|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 8, 2011 19:30:30 GMT -6
I quoted parts and responded to parts. That's what you've been doing. The last 2 quotes I just added manually after I made the post because I forgot to address some things, which is why your name doesn't show up. I don't understand your question. Sorry to have been delayed. Only the very first quote by me of all you included was carried into the Message box. I noticed the last non-attributed quotes and knew they were simply added by writing the combination (quote), (/quote) around the content to be presented as a quote. They didn't come across either.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 9, 2011 3:37:36 GMT -6
I quoted parts and responded to parts. That's what you've been doing. The last 2 quotes I just added manually after I made the post because I forgot to address some things, which is why your name doesn't show up. I don't understand your question. Sorry to have been delayed. Only the very first quote by me of all you included was carried into the Message box. I noticed the last non-attributed quotes and knew they were simply added by writing the combination (quote), (/quote) around the content to be presented as a quote. They didn't come across either. I'm not so sure what your problem is, but if all else fails, you just highlight the parts you want to respond to, paste it into your reply box in another screen, and wrap it around the quote tags. Please hurry so I can read your response!
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 10, 2011 0:40:07 GMT -6
And here is an answer to your message, cobbled together using my original message you answered, your answer to that message, and some judicious use of quote /quote. The first thing is to add in the missing information. One more thing. Is it OK that millionaires will use their own money to get elected a la Bloomberg? Let's think about this... pardon if posted in wrong place. Money does not elect candidates, votes elect candidates. Money is a means to the end of convincing voters to vote the way you wish. However, if you, and/or the ideas you present, suck canal water, you don't get elected no matter how much you spend. I give you Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, who lost in the last elections in spite of the huge fortunes they each spent. Besides, setting law limiting and detailing amounts is the work of the Congress and the people, not the constitution. New York is such a strange city anyway. They pretty much voted against type last time around. Stating the obvious, that Barak Obama was hugely popular even before the campaign began, does not convert spending money on campaigns into actual voting. Hyperbole in discourse does not replace fact or logic. Trying to prove a lie is difficult, and Seth Cline has as much trouble trying that as any other writer. As I said above, Whitman and Fiorina give the lie to the premise that money equals votes. Restricting the field under consideration to the run for presidency does NOT change the fact that money is not equal to vote. My point wasn't that money translates directly into votes, it was that money has a huge impact on how people vote. If you disagree with that statement, then why would you support a group that aims to cut corporate expenditures in elections and influencing legislation? I do believe the first, missing part of my original message, which I reinserted above, completely states my argument. Leaving it out is unconscionable. Implying I am not thoughtful and serious is even more unconscionable. You should seriously consider the ethics of your conduct! You completely neglect the meaning of my statement about Fiorina and Whitman. I asked what was the difference between removing Constitutional rights and revoking personhood. When you're asked to compare 2 things, you give details on both of those 2 things and point out the differences. I want you to tell me what removing Constitutional rights would do/doesn't do that revoking corporate personhood wouldn't do/does. Here is what you really asked, including the quote you made. My answer at the time is the same now: I believe the detail I presented should be sufficient to prompt a critique. Repeating the question with more words is NOT a critique, that's a Demi Moore argument. However the above answer stands. More missing parts: Nov 4, 2011, 10:36am, rustyhoundog wrote: Actually, you were arguing using gay marriage and women's suffrage as the core of your argument, ignoring the subject of the amendment. I was not. I was using their respective support among the public. Since using real world examples in my argument will not work for you, let me make it more abstract. Bill 1: 1. Policy that nearly everyone supports. Bill 2: 1. Policy that nearly everyone supports. 