Social Security and Medicare are not welfare! People have been forced by law to pay into these government systems all their lives, and the money was carefully set aside. In fact, (obviously) it remains the law to this day! Oh, yes, the Federal Government has "borrowed" from it, but that doesn't change the status of either Social Security or Medicare. They are EARNED entitlements. The biggest problem with entitlements right now is that neither Socialist Democrats nor RINO Republicans seem to know the difference between entitlements that are EARNED, and that these are totally different from hand-out welfare. Yeah, Captain Obvious strikes again! But if it's so damned obvious, why is it that nobody seems to "get" the truth on EARNED entitlements...?! For contrast, Medicaid is hand-out welfare. You don't have to earn it at all. All you have to do is stick your hand out and demand that Uncle Sugar gives you free Medicaid health care because you're poor, and you WILL get it! Next, the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve System decide what is a "recession" and what is not! Remember, they're all ever so much smarter than we are! They look at the level of "bank money", or "base money", and the stock market, and make their pronouncements. You and I go to the hardware store, the grocery store, the filling station, places like Best Buy, Kohl's, Costco, Sam's Club, and Walmart, or shop online at Amazon.com or Newegg.com, and we see how much prices on things really have gone up, or down. But we're just the little people, don't you see? The Overlord class doesn't give us credit for really knowing a damned thing! The "Lords" say the "great recession" ended in June 2009 -- now, who are you or I to disagree with them? http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/20/nber-recession-ended-in-june-2009/ I won't even try to point out to you how huge the increases in the outlays for every kind of hand-out welfare there's been since Comrade Obama took over. And, here's the current state of unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm I always use the U6 number, because it is the only one that is closely related to REALITY in the 21st-Century.... The internet is brimming with thousands upon thousands of links that clearly illustrate the amount of money we're shelling out in food stamps, rent subsidies, "emergency" welfare checks from the government, etc., etc., etc. But, if you see no merit in looking at how many jobs there are actually available to people, and choose instead to immediately jump to the conclusion that you won't be one of the people who gets one of the jobs, then how can I convince you to keep on trying? So, kick back, take it easy, and keep an eye on the mailbox for the next shipment of *goodie* from the government. It'll last until at least January 2017, and if Hillary gets elected in 2016, you'll be on the socialist Federal Government's gravy train for at least another four years after that!
No it cannot speak for anybody because it is not human. It can't represent anybody for the same reason. Then it is a reading comprehension problem? The definition you supplied do not identify corporations as human or animate. Thanks for verifying my beliefs. I can't help you. Yes they are allowed to 'act' as a person under the law, but they are not a person in any other capacity other than a legal loophole to protect the actual owners from lawsuits, and/or criminal prosecution in some cases. The government can do a lot of irrational things on paper, but they are not God, and they cannot proclaim an inanimate object a human being. Yes it is either a place or a thing since it is an object. It is not a plant or an animal, therefore it is a thing. So you know it isn't a person, yet you continue the charade. Interesting. Yes I already said that. Exactly what I was referring to when I said what I said, why are you repeating what I already said as if I don't already know this? Right consumers are taxed by proxy, and tax loopholes allow corporations to pocket much of the money taken from the consumers. The money still comes from the consumers. Uh, no. You believe an inanimate object is a person for political gain, that benefits cronyism capitalism, but you do not support corruption? Uh, yes you do. You are no different than a liberal who wants to accept money from unions. Okay?
Uh huh, well, this article says nothing about the "closest in line to the crown" getting the presidency. Nothing. What it does say is that if you go back to the early 1200s, you can find a point of convergence (assuming this 12 year old girl did perfect geneological work) in King John of England. Now, you can "read and learn" by looking at the comments on your own link: OK, the commentator then assumed 3 people born average each generation for 36 generations. Well, how about we just say 2? If every generation for 36 generations, there are an average of 2 children, thats 2^36. 68,719,476,736 people, or about 10 times as many people as there are on earth. So clearly, King John's progeny did not even achieve even 2 children per generation and/or certain lines died out. But you are still talking about exponential growth over the course of 800 years. Hell, the girl herself found out that she was Obama's cousin! That should illustrate how meaningless the whole thing is. Everybody is related to everybody if you dig far back enough.
They fail to see it because it isn't so. It's silly to think you can stop the spread of an idea by military force. Please explain how it's not. The Cold War probably kept communism going for 36 years beyond the time it should have dissipated and disappeared when Stalin died. We do have a better system and if we just let people do it for themselves they choose Capitalism every time. They did in Vietnam, even though we lost the war. Is THIS the Stalinist Hell we lost 50,000 Americans to "save" them from?
