Or you could man up and answer my rejoinder to the garbage you put forth a few days ago.

I refuse to repeat myself, especially since it's written and not spoken. You can read my previous posts answering your inane questions.

As far as your "man up" comment goes, I'm not the one suggesting people watch children's cartoons in order to support my point.

Can you tell me about a single country with high taxation and high business regulation where everybody is happy?

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/02/the_world_map_o.html

So how did they determine that "everybody" is happy?

Dunno. Perhaps you can find a source that shows that people are happier in countries with low taxes and low business regulation.

Regarding the earlier forest conversation that you've abandoned in lieu of focusing on specific trees... This isn't about you and this isn't about me. This is about the negative effects/affects of capitalism without a morality check, without loyalty to a nation. This is about interpretation of the constitution. This is about the ideals that ground the founding of the country. This is about the moral obligations that a citizen has to this nation. You've not answered the moral questions being put forth to my satisfaction, and you know it.


Regarding the video I've put forth hoping to re-engage...

That was not your own words. The critique you've offered misses the point and proceeds to discuss things that do not matter. What underlies the Supreme Court case is not an individual's freedom of speech. It is campaign finance law. It was struck down on freedom of speech laws. IFF a corporation is treated as an individual can a corporation have freedom of speech. Evidently the children's video wasn't simple enough, so let's do it in our words.

1. A corporation is not a person, but they are being treated as such.
2. A corporation has profit as a sole motive.
3. A corporation is a vehicle for amassing huge amounts of wealth without having to pay taxes on it.
4. A corporation removes personal responsibility.

Which point ought we discuss first?

A happy slave is still a slave.

Or skirt the deeper issues being put forth...

Oh and you made "Citizen's United V. FEC"?

I don't think that comment merit a lot of discussion, but here's the bottom line of what I have gleaned from this conversation.

You prefer economies where there is a high concentration of wealth at the top. I prefer economies where the wealth is equitably distributed across the population. Highly progressive taxes and good business regulation are two elements that accomplish that.

Just a difference of opinion, I guess.

A corporation is a group of people working towards the same goal.



So?



False



False



There's nothing to discuss. Points 3 and 4 are flat out false. Points 1 and 2 are factually true.

The law to prevent corporations from contributing to a political campaign was passed by Southern Democrats to prevent Republican run corporations from supporting "negro" candidates. Leftists only want to stop corporations from having a voice now, because it will make their extreme policies easier to pass. Why are no leftists saying that Unions shouldn't have a political voice? Because they are hypocrites. So it's okay to deprive a corporations management and stock holders of their political speech, but it's not okay to do it to the thuggish unions?

Yeah, there is nothing to discuss. Your ideas are common and shallow, you should try to think for yourself.

I prefer an economy where people are allowed to keep most of what they make. I prefer an economy where people who want to start a business can, without endless red tape, fees and high taxes.

You like the idea of being a well cared for slave, I think that's obvious. I hope you can find that somewhere. I would prefer to be poor, frustrated and free than to be a poor, but happy slave.

I wonder why I should vote for a president when elections are stolen, (Bush) and when the two major parties are simply puppets installed by people like Rupert Murdoch and other filthy rich bankers and power brokers.

If elections were fair, I might say, okay, vote.

I would love to meet you in person Spider. Love it.

I'm looking through the actual transcript of the case. Care to look at it with me? Or is that too shallow?

A corporation does remove personal responsibility. An LLC is exactly for that purpose. An LLC in Nevada will protect you from taxes and personal responsibility. You'll probably find a lot of really shady businesses registered there. But that does not mean that all of them registered there are "shady businesses."

It's just good business.

Somehow, I doubt that you are being honest.



Are you inviting me over to tea and crumpets?

Some people post fact. Some people derive conclusions form those facts which are nonsense. Some people avoid talking about the things that matter because they are aware of how such a discussion will make their own position look bad.

I'm looking at THE transcripts of the court case. They are the evidence in question. Spider will run...

Scurry away.

No, I would love to meet you... if only to observe your mannerism.

Don't beat yourself up so bad.



I didn't realize that they made children's version of court transcripts. Are there little pictures of puppies and kittens to help keep your interest?



What? Does this mean we aren't going to have our get together for tea and crumpets? That's very disappointing, I was so looking forward to meeting you.