Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Occupy Wall Street Protests

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Occupy Wall Street Protests

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 494 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #463068

    cheap
    Member

    rus said:
    Given that, where would you look?

    this guy has some good ideas.

    i like his staff.

    #463069

    bldng4jstc
    Participant

    Tony said:
    Nearly every government program, grant, or loan has strings attached to them with many requirements to follow.

    Very true but perhaps those strings should resemble a combination of popular opinion, scientific inquiry, and the Constitution to create merit. Even in some cases their shouldn’t be a government program.

    As far as government’s role in higher ed loans?
    From ‘gainful employment’ to lower college costs Not saying this is gospel, but I see resemblance to things at Ohio State.

    #463070
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    cheap said:
    this guy has some good ideas.

    i like his staff.

    Looks like they do too… ;-)

    #463071

    Tony
    Member

    bldng4jstc said:
    Very true but perhaps those strings should resemble a combination of popular opinion, scientific inquiry, and the Constitution to create merit. Even in some cases their shouldn’t be a government program.

    As far as government’s role in higher ed loans?
    From ‘gainful employment’ to lower college costs Not saying this is gospel, but I see resemblance to things at Ohio State.

    There’s a lot of merit to that. I’ve heard this several times before.

    I can’t recall, but I believe back in the early 80’s the max was $ 2,500 a year for those that needed to go that route.

    Of course credit cards to college kids were not handed out like lollipops either back then…took me nearly a year just to get a SOHIO gas card back then, and it only had a $ 100 limit.

    #463072

    bldng4jstc
    Participant

    rus said:
    Given that, where would you look?

    Given that our elected government had been working for us, the only thing left is to demand the end of corporate personhood and enact election reform to allow more parties and better representation so most people have somewhere to look.

    #463073
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    bldng4jstc said:
    Given that our elected government had been working for us, the only thing left is to demand the end of corporate personhood and enact election reform to allow more parties and better representation so most people have somewhere to look.

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

    #463074

    Tony
    Member

    bldng4jstc said:
    Given that our elected government had been working for us, the only thing left is to demand the end of corporate personhood and enact election reform to allow more parties and better representation so most people have somewhere to look.

    Could not agree more, an entity is not a person.

    The court rulings otherwise are preposterous.

    Can you put a corporation in jail ?

    #463075
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Whatever you think about corporate personhood, note that the relevant cases were from the 1800’s. Not exactly a recent phenomenon.

    #463076
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    #463077

    Tony
    Member

    rus said:
    Whatever you think about corporate personhood, note that the relevant cases were from the 1800’s. Not exactly a recent phenomenon.

    Rus

    Courts in the 1800’s made stupid rulings, 1900’s, 20th century as well.

    Does the Declaration of Independence or Consitution state that corporations hold the same rights as humans ?

    The 14th amendment has been hijacked, and needs to be repealed

    Click to access fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf

    #463078
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Tony,

    given this statement:

    bldng4jstc said:
    Given that our elected government had been working for us, the only thing left is to demand the end of corporate personhood and enact election reform to allow more parties and better representation so most people have somewhere to look.

    “Had been working for us” … when, back in the 1800’s?

    Completely disagree with you on the 14th. Even if one doesn’t consider corporations legal persons, the idea that people all have equal protection under the law isn’t a bad one.

    #463079

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    demand the end of corporate personhood

    The more I see this repeated, the more convinced I am that most people have no idea what they are talking about in this matter. They are reacting to one particular Supreme Court decision.

    A.

    #463080

    bldng4jstc
    Participant

    Andrew Hall said:
    The more I see this repeated, the more convinced I am that most people have no idea what they are talking about in this matter. They are reacting to one particular Supreme Court decision.

    A.

    The idea is abstract, but it does need to change. Not sure if you want to get into why it exists, but any issues that created those court cases can be included in a new amendment.

    #463081

    Pablo
    Participant

    It’s George Carlin so the language is probably NSFW (depending on where you work!):

    #463082

    revolutionist
    Participant

    bldng4jstc said:
    The idea is abstract, but it does need to change. Not sure if you want to get into why it exists, but any issues that created those court cases can be included in a new amendment.

    I don’t know if I agree on that one (I had this discussion with Lawrence Lessing years ago). I think that one could make the argument to reinstate corporate liability and expand it to include personal and criminal liability for those responsible for said corporation. That is, I think we might want to keep corporate person-hood and make the connection much tighter. So that for example if it can be proven, in a criminal proceeding, that a company is responsible (maliciously or by negligence) harm (death, injury, harm, etc) to a person either working for the company or as a result of the company conducting business then those in control of the company should be held legally (that is to say criminally) responsible. Then for a company that causes the death of an employee, for example, through negligence the company CEO, the figure responsible for the conduct of the company, should face the Jail Time or if appropriate execution. In short, if your company breaks the law, you should pay the price.

    So I could see defending ‘corporate person-hood’, but not this ambiguous imaginary-legal construct that is sometimes-person and sometimes-not that is defined or redefined in this or that court.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 494 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: