Political Crossfire Forums

callous · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject:

Heinz wrote: Quote: No, thats what he would have liked to have said, in a thread that had anything to do with the isolated individuals that work for the isolated components of a corporation, not the political aims of the corporation or its agenda.

Pretty much you already have your mind made up. You're a socialist and you think that corporations are evil and have bad intentions. Lobbyist represent the individuals (shareholders) who run a corporation. They are their voice in Washington.

You hate free speech for the rich.

Quote: Don't make me get started on you too.

Start on what? That you've proven in 2 threads that you can't read?

First hint when debating, don't attempt to form complete personalities of the person you are debating without owning the details.

Since you have observed me debate, and you know what I think about government,... you apparently think that small government = socialism, which is something you desperately need to clear up before you continue debating ANYONE.

In addition, my views on corporations are given as needed. For your benefit, my definition of a corrupt corporation is one that uses shareholder funds to take power away from individual American citizens. Nothing can compete with a corporation who is using the cashflow of thousands of stock holders against single voters for the attention of representatives.

Anything else you'd like to assume?

Ozzone · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject:

callous wrote: Ozzone wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: A corporation is owned by shareholders and manipulated by a board of directors.

Typical socialist response. Always assume that manipulation is part of every businesses' process.

Trying to teach capitalism to a socialist is almost always a challenge.

He uses the word "manipulate" because it sounds Draconian and illicits an emotional response from liberals/socialists that it's bad.

I wouldn't say teaching them capitalism is a challenge, it's an impossibility because they hate people that have climbed the ladder to success.

I understand you don't want to address me directly with that comment,

I have no problem addressing you directly. No more than I have a problem addressing a fly with a swatter.

Quote: because It'd be shot down immediately.

I'm waiting. So far it appears you are the one full of holes.

Quote: Don't attempt to create fake identities for my comments without asking me to clarify,

I didn't ask you to clarify because it wasn't necessary. It was clearly obvious that you didn't understand the difference between INDIVIDUAL and INDIVIDUALS.

Quote: it makes you look rather escapist.

On the contrary, I was pointing out the reality of what JLB said and you couldn't comprehend.

Quote: People who have climbed the ladder of success should have more power to them. People who are using the special benefits of being a corporation to steal power away from American citizens should be imprisoned.

Spoken like a true socialist. I bet you have no problem with labor unions stealing power away from American citizens. After all, those are only people using the special benefits of being a union.

Quote: Now that you are armed with that distinction, feel empowered to debate me directly without being unfairly attacked.

Anytime. I don't need to attack you "unfairly" (whatever the hell that means).

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: First hint when debating, don't attempt to form complete personalities of the person you are debating without owning the details.

Follow your own advice.

Still think I know nothing about the military?

Quote: Since you have observed me debate, and you know what I think about government,... you apparently think that small government = socialism

Small government doesn't equal socialism. ALso, there's no way you're for small government.

You support large government roles in our economic society, just like conservatives support large government in our social lives.

Quote: which is something you desperately need to clear up before you continue debating ANYONE.

:lol:

Mind reading is not your thing.

Quote: In addition, my views on corporations are given as needed. For your benefit, my definition of a corrupt corporation is one that uses shareholder funds to take power away from individual American citizens.

And how would they take that right away? By merely having a lobbyist? Something that the AARP has too?

Quote: Nothing can compete with a corporation who is using the cashflow of thousands of stock holders against single voters for the attention of representatives.

There are laws that limit the amount that anyone can donate. I think it's $5000 for interest groups and corporations. That's $5000 per corporation, not per shareholder.

Quote: Anything else you'd like to assume?

Talking to me about assumptions after you assumed a SSGT in the Army didn't know anything about the military is like a Viking telling a Roman to take a shower.

callous · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:

Heinz wrote: Quote: First hint when debating, don't attempt to form complete personalities of the person you are debating without owning the details.

Follow your own advice.

Still think I know nothing about the military?

Quote: Since you have observed me debate, and you know what I think about government,... you apparently think that small government = socialism

Small government doesn't equal socialism. ALso, there's no way you're for small government.

You support large government roles in our economic society, just like conservatives support large government in our social lives.

Quote: which is something you desperately need to clear up before you continue debating ANYONE.

:lol:

Mind reading is not your thing.

Quote: In addition, my views on corporations are given as needed. For your benefit, my definition of a corrupt corporation is one that uses shareholder funds to take power away from individual American citizens.

And how would they take that right away? By merely having a lobbyist? Something that the AARP has too?

Quote: Nothing can compete with a corporation who is using the cashflow of thousands of stock holders against single voters for the attention of representatives.

There are laws that limit the amount that anyone can donate. I think it's $5000 for interest groups and corporations. That's $5000 per corporation, not per shareholder.

Quote: Anything else you'd like to assume?

Talking to me about assumptions after you assumed a SSGT in the Army didn't know anything about the military is like a Viking telling a Roman to take a shower.

Oh right, as if that affects executive influence, PAC's, etc etc etc....

There is nothing stopping corporations from supplying any number of people through any number of organizations with the ability to effect the decisions of representatives.

Good christ your still bitter about a misconception 30 hours back?

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Callous wrote: Oh right, as if that affects executive influence, PAC's, etc etc etc....

Callous wrote: There is nothing stopping corporations from supplying any number of people through any number of organizations with the ability to effect the decisions of representatives.

It's called free speech.

You hate it if the rich have it.

The supreme court already ruled that donating money to a cause is a practice of speech, and speech is free in the US, no matter who you are.

Quote: Good christ your still bitter about a misconception 30 hours back?

Hey, if you want to lecture on assumptions, don't be a master at it.

callous · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject:

Heinz wrote: Callous wrote: Oh right, as if that affects executive influence, PAC's, etc etc etc....

Callous wrote: There is nothing stopping corporations from supplying any number of people through any number of organizations with the ability to effect the decisions of representatives.

It's called free speech.

You hate it if the rich have it.

The supreme court already ruled that donating money to a cause is a practice of speech, and speech is free in the US, no matter who you are.

Quote: Good christ your still bitter about a misconception 30 hours back?

Hey, if you want to lecture on assumptions, don't be a master at it.

And right there is a blatant indication that you do not understand. Because it has nothing to do with who. Its about "IT". If there was a single business owner, buying politicians through lobbyists with money he has made being crafty about his product and its quality, or its effectiveness in selling... then I would say that man is living the american dream. But that has nothing to do with this.

This is a group of people using a huge number of peoples investments to buy the best for the company and the prosparity of its elite class of directors, not an individual, or any of the individuals working in isolated pockets of the company.

Do you see where this is going now?

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: This is a group of people using a huge number of peoples investments to buy the best for the company and the prosparity of its elite class of directors, not an individual, or any of the individuals working in isolated pockets of the company.

The boards are elected by the shareholders. They're the representatives of shareholders. We never said they went to an individual, you did. We said that it went to INDIVIDUALS. The lobbyist acted on their behalf.

You have a socialist mindset. You assume that the board of directors is nothing but a bunch of Darth Vaders who take whatever they can and who have no responsibility to those that elected them.

By getting what's best for the compnay they can make things better for their employees as well.

Did you know that members of the board are usually shareholders themselves?

Also, it's not about wether or not you agree with their viewpoint. You're not respecting their free speech. You think they shouldn't donate to PACs and other groups to support candidates. The supreme court says that's a form of speech, much like flag burning.

Therefore, you are against a form of speech.

callous · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject:

Heinz wrote: Quote: This is a group of people using a huge number of peoples investments to buy the best for the company and the prosparity of its elite class of directors, not an individual, or any of the individuals working in isolated pockets of the company.

The boards are elected by the shareholders. They're the representatives of shareholders. We never said they went to an individual, you did. We said that it went to INDIVIDUALS. The lobbyist acted on their behalf.

You have a socialist mindset. You assume that the board of directors is nothing but a bunch of Darth Vaders who take whatever they can and who have no responsibility to those that elected them.

By getting what's best for the compnay they can make things better for their employees as well.

Did you know that members of the board are usually shareholders themselves?

This is quite funny. Never have I demonized any group of people within a corporation, never have I said anything more than what the effects of a corporation has a whole can create, not specific people. But you insist on creating a demon group that you think I'm hunting. The debate is focused on the fact that jlb has attempted to view an entire corporation as the work of an individual, an owner, a private business owner, and therefore they have a right to use their hard earned cash to buy politicians. He has since then tried to escape the fact that I am explaining the options available to a corporation, not an individual, and you have done nothing but try to defend him and diflect my questions.

Chymical · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject:

Excuse me I just checked my calculator...

Government+massivecorporateinfluence/interdependence=fascism...

this thing isn't broke is it? by some in the thread I'm beginning to question

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: Never have I demonized any group of people within a corporation, never have I said anything more than what the effects of a corporation has a whole can create, not specific people.

You think that corporations create corruption. Since corporations are not their own sentient being, who then creates the corruption that corporations make when mixed with government?

Quote: The debate is focused on the fact that jlb has attempted to view an entire corporation as the work of an individual, an owner, a private business owner, and therefore they have a right to use their hard earned cash to buy politicians.

Learn to read....

Do you know what PLURAL means? Do you know what PLURAL NOUNS are? I'll clue you in:

INDIVIDUALS IS a PLURAL NOUN.

Corporations are the work of INDIVIDUALS. This is what JLB said.

What was that about fake Demons?

Quote: He has since then tried to escape the fact that I am explaining the options available to a corporation, not an individual, and you have done nothing but try to defend him and diflect my questions.

I have answered your questions....all of them. Don't try and throw a hissy fit just because you can't defend your own stances when they are challenged.

Corporations are ran by INDIVIDUALS.

