Jesse Ventura has an entire chapter on RON PAUL in his new book

[angelatc]

Lol.
The idea that corporations are people is one of the most dehumanizing concepts of the past century. The legal standing of a corporation (consisting of people, yes) can be established without assigning them the legal status of personhood, which brings with it a wealth of unintended consequences.

Yes, but the real truth is that there is no law that says "Corporations are people!" It's a deliberately inflammatory dumbing-down of the legal concept, designed to direct attention away from the government .

Like it or not, my basic points still stand.

1. Corporations are groups of people, legally bound together to pursue a common goal.
2. People do not lose their right to speak freely when they join certain groups, because they have the right to assemble.
3. Therefore, corporations do indeed have a right to free speech.

Where in that logic do they gain special rights, exactly?

Trying to use government to quash free speech is NOT a libertarian position.

 

[angelatc]

I dont negotiate with morons.

You'd lose to them, too.

 

[cheapseats]

...Corporations are still forbidden from donating directly to campaigns.

DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION.

Ron Paul Fans, of ALL people, should know that PAC money has been more effective than "Official Campaign" money.

CU gave them them back the right to produce and broadcast messages.

'Nuf said.

 

[cheapseats]

...The idea that corporations are people is one of the most dehumanizing concepts of the past century...

DRONES are more dehumanizing.

TSA is more dehumanizing.

WAR 4 PROFIT is more dehumanizing.

But CORPORATE PERSONHOOD is right up there with the worst in the business.

 

[kuckfeynes]

Liability insurance is like any other kind of insurance. It is government intervention that causes market confusion and drives prices up and quality down, making it necessary for additional laws to protect against the effects of this. This is a result of limited liability and corporate privilege, not vice versa. Saying that limited liability is needed to protect people from crippling 9-figure judgements is like saying health insurance mandates are needed to protect people from cancer, or FEMA is needed to protect people from natural disasters. They only exist to "fix" a problem caused by government manipulation of markets in the first place.

 

[Carlybee]

Tort reform limits the amount that juries can award. So that's what your proposal would do - take away the rights of juries to decide what punishment is appropriate, and giving that right to the government. I'm thinking that the corporations are totally on board with that, btw.

You seem to lack comprehension skills. I never said I support tort reform but when you say what happens if damages are capped, other than the guy being screwed, blued and tattooed, if you want there to be no caps it falls under legal system issues (deja vu...I already said this). Has nothing to do with corporatism. I want to take rights from the govt and give them back to the people...not corporations. Corporations employ people...they dont represent the rights of people. If a corporation has a voice and a vote then they shouldnt be able to be shielded from certain culpabilities and they are.

 

[cajuncocoa]

But libertarians support unions

I stopped reading after this.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yeah, because we definitely the government to build need high speed trains, like Jesse Ventura did, to help the poor people.

And the "corporations aren't people" argument revolts me. Corporations are indeed groups of people, and all 9 justices agreed that groups of people have free speech rights. It was the liberals that voted to quash their rights. The people crying that corporations aren't people are members of the ignorant sheeple.

And Stephanie Miller is, and always has been, a lying PPOS. (That first P is for progressive.)

When you find these perfect angels to be elected to government come inform the rest of us. Nobody is perfect, not Ventura, not Johnson, not Rand, and not even Ron Paul. Everyone is fallible and has their shortcomings.

 

[angelatc]

DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION.

Ron Paul Fans, of ALL people, should know that PAC money has been more effective than "Official Campaign" money.






'Nuf said.

Ok - you I know.

I am confused. You think the government did the right thing when they quashed free speech?

And by the way, the court held that the government could assign limits, just like we can only donate $2500. The fact that they haven't done so yet is a problem with the government, as it always is.

 

[angelatc]

When you find these perfect angels to be elected to government come inform the rest of us. Nobody is perfect, not Ventura, not Johnson, not Rand, and not even Ron Paul. Everyone is fallible and has their shortcomings.

That's why I don't want government restricting free speech. It's insanity to allow them to decide who has the right to speak, and who doesn't. Before CU, the unions could speak but the corporations couldn't?

Greenpeace could, but Exxon couldn't?

I don't like what they have to say, but I will fight to the death for their right to say it.

ANd I agree that nobody is infallible, but that video was far too lefty for me to smile and nod.

 

[kuckfeynes]

There's nothing un-libertarian about unions up until the point when they start lobbying for the same violent monopolies as the corporations.
Labor unions that can compete against each other are actually a very healthy thing.

 

[Jimi]

Tort reform limits the amount that juries can award. So that's what your proposal would do - take away the rights of juries to decide what punishment is appropriate, and giving that right to the government. I'm thinking that the corporations are totally on board with that, btw.

What part of "I'm against Tort reform" did you not understand ?
I have known Carlybee for ten years plus and I can assure you she's no liberal.

 

[angelatc]

And for the record, I think liberals have too much influence in government, but I would never advocate restricting their right to speak just because I disagree with their message and their undue influence.

 

[angelatc]

What part of "I'm against Tort reform" did you not understand ?
I have known Carlybee for ten years plus and I can assure you she's no liberal.

I don't know you either, so that means nothing to me. But she suggested tort reform as an option, then came out against it. What am I supposed to infer from that, exactly?

 

[angelatc]

You seem to lack comprehension skills. I never said I support tort reform but when you say what happens if damages are capped, other than the guy being screwed, blued and tattooed, if you want there to be no caps it falls under legal system issues (deja vu...I already said this). Has nothing to do with corporatism. I want to take rights from the govt and give them back to the people...not corporations. Corporations employ people...they dont represent the rights of people. If a corporation has a voice and a vote then they shouldnt be able to be shielded from certain culpabilities and they are.

Speaking of moronic - they don't get to vote.

Taking rights away from people does not equate to taking rights away from the government.

What liabilities are they shielded from?

 

[specsaregood]

I have known Carlybee for ten years plus and I can assure you she's no liberal.

Well lets see, answer this:
1. Starbucks coffee or Dunkin Donuts coffee?
2. BMW or JEEP?
3. Subway or Wendys?

 

[Jimi]

I don't know you either, so that means nothing to me. But she suggested tort reform as an option, then came out against it. What am I supposed to infer from that, exactly?

Because Tort IS an option ... it doesn't mean she supports it.
Are you serious ?

 

[Jimi]

Well lets see, answer this:
1. Starbucks coffee or Dunkin Donuts coffee?
2. BMW or JEEP?
3. Subway or Wendys?

1.Starbucks
2.Neither
3.Subway

 

[specsaregood]

1.Starbucks
2.Neither
3.Subway

Clearly a swing voter.

 

[Carlybee]

Tort reform limits the amount that juries can award. So that's what your proposal would do - take away the rights of juries to decide what punishment is appropriate, and giving that right to the government. I'm thinking that the corporations are totally on board with that, btw.

Something you said that you're against.

And where did I propose that? Oh right...you are tilting at windmills.