2. Policy that divides people. Bill 1 is virtually guaranteed to pass. Bill 2 has a lower chance of passage. Simple assertion is no argument. I will present an argument. Control of campaign finance money is an extremely popular idea in this country. We have many examples of finance reform that have been successfully passed into law; a `policy' well supported by the people as witness those facts. As far as I know the movement to remove `personhood' from corporations is a barely supported idea. There have been NO laws to perform that function passed, ever; a `policy' poorly supported by the people as witness those facts. Simple assertions of the reverse does not make it so. In any event, there is NO critique of the logic, only simple assertions of rootless, unconnected irrelevancies. More missing parts. Nov 4, 2011, 9:25pm, rustyhoundog wrote: It is the time for people to resume an active political life if they wish to influence the direction of this nation. We have to be realistic. Don't write amendments and legislation based on some ideal world where citizens have an active political life. You advocate we do not strive for the ideal. I advocate we strive for the ideal. Using logic as argument and emotion as impulse we can achieve an approach to the ideal. As an instance, there are democratically run countries in which voter turnout is well over ninety percent. Is that not a worthy ideal to strive for? As long as PACs, corporations, unions, political parties, and foreign influence in media are free to operate there will be resistance in the people caused by propaganda. It is our job to counter that propaganda with convincing argument from fact and the desire for freedom and justice. When the time comes to present an amendment to the people we must use convincing argument based on provable facts presented in an emotionally appealing manner. We are capable of proving the evils of corporate personhood because the evil that principle has worked effects every person in the nation. Splitting them won't weaken any argument. The 2 issues both serve to work towards a common goal. Did splitting a bill of rights into 12 amendments weaken the perception of its necessity? 2 of those amendments were unable to pass. Should all 12 amendments been forged into 1, the 2 unpopular provisions would have decreased support for the whole bill of rights, if not endangered or prevented the bill's ultimate passage. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were promised in order to obtain passage of the constitution as presented originally. There were twelve formally proposed for ratification, eleven of which have been ratified, ten at the start of the nation. There were actually hundreds of amendments proposed; some states proposed as many as forty. Twelve were adopted to present for ratification. There has been no promise by any political power to reduce it's power, and that is what we strive towards; reducing the power of paper people on our politics. What we have now is tied together in an inseparable idea; corporations are persons for political purpose and constitutional rights. No matter how you put it, people know they are being disenfranchised by huge political money. They know corporations hold much of the power because they are treated as persons with the rights of people, they are eternal, and they are immensely rich. The fears are not vague, they are clear. A less popular provision may endanger the passage of the hugely popular one. And such fear is productive. It allows us to prepare for bad-case scenarios, such as a lack of support for a campaign finance provision. According to what I see in your argument you consider removing personhood from corporations as hugely popular and control of campaign financing as less popular than removing corporate personhood. The facts are the reverse. We have huge popular support for campaign finance reform as reflected by the many reform laws that have been passed in Congress. On the other hand, there has been almost zero legal effort to remove personhood from corporations. The most effective control of corporations has been at the local level, small hamlets and towns and counties challenging corporations at the level of local governance passing corporate control ordnances. The anti-fracking and anti-mining ordinances of small town boards and county boards are not designed to remove personhood from corporations, they are designed to protect the environment from corporations roughshod trampling of town and county lands in their pursuit of profit. Although there have been resolutions passed in college and university towns calling for an amendment to remove personhood from corporations, the effects of those toothless resolutions are NOT the same as ordinances with punishments passed by working class hamlets and rural counties. As I see our duty we must connect with the people on a local level and persuade them of the relevance of removing personhood from corporations as relates to the problems they face.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 11, 2011 13:03:18 GMT -6
Just in case you think folk are more attuned to corporate personhood rather than reform of campaign finance, look at this recent hooraw. It is obvious the folk in this bar, primarily Republican and/or reactionary, are concerned about political money.
Listen to Walsh advocate for instant openness in campaign finance after Mellisa Rakestraw objects to the money that corporations and unions are now free to use in campaigns. There is not a single mention of corporate personhood as part of the problem.
