Support NeoGAF

[NathanMcMahon]

woohoo Warren!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/elizabeth-warren-senate-massachusetts_n_924881.html

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes. The logical conjuction entails that both elements of what you said must be true if the sentence is to be taken as true.

Exactly! It's not only because it keeps happening, but because they aren't being called out enough.

And honestly I would have thought by now they would have ease up some on the pure lies. But I guess why stop now? Push it through 2012 and see what happens.

 

[state-of-the-art]

I don't know where you could use that, but damn if I didn't lol.

Pretty much any time Obama talks about compromise.

 

[Averon]

A substantial amount of people in our country right now (ones who actually vote) take things people like DeMint and Bachmann say seriously. Sometimes if you let the things people like that say get repeated enough without pushback, they become truth in the eyes of many people and it kind of carries over to "independents" and people who don't pay much attention to these issues. Especially when they ALL repeat the same catch phrase when referring to something like the "Government Takeover Of Healthcare" or "Obamacare" or "We Don't Have A Revenue Problem, We Have A Spending Problem" ad infinitum.

Yup. That's one of the secrets to the GOP's success at controlling the debate. No matter how idiotic the notion may seem, if you say it long enough and hard enough with passion, it will eventually take root. Once that happens, the other side will be on the defensive.

 

[Jackson50]

What Perry's Foreign Policy might look like:





http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/10/rick_perry_the_hawk_internationalist

How easy will it be for Democrats to paint him as GWB part 2? This guy's candidacy is a godsend to Obama. He can just dust off the 2008 playbook.

Frightening. And what I found most disconcerting:

"He's a cowboy," said Michael Goldfarb, former senior staffer on John McCain's presidential campaign. "You have to assume he'd shoot first and ask questions later -- which would be nice after four years of a leading from behind, too little too late foreign policy."

Goodness. His FP would be disastrous. I think my head would explode. Literally. I would probably suffer an aneurysm.

 

[polyh3dron]

This was absolutely DELICIOUS!!!

Finally people are starting to see through this fucking facade..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A&feature=player_embedded

Mitt Romney PWNED.

Holy shit, he just said that.

"Corporations are people, my friend" LOOOOOOOL

 

[PhoenixDark]

You know it's truly GOP campaign time when "my friends" enters the political lexicon again

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Holy shit, he just said that.

"Corporations are people, my friend" LOOOOOOOL

And you disagree with that?
Or are you laughing at the "my friend" part?
Hope it's the latter, because Romney is 100% correct.

 

[TacticalFox88]

And you disagree with that?
Or are you laughing at the "my friend" part?
Hope it's the latter, because Romney is 100% correct.

So if Corporations are people...they can be tried for crimes and malpractice. Right? RIGHT?!

 

[reilo]

And you disagree with that?
Or are you laughing at the "my friend" part?
Hope it's the latter, because Romney is 100% correct.

If corporations are people, then it's time to start taxing them for federal income and social security.

 

[state-of-the-art]

And you disagree with that?
Or are you laughing at the "my friend" part?
Hope it's the latter, because Romney is 100% correct.

What are you doing on GAF Scalia?

 

[happyfunball]

So if Corporations are people...they can be tried for crimes and malpractice. Right? RIGHT?!

We can put them in jail too right? That would be fantastic.

Yea, definitely people. The cuddly psychopath type.

 

[Plumbob]

His sentences have been factually correct, but the argument he was trying to make is oh-so wrong, it shouldn't be funny. But it is.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So if Corporations are people...they can be tried for crimes and malpractice. Right? RIGHT?!

Corporations can be sued and held liable under civil and criminal law. I don't understand your point. If they weren't persons, you'd be suing everyone who worked for the company.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

What are you doing on GAF Scalia?

The courts have upheld this for many years.
But how did you know that Scalia is a hero of mine?

