Forums » Group W Forums » Topical Tropical Discussions

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:07 am
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 3683
Location: Dallas, Texas
IMHO, we remain screwed in this regard until two things happen:

1. The aforementioned public-only funding of campaigns

2. An end to the legal status of corporations as persons

Corporations' personhood was a mistake; it wasn't even a real court decision, but it's now entrenched as legal precendent, and it hurts all of us, all of the time, most recently in last week's Supremes ruling on campaign contributions:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:24 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Nov 29, 2000
Posts: 1798
Location: El Mirage, AZ
Hi, Shelley. I may be wrong (may?) but I thought that the formation of the corporation as an individual in its own right was for tax purposes, and legal protection of the principles of the corporation.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:00 pm
  

Aye, Terrie, but perhaps some may start to listen.

Ceashel, I am complete agreement with you on the corporation as individual. All other things aside a corporation as an entity should not have an "individual" right. Companies are made up of individuals, but they themselves should not be considered as an individual. I know it is not a simple as that since, as Terrie points out, there are other factors that are included in the whole thing. Change is possible - it's just figuring out how to effectively bring about that change.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:40 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Nov 11, 2004
Posts: 2010
Location: Left-of-center
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." ...old French saying


          Top  
 
Offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:51 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Feb 26, 2009
Posts: 1190
Ceashel's resource is right, Terrie. This has come up in other forums in the last year prior to that ruling. The Santa Clara clerk did do that.

However, corporate campaign contributions had been reasonably restricted by later rulings and the Filthy Five overturned them all. These are the same judges that gave Bush the election in 2000. It is a clear example of party loyalty and class warfare over neutrality and judicial restraint. Two things need to happen right quickly:

1. Pass the Fair Elections Act.
2. One or more of the five need to retire.

Public humiliation is one tactic, but otherwise, see item 1.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:17 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 15, 1999
Posts: 4710
Captain Zap wrote:
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." ...old French saying


frustrates me to no end...

but you say it in french!!!


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:23 pm
  

Off topic, but I always wanted to learn French just so I could speak it with a south Texas drawl. Como talle vous, there, mon ami. (Probably misspelt something in there) Chamois. electronique, broulet, or - dare I say it - vicious swahhhhh. The only cold soup I would enjoy would be melted ice cream.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:05 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 13, 2000
Posts: 8338
Location: Pixley-- Actually An Hr South of Richmond, VA
I took French in high school but didn't do very well. All I remember is Hello, How are you, Thank You, How to summon a waiter, and how to ask someone to go to bed with you (The line from the Patti Labelle song lol)...


          Top  
 
Offline
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:52 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Feb 26, 2009
Posts: 1190
So Obama took the public humiliation tactic seriously. The Supremes were squirming in their seats.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:34 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Nov 11, 2004
Posts: 2010
Location: Left-of-center
Deservedly so!


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:31 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jan 09, 2003
Posts: 2486
Images: 5
Location: Rhododendron, Oregon United States
len wrote:
So Obama took the public humiliation tactic seriously. The Supremes were squirming in their seats.


Damn! Was Diana Ross there too?


          Top  
 
Offline
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:40 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Feb 26, 2009
Posts: 1190
Dressed as Whoopi Goldberg.

The harshness of the coming year will be the far left true believers in Obama who finally realize that the cuts in Federal spending will be in their favorite programs while the ones they do not support or actively despise will receive greater funding. They will blame the usual suspects and they will be right but they will also be part of the problem. It is rare to find those who can simultaneously be sanguine as they stare into the horror of the scene unfolding.

Change we can believe in is not always change we like.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:32 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Nov 11, 2004
Posts: 2010
Location: Left-of-center
Another "inconvenient truth".


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:41 pm
  

Well said Len.

I found it interesting that Mr. Obama, while addressing the Republicans, placed himself on "the other side" instead of in the middle trying to bring both sides together. Seemed like an us vs them slip when he was emphasizing less partisanship.


          Top  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:18 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 15, 1999
Posts: 4710
len wrote:
The harshness of the coming year will be the far left true believers in Obama who finally realize that the cuts in Federal spending will be in their favorite programs while the ones they do not support or actively despise will receive greater funding. They will blame the usual suspects and they will be right but they will also be part of the problem. It is rare to find those who can simultaneously be sanguine as they stare into the horror of the scene unfolding.


pardon my ignorance (i'm not proud!) i am trying to understand what this is saying...what are you saying would be "THEIR (however they may be comprised) favorite programs" and what are the ones THEY "actively despise"? i suppose if i know what those are? i may be able to figure out "the problem" THEY (however they may be comprised) will also be a part of...?

sorry!


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group