This is the full Joe Walsh conflict in the bar. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ct-76UB98s]
This is the Ed Show followup with Melissa Rakestraw. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45249513#45249866]
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 11, 2011 17:07:02 GMT -6
I do believe the first, missing part of my original message, which I reinserted above, completely states my argument. Leaving it out is unconscionable. Implying I am not thoughtful and serious is even more unconscionable. You should seriously consider the ethics of your conduct! I've used Proboards Forums before. It's just common courtesy to make a post shorter in length if possible. I only quoted relevant pieces or pieces I'm specifically addressing like the line above. May I suggest we not concern ourselves with misperceived ethical misconduct and focus on the details of the argument at hand? I'm responding to you and I know you know what you wrote and that you know I know what you wrote. There's really no need to quote giant chunks of text. However, if you'd prefer I do that, I will. I believe the detail I presented should be sufficient to prompt a critique. Repeating the question with more words is NOT a critique, that's a Demi Moore argument. However the above answer stands. Okey-doke, I'll just ask a new question entirely and ask you to answer it. What would removing personhood do? What would removing constitutional rights do? And finally, what would removing constitutional rights do that removing personhood won't do? Control of campaign finance money is an extremely popular idea in this country. We have many examples of finance reform that have been successfully passed into law; a `policy' well supported by the people as witness those facts. As far as I know the movement to remove `personhood' from corporations is a barely supported idea. There have been NO laws to perform that function passed, ever; a `policy' poorly supported by the people as witness those facts. According to what I see in your argument you consider removing personhood from corporations as hugely popular and control of campaign financing as less popular than removing corporate personhood. The facts are the reverse. We have huge popular support for campaign finance reform as reflected by the many reform laws that have been passed in Congress. On the other hand, there has been almost zero legal effort to remove personhood from corporations. The most effective control of corporations has been at the local level, small hamlets and towns and counties challenging corporations at the level of local governance passing corporate control ordnances. No legal effort to remove corporate personhood is not an indication of a lack of support. This poll here shows that 79% of people would support such an amendment to revoke corporate personhood. The numbers for campaign finance reform are there as well. According to this poll, 69% of Americans are in favor of campaign finance reform (CFR) as a general idea. The difference between the corporate personhood poll numbers and CFR numbers is that revoking corporate personhood is a straight-forward idea. There's only 1 way to revoke personhood and that is to revoke personhood. While people may be in favor of CFR overall, there are disagreements on how to do it. Health care reform saw something similar. While Americans hugely support "Health care reform", they supported the specifics of Obama's bill much less. For example, according to the the Huffington Post, 80% support requiring shareholder consent for corporate donations as a specific of CFR, but 60% support publicly financed campaigns as a specific. In conclusion, while people support CFR as an idea, their opinions are more varied when it comes to specifics of CFR.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 11, 2011 21:25:09 GMT -6
Again, the "quote" function doesn't.
Repeating the SAME QUESTION, just like Demi Moore's `strenuously object,' does not make for productive discussion. I've stated my view of the differences between removing all constitutional protections and removing personhood. My answers so far have been cogent and to the point.
"My section one simply declares a corporation to not be a person and removes the rights of persons as applying to a corporation. That is not the same as removing all constitutional protection from corporations."
I like seeing the entire subject and discussion of a comment presented, not an edited selection that will confuse other readers.
Did you follow my last post, at all?
Rakestraw and Walsh duke it out and never once mention corporate personhood as a cause of the problems, but both agree on campaign finance reform as needed to get political money under control. That is about as popular as it gets; two political points of view agreeing on the need for removing big political money from campaigns while conducting a heated discussion in a working class bar in Chicago.
Do you have any example of public debate or controversy over corporate personhood as a cause of our present woes?
WolfPac doesn't count.
Neither does any `poll' or that Huffington Post article. They are both naturally biased by the authors. The wise saying goes; there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Polls are a statistical sample, and the Huffington article is based on the same. They are both selected statistical lies.
What strikes me most is your refusal to consider the weakness created by dividing the result of corporate personhood, uncontrolled political money, from the very cause of that result; corporate personhood. A potent argument is both the removal of corporate personhood and the removal of political money as it presently exists in our nation. They are two parts from the same cause. Putting them both into a single statement is the strongest argument we can present; they reinforce each other.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 12, 2011 0:42:57 GMT -6
Repeating the SAME QUESTION, just like Demi Moore's `strenuously object,' does not make for productive discussion. I've stated my view of the differences between removing all constitutional protections and removing personhood. My answers so far have been cogent and to the point. If you wouldn't mind posting them again, I'd appreciate it. Do you have any example of public debate or controversy over corporate personhood as a cause of our present woes? WolfPac doesn't count. It's a pretty popular rallying point for the Occupy Wall Street protests. Something to keep in mind though is that the idea of corporate personhood influencing elections and legislation is a very new one. It was hardly an issue prior to Citizens United v. FECNeither does any `poll' or that Huffington Post article. They are both naturally biased by the authors. The wise saying goes; there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Polls are a statistical sample, and the Huffington article is based on the same. They are both selected statistical lies. If you're gonna go ahead and decry all polls and statistics, then I don't know what to tell you. All the polls I gave you were scientific. If you're not gonna accept them, I guess pushing my point using statistical facts is useless. What strikes me most is your refusal to consider the weakness created by dividing the result of corporate personhood, uncontrolled political money, from the cause of that result; corporate personhood. A potent argument is both the removal of corporate personhood and the removal of political money as it presently exists in our nation. They are two parts from the same cause. Putting them both into a single statement is the strongest argument we can present; they reinforce each other. Your argument for having them joined into one amendment is backed up by shaky logic. Your only supporting argument is that the 2 issues are closely related and you assert that having them together would somehow strengthen the chances of passage. If we divided your Sec 1 and Sec 2 and they were both passed, they'd achieve the same thing as if they were passed as one amendment. But some people may disagree with your Sec 2. For example, I disagree with it. I actually support belonging and donating to some organization and having them distribute the donation money. I'm sure many people who belong to some organization and understand how I feel would agree with me. That makes it harder for me to accept your single amendment as a whole. I otherwise would probably just support your Sec 1. This is what I am concerned about. I want to maximize the chances of passage of something similar to your Sec 1 or Sec 1 of our amendment, as is.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 12, 2011 21:18:03 GMT -6
You've done it again! Only the first and the last quotes from me in your message have been quoted. This is UNACCEPTABLE!!! My postings on November first, second, third, and fourth do not exhibit this bogus behavior. Making recipients of messages jump through multiple window transfers just to make the original quotes appear in an answer is BOGUS! FIX THIS SITE! Besides, if you are so lazy you can not look at my previous postings for my positions and answers, why should I attempt conversation with you? It's called MEMORY, except memory here is open for all to see. Stop wasting my time! I will however answer one bogus point you make. Corporate personhood and political money are not simply `closely related,' they are interdependent. Without the expenditure of political money corporate personhood could not grow. Without corporate personhood, the use of political money to drive corporations into `unassailable' constitutional positions would be well neigh impossible. Those two facts, corporate personhood and oppression by political money, are inseparable as cause and effect! Teach those facts and forget the timid approach. Repeating the SAME QUESTION, just like Demi Moore's `strenuously object,' does not make for productive discussion. I've stated my view of the differences between removing all constitutional protections and removing personhood. My answers so far have been cogent and to the point. If you wouldn't mind posting them again, I'd appreciate it. It's a pretty popular rallying point for the Occupy Wall Street protests. Something to keep in mind though is that the idea of corporate personhood influencing elections and legislation is a very new one. It was hardly an issue prior to Citizens United v. FECIf you're gonna go ahead and decry all polls and statistics, then I don't know what to tell you. All the polls I gave you were scientific. If you're not gonna accept them, I guess pushing my point using statistical facts is useless. What strikes me most is your refusal to consider the weakness created by dividing the result of corporate personhood, uncontrolled political money, from the cause of that result; corporate personhood. A potent argument is both the removal of corporate personhood and the