 

[Vestal]

And you disagree with that?
Or are you laughing at the "my friend" part?
Hope it's the latter, because Romney is 100% correct.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Does anyone have any idea if the repeal of the Bush tax cuts that Obama is using as a threat to the super committee includes the tax cuts on capital gains that Bush enacted?

 

[Jonm1010]

Corporations can be sued and held liable under civil and criminal law. I don't understand your point. If they weren't persons, you'd be suing everyone who worked for the company.

His point(I think) is that if corporations are people they should be held to the same laws and obligations flesh and blood human beings have. With absolutely no difference.

If a corporate entity is found guilty of dumping toxic sludge and causing cancer or killing people they then should be held accountable for murder and put in jail. As the law stands now you can only sue the company and hope it hurts them enough to affect them. If you really have the evidence you can try and prosecute the individual who committed the crime but the corporation is largely allowed to go unscathed minus civil court rulings.

People for corporate rights always seem to advocate for all the benefits of individual rights: Free speech, campaign contributions etc. But want to be absolved of all the things flesh and blood humans are held accountable for: death penalty for committing murder, paying social security or the same federal tax rate a human being would pay etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

Rick Perry on running for president: ‘This is what I’m supposed to be doing’
By Beth Marlowe, Updated: Thursday, August 11, 3:16 PM

Rick Perry is running for president, his spokesman Mark Miner said on Thursday.

The former Texas governor intends to make it official on Saturday in South Carolina on the same day many of his rivals for the GOP nod in the 2012 presidential race will compete in the Ames Straw Poll, an important test of strength in the Republican primary. Perry will arrive in Iowa on Sunday to make a speech in Waterloo.

The Washington Post's Anqoinette Crosby discusses Gov. Rick Perry's controversial attempt to overhaul the Texas higher education system with reporter Karen Tumulty.

 Thousands gathered in Houston for a day of prayer at a Christian-revival event organized by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), to pray for an America he described as “in crisis.” On Thursday, Perry weighed in on the rampant speculation about his possible 2012 presidential bid, telling Time’s Mark Halperin that he wants to be president in the Texas governor’s first interview since speculation began that he would jump into the race.

“Part of it must be, I assume, whether or not you want to do it still,” Halperin said. “Is that still an open question?”

“You and I having this conversation has answered that question,” Perry responded.

In that interview, Perry stopped short of declaring his candidacy but rejected any notion that he couldn’t compete with President Obama’s formidable fundraising operation in 2012, saying, ”I think [my operation] will be quite competitive in the fundraising side.”

“I’m kind of getting to the all-in point and the idea that this is what I’m supposed to be doing,” Perry told Halperin. “I’m very calm in my heart that this is what I’m supposed to be doing.”

Perry said his wife helped him come to the conclusion that he should be a 2012 candidate. “The issue of ‘is this what I want to do?’ was dealt with about 45 days ago in a conversation with my wife,” Perry said.

He said Anita Perry, who is a nurse and whose father practiced medicine, was concerend about President Obama’s health-care reforms. “I mean we’ve got one of the finest, if not the best, health care systems in the world. She sees Obamacare as destroying that,” Perry told Halperin.

Perry also recounted a conversation he had with former president George W. Bush in July, around the time that the media began speculating about a possible Perry candidacy. “He said ‘You’ll do what’s right,’” Perry recounted of his conversation with the former president and former Texas governor. “He said you don’t want to wake up when you’re 70 and go, ‘I wish I had tried that. I wish I had done that.’”
​

###############


First of all I don't think he should be putting out too many stories of him and Bush Jr. sharing too many recent conversations. And it's cute that his wife wants him to run for President so that "Obamacare" doesn't destroy her career being a nurse and others like her.

Sogood.gif

 

[state-of-the-art]

The courts have upheld this for many years.
But how did you know that Scalia is a hero of mine?

Yes, corporations loves them some 14th amendment.

Because your just too predicable Bulbo my friend.

 

[Incognito]

gold, jerry, gold:

ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!

ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.

AUDIENCE: [laughs]

ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!

ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend.

:rollin

 

[TacticalFox88]

gold, jerry, gold:



:rollin

Romney got trolled by his own audience. Delicious.

 

[Dr. Malik]

Oh Perry, you son of a bitch finally decided to run. This race just got so much better

 

[empty vessel]

Corporations can be sued and held liable under civil and criminal law. I don't understand your point. If they weren't persons, you'd be suing everyone who worked for the company.

I don't get. Do you literally believe they are human beings?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

His point(I think) is that if corporations are people they should be held to the same laws and obligations flesh and blood human beings have. With absolutely no difference.

If a corporate entity is found guilty of dumping toxic sludge and causing cancer or killing people they then should be held accountable for murder and put in jail. As the law stands now you can only sue the company and hope it hurts them enough to affect them. If you really have the evidence you can try and prosecute the individual who committed the crime but the corporation is largely allowed to go unscathed minus civil court rulings.

People for corporate rights always seem to advocate for all the benefits of individual rights: Free speech, campaign contributions etc. But want to be absolved of all the things flesh and blood humans are held accountable for: death penalty for committing murder, paying social security or the same federal tax rate a human being would pay etc.

Good post and good arguments. It's a tricky situation for sure.

I don't get. Do you literally believe they are human beings?

lol. Of course not. With the exception of Apple.

 

[mckmas8808]

gold, jerry, gold:



:rollin

Hell NAW! No way does he said "human beings my friends". That's the joke part right?

 

[Particle Physicist]

And you disagree with that?
Or are you laughing at the "my friend" part?
Hope it's the latter, because Romney is 100% correct.

Corporations are made up of people, but they aren't people and should not be treated like such.

Are you suggesting that they should be entitled to things like votes?

 

[EricM85]

If corporations are people, then it's time to start taxing them for federal income and social security.

When did the corporate rate go to 0%? Also, what the hell do you think a FICA match is?

 

[Vestal]

When did the corporate rate go to 0%? Also, what the hell do you think a FICA match is?

- BANK OF AMERICA: In 2009, Bank of America didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes, exploiting the tax code so as to avoid paying its fair share. “Oh, yeah, this happens all the time,” said Robert Willens, a tax accounting expert interviewed by McClatchy. “If you go out and try to make money and you don’t do it, why should the government pay you for your losses?” asked Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. The same year, the mega-bank’s top executives received pay “ranging from $6 million to nearly $30 million.”

- BOEING: Despite receiving billions of dollars from the federal government every single year in taxpayer subsidies from the U.S. government, Boeing didn’t “pay a dime of U.S. federal corporate income taxes” between 2008 and 2010.

- CITIGROUP: Citigroup’s deferred income taxes for the third quarter of 2010 amounted to a grand total of $0.00. At the same time, Citigroup has continued to pay its staff lavishly. “John Havens, the head of Citigroup’s investment bank, is expected to be the bank’s highest paid executive for the second year in a row, with a compensation package worth $9.5 million.”

- EXXON-MOBIL: The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Although Exxon-Mobil paid $15 billion in taxes in 2009, not a penny of those taxes went to the American Treasury. This was the same year that the company overtook Wal-Mart in the Fortune 500. Meanwhile the total compensation of Exxon-Mobil’s CEO the same year was over $29,000,000.

- GENERAL ELECTRIC: In 2009, General Electric — the world’s largest corporation — filed more than 7,000 tax returns and still paid nothing to U.S. government. They managed to do this by a tax code that essentially subsidizes companies for losing profits and allows them to set up tax havens overseas. That same year GE CEO Jeffery Immelt — who recently scored a spot on a White House economic advisory board — “earned total compensation of $9.89 million.” In 2002, Immelt displayed his lack of economic patriotism, saying, “When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China….I am a nut on China. Outsourcing from China is going to grow to 5 billion.”