No, the one article didn't, but there are many, many other articles. 22 of the presidents descended from one man in New York from the 1600s. Among his progeny alone; Lincoln, Roosevelts, Nixon, Ford, Carter and both Bushs. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/born_to_be_president.htm There are many other articles about the nearly incestuous relationships of not just all the presidents, but all the candidates as well. Even Scott Brown is a cousin. I have been studying this for years. I am not going to hunt up every article I have ever read about our ruling class, but I assure you it is indeed a ruling class (a distinct and separate class, hence the ongoing class warfare {it has persisted continuously since the time of the Pharoahs [from whom the entire ruling class worldwide derrive]}). I also assure you that the closest in line to the throne wins the election, always. The one with the most royal blood. Obviously it can be assumed that most positions of power are held by this family, and that their best interests do not align with the rest of us now any more than they did before the Magna Carta. And yes, you are more or less correct, we only need to go back 27 generations to find that we are related to every other human on earth but only remotely, by a single thread in most cases. Not so this group though, the intermaraige the European Royal Family is known for has continued unabated, with Bush jr being able to incorporate multiple lines back through both of his parents, who themselves share multiple other royal ancestors. Even the supposed commoner, Princess Diana was a cousin of Bush, Palin, Mcain, Gore, Clinton, Cheney and yes, even Obama. Their connections go far beyond being explained by common denominator mathmatics or the law of averages.
True, mathematically the least possible degree of consanquinity is a 32nd degree cousin. You are that closely related to pygmies in the Itruri rain forest.
Who am I talking to? No one with nominal human intelligence, obviously. I was attempting to respond to the sophomoric drivel in your post #102. It went right over your head. Enjoy your Welfare State, enjoy the stupid, half-wittedness of your political leaders, and enjoy the downward spiral of your nation. At least it will provide a tactile amusement you may be capable of experiencing....
It was hard to tell, since you addressed things that had nothing to do with what I posted, as if you were countering points I never made. I am well aware that S.S. and medicare are not welfare, they shouldn't even be called entitlements in reality. Next, I clearly pointed out that the governments version of a recession is different than a wage earner's would be, so like your first paragaraph, your second was entirely pointless. Thirdly, the u-6 number is off by half at a minimum since it doesn't take into account self-employed, sub contract workers, piece workers, share workers, seasonal workers, or anyone else not entitled to un-employment insurance, the only difference between U-3 and U-6. Finally, where on earth do you get the idea that I collect anything at all from the government? I am a manufacturer and commercial fisherman, two of only 5 industries which create actual wealth, wealth which all other professions are parasitical to. Which parasitical industry do you derive your earnings from, great judgementalist? You have chosen to address me as a child and try to teach me the obvious, yet you declare my post sophomoric? Irony abounds.
If you aren't a socialist parasite, then my sincere apologies to you! From the way you phrased your sentiments, my long-range sensors were picking up the unmistakable stench of the Obama supporter, but mistakes can always occur. U6 is not perfect, and I'm not sure that any government measure of real employment-versus-unemployment could ever be more than a good guess. But I still maintain that U3 was the more-or-less reliable report for the period from the end of World War II until the Great Recession (which ended in June 2009). Since then, the whole area of employed-versus-unemployed people has become a vast, speculative, political spin-zone. U6 is the best we've got, IMHO. I'm no parasite, either, and never have been. But I resent it like hell when this wolf pack of socialist leeches expect people like you and me to pay for their housing, food, utilities, health care, and all the rest of it. I get criticized for this all the time by Obama-lovers, and I frequently respond that the word, "compassion" is not found anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. Pick-pocket Socialism ranks with the other great failures of humanity, along with Monarchism, and Communism....
You have a very limited scope of what "representation" means, and an extremely over-broadened view of what "inanimate" actually is. I wonder... is the Government animate or inanimate? Does the State and Federal government represent you or the American people? Do you call the Constitution a "Living and breathing document?" A city can be incorporated, so does that mean cities are inanimate objects, too? Can it grow? Is effected by change? You keep trying to insult me... Does that mean you're grasping at straws for an argument? The definition I provided for "corporation" actually demonstrated how corporations are very animate... (ie - "having a continuous existence," "persons united... in one body," etc.) Nor I, you... so I know how you feel. No one said that corporations are "human beings." They're taxed and represent the free market, their clients and employees. Many people can be effected with the increase in corporate taxes or regulations. Some businesses, like in the coal mining industry, are being taxed and regulated to death. Does that not effect hundreds, possibly thousands of people? I find your argument pretty hilarious... you must be a self-hating capitalist, since you run two businesses. You should know the work that it takes to keep your businesses afloat and you should know the effects of government on businesses. Corporations are not physical locations or even an object... you're still referencing a "place of business." Corporations are an idea, kept alive by the people who make them work. How in the world did you get that from what I said? This is such a ridiculous argument... You can find out how much many public corporations are paying in taxes. Just look at Apple's numbers for instance. It's public knowledge. They paid billions in taxes, and with said loopholes, they saved billions more. What in the world do I have to gain giving corporations the same rights as they've always had, since the beginning of this country, with exception to the passing of FECA in the mid 70s? I'm not accepting money from anyone, except my employer, who pays me to do a job. Crony capitalism would exist whether you had your way or not. There are crooks in this world and you cannot legislate them away.
