Unfortunately it seems the Left has lost and ultimately America will pay the price. Europe, Canada, Australia, and most of Asia are moving pragmatically forward without overwhelming debt and without corporations controlling the government. Sad.
When I say "discipline" It is inevitable that you will be "renditioned" to a corporate "reeducation" camp to purge you of your evil sinning attitude of not "listening positively" to corporate propaganda advertising. While? Your family lives in a tent eating 1 can of soup a day.
Define the future! That's the fight with Neocons. If you don't? They will
I see debtors prison being revived. Not a prison for banks who were irresponsible and looted American money for their corrupt bailouts, but prison for the common man who lost his job and can't find another. Who can only provide a tent and a can of soup aday for his family.
If the founding fathers could see us now it must look like "The planet of the Apes". to them with corporations controlling man instead of man controlling corporations. Here Charleton Heston and I agree. "Get your d___ed paw off of me you d___ed dirty corporation!"
Corporate advertisements are everywhere on your computer in your snail mail in the paper etc... In the new corporate fascist police state will you be required to "listen" to a certain quota of 3D Halogram corporate advertisements? Not at the time of your choosing, but at the time corporations determine you should watch it? Where? In the privacy of your bedroom, bathroom, etc... And if you don't watch the corporate advertisement will you be reported to Central Congressional Corporate Command? For discipline?
This SCOTUS decision along with Bush's atrocities, along with bank atrocities is due in part to NEW free information available to the masses. What? The Gutenberg Bible mass produced on 1st european printing press created war because people read the truth of the bible for themselves. What? The internet. What? We take it for granted. What? Everytime in history where the masses received "the truth" (new truthful revealing information) there has been a WAR. (example Gutenburg Bible mass produced created religious war in europe) The internet is ultimately the true enemy of corporations. For example how many people would know about "corporate personhood" if they hadn't downloaded one of Thom's podcasts? Sure maybe they heard it on XM or sirius or public radio But? The internet is free information on steroids and it is revealing the truth to the masses in so many ways that corporations are insecure about maintaining power and have began to lose power.
The Scotus decision put a chip on the shoulder of corporations and corporations are daring the American people to knock it off.
Can we waterboard and rendition Halliburton CEOs for doing biz with the axiz of evil Iran?
If Al qaeda incorporates can they contribute money to our politicians?
Correction - Corporations are now SUPERIOR persons and weof all color are the slave class.
Defining differences to create the new ideas to create the new leadership IN-CHARGE populist movement
I think that to blame Republicans or Democrats is wrong. It is too basic football and it falls right into status quo corporate propaganda indoctrination. Populist media should take the lead in the definition game. It should be DEFINED and FRAMED in the "blame game" that that Republican populists and Democratic populists should NEVER be blamed for any corporate error ever at anytime by grotesque errored "grouping". For Reagan? Republican Corporatists should be blamed not Republican Populists. For Obama? Clearly it is democratic Corporatists not democratic Populists who are destroying We the people's POPULIST government. We should get elected and turn Republican populists and Democratic populist to a true bi-partisan POPULIST agenda which moves the country to a more populist agenda NOT to a more corporate agenda. The new movement is now. It starts by defining differences, just Gingrich tried to define differences. Defining differences works. It is a fight Who in the media can educate and define the differences between the parties into the future? Will it be corporate propaganda? Or will it be an attractive true American Populist message?
What we have now is one corporate party. The aggressive corporate side is represented as Republican by the corporate media and the passive corporate side is represented as Democrat by the corporate media. Both are corporate and have a corporate indoctrinating message. BOTH use a populist message to get elected and turn on that message to the corporate agenda once elected.
Thom, I think we need to start making a distinction between “free” speech and “purchased” speech. A corporate CEO’s free speech is no more impaired or prevented than mine is just because he can’t run commercials. He is still just as free as I to write a letter to the editor, call a talk show, speak up at a town hall meeting, stand on a soap box and give a speech to anyone who’ll listen, etc. We have equal treatment under the law. However, when it comes to running expensive commercials in favor of a candidate of your choice, that speech is anything but “free”. The most, loudest, longest and best goes to the highest bidder or those with the greatest ability to afford it. This wrong-headed Supreme Court decision has literally used the law, or at least their interpretation of it, to create significant inequalities among people in our society in their ability to express their preference for one candidate over another, and therefore violated equal treatment under the law. “Purchased” speech is not the same as “free speech”. Realistically, I no longer have equal opportunity under the law to express my preference for a candidate in the same way a much wealthier CEO of a corporation now can. Whether that was their intention, or it was inadvertent, they've created an inequality of opportunity just as much as if they had made your income a determinant in your eligibility to express your preference for one candidate over another. I encourage you to start to make the distinction between “free” and “purchased” speech in addressing this issue.
The recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend as much money as they wish for political purposes will transform the United States into a Fascist state. We need to correct this before we end up with all political decisions being done by directive from corporate board rooms.
My solution is a simple fix. It protects free speech as well as protecting our political system. In this age of international terrorism we need to insure that we are not empowering foreign iinterests or international terrorists by protecting our political speech.
I propose that we make a new classification for business, the International business entity. This classification would have all the legal protections that we apply to corporations but are not considered individuals and have no individual civil rights.
Any corporation not incorporated within the United states will fall into this classification.
Any corporation with more than 100 million dollars in assets and has less than 75% of its shareholders are American citizens would also fall into this category.
As well, any corporation which has less than 75% US citizen employees would also be an international business entity.
This would prevent International corporations from having undue influence on the American political system. It protects the speech rights of American corporations whose interest is American stockholders and American employees. Let's do this before we all required start speaking Chinese, or our women start wearing burqa.
Question -
I've heard Thom say on several occasions that blowing up the filibuster would only require 51 votes. But Sam Stein reported on the Huffington Post today in an article titled "Harkin, Dem Groups Working To End Filibuster" that it would require 67 votes to change senate rules. Can anybody clarify this?
Thom,
If the Supreme Court is going to continue to say that the 14th Amendment grants corperations all rights that the Constitution grants people, then the 13th amendment should outlaw the stock market and the ability of one corperation to own another. If a corperation is a person then both of these practices are slavery.
We have all kinds of laws that protect equal opportunity under the law. Realistically, I no longer have equal opportunity under the law to express my preference for a candidate the same way a much wealthier CEO of a corporation does. Whether that was their intention, or it was inadvertent, they've created an inequality of opportunity just as much as if they had made the lightness or darkness of someone's skin a litmus test for how much opportunity they would have to express their opinion for one candidate over another. I encourage you to start to make the distinction between “free” and “purchased” speech in addressing this issue.
'Just received this email from Alan Grayson's office:
We were all appalled by the Supreme Court's sellout to Corporate America. Now it's time to fight back. Tens of thousands of you have signed on to fight against the legalization of bribery and the corporate takeover of our country.
And I have some good news. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers is our first ally.
As you know, I've introduced six bills that will help save our democracy. One of them, the 'End Corporate Collusion Act' (HR 4433), applies antitrust law to break up corporate political committees.
This bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee for action. And the chair of that committee, Mr. Conyers, has signed on to the bill as its first cosponsor! Conyers is the second longest serving Member of the House, elected in 1965.
Thom, I think we need to start making a distinction between "free" speech and "purchased" speech. A CEO's free speech is no more impaired or prevented than mine is just because he can't run commercials. He is still just as free as I to write a letter to the editor, call a talk show, speak up at a town hall meeting, stand on a soap box and give a speech to anyone who'll listen, etc. We have equal treatment under the law. However, when it comes to running commercials in favor of a candidate of your choice, that speech is anything but "free", and this wrong headed Supreme Court decision has literally used the law, or at least their interpretation of it, to create significant inequalities among people in our society in their ability to express their preference for one candidate over another, and therefore violated the protection of equal treatment under the law. "Purchased" speech is not the same as "free speech".
Ideally that is how it is supposed to work.
In these days of Faux and Entertainment Tonight news outlets and the rest of the corporate media that does things like refuse ads from 'Move On etc..
With this glut of right-wing corporate money injected into the process, it will make that grass roots action all the more difficult.
Aside from more young people and hopefully better informed voters, the money that was very legitimately raised by and from the people for Pres. Obama, made a huge difference in the outcome.
The right recognized that and it scared them; this is their remedy.
Good luck,
Rick
This ruling is totally corrupt and utterly appalling.
However, why not use it?
Corporations have the best of all possible worlds in the US. They have all human rights without human penalties.
Why not repeal all corporate tax regs. and subject them to the rates and regs. of single humans?
Why not subject them to all human criminal statutes, including penalties: charter revocation for causing the death of another person (including the death of another corporation [Mercedes Benz re: Chrysler]) and operating under a trustee and removal of officers for a number of years as a jail sentence for a non-capital offense?