- WELLS FARGO: Despite being the fourth largest bank in the country, Wells Fargo was able to escape paying federal taxes by writing all of its losses off after its acquisition of Wachovia. Yet in 2009 the chief executive of Wells Fargo also saw his compensation “more than double” as he earned “a salary of $5.6 million paid in cash and stock and stock awards of more than $13 million.

Oh yeah they are people alright.. RICH PEOPLE

 

[reilo]

When did the corporate rate go to 0%? Also, what the hell do you think a FICA match is?

I'm saying a corporation should be taxed at the federal income level progressively if we are to deem corporations as people. None of this capital gains/corporate tax flat-tax.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Corporations are made up of people, but they aren't people and should not be treated like such.

Are you suggesting that they should be entitled to things like votes?

They don't need to vote. They buy candidates.

 

[Byakuya769]

What are you doing on GAF Scalia?

... I think we've figured out why he's so confident he's more intelligent than Obama. Nice find.

 

[empty vessel]

Good post and good arguments. It's a tricky situation for sure.

lol. Of course not.

Corporations are legal constructs created and endowed with power by the government. It's fine to treat them legally as "people" for some purposes, e.g., to allow them to sue and be sued and transfer property. But it is not fine to treat them as people for other purposes, e.g., to participate in government. Citizens are the fundamental and exclusive units of democracy. While I understand that the doctrine that corporations have constitutional rights is recognized by courts, it is actually counterrevolutionary and pernicious. It is counterrevolutionary because it subverts the concept of popular sovereignty, the radical foundational principle established by the American revolution. That principle holds that governments draw their power exclusively from the people and that their continued existence depends on the consent of the governed. (Before the American revolution, governments claimed the source of their power to be God, hence the divine right of kings.) That's what this bit was about:

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So how does granting corporations constitutional rights subvert that? Corporations draw their power (perpetual existence, limited liability, etc.) from the government. (This done operationally through the grant of a charter that gives the corporation birth.) To recognize a corporation as having a constitutional right is to sever the subordinate relationship between government and people, because it means that the people are unable to control this now-independent source of government power. It is an assertion of governmental power that is independent and not derived from the consent of the people, since the corporation can assert and enforce rights against their collective action.

If one could ever use anti-American in a descriptive rather than normative sense to describe somebody, it would be for those who believe that corporations have or should have constitutional rights. They literally oppose the most basic philosophical principle on which the country was founded.

 

[demon]

Corporate Personhood is a farce. The Supreme Court never even ruled that corporations are legally people in Santa Clara Count vs Southern Pacific Railroad Co. The ruling in this case, where they supposedly did invent "corporate personhood", says nothing about corporations as legal people; it's only mentioned in the headnote, which has no legal bearing whatsoever, written only by the court reporter (who had his own political agenda). This was even acknowledged by conservative supreme court chief justice Rehnquist in the late 70s in a dissenting opinion in First National Bank of Boston vs Bellotti, so this isn't some crazy conspiracy theory. Although all you have to do is read the original 1886 ruling yourself. So we can at least stop pretending there's validity to this corporate personhood nonsense. Ending it is one of the most important things this country needs to do. And Mitt Romney can go fuck his mother.

 

[EricM85]

- BANK OF AMERICA: In 2009, Bank of America didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes, exploiting the tax code so as to avoid paying its fair share. “Oh, yeah, this happens all the time,” said Robert Willens, a tax accounting expert interviewed by McClatchy. “If you go out and try to make money and you don’t do it, why should the government pay you for your losses?” asked Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. The same year, the mega-bank’s top executives received pay “ranging from $6 million to nearly $30 million.”

- BOEING: Despite receiving billions of dollars from the federal government every single year in taxpayer subsidies from the U.S. government, Boeing didn’t “pay a dime of U.S. federal corporate income taxes” between 2008 and 2010.

