i'm back

noir wrote:
Court votes to give corporations 1st ammendment rights

Don't you just love capitalism? I swear... that's so God damn ridiculous.

-1 faith in humanity

I ate a bagel, and I liked it too.

ReconToaster wrote:

noir wrote:
Court votes to give corporations 1st ammendment rights

Don't you just love capitalism? I swear... that's so God damn ridiculous.

-1 faith in humanity

because giving corporations the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press makes any differences to anything?

the only one that applies here is freedom of speech... and all that this means is that controversial issues can now be backed by a corporation instead of just indivisuals in the corporation...


now if it was the second amendment... that would be a different issue

We argued over a skull mask in Halo Reach for over 20 pages.

We then topped that by arguing over the boxart.

KrAzY wrote:now if it was the second amendment... that would be a different issue

lol

I actually touch on that one in my book (if it'll ever get done).

At one point in history before the events of the book, several corporations hired mercenary companies, and pitted them against each other on foreign planets.

ReconToaster wrote:

noir wrote:
Court votes to give corporations 1st ammendment rights

Don't you just love capitalism? I swear... that's so God damn ridiculous.

-1 faith in humanity

The board of directors disagree's

Gauz wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:Shit is all that has happened...

Yeah, so now America is around 8 billion dollars in debt, so...

It's actually 14 trillion


And we can still go higher!

National Debt Clock Go Go Go!

Almost all countries have large amounts of external debt, you're not anywhere near as bad as some places at living beyond your means - relative, anyway to the size of your GDP.


And Krazy, if you think that corporations having the first amendment this doesn't really matter, you need to google 'function creep'.

When Corporations are given the Second Ammendmant, we're screwed. Giving them rights they already had for the most part isn't near as bad.

KristallNacht wrote:And I'm a United States Marine



So what's been going on in the world for the last 4 months?

Well you haven't missed a great deal...... And you're a marine now eh?

KristallNacht wrote:I'm Back

And I'm a United States Marine

"Always Faithful"

Corporations given 2^nd amendment rights...


Oh joy! Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Microsoft employ Blackwater mercenaries to guard the printers in their office buildings?

Gauz wrote:Corporations given 2^nd amendment rights...


Oh joy! Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Microsoft employ Blackwater mercenaries to guard the printers in their office buildings?

lol.

Again, my book comes up.

The original thought process for the event itself was the Apple and Microsoft were in a territory dispute on New Mercury (the location of the book. Although this takes place several years before the events of the book do) that led to an all out war, decimating the number of experienced mercenaries that companies had.

Because of this, something akin to the Geneva Convention was written, which did not allow companies to use mercenaries for their own proxy wars.

At least I didn't think he was dead...

Gauz wrote:Corporations given 2^nd amendment rights...


Oh joy! Wouldn't it be wonderful to have Microsoft employ Blackwater mercenaries to guard the printers in their office buildings?

That's Xi, by the way. Blackwater is so last year.

Anyone else read that Eoin Colfer book, "The Supernaturalists"? Megacorporations had paralegals on retainer, which were like SWAT teams that informed you of your rights while they shot at you. But hey, what exactly is wrong with giving corporations first amendment rights?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:what exactly is wrong with giving corporations first amendment rights?

Nothing specifically. It's the concept of granting corporations the same rights as individuals which strikes me as a very bad idea.

ReconToaster wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:what exactly is wrong with giving corporations first amendment rights?

Nothing specifically. It's the concept of granting corporations the same rights as individuals which strikes me as a very bad idea.

*Shrugs*
I can't really see where 'freedom of speech' for corporations can go wrong. Of course, there's the campaign donations issue, which is what the whole lawsuit was about, but I think that's alright. Just so long as Corporations are subject to the same limits as private citizens.

welcome back Sir. AND DAMN YOU BEAT ME TO THE CUT!!!!!!!>_< .... great now i gotta go join national guard...

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
*Shrugs*
I can't really see where 'freedom of speech' for corporations can go wrong. Of course, there's the campaign donations issue, which is what the whole lawsuit was about, but I think that's alright. Just so long as Corporations are subject to the same limits as private citizens.

I think Roosevelt had it right when it comes to the regulation of corporations and all that good stuff. Giving them the same rights as individuals... keeps that sort of regulation from happening.

rzgrz wrote:welcome back Sir. AND DAMN YOU BEAT ME TO THE CUT!!!!!!!>_< .... great now i gotta go join national guard...

You could just wait.

ReconToaster wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
*Shrugs*
I can't really see where 'freedom of speech' for corporations can go wrong. Of course, there's the campaign donations issue, which is what the whole lawsuit was about, but I think that's alright. Just so long as Corporations are subject to the same limits as private citizens.

I think Roosevelt had it right when it comes to the regulation of corporations and all that good stuff. Giving them the same rights as individuals... keeps that sort of regulation from happening.

If I recall correctly, Teddy Roosevelt waited for corporations to start screwing up before dropping the hammer. And I'm not sure /how/ freedom of speech will prevent them from being adequately prosecuted.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
If I recall correctly, Teddy Roosevelt waited for corporations to start screwing up before dropping the hammer. And I'm not sure /how/ freedom of speech will prevent them from being adequately prosecuted.

As I said before, it's not the ruling that corporations should have freedom of speech that bothers me. It's the notion that corporations should be entitled to all the same rights as individuals. What's happened so far really isn't a big deal, but I don't like the underlying idea behind it.

Anyway, that all depends on what you consider "screwing up." The corporations were doing just fine for themselves. He didn't step in to help them out of a recession, he stepped in to protect the individual American citizen.

What the corporations WERE doing was completely screwing over workers and consumers alike. I would think that giving corporations all the same rights as individuals would keep the government from stepping in when/if that sort of thing starts taking place.

Now, I actually think Roosevelt went a bit too far in some cases. He essentially made rail-road companies "guilty until proven innocent" when it came to over-priced railroad rates... and that's a bit too much power in the hands of the federal government... but other than that, I think he had the right idea.

why wait? no point in letting him die first then join marines after...

I assume I'm late on this one but welcome back. Wait, I never heard you were dead... I just thought you left *wanders off in search of explanation*

What about franchises?

Do they have 1^st amendment rights?
It would suck if they got second amendment rights, otherwise there'd be more than just security camera's in Target to stop you from stealing >.>

Gauz wrote:What about franchises?

Do they have 1^st amendment rights?
It would suck if they got second amendment rights, otherwise there'd be more than just security camera's in Target to stop you from stealing >.>

lol. I'm quite sure they already have the equivalent of 2nd amendment rights. The right to bare arms wouldn't give them the right to shoot you.