researchkitty
Well-Known Member
Mittens Romney says Corporations are people. So what if a group started Occupy, how else would it come up with itself?
Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?
- Thread starter Tales
- Start date
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
The way it SEEMED to....
And the way it IS in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY
People getting angry, or being too damn broke to do anything else, and taking to the streets to change things...
I thought it was a real protest...And that the people would stay forever if necessary.
But it was just a job for them
From 1-10 everyday...
Not protestors, laborers.
Not doing it because they cared for their lives, or their futures and wanted to see change.
But because they were PAID to be there.
cerberus
Well-Known Member
your wrong.The way it SEEMED to....
And the way it IS in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY
People getting angry, or being too damn broke to do anything else, and taking to the streets to change things...
I thought it was a real protest...And that the people would stay forever if necessary.
But it was just a job for them
From 1-10 everyday...
Not protestors, laborers.
Not doing it because they cared for their lives, or their futures and wanted to see change.
But because they were PAID to be there.
"how to start a revolution" -Gene Sharp ALL of the movements your thinking of had an organizing factor, Gene Sharp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp
budlover13
King Tut
The good side of viewing corporations as people is that when they screw someone over and get sued, you can take their (the owners) cars, homes, etc.
Seems like decent motivation to not screw people over imo.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they are only people with respect to money as speech, they are still covered from many liabilities legally by whatever they choose to set up their business as.
win-win for them.
budlover13
King Tut
THAT, i disagree with. Had this convo yesterday and today with a co-worker. If corps are people, with the right to "voice" their opinion through money and whatnot then they must also be considered people when it comes to harming another imo. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm with you, but reality is not. they lobbied well enough so that they could have their cake and eat it too.
THIS is why i am all for an ultra-progressive tax structure. too much money at the top = bad news for the rest of us.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Explain how Haight Ashbury fits here please
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
No you CAN'T take them.
The company (as a "person") is responsible for its own actions.
If you sue the owner you can take their car, but not if you sue the corporation...
That corporation is a person, and is accountable as such...
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
The supreme court ruled that we have freedom of speech,
But also ruled that Money=Speech
budlover13
King Tut
So i can sue and take the corporations car and factory?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm not sure what shinfaggy has going on up in that dome of his, but if i recall correctly, if you sue a corporation and win you can lay claim to certain assets of the corporation, but not to the car or house of the person/people running the organization.
so you may be able to hurt the entity, but not the people behind the entity who can still laugh all the way to the bank.
but it's been a while since i took my business courses in university, so this may be only half true.
budlover13
King Tut
The way in which one spends money is a freedom of expression imo. Which i still say is not covered by the Constitution.The supreme court ruled that we have freedom of speech,
But also ruled that Money=Speech
Never have liked hearing "But freedom of expression is protected!"
Expression can take many forms.
budlover13
King Tut
That's what i was referring to, as far as taking their company vehicles, facilities, etc. Just seems like a get outta jail free card to me.
i incorporated my feed store back in the day to avoid my personal assets from being targeted in the event of a mistake or error because it was available. i just think that if that protection wasn't there they might be a little more likely to think twice before intentionally screwing someone over.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am fine with the protection they are afforded by incorporating, i am not OK with them being able to claim that their money = speech with respect to political campaigns.
budlover13
King Tut
IMO, money = influence, not speech.
Adam Pence
Member
yes i support
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many of you would change your vote, now that you found out how full of shit this whole thing was?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i have a friend going voluntarily homeless in tucson (going on 35 days now) as part of the occupy movement. former combat vet, too.
so it ain't completely stuffed full of shit and as the poll indicates, the movement does have support.
budlover13
King Tut
Unfortunately, i believe that those with good intentions (your friend included) have been duped and are being used as pawns.