- CITIGROUP: Citigroup’s deferred income taxes for the third quarter of 2010 amounted to a grand total of $0.00. At the same time, Citigroup has continued to pay its staff lavishly. “John Havens, the head of Citigroup’s investment bank, is expected to be the bank’s highest paid executive for the second year in a row, with a compensation package worth $9.5 million.”

- EXXON-MOBIL: The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Although Exxon-Mobil paid $15 billion in taxes in 2009, not a penny of those taxes went to the American Treasury. This was the same year that the company overtook Wal-Mart in the Fortune 500. Meanwhile the total compensation of Exxon-Mobil’s CEO the same year was over $29,000,000.

- GENERAL ELECTRIC: In 2009, General Electric — the world’s largest corporation — filed more than 7,000 tax returns and still paid nothing to U.S. government. They managed to do this by a tax code that essentially subsidizes companies for losing profits and allows them to set up tax havens overseas. That same year GE CEO Jeffery Immelt — who recently scored a spot on a White House economic advisory board — “earned total compensation of $9.89 million.” In 2002, Immelt displayed his lack of economic patriotism, saying, “When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China….I am a nut on China. Outsourcing from China is going to grow to 5 billion.”

- WELLS FARGO: Despite being the fourth largest bank in the country, Wells Fargo was able to escape paying federal taxes by writing all of its losses off after its acquisition of Wachovia. Yet in 2009 the chief executive of Wells Fargo also saw his compensation “more than double” as he earned “a salary of $5.6 million paid in cash and stock and stock awards of more than $13 million.

Oh yeah they are people alright.. RICH PEOPLE

Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just say you don't understand the tax code? Oh no, corporations have foreign tax credits. They'll pay tax as soon as they repatriate.

I'm saying a corporation should be taxed at the federal income level progressively if we are to deem corporations as people. None of this capital gains/corporate tax flat-tax.

OK, so a progressive federal income tax with the highest bracket seeing a 35% rate, or a flat 35% rate?

 

[Matt]

Awesome new DNC Web Ad about Romney's gaff today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOIMXxytv2U

 

[A Human Becoming]

They don't need to vote. They buy candidates.

I said this one a previous page, but I would much prefer for corporations to not be taxed (which as someone showed, they're already avoiding taxation anyway) if it meant they couldn't donate to candidates. But then I wonder, when it comes to donations, what are the rule differences between non-profits and corporations?

Corporate Personhood is a farce. The Supreme Court never even ruled that corporations are legally people in Santa Clara Count vs Southern Pacific Railroad Co. The ruling in this case, where they supposedly did invent "corporate personhood", says nothing about corporations as legal people; it's only mentioned in the headnote, which has no legal bearing whatsoever, written only by the court reporter (who had his own political agenda). This was even acknowledged by conservative supreme court chief justice Rehnquist in the late 70s in a dissenting opinion in First National Bank of Boston vs Bellotti, so this isn't some crazy conspiracy theory. Although all you have to do is read the original 1886 ruling yourself. So we can at least stop pretending there's validity to this corporate personhood nonsense. Ending it is one of the most important things this country needs to do. And Mitt Romney can go fuck his mother.

 

[Clevinger]

Corporate Personhood is a farce. The Supreme Court never even ruled that corporations are legally people in Santa Clara Count vs Southern Pacific Railroad Co. The ruling in this case, where they supposedly did invent "corporate personhood", says nothing about corporations as legal people; it's only mentioned in the headnote, which has no legal bearing whatsoever, written only by the court reporter (who had his own political agenda). This was even acknowledged by conservative supreme court chief justice Rehnquist in the late 70s in a dissenting opinion in First National Bank of Boston vs Bellotti, so this isn't some crazy conspiracy theory. Although all you have to do is read the original 1886 ruling yourself. So we can at least stop pretending there's validity to this corporate personhood nonsense. Ending it is one of the most important things this country needs to do. And Mitt Romney can go fuck his mother.