removal of political money as it presently exists in our nation. They are two parts from the same cause. Putting them both into a single statement is the strongest argument we can present; they reinforce each other. Your argument for having them joined into one amendment is backed up by shaky logic. Your only supporting argument is that the 2 issues are closely related and you assert that having them together would somehow strengthen the chances of passage. If we divided your Sec 1 and Sec 2 and they were both passed, they'd achieve the same thing as if they were passed as one amendment. But some people may disagree with your Sec 2. For example, I disagree with it. I actually support belonging and donating to some organization and having them distribute the donation money. I'm sure many people who belong to some organization and understand how I feel would agree with me. That makes it harder for me to accept your single amendment as a whole. I otherwise would probably just support your Sec 1. This is what I am concerned about. I want to maximize the chances of passage of something similar to your Sec 1 or Sec 1 of our amendment, as is.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 13, 2011 0:32:52 GMT -6
You've done it again! Only the first and the last quotes from me in your message have been quoted. This is UNACCEPTABLE!!! My postings on November first, second, third, and fourth do not exhibit this bogus behavior. Making recipients of messages jump through multiple window transfers just to make the original quotes appear in an answer is BOGUS! FIX THIS SITE! Hmm, no problems show up on my computer. Does anyone else experience problems with the quoting? Besides, if you are so lazy you can not look at my previous postings for my positions and answers, why should I attempt conversation with you? It's called MEMORY, except memory here is open for all to see. Stop wasting my time! Why should you attempt it? Because this is your poll and your proposal. Your goal isn't supposed to be convincing me that your ideas are the way to go, it's convincing the readers. Making it easy for others to read a direct answer to a question only benefits you. With that said, as someone who opposes your proposal, your refusal to repost an answer, which I requested while assuming you didn't provide a clear answer, is fine with me. I will however answer one bogus point you make. Corporate personhood and political money are not simply `closely related,' they are interdependent. Without the expenditure of political money corporate personhood could not grow. Without corporate personhood, the use of political money to drive corporations into `unassailable' constitutional positions would be well neigh impossible. Those two facts, corporate personhood and oppression by political money, are inseparable as cause and effect! Teach those facts and forget the timid approach. They may be inseparable; cause and effect. They may not. It is up for debate. However, such a detail is irrelevant to me. I am far more concerned with being able to pass the most important part of this movement, the part revoking corporate personhood. The 2 issues could be completely unrelated, but if I felt combining them into a single document would better the chances of passage, I'd do it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Combining them would lower the chance of passage as I've shown with my logic: And the statistics I've used to support the premise of my argument in the above quoted section:
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 14, 2011 0:42:08 GMT -6
"No legal effort to remove corporate personhood is not an indication of a lack of support. This poll here shows that 79% of people would support such an amendment to revoke corporate personhood." Direct quote from your last post.
Bogus claim, unsupported by the poll. I did a search for the words `corporate' and `personhood' and they are not present. In fact, a search for the stubs `pers' and `corp' also do not appear. NO PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM WHATSOEVER.
Stop wasting my and other readers time with BS. Wishing something into existence when it is missing is not a healthy sign.
Reading anything you have to say is completely unproductive; you have demonstrated enough times your time wasting and nonfactual ways.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics; a poll is a statistical sampling but you make it up without even the cover of that BS.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 14, 2011 1:04:00 GMT -6
Bogus claim, unsupported by the poll. I did a search for the words `corporate' and `personhood' and they are not present. In fact, a search for the stubs `pers' and `corp' also do not appear. NO PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM WHATSOEVER. It's in the second to last page of the poll. It doesn't say corporate personhood, but it asks this: To which 79% of all respondents support. Lies, damn lies, and statistics; a poll is a statistical sampling but you make it up without even the cover of that BS. I didn't make it up. As you can see from my link, the poll was conducted by Hart Research Associates. Reading anything you have to say is completely unproductive; you have demonstrated enough times your time wasting and nonfactual ways. I have provided scientific data supporting my arguments. You have not. But if that's how you want to leave this debate, that's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 14, 2011 11:38:17 GMT -6