So then you do believe that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional protections as individuals.
If that were true, Cuba and North Korea should be booming Capitalist societies by now. The Cold War forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. That's how it was defeated. The Soviet Union was a threat to much of the world. They literally moved China, North Korea and Vietnam (through China) into Communism, they were forcefully consuming country after country, expanding their empire across Europe, and they had influence in Cuba. If not stopped, the Soviet Union and Communism would have been a much larger threat than the Axis Alliance. It still is a threat, just internally.
Is the industrial working class in power in either? Stop your brainwashed blather - you haven't been allowed to know anything since McCarthy!
I'm not following your question... I need more specifics in order to answer. What are you referencing with "either?" McCarthy was right... Communists were embedded in many of our institutes during the Cold War, including government. Still are. Saul Alinsky even mentions this in his book Rules for Radicals. It's too bad McCarthy couldn't finish the job.
Socialism or communism are the control of the economy by the vast working majority. If you don't know that you should shut up, because you are just reciting McCarthyite bilge.
That's right, and every time Socialism or Communism is tried, what happens? That's right... a Tyrannical/Dictatorial/Despotic person/governing party is placed in power to ensure that distribution is fair and everyone is treated equally, with exception to the ruling elite, of course.
Corporations, the idea, represent themselves, as a group of people. The people are human the corporation isn't, therefore it isn't and will never be a person. Nothing you have expressed changes that fact. Your acceptance of the ridiculous notions you have been spoon fed is not my problem. A corporation is not a person, period. If you want to accept irrational nonsense, that is by choice. Now you want to change the subject? We are still talking about your claim that a corporation is a person. For arguments sake a person is a living breathing human being, and a corporation is none of that accept on paper, declared by bought and paid for corporate owned sock puppets within the government. You mean is the government a person? Wonder no more, it isn't. Glad i could help. The best government corporate money can buy does not represent me or the people of the nation as a whole. They haven't for a long time. Sorry to be the first to make you aware of the obvious. It's a document, and it's not a person either. And it is only as effective as the ethics of the people in government following it. Simply because it can be changed doesn't make it a living, breathing anything. Here we go again. No a city isn't a person either. If I chose to insult you it would be evident. Once we get past your reading comprehension problem then maybe we can actually have an argument. The argument is, is it a person, and the answer is still no it isn't, using the definitions you supplied only reinforces that assessment. Bored is how I feel. You said a corporation was a person, which would make it a human being. Neither is true. Yes but it doesn't make a corporation a person. Natural disasters effect large numbers of people but are not a person either. But not a person. Everything you say pretty much clearly shows that a corporation isn't a person. Once we get past that... Let's say I am selling lemonade, and let's just pretend it is a multibillion dollar corporation for arguments purposes, and I sell my lemonade for a dollar a glass. Since the corporate tax rate is 35%, that means that every, glass I sell, $.35 cents goes to the government. That means I could sell it for $.65 cents to give my customers a better deal but I am forced to charge more to cover the cost of the tax. Now on average most corporations can reduce that obligation down to around 12% if I have a good accountant, which means I get to charge the consumer $.35 on the dollar using the government as an excuse, but in reality the best government corporate money can buy has made loopholes and tax breaks within the tax code so it is possible for me to basically cheat my customers out of $.23 under a false pretense (it's the government's fault), and still give the government their cut of $.12 or 12%. Now if I have a really good accountant (like GE and a few others) I can pocket all that cash for myself without having to give the government anything. Consumers pay that money, whether it makes it to the government or it is added to the profits, directly benefiting that corporations wealth, and giving them a pool of money to buy politicians for even more favors and benefits. Now of course you are going to say that is a lie or I don't know what I am talking about because that is the way you have been programmed, but it is the reality of the situation. Slavery was legal at one time too, until people woke the (*)(*)(*)(*) up and realized how immoral it was. The best government corporate money can buy, is not the vision the founding fathers had in mind, and it is a moral imperative that we change that and stand up for more ethical practices within the election process. The election process belongs to people who can actually cast a vote, not a corporation. Don't know what that has to do with anything, but good for you! Yes but not at the level it exists today, because of enablers such as yourself. - - - Updated - - - Corporations, the idea, represent themselves, as a group of people. The people