Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

 @West Texan Cuba is not regulatory, it is totalitarian.  There is a difference you know.  Were our votes to really count, ie/ one (wo)man one vote a regulatory government could be for our benefit.  With tons of influential cash corporate types have usurped the process.  As it is now and could be worse soon, we areregulated by a small number of very rich powerful individuals and organizations against which "We the people" cannot compete, just as if the US were a totalitarian country.  You seem to support this.  Read history my friend.  The process is called Fascism, exactly as Mussolini defined it.

 

"Talk about propaganda. "One man, one vote" came from U.S. Supreme Justice Earl Warren,"

Are you against progress, democratization of government or prefer we go back to a slave being 3/5th of a white man in the South and cannot vote?  The owner did it for the slave!

 

Now the corporation tells us which two we can pick.  The Soviets at least could say none of the above!

 

Oh yes, Cuba has free good health care and education too!

 

Seems to me a decent nation would and could do this instead of spread useless death and destruction around the globe and destroy its working and middle classes at home.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @gypsynovus  @JohnMohr You need good proof to claim this as true.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

OK but it was unclear.  Sometimes one just needs to take a solid stance.  Mine is corporations are not people, they have undue power to influence, and no heart nor soul.  They are a danger to a free nation and a free people.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

"Don't you think that if CEOs and politicians were held accoutnable (sic) for their actions that they would assume far less power, reducing the capacity for destruction you criticize in government and corporations? This can be achieved without compromising libertarian philosophy."

 

Nice in theory, sort of like thinking the bully on the block will behave once he has full control!

 

In fact once corporate money gets into politics it gets done what directly benefits its profits only.  We lose protections: EPA is weakened, SEC is diminished in protection of investors, DEA and FDA lose investigators and turn the responsibly of research over to the ,"good guys" already proven "honest, and well intentioned in your eyes(Prozac ?).  The IRS numbers are reduced directed to the Middle Income group, ignoring Corporate tax filings.  A very noble thing you may think.  I do not trust power.  I do not trust immense power even more.  To remain independent and free we need a strong regulatory state with independently educated, not propagandized, voters and certainly not corporately  influenced via immense amounts of their money and near total control of US information sources dominating our information and that propaganda influencing citizen knowledge.  Commerce sees one goal, profits, at near any cost, as long as their interests are taken in to account.

 

Remember the Wiemar experience before you turn the government and its power over to a small number of influential power structures you allege are equivalent to you and me in influence and whose wishes are pure and just.

 

And this influence you wish to enhance further?

 

That is why we once had checks and balances.

 

ONE MAN ONE VOTE.

That by the way is read as 1.

Not a corporate board deciding.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

" how can natural rights be abridged under any conditions? "

 

Let's look at some examples, starting with Russia, Germany, and now with the US forbidding demonstrations-here.  It is not insidious.

 

So when an immense amount of power is given to a small group wielding the wealth to alter elections directly by the infusion of money it is not difficult to see it  occur.

 

 

Your stance panders about with a sense that the guy with the biggest sword has a right to swing it where and when he wishes.

 

You play with theoretical words trying to join a piece of paper with real people and their needs as if the paper people know best for all the others.

 

Germany Industrialists backed Hitler.  They were sure once they got what they wanted he could be dealt with.  Caution and protection of the US which I believe you care for means look carefully at the effects of your thoughts and beliefs.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @West Texan I think you like to twist ideas your way.

 

Corporations were not trusted, had very limited rights and limited existence until corporate wealth, influence and power changed that in the US.  Their existence was permitted as they could do some good for the nation.  They were not people nor had person/hood until corporate power and wealth twisted their purpose and rights.  Indeed they were held suspect.  Read a little history and the founders thoughts if your refer to their intent and that era.  I see only threat from the concentrated power of amassed wealth controlled by a small number of people and poured into legal and legislative decisions, elections and propaganda.  That is not democratic, it is plutocratic,  authoritarian and very anti/individual.

I doubt  if the founders would condone such localized and concentrated power.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

The Constitution was written for We the People, not they the corporation.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JohnMohr   Sorry, poor spelling due to hasty typing early in this am.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JohnMohr  A good response.  Logic in an argument is a welcome site.  hanks.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @pentale Not a lawyer I cannot judge veracity of this explanation.   I am told the SCOUS decision this rests on was condensed by a  court clerk.  His words said corps are people.  I am told reading the full SCOUS decision it says no such thing. If true why not reopen it?  I suspect those who finance our "leaders" prefer it to remain as is.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @gypsynovus I admire your style.  It is educational not blaming nor labeling as too many seem to rely on to make a point.

 

thanks,

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

Sieg Heil.  Hitler spoke for  millions too.  So did Goebbles.  So?  