How interesting; the only link on the page you provide, [http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/C/200113872.html] links to a blind URL at Ohio State, and does not load. [http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/] when clicked on, repeatedly says: =================================================== Server not found Firefox can't find the server at www.acs.ohio-state.edu. -------------------------------------------------------------- * Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com * If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection. * If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web. Try Again =================================================== A ping returns: "ping www.acs.ohio-state.eduping: cannot resolve http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu: Unknown host:" ping did find acs.ohio-state.edu trying to load acs.ohio-state.edu/ does not work. Any other combinations of the complete address as listed in the "survey" page do not load. whois can find neither www.acs.ohio-state.edu nor acs.ohio-state.edu. As to `...provided scientific data...' while providing a blind link is neither proof, nor scientific. It is simple Bull Shit! I repeat: "Reading anything you have to say is completely unproductive; you have demonstrated enough times your time wasting and nonfactual ways." If you would be so kind as to provide REAL proof of your assertions I will gladly review it.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 14, 2011 12:24:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rustyhoundog on Nov 15, 2011 0:09:07 GMT -6
You consider a link to March 8, 2001, Vol. 30, No.16 as current? There is NO poll there. You are still sending me off on wild goose chases. You have NOTHING! You have yet to provide a link to any page of the poll you quote. This local effort in a state university hamlet is to be expected. It sure ain't Walsh vs. Rakestraw in Chicago. If you would be so kind as to provide REAL proof of your assertions I will gladly review it. I can't provide proof for this sort of thing (and neither can anyone else). That's nearly impossible. I can provide supporting evidence, which I have done. Whether you accept my scientific polls and recent news articles is up to you. I have a feeling, however, that our readers will accept them since there's really no reason not to which is what matters to me. You claimed to have definitive proof in a poll report. You even stated the relevant material was on page 2 of this report that remains among the missing. You have produced nothing. As I have said, wishing does not make it so. Besides, polls are piss poor evidence of anything except the bias of those poll questions and their authors. I'm so sorry to see your major area of study is in statistics, but that explains much of your dependence on such an extremely weak tool as polls in a discussion of facts.
|
|
|
Post by Lam on Nov 15, 2011 2:01:43 GMT -6
You consider a link to March 8, 2001, Vol. 30, No.16 as current? There is NO poll there. You are still sending me off on wild goose chases. You have NOTHING! There were polls in the article, but I digress. If you'd like a more current poll, I have those too: Claim: Revoking corporate personhood is a popular idea: Evidence: www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=2425 (Feb 2010) The people generally oppose Citizens United. abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents/ (Feb 2010) Another poll which confirms my previous statement, that there is much public dissent with the Court on the case that gave light to the issue of corporate personhood. Claim: While campaign finance reform itself is also very popular, there are disagreements on the specifics: Evidence: www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/july_2009/toplines_campaign_finances_july_8_9_2009 (July 2009) A slight majority support limits on donations. Far less support than revoking corporate personhood has. A strong majority feel donation caps won't even be effective. There is disagreement on what should actually be done in a campaign finance reform bill. Only 23% supporting limiting donations. A strong majority feel it's more important to disclose sources of donations. Surprisingly, a plurality feel it would be better for the country if there were fewer campaign finance regulations. There is disagreement on how much is too much. You have yet to provide a link to any page of the poll you quote. This local effort in a state university hamlet is to be expected. It sure ain't Walsh vs. Rakestraw in Chicago. A legal effort is a legal effort. And besides, all the meaningful movements begin at the local level. Do you want more? I can post more. movetoamend.org/publications-talks/sopoci-belknap-movement-abolish-corporate-personhood-gaining-tractionwww.truthdig.com/report/item/resolution_amend_constitution_banning_corporate_personhood_vermont_20110124/You claimed to have definitive proof in a poll report. You have produced nothing of the sort. Like I say, wishing does not make it so. Polls are piss poor evidence of anything except the bias of those poll questions. Polls being piss poor evidence is a minority opinion. All of the polls I used were from credible sources. It doesn't matter to me if you accept them because I know most of our readers will accept them. And I never claimed to have definitive proof of anything. As a matter of fact, my exact words were: I can't provide proof for this sort of thing (and neither can anyone else). That's nearly impossible. I can provide supporting evidence, which I have done.
|
|