" CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE"

What did he mean by this ? And why do gullible conservashits believe this ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

bump because curious

He means corporations are made up of people. Therefore, they should not be entirely stripped of their rights. However, Romney is a shill. Not saying I agree or disagree with what he said.

>rmoney fag

They are legal entities that only care about raising profits

Nothing personable about corporations son

>son
fuck off with that

Which rights do you believe corporations should be stripped of in particular?

Like I said, I don't support, and have never supported that spineless faggot.

>that only care about raising profits
And most people in this country only care about things that will benefit them. Not saying corporations deserve the status that they have but that is not a good argument.

Fuck that mormonigger

Umm the right not to have unlimited funds to support political campaigns and influence politicians

They're reptilians.

Do not fall for the alien bait

He's saying that Corporations are people therefore can have religious freedom that comes with that.

This. Corporations are not people but they are comprised of people who have the same philosophical goals as a company: expand and improve your well-being. We are just a very successful, very advanced virus. It has to be embraced.

He means that he supports flooding America with corporations from third world countries, under the guise of human rights.

Fair enough. I think you meant the opposite, but I get your point.

>corporations are people too!
>except when they do morally questionable things, then they are just a profit seeking entity that cannot be judged as a person

Unfortunately Romney is referring to the fact that our system didn't properly define groups of people as not a person. Along the way in our history, this oversight has lead to the courts trying to figure out what rights a corporation has, and this question has been brought up in court on more than one occasion. Since the courts have case law, which has come to define what a Person is to include a Corporation, the only way I see out of this logical blackhole is that we need an amendment to define a person...Note this has always been a troubling thing to define, since women and black people used to be excluded. IMO it's time to better define what we mean by a person.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States

It has to do with double taxation and separating liability away from innocent shareholders. Libtard faggots read too deep into this.

Raising profits is a terrible value. The results from focusing on increasing money is the current problem we have in our society. We have a media that's been bought out by the highest bidder. We have a government that's been lobbied to shit to only suit the needs of corporate owners. And we have a people who are willing to waste years of their life trying to make the most money.

And look at the socio-political spectrum of most Americans. We're unhappy. We're increasing divorce rates and are less likely to create families. We have the highest incarceration rate than any other country in the world. We consume over 15 hours of media every single day. Obesity is rising. We're at each other's throats over who's voting for who in the upcoming election. Race relations are growing worse, and now gender relations are jeopardized by feminism and radical equality seekers.

And if you look around you, you'll find that the thing we collectively value most is money. What a society holds highest in regards can be argued as the driving force of that nation. And we're all a bunch of greedy fucks who don't even try to promote other values, other than equality, which arguably is only around so the people who preach equality get more money. We don't value family. We don't value hard work. We don't value loyalty or compassion. Everyone's trying to find the optimum way of making extra cash. And for what? What is the end game result of making extra money? So you can buy happiness? So you can buy comfort? Is that all there was to living, so you can die saying you had the high score in your bank account?

Trying to make more money is an okay value to have, but it can never be the BEST value you have. It has to be put in check by other things we hold close to ourselves in life.


Growth for the sake of growth is the logic of a cancer cell.

>And why do gullible conservashits believe this ?

Pretty sure he got booed for this statement.

Well since it is unconstitutional to levy a direct tax, we could avoid the double taxation by simply undoing the atrocities to our system that were instantiated in 1913 to include the Federal Reserve Private Bank, the Internal Revenue Service and the 16th Amendment.

...OK, so money is evil, but what does any of that have to do with Corporate Personhood and how it came about? If you don't take time to understand a system, you will never affect a change that you are going to appreciate in the long run. So fine, money is bad, greed is bad. Go back and look at how we got Corporate Personhood more if we're going to undo that... or are you proposing we reject all forms of money and what, try out a barter system?