For those which see and have declared themselves to be global companies instead of American why are they eligible for 14th Amendent protections when the Amendment clearly states that it applies only to citizens born here or naturalized?
For those which set up dummy HQs abroad, why are they not illegal aliens?
Know your enemy. If we are going to have a revolution it is always good to know who the bad guys are especially if you expect to win. The decision by the Supreme court to give ghosts/spirits all the rights of a real living human being was a good thing. Now I know who the enemy is. Giving ghosts rights and allowing them to manifest themselves with money, tells me what it is the United States Supreme Court holds to be the most important upholding and critical factor in our democracy. Money. Not rights, not real people, not the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights. Plain and simple. Money.
Money is not the enemy here. A Justice system that seeks to promote, defend and protect money accumulated and instituted by spirits is the enemy. I am not a ghost. I am a real person. Clearly this ruling by the Supreme Court was a direct, frontal attack on me and every other living breathing person that is guaranteed the inalienable right to be recognized as a person in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Know your enemy. Knowing the enemy is half the battle. The Supreme Court knows exactly what they are doing and what they have done. It is their job to know. They have declared war on real people. This is good. It is good because we now have no doubt as to where they stand. I know who I am and what I stand for. The line in the sand has been drawn.
Nothing is all-powerful. Every power has some weakness even the Supreme Court and ghosts. Knowing the enemies weakness is our greatest strength. The Supreme Court's greatest strength is, it insures laws made by Congress are upheld and interprets the Supreme Law of the Land.
A Ghost's greatest strength is also their greatest weakness,invisibility. The Supreme Court did us a favor when they ruled that in order for the ghosts to be recognized they had to manifest themselves in the form of money. Now the enemy must by law show itself to us. Still money is not the bad guy here. The spirit using the money to manifest itself is now very visible, vulnerable and at it's weakest point.
This is when we are at our strongest. The ghostly corporate American spirit waves and weaves itself in shinning 100 dollar bills before our Congress teasing and taunting it to embrace and embody it.
Congress is tempted by the seductive and alluring appeal of the spirit of money. If Congress gives in to their temptation the spirit now possesses them body and soul.
Our greatest strength at this point is to clearly and distinctly forbid Congress to, no I am not going to say forbid them to take the money. That would be silly. As long as there is money to be had the temptation is going to be there and someone is going to give into it. That human nature. Let's not try to change that. Let Congress take all the money they can or want. It is going to happen anyway and taking money is not the issue here. The issue here is the spirits need to be able to influence and control the laws Congress makes. What is critically and vitally important to corporate American spirits is Congress' ability to make and pass laws. So our greatest strength and power as real persons is to simply forbid Congress from voting on any Bill that has any ties to, connections, suggestions, or appearances, of ties to money from a fictitious Supreme Court approved and recognized ghost of a 'person'.
We have all the power people. The Supreme Court did their thing and made this ruling. We couldn't do a darn thing about it. Congress is doing it's thing making laws we don't want or care about and we can't seem to do anything about that either. What we can do is use all that stuff against them in a way they can not refuse or otherwise do. We are independent of the Supreme Court and the Congress. As independent voters, people, persons, we rule.
1. Do you mean to be “Rick in Canada” rather than Canadia?
2. Is your avatar a moose humping a mail box?"
I think I used 'Canadia' once way back when 'Canada' was taken.. it stuck ;-)
That is a very lonely moose that discovered a statue of a buffalo / bison..
Thankfully it wasn't 'too' cold but yes, it gets lonely in the Great White North'.
Cheers,
Rick
Unfortunately it seems the Left has lost and ultimately America will pay the price. Europe, Canada, Australia, and most of Asia are moving pragmatically forward without overwhelming debt and without corporations controlling the government. Sad.
Planet of the corporate Apes.
No disrespect to Apes!
When I say "discipline" It is inevitable that you will be "renditioned" to a corporate "reeducation" camp to purge you of your evil sinning attitude of not "listening positively" to corporate propaganda advertising. While? Your family lives in a tent eating 1 can of soup a day.
Define the future! That's the fight with Neocons. If you don't? They will
I see debtors prison being revived. Not a prison for banks who were irresponsible and looted American money for their corrupt bailouts, but prison for the common man who lost his job and can't find another. Who can only provide a tent and a can of soup aday for his family.