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

Just tell the starving homeless evicted about their freedoms.

They are living in someone's fief now and have been for a long time.

and you?  How's it going?  For the  majority of Americans,those who built, fought, were wounded, some died, they aren't doing so well.  Explain why.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves Prove that accusation with facts.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow The profit did not go to the producers, just to the managers, who produce nothing.  It is happening here, now.  Just look around.  Detroit is a good starter.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @West Texan  @Milt Farrow I call no one moron.  I do question their logic and thought processes.  So easy to claim but none of them substantiate their claims.  try it sometime and qain respect.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow Explain this inanity.

 

Where is your logic?.  Or illogic..

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @onetenther Is it important?  Did you ever remofve an appendix?

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @onetenther Funny.  What a coincidence!  And so did Bush, Reagan, Scott Walker and so will  Romney.  Good bedfellows-for fellow travelers.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @onetenther Money speaks, More money speaks loudest.  remove money from elections and see where truth then lies.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @West Texan Insecure people like to define themselves according to another's definition.  think for yourself, don't let others tell you what label you should follow and wave its banner.  They also like to use labels to defame other's ideas.  Usually with little depth of understanding of either.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves It is not human!  Jeze do you need biology lessons?

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @Michael Boldin I get confused by new opinions of why the US constitution was written.  It seems it never mentioned business nor corporations nor God but did deal with individual (read:  people's) rights and freedoms.  It rebelled against a small body of powerful individuals who held most of the power. they don't forget held all the power and defined right or wrong according to their whims and wishes.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @West Texan  @onetenther Oh but not corporate donations-right?

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @rickj2 Show me a peopled one, living, breathing, having kids and finally dying.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Michael Boldin Is that also true for the money big corporations direct to whom ever the big wigs desire.  And you will of course guarantee me each stockholder is asked what candidate or position the corporation should support-right?  Funny I am never asked.  You must be special.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves IT PENETRATES THICK SKULLS.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow MY DAD WORKED IN AUTO FACTORIES IN DETROIT.  THEY JOBS ARE NOT THERD ANY MORE.  OH GOODNESS, WHAT IN YOUR MIND EVER  HAPPENED TO THEM?

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow Once upon a time the airways, public property, were obligated to give equal time to all candidates, FREE.  I twas part of the obligation coming form the privilege of using public airways.  Ronnny Baby killed that and gave it away.

PUBLIC FINANCING STOPS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP UNDUE INFLUENCE.  That upsets the propagandists.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow Take away jobs and what will we get?

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @rickj2 When you go to a hotel there is a RACK RATE (100%) and a commercial rate (deep discount), AARP and AAA rates (discounted) and a negotiated rate if near empty or late at night and not full.

Medical bills are the same.  Your discount came off the "rack rate."  Why?  If you paid with money no paperwork was needed to get the payment from increasingly stingy payers, who delay and delay, return forms for the t's to be crossed, and make collection miserable.

Medicare pays rapidly.  Its overhead is much less than private insurance.  It negotiates low rates.  Not allowed to negotiate  Bush decisions forbid discounted prescriptions for the elderly.  A gift to big Pharma.  A screw job for the poor and elderly.

CAN ONE TRUST BUSINESS TO DO THE RIGHT THING?

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @onetenther ONE GOOD REASON IS ARE THEY EVEN HONEST?  IF NOT HOW TO MAKE THEM SO. For example look at Prop 32 in California and its deception, its goal is to deny free speech to Unions and not to corporations,

Read this:   Prop 32 prohibits the collection of "political funds" from corporate employees and union members via payroll deduction.

Corporations hardly ever use payroll deductions for political purposes; they simply cut a check from their corporate treasuries. 

They don't even need shareholder approval. 

Unions on the other hand? Every penny they spend on politics comes from payroll deductions, which are just small-dollar contributions from folks like firefighters, nurses and teachers. These are pooled together to fight back against the power of millionaires and corporate CEOs. 

Prop 32 is a deceptive attempt to silence the voices of the 2.5 million middle-class union members in California. Labor unions are the only organizations capable of mounting a fight against the corporations that dominate our political process, and even so, they are

 

outspent 15-1.4 

It gets worse,

Prop 32 EXEMPTS common business structures such as LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts. That's why we call it the "Special Exemptions Act."

 

YOU REALLY WANT FOLKS LIKE THIS CONTROLLING YOUR GOVERNMENT AND YOU?

 

An historical note:  

Big business interests supported Hitler.

He was to destroy Unions and control pay and squelch demonstrations and dissent.

He was to do their dirty work.

They figured on kicking him out after it was accomplished.

Read your history.  

Just in case you didn't it failed to work out that way.

The world was gifted with WWII.