are human the corporation isn't, therefore it isn't and will never be a person. Nothing you have expressed changes that fact. Your acceptance of the ridiculous notions you have been spoon fed is not my problem. A corporation is not a person, period. If you want to accept irrational nonsense, that is by choice. Now you want to change the subject? We are still talking about your claim that a corporation is a person. For arguments sake a person is a living breathing human being, and a corporation is none of that accept on paper, declared by bought and paid for corporate owned sock puppets within the government. You mean is the government a person? Wonder no more, it isn't. Glad i could help. The best government corporate money can buy does not represent me or the people of the nation as a whole. They haven't for a long time. Sorry to be the first to make you aware of the obvious. It's a document, and it's not a person either. And it is only as effective as the ethics of the people in government following it. Simply because it can be changed doesn't make it a living, breathing anything. Here we go again. No a city isn't a person either. If I chose to insult you it would be evident. Once we get past your reading comprehension problem then maybe we can actually have an argument. The argument is, is it a person, and the answer is still no it isn't, using the definitions you supplied only reinforces that assessment. Bored is how I feel. You said a corporation was a person, which would make it a human being. Neither is true. Yes but it doesn't make a corporation a person. Natural disasters effect large numbers of people but are not a person either. But not a person. Everything you say pretty much clearly shows that a corporation isn't a person. Once we get past that... Let's say I am selling lemonade, and let's just pretend it is a multibillion dollar corporation for arguments purposes, and I sell my lemonade for a dollar a glass. Since the corporate tax rate is 35%, that means that every, glass I sell, $.35 cents goes to the government. That means I could sell it for $.65 cents to give my customers a better deal but I am forced to charge more to cover the cost of the tax. Now on average most corporations can reduce that obligation down to around 12% if I have a good accountant, which means I get to charge the consumer $.35 on the dollar using the government as an excuse, but in reality the best government corporate money can buy has made loopholes and tax breaks within the tax code so it is possible for me to basically cheat my customers out of $.23 under a false pretense (it's the government's fault), and still give the government their cut of $.12 or 12%. Now if I have a really good accountant (like GE and a few others) I can pocket all that cash for myself without having to give the government anything. Consumers pay that money, whether it makes it to the government or it is added to the profits, directly benefiting that corporations wealth, and giving them a pool of money to buy politicians for even more favors and benefits. Now of course you are going to say that is a lie or I don't know what I am talking about because that is the way you have been programmed, but it is the reality of the situation. Slavery was legal at one time too, until people woke the (*)(*)(*)(*) up and realized how immoral it was. The best government corporate money can buy, is not the vision the founding fathers had in mind, and it is a moral imperative that we change that and stand up for more ethical practices within the election process. The election process belongs to people who can actually cast a vote, not a corporation. Don't know what that has to do with anything, but good for you! Yes but not at the level it exists today, because of enablers such as yourself.
No - the democratic government is attacked by capitalist armies and huge massacres ensue. As you very well know, of course.
Let's start here then. If corporations are constitutionally entitled to personhood how can they be bought and sold like commodities? Wouldn't that be a violation of their constitutionally guaranteed rights?
I knew you'd swing it this way, which is why I was hesitant in answering your question. Corporations are treated as people, because they represent people, but they're not human beings. Corporations need to work within the confines of the Constitution, and the Constitution prevents Government from restricting corporations from certain things. For instance, a corporation can promote religion of its' choice - Government cannot dictate what and who it represents, etc. Corporations are a group of people working toward a single purpose. Corporations employ people, they buy things, they form contracts, they are hired by other corporations/entities, they donate to charities, they register patents, they invent things, they build things and they pay taxes. Buildings and pieces of paper don't do any of this. Additionally, the people that form a corporation all have beating hearts, minds, families, friends, obligations, etc. When change effects a corporation, the people that form that corporation are all effected, are they not? When government passes new legislation that regulates or increases taxes on a corporation, do the people that form the corporation not feel the impact? Can government tax a building or a piece of paper? Can the government regulate a building or piece of paper, or do they regulate the manufacturing, buying and selling of the buildings and pieces of paper? - - - Updated - - - lol, is that what happened to the Soviets and China? I must have missed that lesson from history.