If the founding fathers could see us now it must look like "The planet of the Apes". to them with corporations controlling man instead of man controlling corporations. Here Charleton Heston and I agree. "Get your d___ed paw off of me you d___ed dirty corporation!"
Corporate advertisements are everywhere on your computer in your snail mail in the paper etc... In the new corporate fascist police state will you be required to "listen" to a certain quota of 3D Halogram corporate advertisements? Not at the time of your choosing, but at the time corporations determine you should watch it? Where? In the privacy of your bedroom, bathroom, etc... And if you don't watch the corporate advertisement will you be reported to Central Congressional Corporate Command? For discipline?
Can a corporation "hold truths to be self-evident"? No they don't have brain.
If Al qaeda incorporated then wouldn't they be given retroactive immunity from prosecution for 911 because they are a corporation working in Iraq?
If money equals free speech? Then if someone robs a bank are not they just redirecting a conversation for their own self intrest?
This SCOTUS decision along with Bush's atrocities, along with bank atrocities is due in part to NEW free information available to the masses. What? The Gutenberg Bible mass produced on 1st european printing press created war because people read the truth of the bible for themselves. What? The internet. What? We take it for granted. What? Everytime in history where the masses received "the truth" (new truthful revealing information) there has been a WAR. (example Gutenburg Bible mass produced created religious war in europe) The internet is ultimately the true enemy of corporations. For example how many people would know about "corporate personhood" if they hadn't downloaded one of Thom's podcasts? Sure maybe they heard it on XM or sirius or public radio But? The internet is free information on steroids and it is revealing the truth to the masses in so many ways that corporations are insecure about maintaining power and have began to lose power.
The Scotus decision put a chip on the shoulder of corporations and corporations are daring the American people to knock it off.
Can we waterboard and rendition Halliburton CEOs for doing biz with the axiz of evil Iran?
If Al qaeda incorporates can they contribute money to our politicians?
Correction - Corporations are now SUPERIOR persons and weof all color are the slave class.
Defining differences to create the new ideas to create the new leadership IN-CHARGE populist movement
I think that to blame Republicans or Democrats is wrong. It is too basic football and it falls right into status quo corporate propaganda indoctrination. Populist media should take the lead in the definition game. It should be DEFINED and FRAMED in the "blame game" that that Republican populists and Democratic populists should NEVER be blamed for any corporate error ever at anytime by grotesque errored "grouping". For Reagan? Republican Corporatists should be blamed not Republican Populists. For Obama? Clearly it is democratic Corporatists not democratic Populists who are destroying We the people's POPULIST government. We should get elected and turn Republican populists and Democratic populist to a true bi-partisan POPULIST agenda which moves the country to a more populist agenda NOT to a more corporate agenda. The new movement is now. It starts by defining differences, just Gingrich tried to define differences. Defining differences works. It is a fight Who in the media can educate and define the differences between the parties into the future? Will it be corporate propaganda? Or will it be an attractive true American Populist message?
What we have now is one corporate party. The aggressive corporate side is represented as Republican by the corporate media and the passive corporate side is represented as Democrat by the corporate media. Both are corporate and have a corporate indoctrinating message. BOTH use a populist message to get elected and turn on that message to the corporate agenda once elected.
John
Thom, I think we need to start making a distinction between “free” speech and “purchased” speech. A corporate CEO’s free speech is no more impaired or prevented than mine is just because he can’t run commercials. He is still just as free as I to write a letter to the editor, call a talk show, speak up at a town hall meeting, stand on a soap box and give a speech to anyone who’ll listen, etc. We have equal treatment under the law. However, when it comes to running expensive commercials in favor of a candidate of your choice, that speech is anything but “free”. The most, loudest, longest and best goes to the highest bidder or those with the greatest ability to afford it. This wrong-headed Supreme Court decision has literally used the law, or at least their interpretation of it, to create significant inequalities among people in our society in their ability to express their preference for one candidate over another, and therefore violated equal treatment under the law. “Purchased” speech is not the same as “free speech”. Realistically, I no longer have equal opportunity under the law to express my preference for a candidate in the same way a much wealthier CEO of a corporation now can. Whether that was their intention, or it was inadvertent, they've created an inequality of opportunity just as much as if they had made your income a determinant in your eligibility to express your preference for one candidate over another. I encourage you to start to make the distinction between “free” and “purchased” speech in addressing this issue.
The recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend as much money as they wish for political purposes will transform the United States into a Fascist state. We need to correct this before we end up with all political decisions being done by directive from corporate board rooms.
My solution is a simple fix. It protects free speech as well as protecting our political system. In this age of international terrorism we need to insure that we are not empowering foreign iinterests or international terrorists by protecting our political speech.
I propose that we make a new classification for business, the International business entity. This classification would have all the legal protections that we apply to corporations but are not considered individuals and have no individual civil rights.
Any corporation not incorporated within the United states will fall into this classification.
Any corporation with more than 100 million dollars in assets and has less than 75% of its shareholders are American citizens would also fall into this category.
As well, any corporation which has less than 75% US citizen employees would also be an international business entity.
This would prevent International corporations from having undue influence on the American political system. It protects the speech rights of American corporations whose interest is American stockholders and American employees. Let's do this before we all required start speaking Chinese, or our women start wearing burqa.
Question -
I've heard Thom say on several occasions that blowing up the filibuster would only require 51 votes. But Sam Stein reported on the Huffington Post today in an article titled "Harkin, Dem Groups Working To End Filibuster" that it would require 67 votes to change senate rules. Can anybody clarify this?
Thom,
If the Supreme Court is going to continue to say that the 14th Amendment grants corperations all rights that the Constitution grants people, then the 13th amendment should outlaw the stock market and the ability of one corperation to own another. If a corperation is a person then both of these practices are slavery.
We have all kinds of laws that protect equal opportunity under the law. Realistically, I no longer have equal opportunity under the law to express my preference for a candidate the same way a much wealthier CEO of a corporation does. Whether that was their intention, or it was inadvertent, they've created an inequality of opportunity just as much as if they had made the lightness or darkness of someone's skin a litmus test for how much opportunity they would have to express their opinion for one candidate over another. I encourage you to start to make the distinction between “free” and “purchased” speech in addressing this issue.
'Just received this email from Alan Grayson's office:
We were all appalled by the Supreme Court's sellout to Corporate America. Now it's time to fight back. Tens of thousands of you have signed on to fight against the legalization of bribery and the corporate takeover of our country.
And I have some good news. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers is our first ally.
As you know, I've introduced six bills that will help save our democracy. One of them, the 'End Corporate Collusion Act' (HR 4433), applies antitrust law to break up corporate political committees.
This bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee for action. And the chair of that committee, Mr. Conyers, has signed on to the bill as its first cosponsor! Conyers is the second longest serving Member of the House, elected in 1965.
Can you call Chairman Conyers and thank him for helping us preserve democracy? His office phone number is 202-225-5126, or you can fill out his contact form at: http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.OnlineContactForm
Please tell him that you are grateful he has joined our cause to save our democracy, and thank him for signing on to HR 4433.
The fight has just begun.
Best,
Alan Grayson
Member of Congress
Yi Yo, Yi Yo, it's off to war we go!
Get set for another war!!!
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/21/us-missiles-spark-buildup-along-russo...
Obama's poor judgment seals any chance for reelection in 2012.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/21/obama-admits-expectations-for-mideast...
Thom, I think we need to start making a distinction between "free" speech and "purchased" speech. A CEO's free speech is no more impaired or prevented than mine is just because he can't run commercials. He is still just as free as I to write a letter to the editor, call a talk show, speak up at a town hall meeting, stand on a soap box and give a speech to anyone who'll listen, etc. We have equal treatment under the law. However, when it comes to running commercials in favor of a candidate of your choice, that speech is anything but "free", and this wrong headed Supreme Court decision has literally used the law, or at least their interpretation of it, to create significant inequalities among people in our society in their ability to express their preference for one candidate over another, and therefore violated the protection of equal treatment under the law. "Purchased" speech is not the same as "free speech".
Ideally that is how it is supposed to work.
In these days of Faux and Entertainment Tonight news outlets and the rest of the corporate media that does things like refuse ads from 'Move On etc..
With this glut of right-wing corporate money injected into the process, it will make that grass roots action all the more difficult.
Aside from more young people and hopefully better informed voters, the money that was very legitimately raised by and from the people for Pres. Obama, made a huge difference in the outcome.
The right recognized that and it scared them; this is their remedy.
Good luck,
Rick
This ruling is totally corrupt and utterly appalling.
However, why not use it?
Corporations have the best of all possible worlds in the US. They have all human rights without human penalties.