Well, it wasn't supposed to be valid. Our lovely current Supreme Court changed that, though.

 

[Vestal]

Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just say you don't understand the tax code? Oh no, corporations have foreign tax credits. They'll pay tax as soon as they repatriate.

How about our tax code is FUCKED... and that Corporations are not paying their fair share.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Well, it wasn't supposed to be valid. Our lovely current Supreme Court changed that, though.

But wouldn't Santa Clara Count vs Southern Pacific Railroad Co. overrule any ruling of corporate personhood made after that case? I thought precedent dictated all future rulings. Could someone argue that if no Supreme Court justice cited Santa Clara Count vs Southern Pacific Railroad Co. as unconstitutional?

 

[demon]

Well, it wasn't supposed to be valid. Our lovely current Supreme Court changed that, though.

Yeah I'm not sure how that works, as I'm not exactly what you'd call a legal expert. Does that original ruling act as precedence in any case involving corporate personhood?

 

[EricM85]

How about our tax code is FUCKED... and that Corporations are not paying their fair share.

Based on the current codifications they are. Take it up with congress if you think otherwise.

 

[Oblivion]

Is there anything that sums up the tea bagger movement better than this:

Tea Party aligned Georgia Rep. Tom Graves (R), who castigates Washington for fiscal irresponsibility, reached an out of court settlement Wednesday after he was sued for defaulting on a $2.2 million loan—which his attorney argued is the bank's fault for lending him the money in the first place.

http://dailykos.com/story/2011/08/11/1005930/-Tea-party-Rep-Tom-Graves-denies-responsibility-for-defaulting-on-$22-million-loan?via=blog_1

 

[XMonkey]

Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just say you don't understand the tax code? Oh no, corporations have foreign tax credits. They'll pay tax as soon as they repatriate.

You mean this?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/03/audaciousness-foreign-tax-holiday/35636/

 

[ToxicAdam]

 

[besada]

Anyone tell me when the debate starts?

 

[SoulPlaya]

Can anyone answer my question?

"Does anyone have any idea if the repeal of the Bush tax cuts that Obama is using as a threat to the super committee includes the tax cuts on capital gains that Bush enacted?"

 

[Matt]

Anyone tell me when the debate starts?

9 eastern.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Yeah I'm not sure how that works, as I'm not exactly what you'd call a legal expert. Does that original ruling act as precedence in any case involving corporate personhood?

Not really.

Corporate law is pretty much, "Read a bunch of cases that happened in Delaware."

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Corporations are legal constructs created and endowed with power by the government. It's fine to treat them legally as "people" for some purposes, e.g., to allow them to sue and be sued and transfer property. But it is not fine to treat them as people for other purposes, e.g., to participate in government. Citizens are the fundamental and exclusive units of democracy. While I understand that the doctrine that corporations have constitutional rights is recognized by courts, it is actually counterrevolutionary and pernicious. It is counterrevolutionary because it subverts the concept of popular sovereignty, the radical foundational principle established by the American revolution. That principle holds that governments draw their power exclusively from the people and that their continued existence depends on the consent of the governed. (Before the American revolution, governments claimed the source of their power to be God, hence the divine right of kings.) That's what this bit was about:



So how does granting corporations constitutional rights subvert that? Corporations draw their power (perpetual existence, limited liability, etc.) from the government. (This done operationally through the grant of a charter that gives the corporation birth.) To recognize a corporation as having a constitutional right is to sever the subordinate relationship between government and people, because it means that the people are unable to control this now-independent source of government power. It is an assertion of governmental power that is independent and not derived from the consent of the people, since the corporation can assert and enforce rights against their collective action.

If one could ever use anti-American in a descriptive rather than normative sense to describe somebody, it would be for those who believe that corporations have or should have constitutional rights. They literally oppose the most basic philosophical principle on which the country was founded.

You don't think corporations have the right to free speech? Nothing more anti-American than that.