JLB has said nothing else. Care to show me where he said corporations were the work of one person?

I clearly read that he said that the LOBBYIST is the ONE person who work for the INDIVIDUALS of a corporation. The LOBBYIST works and achieves on his own for the corporation.

callous · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject:

Heinz wrote: Quote: Never have I demonized any group of people within a corporation, never have I said anything more than what the effects of a corporation has a whole can create, not specific people.

You think that corporations create corruption. Since corporations are not their own sentient being, who then creates the corruption that corporations make when mixed with government?

Quote: The debate is focused on the fact that jlb has attempted to view an entire corporation as the work of an individual, an owner, a private business owner, and therefore they have a right to use their hard earned cash to buy politicians.

Learn to read....

Do you know what PLURAL means? Do you know what PLURAL NOUNS are? I'll clue you in:

INDIVIDUALS IS a PLURAL NOUN.

Corporations are the work of INDIVIDUALS. This is what JLB said.

What was that about fake Demons?

Quote: He has since then tried to escape the fact that I am explaining the options available to a corporation, not an individual, and you have done nothing but try to defend him and diflect my questions.

I have answered your questions....all of them. Don't try and throw a hissy fit just because you can't defend your own stances when they are challenged.

Corporations are ran by INDIVIDUALS.

JLB has said nothing else. Care to show me where he said corporations were the work of one person?

I clearly read that he said that the LOBBYIST is the ONE person who work for the INDIVIDUALS of a corporation. The LOBBYIST works and achieves on his own for the corporation.

How do you get an individual from a board of directors? There is no individual here to decide where the money goes, therefore it is no private business with private funds that are being sacrificed for the sake of political influence.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: How do you get an individual from a board of directors?

I don't get individual, like in one person, I get INDIVIDUALS.

Seriously....does it take you this long to grasp plural nouns?

Quote: There is no individual here to decide where the money goes, therefore it is no private business with private funds that are being sacrificed for the sake of political influence.

There are INDIVIDUALS who do.

You're the only one who has ever said anything about an INDIVIDUAL.

We've all said INDIVIDUALS.

Chymical · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:

INDIVIDUAL?

callous · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject:

Heinz wrote: Quote: How do you get an individual from a board of directors?

I don't get individual, like in one person, I get INDIVIDUALS.

Seriously....does it take you this long to grasp plural nouns?

Quote: There is no individual here to decide where the money goes, therefore it is no private business with private funds that are being sacrificed for the sake of political influence.

There are INDIVIDUALS who do.

You're the only one who has ever said anything about an INDIVIDUAL.

We've all said INDIVIDUALS.

I have no problem with pluralities. It is you that doesn't understand that I really don't care that you can identify individual people within a corporation. The only relevent piece of information you need to realize is that a corporation is not led by one person, but a group. Therefore, it does not have the authority to use its money to solicit the services of politicians, because it is grossly anti competitive against single american citizens.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: The only relevent piece of information you need to realize is that a corporation is not led by one person, but a group.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's what we've said this entire thread.....

Don't try and take kudos for what we said

You're shameless.

Quote: Therefore, it does not have the authority to use its money to solicit the services of politicians, because it is grossly anti competitive against single american citizens.

No it's not....because the corporation, no matter how many people run it or work for it, can only donate $5000 dollars....ONCE. The AARP can only donate ONCE. NAMBLA can only donate ONCE. The ACLU can only donate ONCE.

Individuals within these groups can donate ONCE as well.

The price set for individuals is $2000.

Chymical · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject:

is there limit to how many pacs can originate from a single pocket book?

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Chymical wrote: is there limit to how many pacs can originate from a single pocket book?

No....and there shouldn't be.

Do you hate free speech too?

Chymical · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject:

unbalanced airings of 'free speech' I do...

you stated: "No it's not....because the corporation, no matter how many people run it or work for it, can only donate $5000 dollars....ONCE. The AARP can only donate ONCE. NAMBLA can only donate ONCE. The ACLU can only donate ONCE.

Individuals within these groups can donate ONCE as well.

The price set for individuals is $2000."

So if corporations and individuals can for pacs, donating effectively multiple times from the same pocket book, what's the freakin point? What can you do about unfair and undue influence where corps do not represent the common good? What do you think?

Whats the repiblican party stance on that btw?

A lot of people died for free speech they didn't die for McBurger & Chevron et al free speech.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: unbalanced airings of 'free speech' I do...

The poor have voices too.

Quote: So if corporations and individuals can for pacs, donating effectively multiple times from the same pocket book, what's the freakin point?

It's a constitutional right.

Quote: What can you do about unfair and undue influence where corps do not represent the common good?

There are many groups that support the poor.

You hate free speech if it is partaken to by the rich.

Chymical · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject:

so you don't believe there is undue influence on the part of the rich in govt?

Why do you hate poor people? Why do you seek to diminish their representative and true voice?