
The thread has been derailed, presumably to avoid dealing with the issue at hand - corporate person-hood. If corporations have the same legal rights as individuals, then they obviously must adhere to the same *responsibilities* as an individual. Right wingers and conservatives love to play the "personal responsibility" card. However, their roaring silence on this issue, or deliberate avoidance of it, just goes to show that personal responsibility only applies in their world when its ideologically convenient, or politically expedient. Benito Mussolini re. his doctrine of corporatism (synonymous with the other "F" word) would be proud of us. Meanwhile, keep on union bashing in the absence of an argument.
|
| |
COMMENT 310175
|
2012-08-19 01:00 PM |
|
Isn't if funny how conservatives love to quote the Founding Fathers--except when the Founding Fathers' rhetoric undermines the conservative agenda? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nothing in there about conglomerations of capital being imbued by God with human rights, despite what Mitt Romney says.
|
| |
COMMENT 310179
|
2012-08-19 01:17 PM |
|
Who runs corporations? The boogey man? No, it's people. If people want to donate to a cause of their choice they should be allowed to.
|
| |
BECKY
|
2012-08-19 01:39 PM |
|
This thread has not been derailed. It is exactly on target. I belonged to "FixCongressFirst" since it's incepetion, long before it became "RootStrikers" (find both on the internet). The point is to get MONEY out of politics, and it doesn't matter whether that money is corporate, union, or rich individuals. We need public campaign financing to reduce the corruption currently pervading our politics on both sides of the isle. Money can and will always buy access and influence. Until you remove the corrupting influence of money from the equation, we aren't being represented by those voting for the people's best interests.
|
| |
COMMENT 310140
|
2012-08-19 01:48 PM |
|
How about NO RESTRICTIONS...on anybody! Does the biggest money campaign always win? NO!
Does the best candidate always win? NO
Do you usually see right through the political commercials and phone calls you get on a daily basis? YES!!! Let the idiots waste their money on political fights....maybe if we give them a few years to go nuts they will spend themselves into the poor house....problem fixed just like with Meg Whittman :)
|
| |
COMMENT 310189
|
2012-08-19 01:50 PM |
|
I don't think a single one of those protesters understands what "corporate personhood" actually means. HINT: It does NOT mean that corporations have the same rights and responsibilities as an individual citizen.
|
| |
COMMENT 310175
|
2012-08-19 03:08 PM |
|
@179
Shareholders own corporations, but everyone knows that "shareholder democracy" is a joke--the same guys (the fund managers) who hold the shares in trust for the real owners (actual investors) are buddy buddy with the guys running the company (the corporate managers). Who works for who? Technically, it's management that works for the shareholders. But in the real world, the shareholders work for management.
|
| |
COMMENT 310206
|
2012-08-19 03:24 PM |
|
As someone once said, "I will believe that corporations are people when one is executed in Texas."
|
| |
COMMENT 310235
|
2012-08-19 05:34 PM |
|
Democrats and Republicans are like WWF (wrestling) fans cheering for rivaling sides (ignorant that it's all a show) and expressing concern against two opponents that at the end of the day have the same agenda, answer to the same people who are sitting at the same table, laughing about their performance and puffing on their cigars. In an ideal world greedy mongering corporations wouldn't have such strong pulls in politics, but neither would God...
|
| |
COMMENT 310284
|
2012-08-20 08:15 AM |
|
This thread shouldn't be about politics, it should be about changing one law. Not political parties, just one law that has undermined the system for both parties.
|
| |
COMMENT 310290
|
2012-08-20 08:32 AM |
|
206 for the win!
|
| |
RHS
|
2012-08-20 08:52 AM |
|
Quoting the Founding Fathers as being in favor of personhood for corporations is absurd:
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” - Thomas Jefferson
|
| |
COMMENT 310744
|
2012-08-21 10:06 AM |
|
I don't think either candidate should receive money from corporations, unions, or individuals. There should be a set amount each has to use and that is it. You don't enter politics to get rich (well you aren't supposed to anyway) and they shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars to get elected. It would also free up these elected officials to actually do their jobs instead of running around fundraising and campaigning for over a year before the election. Have a few speaches and get them to square off a few times on the issues that actually matter. We don't need to see a million commercials that spout half truths at best. Limiting their spending would actually force them to stick to the real issues. Debates would have to steer clear of filler questions that don't really matter. Then we might have some candidates run because they actually care about fixing our nation. Who knows they might even be qualified to do so. Oh and get rid of the political parties. There is no point to it. I refuse to be limited to a certain political party when another party's candidate may be more qualified.
|
| |
