What does the constitution say about the right to vote etc? A corporation is it's own separate ENTITY, but that doesn't make it a person or an American citizen. We use the term corporate citizen. Doesn't seem likely that the constitution says that any entity can vote. In the UK, companies are governed by the companies act, and each company on formation has a memorandum and articles of association, which dictates how it will interact with the world, and what it can and cant do. It also details the responsibilities and rights of the directors who govern it. Kinda like it's own constitution. Re joblessness, what time of day was the picture taken? It's largely irrelevant to me, but it might not be too crazy an assumption if they are protesting at 10 in the morning about not having a job. Whatever they're protesting against, they probably have a right to do it regardless of their status. I'll also point out that I've looked worse on a work day. I would, however, like to see evidence that bankers were protesting too... EDIT: Also, companies in the UK can't be convicted. If there are criminal charges against a company, the charges are brought against the directors, this is known as "lifting the veil of incorporation". In order to be convicted, there has to be a guilty act and a guilty mind. A company cannot have a guilty mind. This must be the same in the US. /ukfag
Just the other day I saw a corporation being hauled off for involuntary manslaughter. Asshole refused to self inspect and the escalator broke down and killed a couple people! They had to fire everybody and vacate the premises because it was going to jail.
In this example, everyone up the ladder from the guy in question is criminally responsible. They provide instructions, the car, and pressure to get a subordinate to do this, that would be a conspiracy But aside from that pretty stupid example, BP as an organization is responsible. It is a lot more like the mafia, it doesnt matter whos in charge or whether they are genuinely psychotic or a stand up guy, if they do not play the game they wont be the boss for very long. This makes their effect on society disastrous regardless. 86ing whoever-the-**** wont do a damn bit of good as there will always be someone to take their place
This was an example of failure of the criminal justice system. Authorities have a responsibility to investigate and hold those guilty accountable. Those who were responsible on site for negligent repair. Allegations of smoking meth with government auditors and ignoring problems- those gvt. overseers and the BP reps who were with them are liable. Anyone who had a hand in using their position to cover something up is responsible. I dont see how this is so hard to understand- thsoe who had a hand in it are criminally responsible. If theyre not prosecuted, the problem lies with the criminal justice system for failing to do so. And GreatEmporer- you're right. Those who ordered it would also be responsible. The guy who ordered it/provided the means to do so, and the guy who actually DID it. No Limit - "You say there is no problem with corporations being designed only to make a profit no matter how much harm they do to everyone around them." I'm sorry but I do not recall saying this, nor do I see ANYWHERE where I posted this. I said there's nothing wrong with them existing to make a profit for shareholders. If they infringe upon another person's rights then they are criminally responsible. For example- If I have a painting business and dump all my unused paint onto my neighbors driveway, then I am responsible for it- I have infringed upon his property rights and possibly harmed his health.
How ironic. So you think the problem with what happened with BP is that the government, run by politicians, didn't go after them. Yet at the same time you blieve that any corporation, such as BP, can spend as much money as they want influancing those very politicians. You really don't see anything wrong with your line of thinking here? But if they decide they want to pay people $1 /hr, hire children, force people to work 70 hour work weeks, polute the air, don't follow proper safety when dealing with our food and drugs, and things of that nature you wouldn't see any problem with that? Or am I mistaken?
Look at these unemployed hippies: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220...inental-merger-pilots-wall-street-protest.htm
They can influence them on energy policy and such all they want, it's just lobbying. The criminal justice system and laws regarding negligence, OSHA, etc are all currently in place and those aren't changed often. OSHA and police agencies failing to prosecute for negligence is a problem with them. It doesn't mean companies' and groups' rights to free speech should be ripped away. Wow man, you really destroyed that straw man! Nice one! Child labor laws and safety laws prevent this, and I've never said anything against those. I do feel that government agencies like the FDA need downsizing, reform, and restructure, but never have I said that we should have complete anarchy. You're arguing against things that nobody is advocating.
Again, you said everyone has an equal voice in a democracy. How many individuals do you know that spending millions of dollars a year on lobbyists? Why do you think those regulations are good and don't violate corporation's constitutional rights while limits on campaign contributions and influance in elections do?
If they built up that much wealth they could decide to spend it that way if they chose to do so. Are you saying people or companies should be restricted from using their money how they see fit? I think the FDA itself is arguably unconstitutional in many of the things it does today. It's only constitutional if they solely regulate interstate food trade (food / drugs exported from one state to another) via the commerce clause. Anything solely within a state is the state's responsibility to legislate (or not legislate)
When it comes to buying politicians that's exactly what I'm saying. How much influence do you think that money ends up buying them? And do you think the top 1% should have more influence in our democracy than the bottom 99%? You didn't answer my question. You said you are okay with regulations that protect our food, protect from child labor, protect worker rights, etc. All these in some way you could argue violate freedoms. At the same time the argument you made for corporate influance over elections is that to restrict it would be to violate their freedoms. Why are you for taking away freedoms in one area while not okay with taking them away in another area?
Everyone should have the opportunity to exert equal influence/have equal money / have equal this and that. Land of equal opportunity, not land of making everything equal. Everybody has the right to do the same with their voice, vote, and money. Like I said it boils down (for me) to what is constitutional and what is not. The constitution does not authorize monetary restrictions on these companies, unless somehow it is relating to interstate trade via the commerce clause (and that itself has been abused by the federal government, stretching that clause to the ultimate max)
Even if that means the top 1% end up controlling 99% of the population? Where does the constitution say your food must be protected, that children can't work, that you have a right to a certain wage, overtime, and you don't have the right to burn any nasty chemical on your property that you wish?
Nobody can 'control' anybody else, unless constitional law is being broken. If you mean "1% can have more stuff than 99% of others" - yes that can happen. It can change at any moment, as well. It doesn't, which is why I was addressing the constitutionality of agencies such as the FDA. They only really are (constitutionally) supposed to regulate interstate commerce. It's the state governments' responsibilities to regulate the issues when they are confined just to their state.
Unozero is right though guys. if a person has dirty hair and noserings then he is a bum. Just as how Unozero posts idiotic things and says stupid stuff, that means he is stupid.
Bullshit. Plus do you seriously not see the inherent flaw in "Everyone should have the opportunity to exert equal influence/have equal money / have equal this and that" while still allowing corporations (IE: the owners) to pool massive amounts of money in order to influence politicians and voters into doing what those corporations (owners) want?
Based on your line of reasoning, you must believe that the Constitution is absolutely perfect in every conceivable way, and that is something that has never been and will never be true.
The Constitution is clear and fairly precise. If they want to 'circumvent' it they'd need to pass an amendment (difficult) or just blatantly violate it (which has happened lately in the past decades from both right and left administrations/legislatures, court backed unfortunately)
Implying the only possible circumventions of the Constitution are blatant. You do realise conspiracies are a real thing that actually exist, right?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ I hope there will be even more skull cracking now.
unozero isnt necessarily dumb (although he tries real hard) he's just very immature and views life through a rigid conservative albeit unrealistic filter. probably because he's young and hasnt had to fend for himself in any meaningful way
Because you read a week old forum post by some guy involved with the movement that barely garnered any attention? PROBABLE CAUSE. PROBABLE CAUSE.
And? For them to actually do anything they have to pass legislation or take administrative action. That's when the violation becomes blatant. A conspiracy is only just that until some actual action is taken.
is like the same ocupations in spain,where they made some exagerated demands,but have to make them more realistically later
oh look here's one of those dirty hippies unozero was talking about here's another dirty hippie: more: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN662sMXY5M&feature=channel_video_title 99% my ass. **** everyone of those parasites one on that shitty tumblr page. "I'm 21 and pregant and no job" buhuhu lol
What does Wall Street have to do with healthcare, pension or salaries anyway? And unzero, please read something about hippies.
ya especially the veteran. what a useless piece of shit. what's he complaining about with $11 an hour he can easily afford a house(boat) on the beach and dine on whiskas every night (instead of that dry cat food) you've never worked a day in your life have you unozero? mommy and daddy pay for it all?
this guy is not going to give a good image of the protesters anyway has someone found red flags whit image of che or chavez yet? or signpost praising gadaffi?
He probably wears Polo Ralph Lauren suits, the homeless hippie. If you don't get your daily suits from William Fioravanti you don't even deserve the right to vote.