Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

The answer to all this is a real Christian revival, one that affects the culture around it.

There! I told you I would make some of you angry!

---

Couldn't agree with you more but where can you find two honest men to agree it is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Success is defined by the amount of material wealth one can amass, not whether a person is honest and fair.

---

THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives. Once you fix that the rest will follow. It matters not whether one reads the bible or goes to church, those that do are no better than those that don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives. Once you fix that the rest will follow. It matters not whether one reads the bible or goes to church, those that do are no better than those that don't.

---

Speak for yourself for a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Speak for yourself for a change.

---

What does even mean? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's a VERY good point. If the business' product or service is what the market wants then the business should not need the help of the government.

---

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

Government should not be involved in the running of businesses. Let the business succeed or fail on its own. If their product is a good one offered at a good price, it will be successful. If it is not, it will fail. The company shouldn't need government help to succeed.

We are in agreement on this point.

So... the question becomes, why do so many people want government to intervene?

Elliot

No the question was: why do you allow so much money to funnel from corporations into the pockets of the people who vote for laws that affect those same corporations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No the question was: why do you allow so much money to funnel from corporations into the pockets of the people who vote for laws that affect those same corporations?

---

No the real question is why do we allow anyone to have the power to vote for laws that affect corporations? Especially since the Constitution prohibits it in the first place.

Eliminate that power, and the funneling of the money will stop. And the free market will open back up. Two birds, one stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What does even mean? :confused:

---

What it means is that you said that Americans are mostly controlled by greed. It is a very sweeping statement, and a very judgemental one as well. I don't deny that it applies very well to me. But it doesn't apply to everyone. Speech was telling you to stop painting America with such a broad brush. I agree with his sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What it means is that you said that Americans are mostly controlled by greed. It is a very sweeping statement, and a very judgemental one as well. I don't deny that it applies very well to me. But it doesn't apply to everyone. Speech was telling you to stop painting America with such a broad brush. I agree with his sentiment.

---

Nah, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. In the same way that some people believe that establishing their brand of religion on everyone would make a better world, that's a load of hooey In my opinion.

But what I didn't understand was "speak for yourself". I did speak for myself. I don't represent any group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What does even mean? :confused:

---

Do the words have some different meaning in Canadian English? You said, "THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives."

I said speak for yourself for a change. Figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do the words have some different meaning in Canadian English? You said, "THAT is the problem in the US for christians and non-christians alike -greed runs your lives."

I said speak for yourself for a change. Figure it out.

---

Read above. You must have missed it Jean-Guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No the real question is why do we allow anyone to have the power to vote for laws that affect corporations? Especially since the Constitution prohibits it in the first place.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

Boy, THAT'S just wrong.

Corporations don't just happen. They're creations of the STATE. People ASK the state if they can BE a corporation because there are benefits attached. In exchange for those benefits, a corporation agrees to be regulated.

Now, if some group of businessmen DIDN'T want the benefits and subsidies that come with corporatehood, they could certainly CHOOSE to operate as a partnership, or an association, or some entity that DOESN'T get benefits. Then, they wouldn't BE subject to corporate laws... But, there's a tradeoff, if they want government largess.

That's as it should be, too. The above, by the way, is pretty damn Constitutional.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Read above. You must have missed it Jean-Guy.

---

No, I saw it after I posted. My point remains, speak for yourself for a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, I saw it after I posted. My point remains, speak for yourself for a change.

---

I did! I spoke for myself and no one else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I did! I spoke for myself and no one else!

---

Your remark was insulting, overly broad, arrogant and hackneyed. I guess that's the best you can do...

So thin-skinned. Sorry I wasn't politically-correct for you. That's not how I roll. :)
Now go tell galveston how arrogant his "religion for all" post was. LOL!

NK, what you said was entirely PC, that's exactly how you roll.

Oh OK. Cheers then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

In my opinion corporations (artificial persons with a protected status) should be banned from making political contributions and the size of political contributions made by individuals should be limited. Some societies who formulated their political systems later than your own instituted more checks and balances into the system because they had the benefit of some hindsight.

---

I agree. Much of this debate is related to the question of corporate personhood, which is a controversial issue in the United states, stemming from a court decision at the end of the 19th century.

For example, Wikipedia states:

Quote:

---

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, for example, the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government.

---

Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

asking from your own source you should see that the issue predates any recent court decision. Corporations have had the status of an individual since the time of the founding of the nation ;and in fact is a part of common law.

I don't understand the issue here.

The legal meaning of a 'person' is a subject/citizen of legal rights and duties.It is better that a corporation has people status otherwise it would be above the law. In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. When corporations got the status of people they too could be sued and held accountable for its debts.
But since it has all the liabilities that a person has ,it also has the rights of a person ;and that includes it's 1st amendment rights to petition it's government .