Why not repeal all corporate tax regs. and subject them to the rates and regs. of single humans?
Why not subject them to all human criminal statutes, including penalties: charter revocation for causing the death of another person (including the death of another corporation [Mercedes Benz re: Chrysler]) and operating under a trustee and removal of officers for a number of years as a jail sentence for a non-capital offense?
For those which see and have declared themselves to be global companies instead of American why are they eligible for 14th Amendent protections when the Amendment clearly states that it applies only to citizens born here or naturalized?
For those which set up dummy HQs abroad, why are they not illegal aliens?
Know your enemy. If we are going to have a revolution it is always good to know who the bad guys are especially if you expect to win. The decision by the Supreme court to give ghosts/spirits all the rights of a real living human being was a good thing. Now I know who the enemy is. Giving ghosts rights and allowing them to manifest themselves with money, tells me what it is the United States Supreme Court holds to be the most important upholding and critical factor in our democracy. Money. Not rights, not real people, not the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights. Plain and simple. Money.
Money is not the enemy here. A Justice system that seeks to promote, defend and protect money accumulated and instituted by spirits is the enemy. I am not a ghost. I am a real person. Clearly this ruling by the Supreme Court was a direct, frontal attack on me and every other living breathing person that is guaranteed the inalienable right to be recognized as a person in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Know your enemy. Knowing the enemy is half the battle. The Supreme Court knows exactly what they are doing and what they have done. It is their job to know. They have declared war on real people. This is good. It is good because we now have no doubt as to where they stand. I know who I am and what I stand for. The line in the sand has been drawn.
Nothing is all-powerful. Every power has some weakness even the Supreme Court and ghosts. Knowing the enemies weakness is our greatest strength. The Supreme Court's greatest strength is, it insures laws made by Congress are upheld and interprets the Supreme Law of the Land.
A Ghost's greatest strength is also their greatest weakness,invisibility. The Supreme Court did us a favor when they ruled that in order for the ghosts to be recognized they had to manifest themselves in the form of money. Now the enemy must by law show itself to us. Still money is not the bad guy here. The spirit using the money to manifest itself is now very visible, vulnerable and at it's weakest point.
This is when we are at our strongest. The ghostly corporate American spirit waves and weaves itself in shinning 100 dollar bills before our Congress teasing and taunting it to embrace and embody it.
Congress is tempted by the seductive and alluring appeal of the spirit of money. If Congress gives in to their temptation the spirit now possesses them body and soul.
Our greatest strength at this point is to clearly and distinctly forbid Congress to, no I am not going to say forbid them to take the money. That would be silly. As long as there is money to be had the temptation is going to be there and someone is going to give into it. That human nature. Let's not try to change that. Let Congress take all the money they can or want. It is going to happen anyway and taking money is not the issue here. The issue here is the spirits need to be able to influence and control the laws Congress makes. What is critically and vitally important to corporate American spirits is Congress' ability to make and pass laws. So our greatest strength and power as real persons is to simply forbid Congress from voting on any Bill that has any ties to, connections, suggestions, or appearances, of ties to money from a fictitious Supreme Court approved and recognized ghost of a 'person'.
We have all the power people. The Supreme Court did their thing and made this ruling. We couldn't do a darn thing about it. Congress is doing it's thing making laws we don't want or care about and we can't seem to do anything about that either. What we can do is use all that stuff against them in a way they can not refuse or otherwise do. We are independent of the Supreme Court and the Congress. As independent voters, people, persons, we rule.
@Fair vs Free Trade,
"@Rick in Canadia
1. Do you mean to be “Rick in Canada” rather than Canadia?
2. Is your avatar a moose humping a mail box?"
I think I used 'Canadia' once way back when 'Canada' was taken.. it stuck ;-)
That is a very lonely moose that discovered a statue of a buffalo / bison..
Thankfully it wasn't 'too' cold but yes, it gets lonely in the Great White North'.
Cheers,
Rick
@glenn N.: "..if corporations are people, can I sleep with victoria secret, inc tonight please?"
Sure! You can sleep with the Director of Personnel, 44-year-old Jaim Coxfurtry (he has at least 2 venereal diseases!)
"..I never metaphor I didn't liken." -harry ashburn
The Pro-Life people are pushing amendments or law into state houses to define “Personhood “ as it pertains to the fetus.
If it pass and is made law, corporations would not meet the criteria of a person. The Pro-life people would kill Corporatocracy