Those are the folks whose judgment you want to trust?

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow 

Steal?  My investment money PAYS for  a corporate spokesman to support causes I disbelieve in.  That is stealing my voice and using my profits for their cause, not mine.  Public funding comes with scrutiny.

CORPORATE TONGUES GIVE NOT  A RAT'S ASS ABOUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY WITH THAT MONEY.

And if you want to again and again repeat the lie that government spending is wasteful look at medical expenses.  I am in this business. Medicare overhead is so much less than private plans that if all the private money in health care were Medicare controlled we could have Universal Health Care NOW!  So don't pull that lie out from the rug again.

Your free market mantras may sound convincing but they are based on false premises.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

@JimGreaves@Milt FarrowRemember investors do not create jobs.  Customers with money do.  Our stores are full it is the customers which are lacking.  That means we need jobs here, unions, high pay decent conditions, accessible affordable education and strict rules on what cannot be done to our society by the powerful.

The most successful business in the former USSR was the USSR. The stores were empty. And the bosses had all the power and influence they could grab.  There was no regulation.  It was removed.  Think our businessmen are any different?

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @JimGreaves  @Milt Farrow PUBLIC FUNDING.

If a business wishes to support Democracy let it donate to the common public fund.  That is not  a bribe.  That is democracy.  What we have now is purchased power.  My penny horn is drowned out by their billions of horns.  Who is listened to?  The loudest?  Those with the cash to buy all the horns, and all the laws.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

 @Michael Boldin Again one (wo)man one vote one voice.

Corporations now can speak for millions, none of whom are consulted re the message their dollars are funding.

We gave the reins of government back to the royalty which once before governed as they wished, for their benefit only, and used the serfs and peasants as their warriors and servants.  We are returned to this state when a dead thing, a paper body, can dominate elections with their amassed wealth.

Again I ask:  if a corporation is man's creation and can influence elections then once we create robots may they also?

The argument is cloaked in constitutionality.  Yet the founders severely limited corporate power.  They did not trust them.  If we admire the sagacity and wisdom of the framers and the Constitution they wrote and ratified, why not pay attention  also to their warnings?

Selective consideration is not intelligent consideration.  Cloaking this discussion with free speech as if it was applicable to anything or any group which yields excessive power or influence is not Constitutional.  Kings had excessive power and influence, so did the Church.  Both had to be reined in to give individuals freedoms.  Arguments against control of giant power groups return us to those times.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

Multiple delusions in these replies.

The US was formed for people not for corporations.  Until corporations got their power augmented as they continue to do now they were limited in scope and longevity.  If one wishes to go to the founders for guidance look no further.

If one decides to designate business as the guiding power in America Mussolini would smile.

His definition of Fascism:  When state and corporate interests coincide.

We were told we defeated Fascism in WWII.  Nonsense: we just imported it from its birth place.

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply

HIS ARGUMENT IS SPECIOUS.  

IT DOES NOT ENHANCE HUMAN FREEDOMS, INDIVIDUALS, NOR WE THE PEOPLE,

WHICH WAS WHY THIS NATION WAS CREATED.

 

A CORPORATION IS  JUST A PIECE OF PAPER WITH LOTS OF POWER TO DESTROY OR CHANGE AT WILL WHAT HUMANS CREATED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES, NOT A PIECE OF PAPER.

 

MONEY IS WHAT VOTES NOW.  IT IS A MAN WHO SHOULD DO THE VOTING.  

 

CORPORATIONS AS WE KNOW THEM DID NOT EVEN EXIST WHEN THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.  THEY ARE CREATIONS OF HUMANS, NOT GODS.

 

THEY ARE MAN MADE, LIKE HAL IN THE FILM 2001.

IF WE DEVELOP FUNCTIONING ROBOTS DO THEY ALSO GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE?

AND WHO DIRECTS THEIR VOTE?

THE RULE IS ONE, REMEMBER-ONE  MAN (OR WOMAN) , ONE VOTE.  

 

COMPANIES DO NOT HAVE A LARYNX.  HOW THEN CAN THEY SPEAK?  

CORPORATIONS DO NOT DIE, GET DRAFTED, WORK, GET JAILED,

NOR EVEN EXIST EXCEPT ON PAPER.  PAPER HUMANS MADE.  

SOME THINK THEY  HAVE THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CONTROL THOUGHT AND GOVERNMENT?

 

IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE A NON-ENTITY, A MAN CREATED NON-LIVING OBJECT, SHOULD HAVE POWER OVER HUMAN BEINGS BECAUSE IT CAN AMASS MOUNTAINS OF WEALTH.

 

 

 

 

 

1 year, 10 months ago on Free Speech: Corporate and Anonymous

Reply