Do you have a right to b*tch about a company?? NO. by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do you have a right to b*tch about a company?? NO.

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2009 19:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3573
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:18 AM

Interesting...
While I totally agree with this:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One of government's functions is the codification of right and wrong- in other words law-making. Prohibitions against murder, theft, and fraud; contracts enforcement; business forms, duties, rights and limitations etc. The corporate business model is established by law, along with its duties (fiduciary), rights and limitations. All we have to do is go back to the laws which enshrine these entities and... change them.

...this seems like a complete non-sequiter:

Quote:
I'll give you an example: Free speech. My perosnal opinion is that free speech is protected speech, but once you pay to have our message disseminated it's advertising and no longer protected.

We seem to be in agreement that corporations, by legal structure, enjoy unfair advantage - ie more "rights" than the rest of us. But while I'm saying that they should have the same rights as everyone else, you seem to be saying they should have less.

Per your example, if I am hired to speak on behalf of a corporation I forfeit my free speech protections. What if it's not for a corporation, just a normal privately held company? What if I'm not getting paid? What if I'm just advertising for them as a favor?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I don't think "corporations" should exist at all. I don't agree with the dissemination of liability to a non-living (fictitious) entity. Let's say a corporation knowingly sold a tainted product which killed several million people. Or polluted an environment with similar consequences. That would make it a mass murderer of unimagineable proportions, right? Normally we would apply the death penalty, but... how do you kill a corporation? There are too many ways for corporations to evade their legal and moral responsibilities, partly because liabilities are placed against the corporation and not against the people who made the decision.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:40 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't think "corporations" should exist at all. I don't agree with the dissemination of liability to a non-living (fictitious) entity. Let's say a corporation knowingly sold a tainted product which killed several million people. Or polluted an environment with similar consequences. That would make it a mass murderer of unimagineable proportions, right? Normally we would apply the death penalty, but... how do you kill a corporation? There are too many ways for corporations to evade their legal and moral responsibilities, partly because liabilities are placed against the corporation and not against the people who made the decision.

Agreed. There are some elements of corporations that are worthwhile. They facilitate scope and breadth for large projects that can't be achieved with smaller entities. But I think those benefits can be achieved without the additional free pass of limited liability. Of course, the hitch in "selling" such a restructuring is that the US has long used its suped up corporate model as the forward guard in it's expansionist foreign policy. Curtailing our corporations power would mean real cutbacks in our worldwide power.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Dang it... Ya try to get a little work done, and look how far behind ya get on an active thread...

Anyhoo, bear with me whilst I catch up.

Quote:
"In God We Trust" was not added to currency until the Civil War. "One nation under God" was not added until the 1950s. The religious trappings which we take for granted in our government are relative latecomers and certainly not the intention of the FF. They should be removed. Just sayin'.

Actually, if memory serves, "In God We Trust" wasn't added to U.S. paper money until 1957. SOME coins were struck with it during the Civil War, but it remained ONLY on coins (and not even on all of them until 1938) until the McCarthy era and the Red Scare.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

I'm still waiting for you to come up with the specifics of your claims. This is just so you know I haven't forgotten. Because, by what I can find, you posted a whopper.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 11:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: Pledge alteration.

Of course, I find "One Nation, Indivisible" to be every bit as offensive as "One Nation, Under God" since it gives lie to that whole consent of the governed thing.

Of course, it was the latter which set me off in grade school, cause I already had some passionate grudges against "Their God" given the conduct of "his" people.

Course, that tends to happen when you allow children to self-select their own theological beliefs and they grow up watching *that* belief system from an external point of view.

I did learn later that "they" weren't all bad, but to a child of so few years, every hurt is remembered forever in a way that magnifies it beyond the concepts of adults - and children DO hold grudges, some of them forever.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 12:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Actually, if memory serves, "In God We Trust" wasn't added to U.S. paper money until 1957. SOME coins were struck with it during the Civil War, but it remained ONLY on coins (and not even on all of them until 1938) until the McCarthy era and the Red Scare.

Thanks!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:02 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Actually, if memory serves, "In God We Trust" wasn't added to U.S. paper money until 1957. SOME coins were struck with it during the Civil War, but it remained ONLY on coins (and not even on all of them until 1938) until the McCarthy era and the Red Scare.
Thanks!

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

Don't mention it - I just had to point this out on another board because some dolt there keeps insisting that "In God We Trust" has been the bedrock of our society from the outset, and that it's been on our money all along. I pointed out the facts, and the source: The United States Treasury and the U.S. Mint.

More trivia - the phrase didn't even make it onto all the paper money until 1966. So it's not like it's any kind of "time-honored" tradition we're talking about.

Just wondering... If we stamp "In God We Trust" on our bombs, will that make us a more Christian nation?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 7:56 PM

FREMDFIRMA

More interesting is that the original motto was "Mind your (own) Business".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugio_Cent

And of course, the best one and the one they SHOULD be using is E Pluribus Unum.
"Out of many, one."

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:13 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn

I'm still waiting for you to come up with the specifics of your claims. This is just so you know I haven't forgotten. Because, by what I can find, you posted a whopper.

It’s strange that you couldn’t find anything, because when I googled it I came up with a lot of hits. I remember this case because it was in the paper around here. I distinctly remember the article in the paper where the ACLU claimed victory. It was a big joke with everyone around here, because everyone knew that they actually lost the case.

http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/05/30/adf-aclu-fails-to-silence-reli
gious-expression-in-wilscon-county-schools/

It went like this, the Lakeview Elementary School put on a Christmas play in which they sang religious Christmas Carols. Some anal or opportunistic parents (differing opinions existed for their motivations) went to the Tennessee Chapter of the ACLU and filed suit to ban Christian groups from the school, citing not only the carols, but also the prayer groups etc. A group of parents at the school then decided to counter sue to stop the ACLU, which they successfully did, when the District Court ruled that the ACLU didn’t have a case, and in fact, spelled out in the ruling that the prayer groups, the religious songs, all of it, that the ACLU sought to ban were in fact constitutional.

The parents were seeking more then just banning Christian religious practices from the school they were also seeking compensation for homeschooling their child. Which is interesting because many Christian parents homeschool their children citing the secularism in the schools as one of the principle reasons, yet they don’t sue to get compensation and the ACLU likely wouldn’t back them anyway.

People have this idea that the First Amendment is a restriction on the people, but in fact it is a restriction on the government. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (Establishment Clause) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (Free Exercise Clause)” The Lakeview Elementary School is not Congress and they are making no laws, so I fail to see how the Establishment Clause applies. By filing suit the ACLU is seeking for the government to restrict the freedom of expression on the Lakeview campus, which is in violation of the Free-Exercise Clause, that says that there can’t be any Constitutional law to restrict such freedom. Evidently the court agreed.

But more to the point, I don’t actually think that the ACLU expected to win. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but they probably felt like they could threaten to tie the school district up in litigation and get a monetary settlement for their client, and of course their cut. I remember reading that the ACLU was pushing for a settlement from the very beginning, but the School District refused and insisted upon going to court. Good for them, but I can imagine that many School Districts may not have the money for that kind of thing or may feel too intimidated by the ACLUs deep pockets.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE