Are Corporations "People"?

30 posts

Flag Post

In the past, I have shown a “bias” against _big business".
This bias is just that, a bias: A particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

This “particular tendency” is a product of my addressing ONLY the negative aspects of big business. Of course, I well recognize that there are literally thousands upon thousands of good corporations….just as there are millions of good people.

BUT, it isn’t the expected good which constitutes a problem in a society. We aren’t on this SERIOUS DISCUSSION forum to laud-the-expected. I am here to learn about the undesired bad and what can be done/ IS being done about it.

Ergo, one might see my interest as being “biased” against big business corporations. When in actuality, I’m focusing ONLY on those undesired aspects. We aren’t interested in “fixing” what is good….other than the fact that good is enhanced when bad is ameliorated.

Former Editor-in-Chief of our local newspaper wrote this for yesterdays publication.

It points out some of what a conservative SCOTUS has promoted in the way of favoritism to corporations who would “practice evil” rather than observe, what one can only hope, the more benign intent of SCOTUS.

While I view the positives of BIG corporations as being a good foundation for promotion of a higher standard of living for all people,,,it is those few who use their tremendous size to “bully” the govt. to do its bidding so that it might have unfair advantage over other businesses and its own workforce.

What are YOUR views on this?

 
Flag Post

There are zero good reasons for the personage of corporations but to absolve all individuals responsible for illicit activities involved with a corporation as long as they can prove it was an attempt to please the almighty corporation God that is invisible and omnipresent at the same time. No other good reason.

Anyone who has been a republican for more than 10 years should have thrown in the towel and become an independent when they passed that bullshit through. Anyone who’s been a democrat for 10 years can keep pretending their side didn’t vote for it too, because reality is scary.

 
Flag Post

From your link:

Can corporations have religious beliefs that warrant constitutional protection?

There are numerous corporations (such as a Pro-Life organization) that are religious in nature. As such, corporations better be able to have religious beliefs.

We cannot usefully discuss such issues so long as the debate begins with erroneous declarations, such as in the recent headline by the Atlantic, a distinguished and normally reliable magazine: “The Supreme Court Still Thinks Corporations Are People”; and by prominent political figures – in this case the formerly prominent Mitt Romney: “Of course corporations are people.”

I wonder if Mr. Merritt is aware that corporations are collections of people.

But that does not mean corporations are people, nor does it assure that the courts’ decisions make good public policy (Citizens United being the most glaring example of disastrous policy).

I like how he doesn’t mention how Citizens United is a disastrous policy. He doesn’t, because of the inconvenient matter that CU is terrific policy.

It’s a case full of large consequences. Outright refusal by Hobby Lobby could lead to crippling fines of up to $1.3 million a day. A decision wholly favorable to the company would come very close to finally declaring the personhood of corporations since it would erase the distinction between corporate activity and human beliefs. Corporations could then claim religion-based exemption from almost all other legal requirements: the minimum wage, safety laws – a list limited only by imagination and audacity.

This is a completely unrealistic and weakly developed slippery slope argument that I’m not buying at all. He sounds as delusional as the people who argue that gay marriage will lead to some guy marrying his lawn mower.


The argument that because two people join together have to sacrifice their rights has never made an ounce of sense to me.


@ Karma:

While I view the positives of BIG corporations as being a good foundation for promotion of a higher standard of living for all people,,,it is those few who use their tremendous size to “bully” the govt. to do its bidding so that it might have unfair advantage over other businesses and its own workforce.

You could say the same thing about big labor. But you didn’t, because you’re a liberal and liberals love their (often corrupt) labor unions. It’s a bit disingenuous to have this post decrying those nasty corporations while completely ignoring labor unions who do the exact same thing except in favor of the left.

 
Flag Post

You could say the same thing about big labor. But you didn’t, because you’re a liberal and liberals love their (often corrupt) labor unions. It’s a bit disingenuous to have this post decrying those nasty corporations while completely ignoring labor unions who do the exact same thing except in favor of the left.”

Yes, you can say the same thing about big labour. BUT, it still does not excuse big corporations. Plus, it would be kinda unfair if the right gets all the (unethical) money. And unlike corporations, and the objective of unions is not to increase the overall profit margin, instead it is to focus on benifiting the standard of living for all its members. And no who supports unions approves of corruption. It just happens, specially when lots of money is involved.

 
Flag Post

There are numerous corporations (such as a Pro-Life organization) that are religious in nature. As such, corporations better be able to have religious beliefs.

I’m not sure that they can. Corporation can have policies and strategies based on the opinions and beliefs of their directors and management; but a religious belief of its own? Aren’t you rather anthropomorphising corporations here?

This is a completely unrealistic and weakly developed slippery slope argument that I’m not buying at all.

But it’s a slippery slope that a lot of corporations would be happy to develop for you. Enjoying some of the rights and responsibilities also enjoyed by individuals does not mean that a corporation can behave as an individual all the time. If Hobby Lobby wishes to flout the law applied to all other corporations, then I would be happy to see them pay their fines, go to the wall, and be replaced by a more socially responsible organisation which is prepared to obey the law.

He sounds as delusional as the people who argue that gay marriage will lead to some guy marrying his lawn mower.

And whyever not? :)

The argument that because two people join together have to sacrifice their rights has never made an ounce of sense to me.

In joining together (as a corporation) they become a different kind of entity, subject to a different set of rights and responsibilities more appropriate to their new status.

You could say the same thing about big labor. But you didn’t, because you’re a liberal and liberals love their (often corrupt) labor unions. It’s a bit disingenuous to have this post decrying those nasty corporations while completely ignoring labor unions who do the exact same thing except in favor of the left.

Quite right too. Over here we had some bad experiences with over-mighty trade unions in the seventies and eighties. Many people believed that these two men were more powerful than the ruling Labour government, and they were probably right. Margaret Thatcher eventually broke the power of the unions, but at great social cost. It’s not an experience that America wants to repeat.

 
Flag Post

Corporations are not people. But they are run by, and owned by, people.

I don’t have much of a problem with prohibiting direct political donations by corporations. Individuals can just as easily donate their own money. However, corporations SHOULD have free speech rights. I can’t run a political ad by myself due to lack of resources. I’d have to pool my money with other people – and the best way to do this on a large scale is a corporation of some kind.

Hobby Lobby should have the same rights as its owners in this case. Whether they chose to incorporate should have no bearing on whether they should be forced to provide the emergency contraception. Do you think some non-incorporated store with a single owner should be able to sue for an exemption, but not Hobby Lobby? I don’t see how that would be fair.

Corporations could then claim religion-based exemption from almost all other legal requirements: the minimum wage, safety laws – a list limited only by imagination and audacity.

That’s silly. They can try, but they’d just end up paying their lawyers a bunch and losing the case. Do non-corporate small businesses currently try to claim this sort of thing? The corporations STILL can’t go beyond what an individual can claim.

 
Flag Post
I’m not sure that they can. Corporation can have policies and strategies based on the opinions and beliefs of their directors and management; but a religious belief of its own? Aren’t you rather anthropomorphising corporations here?

A Catholic charity is a [non-profit] corporation. A Catholic hospital is a corporation. Perhaps the line is between for-profit and non-profit, although there is still is a lot of vagueness in that distinction that would need to be fleshed out. I’m saying that corporations should have the ability to claim a religion when their foundation is religious in nature. I’m not familiar with Hobby Lobby or their claim for a religious exemption so I’m not going to speculate if there motives are anything beyond simply being cheap.

But it’s a slippery slope that a lot of corporations would be happy to develop for you. Enjoying some of the rights and responsibilities also enjoyed by individuals does not mean that a corporation can behave as an individual all the time.

Sure, the corporations would love for that slippery slope to exist, just as people who hate gays would love for the slippery slope about people marrying their pet goldfish becoming legalized. Just because people fear a slippery slope doesn’t mean it will ever occur, and the author of Karma’s article produces no argument or evidence whatsoever that the slippery slope he so fears will happen.

In joining together (as a corporation) they become a different kind of entity, subject to a different set of rights and responsibilities more appropriate to their new status.

I’m well aware what happens. I just think its bullshit.

 
Flag Post
BUT, it still does not excuse big corporations.

Excusing them for what exactly?

Plus, it would be kinda unfair if the right gets all the (unethical) money.

You are aware that corporations can’t give directly to candidates directly, right?

And unlike corporations, and the objective of unions is not to increase the overall profit margin, instead it is to focus on benifiting the standard of living for all its members.

No – the unions bosses are trying to make themselves as much money too. They just lie about it in the form of pretending to care about the employees. Corporations at least are transparent about their motives.

 
Flag Post

A Catholic charity is a [non-profit] corporation. A Catholic hospital is a corporation. Perhaps the line is between for-profit and non-profit, although there is still is a lot of vagueness in that distinction that would need to be fleshed out. I’m saying that corporations should have the ability to claim a religion when their foundation is religious in nature.

We recently saw the end of a long legal battle in which a charity called Catholic Care was threatened with the loss of their charitable status if they continued to reject same sex couples as prospective adoptive parents. Over several years the case made its way through the court system all the way to the top. They lost, and have had to limit their adoption services in order to stay within the law. An unrelated but similar case has just seen a legal precendent that secular (in that case gay) human rights trump religious human rights. Religious organisations are being systematically stripped of their traditional position of being able to claim they are a special case. I guess we just do things differently here. Personally I think it is right that the law should apply to all equally.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

From your link:

Merritt: Can corporations have religious beliefs that warrant constitutional protection?

There are numerous corporations (such as a Pro-Life organization) that are religious in nature. As such, corporations better be able to have religious beliefs.

Of course, I have NO “argument” w/ HAVING such beliefs or even making them an integral part & focus of reason for incorporating. HOWEVER, they are still a corporation and are subject to the regulations underwhich laws dictate they observe and, therefore, place certainl “limitations” on how they go about their business.

Merritt: We cannot usefully discuss such issues so long as the debate begins with erroneous declarations, such as in the recent headline by the Atlantic, a distinguished and normally reliable magazine: “The Supreme Court Still Thinks Corporations Are People”; and by prominent political figures – in this case the formerly prominent Mitt Romney: “Of course corporations are people.”
I wonder if Mr. Merritt is aware that corporations are collections of people.

I wonder if YOU are aware that ppl in a carpool are a “collection” of ppl….HOWEVER, the car IS NOT a ppl?
Merritt: But that does not mean corporations are people, nor does it assure that the courts’ decisions make good public policy (Citizens United being the most glaring example of disastrous policy).
I like how he doesn’t mention how Citizens United is a disastrous policy. He doesn’t, because of the inconvenient matter that CU is terrific policy.

Unless I’m mistaken…Merritt DID MENTION that CU is a diastrous policy. And no,,, Citizens United is a misnomer. Like many (usually “conservative”?) such organizations, it represents ONLY A PART OF/FACTION OF what ALL “citizens” want/need. Yet these kinds of of groups very often “blieve” (or blatantly when knowing otherwise) ascribe their aganda as being that of ALL ppl.

This is from the link: “President Barack Obama stated that the decision “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates”.56 Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, “this ruling strikes at our democracy itself” and “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest”.57 On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law58 to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”-"

Now, just what is “terrific” about THAT?

Merritt: It’s a case full of large consequences. Outright refusal by Hobby Lobby could lead to crippling fines of up to $1.3 million a day. A decision wholly favorable to the company would come very close to finally declaring the personhood of corporations since it would erase the distinction between corporate activity and human beliefs. Corporations could then claim religion-based exemption from almost all other legal requirements: the minimum wage, safety laws – a list limited only by imagination and audacity.
This is a completely unrealistic and weakly developed slippery slope argument that I’m not buying at all. He sounds as delusional as the people who argue that gay marriage will lead to some guy marrying his lawn mower.

YOUR assessment of Merritt’s view of POSSIBILIES (rather than PROBABILIES….the actual definition of a ‘slippery slope’) is what is sounds like the “lawn mower” scenario. YOUR slope begins w/ a guy really liking how well his mower operates and how that will lead to his dating it, having sex w/ it, getting engaged to it, and marrying it. Not at all very likely to SANELY happen.

Merritt’s launch-pad of the POSSIBILITIES is based upon a REALITY. That being the SCOTUS ruling that corps can be “ppl”.



The argument that because two people join together have to sacrifice their rights has never made an ounce of sense to me.
What doesn’t make “sense” is what YOU are saying there. I’m guessing that ya’re meaning when two ppl form a corporation. Actually, even a single person can form one.

BUT, it appear that YOUR understanding of corporation is a bit “lacking”.
Here is a read that can be a good start.

From the link: “As Adam Smith pointed out in the Wealth of Nations, when ownership is separated from management (i.e. the actual production process required to obtain the capital), the latter will inevitably begin to neglect the interests of the former, creating dysfunction within the company. Some maintain that recent events in corporate America may serve to reinforce Smith’s warnings about the dangers of legally protected collectivist hierarchies.”

I wonder if YOU gave any real thought to my OP.
YOU should have seen that (bell-curve here) that I said MOST ALL—as in a huge percentage of—corporations ARE NOT “bad”. I would even say that (bell-curve again) even the huge ones run the gamut from good to bad. BUT, it really doesn’t take all that many “bad” HUGE coprorations to have a SIGNIFICANTLY negative effect on a society.

THAT is the area which my OP addresses. Any of this other digression shit YOU are bring up is clearing trying to, in some weird way, "defend?’ this aspect of American corporations that are what is truly taking away the “rights” of two ppl,,,of 20 ppl…of thousands upon thousands of ppl that would really like to have a FAIR SHARE of their labors so they may also be able to purchase their share of the “piie” those labors have wrought.

Ya might wanna reread my OP:
BUT, it isn’t the expected good which constitutes a problem in a society. We aren’t on this SERIOUS DISCUSSION forum to laud-the-expected. I am here to learn about the undesired bad and what can be done/ IS being done about it.

 
Flag Post

“I wonder if YOU are aware that ppl in a carpool are a “collection” of ppl….HOWEVER, the car IS NOT a ppl? "

With that analogy, if the carpool is in the habit of making stops, it should be legal to force a carpool to drive to the abortion clinic if somebody wants them to? I mean, there’s no reason the carpool should have any religious objections.

In the end, it’s not about the rights of groups. It’s about the rights of the individuals who form a group. Denying the rights of the group is denying the rights of those who form that group.

And again, it’s not fair to say that Joe’s Diner can get an exemption from a law because his business is not incorporated but Jake’s Diner cannot because he formed a corporation. If you believe that NEITHER should get an exemption, then your issue isn’t actually with corporations in the first place.

 
Flag Post
Of course, I have NO “argument” w/ HAVING such beliefs or even making them an integral part & focus of reason for incorporating. HOWEVER, they are still a corporation and are subject to the regulations underwhich laws dictate they observe and, therefore, place certainl “limitations” on how they go about their business.

To be clear, you’re arguing that even a 100% religious organization, like a Catholic hospital, shouldn’t be allowed to claim a religion?

I wonder if YOU are aware that ppl in a carpool are a “collection” of ppl….HOWEVER, the car IS NOT a ppl?

The correct analogy would be that the building a corporation is housed in isn’t a person.

Unless I’m mistaken…Merritt DID MENTION that CU is a diastrous policy.

He did – he didn’t say HOW it is disastrous. I would preferred to know why he think the decision stinks since I am the 180 opposite of Mr. Merritt.

Now, just what is “terrific” about THAT?

I’m talking about the Supreme Court decision – although the movie Hillary was hilarious to anyone who doesn’t like her, myself included.

Merritt’s launch-pad of the POSSIBILITIES is based upon a REALITY. That being the SCOTUS ruling that corps can be “ppl”.

No, it really isn’t possible for a corporation to claim religious exemption and not pay someone the minimum wage. That will never happen. It can’t, therefore, become reality.

What doesn’t make “sense” is what YOU are saying there. I’m guessing that ya’re meaning when two ppl form a corporation. Actually, even a single person can form one.

BUT, it appear that YOUR understanding of corporation is a bit “lacking”.
Here is a read that can be a good start.

Bloody hell, I know what a corporation is. I know what the arguments are. I just don’t agree with it. I honestly did not think people would have that much comprehending that one sentence as they are. Ceasar did a far better job than I did of arguing why I disagree with the people in a corporation of any kind having to sacrifice rights.

THAT is the area which my OP addresses. Any of this other digression shit YOU are bring up is clearing trying to, in some weird way, "defend?’ this aspect of American corporations that are what is truly taking away the “rights” of two ppl,,,of 20 ppl…of thousands upon thousands of ppl that would really like to have a FAIR SHARE of their labors so they may also be able to purchase their share of the “piie” those labors have wrought.

What rights exactly are corporations taking away again?

Ya might wanna reread my OP:
BUT, it isn’t the expected good which constitutes a problem in a society. We aren’t on this SERIOUS DISCUSSION forum to laud-the-expected. I am here to learn about the undesired bad and what can be done/ IS being done about it.

I wanted to touch on the article you linked – part of your OP. If you didn’t want me to discuss Mr. Merritt’s article, you shouldn’t have included it in the discussion.

 
Flag Post

This is stupid. Businesses aren’t religious. Certain traditional kosher practices are not allowed by state regulations because of their lack of sanitation. If your personal religious practices aren’t compatible with your job, it’s your personal responsibility to rectify that ethical problem. In fact, the same way an employee of a company shouldn’t have to follow the religious practices of their boss, the boss shouldn’t be required to act in ways that are against their religion by board members or the government. That said, if contraceptives are hellworthy, don’t take them yourself. Requiring you offer those rights to others doesn’t infringe on your rights, it protects theirs.

 
Flag Post

Certain traditional kosher practices are not allowed by state regulations because of their lack of sanitation.

…the boss shouldn’t be required to act in ways that are against their religion by board members or the government.

So are you saying that all kosher practices should be allowed? You can’t have it both ways. As I said earlier, the British courts have just established a pecking order for human rights, and that seems to be the only sensible way to deal with this clash of ideals.

 
Flag Post

That’s an excellent point that has more to do with the stupidity of generic health standards that are required by law instead of required by a certain standard of grading, as it should be. If I want to release unprocessed milk, as long as my label clearly defines what that can mean for your body, then who cares? So to reiterate, if there were an option for a Hasidic boss to produce entirely kosher animals but it limited his market and grade, that’s not discrimination. A vegan getting a job at a cow processing plant doesn’t get to claim religious reasons for opting out of doing 90% of the work. If you’re producing food for the masses, you follow guidelines for food for the masses and not your particular religious group. If you want to produce food for a particular religious group, then that’s what you have to label your work as.

Relating it to the article: If you don’t believe in contraceptives, don’t take them yourself. If having the kinds of employees you have requires comprehensive, personalized healthcare, your religion isn’t being infringed by your money being spent on their personal healthcare, as that’s the cost of doing business modernly. I suppose there could be jobs and markets that apply only to particular belief systems, but that again would come down to the labeling of what kind of a business they are. If certain businesses were required to label themselves a business of ideals, then their employment practices would be able to reflect a certain willing waiving of rights.

So my argument is muddled with the current paradigm, which I don’t agree with. I don’t think that certain religious things shouldn’t be permissible, but I do think that the terms of these prejudices needs to be measured and effective.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Requiring you offer those rights to others doesn’t infringe on your rights, it protects theirs.

The “right” to have free emergency contraception provided by your employer is not exactly a moral imperative. I don’t even think the product existed until fairly recently.

If your personal religious practices aren’t compatible with your job, it’s your personal responsibility to rectify that ethical problem.

That works in some cases, but not others. I would not argue that a Jewish NFL player should be able to sue the league to not make him play on Saturday because it violates the sabbath. But one large problem with the emergency contraception mandate is that you will run into this same mandate if you run ANY business. It’s not even like you can escape it by going into some other field. It would be akin to passing a law stating that ALL people must work on Saturday.

And let’s face it. If emergency contraception is a major monthly expense for you, you’re doing something wrong.

Certain traditional kosher practices are not allowed by state regulations because of their lack of sanitation.

I would argue that they should be allowed, so long as the products had clear warning labels, unless it presented a gross health hazard to people not consuming the product. But beyond that, there is nothing I know of that says a Jewish person cannot prepare non-kosher food, so long as they do not eat it (and perhaps they’d have to wear gloves to avoid touching it.) There is no reason that they should care if I eat non-kosher food, since I’m not ritually pure in the first place. So it’s not quite the same. In the case of emergency contraception, the belief is that since it can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, it is destroying a human life. Surely you can appreciate that even if you disagree. From their perspective, the government is forcing them to pay for a hit man.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say. I would develop a system that would indeed allow an employer to refuse to offer certain services, but at a penalty or condition to the company. For example, if we decided that it’s an individual’s right to choose whether they can have, or will have a child (which is what our laws currently say,) then a business that doesn’t provide that medical option in a comprehensive package couldn’t call the package comprehensive or whatever the terminology for that benefit is. This could even be further developed by actually allowing a comprehensive package that doesn’t include birth control, but provides additional care for pregnant families instead. Another alternative would be that a business that didn’t directly contribute to that comprehensive package would be taxed for not offering what they would have to in order for their positions to be competitive, and those taxes would be spent on public options for that healthcare.

I’m entirely alright with programs that allow individuals to opt out of their rights knowingly. I am also alright with allowing providers of opportunity the right to limit that opportunity, as long as they aren’t benefiting from those they’re limiting that opportunity from. IE: If you wanna bar black people from your establishment, you don’t get taxes that any black person has ever contributed to, or any of the benefits intended to protect individual rights or programs that benefit all people. You don’t get a 5% business loan from the government if you don’t respect the rights of homosexuals, you have to get your loan from a homophobic bank that also doesn’t benefit from the trade agreements set out by the government, but are still bound by them. This incentives inclusion without disrespecting the right for exclusion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say. I would develop a system that would indeed allow an employer to refuse to offer certain services, but at a penalty or condition to the company. For example, if we decided that it’s an individual’s right to choose whether they can have, or will have a child (which is what our laws currently say,) then a business that doesn’t provide that medical option in a comprehensive package couldn’t call the package comprehensive or whatever the terminology for that benefit is. This could even be further developed by actually allowing a comprehensive package that doesn’t include birth control, but provides additional care for pregnant families instead.

I see no problem with that, actually. If extra funding is provided for prenatal/postnatal care (in an amount equal to what they would have spent on what they’re opting out of – the insurance companies have lots of actuaries that can calculate the figures), then it pretty much takes away any claims that they are only doing it to save money, or that they want to discriminate against women.

I’m entirely alright with programs that allow individuals to opt out of their rights knowingly. I am also alright with allowing providers of opportunity the right to limit that opportunity, as long as they aren’t benefiting from those they’re limiting that opportunity from. IE: If you wanna bar black people from your establishment, you don’t get taxes that any black person has ever contributed to, or any of the benefits intended to protect individual rights or programs that benefit all people. You don’t get a 5% business loan from the government if you don’t respect the rights of homosexuals, you have to get your loan from a homophobic bank that also doesn’t benefit from the trade agreements set out by the government, but are still bound by them. This incentives inclusion without disrespecting the right for exclusion.

I’m leery of that. Reminds me too much of the whole Chik-Fil-A thing where the mayors wanted to deny permits based on what the guy who ran the business said. And there’s really no fair way to do it. You can’t pave 57% of the road that runs by their store if they discriminate against 43% of the population, because that road is needed for other stores. If they call the police because a gang is smashing their windows, are the police going to arrest 4 culprits and let the other 3 continue? Is the fire department going to send fewer trucks if a fire breaks out? The whole point of many taxes is to provide things that everyone can use. Denying them a loan is no punishment at all if they don’t need one. And it would be too intrusive to force most banks to not do business with them. Are we going to have second or thirdhand contamination where the government will deny certain benefits if you do business with someone who does business with someone who discriminates? About all I’m comfortable with is the government refusing to directly contract with them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ceasar:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Requiring you offer those rights to others doesn’t infringe on your rights, it protects theirs.

The “right” to have free emergency contraception provided by your employer is not exactly a moral imperative. I don’t even think the product existed until fairly recently.

Its not actually a right to free anything. Its a part of the payment for your work. And it should be more your decision how to use your wage and certainly not the employers.

But one large problem with the emergency contraception mandate is that you will run into this same mandate if you run ANY business. It’s not even like you can escape it by going into some other field. It would be akin to passing a law stating that ALL people must work on Saturday.

Or using tax money paid by A to fund X with X being against the religious beliefs of A (for example education including evilution). Taxes can´t be avoided… I hope you see where this argument is going.

And let’s face it. If emergency contraception is a major monthly expense for you, you’re doing something wrong.

Actually it means they are doing something right. A lot of something.

 
Flag Post

issendorf, I really appreciate YOUR contribution to my thread. Ya demonstrate a fine example of how the right uses horried tactics to obfuscate issues so that this Congressional gridlock is foundering America on a sea of national social issues and global economic failing.

Your below postings are rife w/ such renderings.
They have the taint of simple trolling.

Originally posted by issendorf:

@ Karma
From your link:

KKK: While I view the positives of BIG corporations as being a good foundation for promotion of a higher standard of living for all people,,,it is those few who use their tremendous size to “bully” the govt. to do its bidding so that it might have unfair advantage over other businesses and its own workforce.

You could say the same thing about big labor. But you didn’t, because you’re a liberal and liberals love their (often corrupt) labor unions. It’s a bit disingenuous to have this post decrying those nasty corporations while completely ignoring labor unions who do the exact same thing except in favor of the left.

Do ya see what ya’ve done there?
Just because ya expect me to present the ENTIRE discussion in my first post, YOU want to villify ANY omission of related issues and present THAT as some form of rational rebuttal.

I didn’t omit anything because I am a liberal.
As pointed out above, I’m presenting a picture that focuses ONLY—I say ONLY—on the HUGE corporations that use their size to BULLY most anything that would oppose their greedy ways

What can be so hard for YOU to understand this?
Why do YOU oppose limiting this kind of social/economic power?
Haven’t YOU told us how your parents own a (samll?) business?
Ya say they work very hard (60-70 hrs a wk?) at it.
Do YOU not see that the corporations OF WHICH I SPEAK are the reason they have to work so hard?

NOW, to discuss what YOU want to say about unions—esp. corrupt ones,,,,and how I ommited this. I didn’t want to make an AX thead that would stiffle discussion by limiting it to ONLY the hugely excessive greedy powerful SOME corporations use as their misson statement….thereby leaving out any relevant areas.

BUT, there are two things that YOU have omitted.
One: NOT ALL unions are corrupt,,,,just as NOT ALL corporations are corrupt.
The unions that are corrupt have fallen victim to the same power/greed shit that the corporations use. In fact, who do ya think corrupted the union leaders?

TWO: Yes, of course, unions favor the left.
That is if ya want to consider how the working class, who were at the mercy of big business owners, worked for deplorable wages that resulted in a standard of living faaaaaar below that of the owners. Which, to me (and a whooooole lot of others), is grossly unfair to those who do the actual work and creat the profits.

Do I really need to post a huge # of links that show how the rise of the middle class in America is a hugely direct result of unions? But, I will at least give this one that supports my points.
Here is another one that well describes my position on this issue.

I could go into the whole coal mining debacle of depression of the miners. But, I seriously doubt that YOUR closed, biased mind would accept it as being significant, as the truth, and as even being germane to this thread. I say this because this “evilness” of BIGREALLY BIG—corporations is a recent thing. Becoming aware of the social impact of political/ecomonic changes just doesn’t “sink in” for several generations….esp. if they are of the “creeping” nature. And, such creeping is “SPUN” by the corporation “mouth-puppets”.

YOU are like so many “conservatives” that I know and observe via the media. Ya sooooo very easily fall prey to the shit facts the “evil corporations” spew. But, I don’t blame the recievers of the shit. The big, EVIL corporations have the money/power to hire some very, VERY GOOD “salespersons”…..ppl that could sell refrigerators to Eskemos.

 
Flag Post

Actually it means their doing something right. A lot of something.

Is that supposed to be a joke? I’m not laughing. Even if you don’t think it sometimes kills human life, it’s still akin to using a fire extinguisher on a regular basis. If you’re having sex often and are going to use birth control, there are better and probably cheaper ways. But hey, if it’s covered by insurance anyway, why care about the expense?

Its not actually a right to free anything. Its a part of the payment for your work. And it should be more your decision how to use your wage and certainly not the employers.

Why yes, it SHOULD be my decision on how to use my wage. But apparently I am forced to use it to buy health insurance that covers things I will never use, and would not use even if I were female.

It’s not like the employer is prohibiting its employees from buying the product. It just doesn’t want to be forced to pay for them.

Or using tax money paid by A to fund X with X being against the religious beliefs of A (for example education including evilution). Taxes can´t be avoided… I hope you see where this argument is going.

You just said above that “It’s a part of the payment for your work.” Which is it? A tax, or payment? But anyway…

Imagine you are an employer. Which would you prefer? That the homosexual-discriminating Boy Scouts get tax money to fund one of their no-gays-allowed camps, or that the law requires that you pay for the children of your employees to attend? Think about it. Wouldn’t the second one offend you more?

 
Flag Post
I didn’t omit anything because I am a liberal.
As pointed out above, I’m presenting a picture that focuses ONLY—I say ONLY—on the HUGE corporations that use their size to BULLY most anything that would oppose their greedy ways

Then why were labor unions omitted? If you are this paranoid about corporations’ influence, surely you should be concerned with all large entities ‘bullying’ their way through Washington. Unless you’re a complete ideologue, there’s no reason to not mention unions.

Do YOU not see that the corporations OF WHICH I SPEAK are the reason they have to work so hard?

The reason they work hard is so the business can make more money, so they can have a comfortable retirement, so they can afford for their four children to go to college without racking up loans, so they can leave a legacy to their children and grandchildren when they die. That’s why they work hard. I fail to see how IBM is forcing my parents to have a drive to be successful. That’s the stark difference between the left’s view of the world and the right’s view of the world.

I didn’t want to make an AX thead that would stiffle discussion by limiting it to ONLY the hugely excessive greedy powerful SOME corporations use as their misson statement….thereby leaving out any relevant areas.

….. Really? You just said “As pointed out above, I’m presenting a picture that focuses ONLY—I say ONLY—on the HUGE corporations that use their size to BULLY most anything that would oppose their greedy ways.” You’re really good at contradicting yourself, but this is impressive, even by your standards.

In fact, who do ya think corrupted the union leaders?

Themselves?

That is if ya want to consider how the working class, who were at the mercy of big business owners, worked for deplorable wages that resulted in a standard of living faaaaaar below that of the owners. Which, to me (and a whooooole lot of others), is grossly unfair to those who do the actual work and creat the profits.

I’m well aware of what private sector unions have done for the middle class in this country. You won’t get much argument from me, just as corporations have a tremendous positive influence in this country. I just really, really, really abhor public sector unions for a variety of reasons.

YOU are like so many “conservatives” that I know and observe via the media. Ya sooooo very easily fall prey to the shit facts the “evil corporations” spew.

Except you didn’t point out any shit facts that I espoused. I’m just going to assume that you’re full of shit until you point them out.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
KKK: I didn’t omit anything because of my being a liberal.
As pointed out above, I’m presenting a picture that focuses ONLY—I say ONLY—on the HUGE corporations that use their size to BULLY most anything that would oppose their greedy ways

Then why were labor unions omitted? If you are this paranoid about corporations’ influence, surely you should be concerned with all large entities ‘bullying’ their way through Washington. Unless you’re a complete ideologue, there’s no reason to not mention unions.

I’m guessing YOU are failing—for WHATEVER “reason”—to understand the concept of FOCUS. It certainly is demonstrated by YOUR ALL above.

Besides, wanting to focus doesn’t NECESSARILY EXCLUDE conected parameters. It merely means that the focus should be paramount. Now, just how hard is it to understand THAT?
I wonder if it isn’t either a difficullty to grasp the reality of American socio-economics….OR, merely an effort to simply be trollish on the issue?

KKK: Do YOU not see that the corporations OF WHICH I SPEAK are the reason they have to work so hard?

The reason they work hard is so the business can make more money, so they can have a comfortable retirement, so they can afford for their four children to go to college without racking up loans, so they can leave a legacy to their children and grandchildren when they die. That’s why they work hard.

NO.
Again, YOU totally miss the point.
They may CHOOSE to work hard in order to achieve a higher standard of living…many do and why would I want to find fault with that? Good grief.

I fail to see how IBM is forcing my parents to have a drive to be successful. That’s the stark difference between the left’s view of the world and the right’s view of the world.

YES.
YOU do “fail to see”.
As I’ve stated….I’m wondering why this is.
How obvious to I have to be in order for YOU to grasp the fact that I’ve CONSTANTLY made my focus on the “loophole” of capitalism that now is being used by CERTAIN—as in ONLY the few unscruplous ones—corporations that use the power afforded them by sheer magintude.

It is this power to compete against the “small business” that makes it so hard for ppl like your parents—along w/ most ALL OTHER ppl to have a standard of living commesurate share of the American economy. Simply stated, the big get the lions share and the little get the table scraps. OR: the rich get richer and the poor (ALL OTHERS) get poorer.

I’m NOT going to do the leg work to show/prove this.
I shouldn’t have to.
Most anyone other than the brain-washed members of the more “conservative” brain-washed folks are the ones who refuse/aren’t able to see this….for whatever reason.

But, this, even though a quite lengthy read, pretty much supports MY opinion on the matter. This is, interestingly enough quite germane to your parents “plight”, because it points out how they aren’t even any longer considered to be in the “capitalism race” of competetion….they are just too small of “potatoes” for the mega-guys to give a shit about.

I esp. like where the link says: “My intent is not to blame any one person at Wal-Mart for the deaths of Diane’s kittens, nor to blame the rather abstract entity that is Wal-Mart taken as a whole. It is to reinforce the idea that monopoly exists just about everywhere in America today. It is also to add two new facts. First, today’s monopolies increasingly appear in the shape of giant trading firms like Wal-Mart, which are designed to govern entire production systems, even entire swaths, of our economy. Second, monopoly does not eliminate competition, nor does it automatically result in a rational and efficient governance of the production and service systems under its sway.”

“On the contrary, monopolization merely shifts competition from a horizontal plane to a vertical plane. That is, rather than having a winner-take-all battle among automobile makers or between Wal-Mart and Target, for example, we have competition between the monopoly and all the people under its power. In the case of Wal-Mart, this includes its workers and its suppliers as well as its customers. The real competition, in other words, is between the billionaires who make and wield monopolies like Wal-Mart and people like you, me, and Diane. Let’s add to that, the small businesses like that of YOUR parents.

KKK: I didn’t want to make an AX thead that would stiffle discussion by limiting it to ONLY the hugely excessive greedy powerful SOME corporations use as their misson statement….thereby leaving out any relevant areas.

….. Really? You just said “As pointed out above, I’m presenting a picture that focuses ONLY—I say ONLY—on the HUGE corporations that use their size to BULLY most anything that would oppose their greedy ways.” You’re really good at contradicting yourself, but this is impressive, even by your standards.

NO.
I’m doing NO “contradicting”.
It is YOU, once again, FAILING (for whatever reason) to grasp the concept of FOCUS.
Just because I made my INITIAL FOCUS on a specific aspect DOES NOT preclude ANY discussion of issues germane to it….DUH.

Again, it is this “trollish” distortion of simple concepts that is the “go to tool” being used by the neo-concervatives to defend a concept that is, in reality, against their own best interests. Of course, as I’v already stated….this isn’t really all that hard to understand when they aren’t so intent on listening to the propaganda being put out by the unscrupulous mega-corps.

KKK: In fact, who do ya think corrupted the union leaders?

Themselves?

Christ on a cracker.
How naive can YOU get?
The union bosses caved in because of bribes/faulty logic/etc. from “MANAGEMENT”.
KKK: That is if ya want to consider how the working class, who were at the mercy of big business owners, worked for deplorable wages that resulted in a standard of living faaaaaar below that of the owners. Which, to me (and a whooooole lot of others), is grossly unfair to those who do the actual work and creat the profits.

I’m well aware of what private sector unions have done for the middle class in this country. You won’t get much argument from me, just as corporations have a tremendous positive influence in this country. I just really, really, really abhor public sector unions for a variety of reasons.

SO?
All YOU have done here is two things.
One: Ya agreed w/ me about THE GOOD unions have done/still do.
Two: Ya gave an opinon on why ya don’t like them….but failed to,, what was it that YOU said about me?—oh yeah,, “Except you didn’t point out any shit facts that I espoused. I’m just going to assume that you’re full of shit until you point them out.”
KKK: YOU are like so many “conservatives” that I know and observe via the media. Ya sooooo very easily fall prey to the shit facts the “evil corporations” spew.

Except you didn’t point out any shit facts that I espoused. I’m just going to assume that you’re full of shit until you point them out.

Kiddo, these “facts” abound all around.
But, as I’ve pointed out above…those unable or UNWILLING to look for/at them will NEVER “get it” that their economic plight is largely of their own doing because of their buying into a system that is, quite simply stated, USING THEM LIKE LIVESTOCK.

 
Flag Post

I’m making what would appear to be a double post.
However, it is actually an emending to my OP.
I’m doing it here rather than at the top of the page where it would very likely NOT be seen/read.

I guess I need to make it much clear (for SOME ppl) that the very concept of “corporation” is something that I am not only a part of…but also greatly SUPPORT. But, my concept is one that is much broader than the popularly known one.

Here is a dictionary definition.
BUT, the third concept says: any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
And, in the Word Origin/History part: 1530s, “persons united in a body for some purpose,” from such use in Anglo-Latin, from L. corporationem, noun of action from corporare “to embody” (see corporate).

I take this to mean that “back in the caveman days” when tribes were being formed, they were a “corporation”. I see the Elks, the Masons, and most any “club” as being this form of corporation. I also see corporation to be analogous to a similar-sounding word: cooperation.

The problem w/ modern BUSINESS corporation is that when an UNCHECKED system of capitalism has the capacity to amass huge wealth into the hands of a very few…this just has to mean that such wealth COMES FROM SOMEWHERE. It certainly isn’t just growing on trees the rich planted in their luxurious backyards to be picked at will…because they are able to elevate themselves by tugging hard on their own bootstraps.

NO, it is because the wealthy have the power to tug on the wallets of their workers/consumers in an unfair/unbalanced practice….one called plutocracy. Our “government” is little more than their henchmen who are assigned this task.

I’ve luved how jhco accuses me of be a “lefty”.
Well…I guess he is somewhat right when it come to social issues. After all, I am for Gay rights and for a woman to decide what is best for her body & capacity to be an adequate MOTHER.

BUT, I am a FISCAL conservative.
I believe capitalism is good….TO A CERTAIN POINT.
I’ve explained the “beyond” that point above.
I want to add that I think that—in addition to shifting huge amounts of money to the rich tax breaks, etc—we do a lot of this draining of the American’s tax dollars by having it go towards expenditures that don’t really benefit them much at all. What kind of money is spent on the military and its wars? Where does THAT money end up? Yup, in the pockets of the already wealthy.

So yeah, I’d much rather “conserve” our resources,, both our natural ones & our man-made (infrastructure, education, health systems, etc.,, so they go to those who truly merit having them….rather than to those who are most adept at the ART-OF-GREED.

 
Flag Post
Besides, wanting to focus doesn’t NECESSARILY EXCLUDE conected parameters. It merely means that the focus should be paramount. Now, just how hard is it to understand THAT?
I wonder if it isn’t either a difficullty to grasp the reality of American socio-economics….OR, merely an effort to simply be trollish on the issue?

You completely evaded my question. I guess you are complete ideologue, which is what I pegged you as.

It is this power to compete against the “small business” that makes it so hard for ppl like your parents—along w/ most ALL OTHER ppl to have a standard of living commesurate share of the American economy. Simply stated, the big get the lions share and the little get the table scraps. OR: the rich get richer and the poor (ALL OTHERS) get poorer.

Yeah, that’s capitalism. I’m not really seeing your point, nor how it’s this awful thing. If Walmart wants to work to crush out as much competition in order to increase their profits and the profits of their shareholders, I couldn’t give a damn. I love capitalism. You appear to have some deep-seeded resentments towards it.

I’m doing NO “contradicting”.

So you didn’t want to limit the conversation to only greedy corporations, while at the same time focusing on only corporations. So when I divert into including labor unions, you get peeved because I’m not following the vague rules you didn’t include in the OP. Yeah, no contradictions there.

The union bosses caved in because of bribes/faulty logic/etc. from “MANAGEMENT”.

People corrupt themselves. People can blame whatever the hell they want, but the fact is, people choose to act in a corrupt manner. It’s the height of naivety to think that these union bosses are angels who were just harmed by the foul system they inherited.

Two: Ya gave an opinon on why ya don’t like them….but failed to,, what was it that YOU said about me?

I can fill up 30 pages with examples of why teachers unions are the worst thing for the school system in the US. I can certainly do that if you like, but I felt it would bog down the conversation and would really get this off on a tangent. But, if you really want to start tearing apart teachers and other public sector unions, I’d be more than glad to do so. Having lived in Madison, WI during the protests at the capital, nothing gives me more pleasure than to talk to a liberal and trash all the shit things public sector unions do, least of which is bankrupting cities and states across the country.

Kiddo, these “facts” abound all around.

Just one shit fact that I’ve said. Just one little one that the evil corporations have indoctrinated on me. That’s all I asked for and instead go to some anti-corp strawman that they’re using us as sheeple. Usually that happens when someone doesn’t have a leg to stand on in an argument and are grasping at straws.

NO, it is because the wealthy have the power to tug on the wallets of their workers/consumers in an unfair/unbalanced practice….one called plutocracy.

So it’s unfair that a company’s boss and the company’s board of advisors has say over what the workers do and what their wages are? Who, pray tell, should be making those decisions?

BUT, I am a FISCAL conservative

I’m pretty sure you don’t know what a fiscal conservative is. A fiscal conservative doesn’t vote for Barack Obama.

I want to add that I think that—in addition to shifting huge amounts of money to the rich tax breaks, etc

We aren’t shifting money to the rich. It’s their own money in the first place. Here’s another example of how you are very not fiscally conservative. It is the government that gave money to people in order for them to be rich. The government doesn’t have any of its own money. It all comes from private citizens. The wealthy have their own capital and give it to the federal government to make up the largest slice of the pie. There is no shifting of money to give to wealthy – that would imply that the government has an income of its own, which is a farce.

So yeah, I’d much rather “conserve” our resources,, both our natural ones & our man-made (infrastructure, education, health systems, etc.,, so they go to those who truly merit having them

The left is all about being inclusive – surely you shouldn’t permit anyone from accessing our resources. And who exactly are these people who ‘merit’ these systems? The poor who don’t pay anything into the system?