Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?

[Finshaggy]

So i can sue and take the corporations car and factory?

No.
Maybe the factory.
Mostly just money though...
Unless they have company cars, maybe that could end up as part of the settlement...

 

[Finshaggy]

i'm not sure what shinfaggy has going on up in that dome of his, but if i recall correctly, if you sue a corporation and win you can lay claim to certain assets of the corporation, but not to the car or house of the person/people running the organization.

so you may be able to hurt the entity, but not the people behind the entity who can still laugh all the way to the bank.

but it's been a while since i took my business courses in university, so this may be only half true.

I said the same thing as you.

I honestly have no idea why they let you put grammar Nazi on top of your name.

You are the least literate-noticing person here.

 

[Finshaggy]

The way in which one spends money is a freedom of expression imo. Which i still say is not covered by the Constitution.

Never have liked hearing "But freedom of expression is protected!"

Expression can take many forms.

The constitution has been warped by the supreme court.
They make decisions that change the way we follow it...

 

[Finshaggy]

i am fine with the protection they are afforded by incorporating, i am not OK with them being able to claim that their money = speech with respect to political campaigns.

They don't "claim" it.

It was "a ruling"

 

[Finshaggy]

I wonder how many of you would change your vote, now that you found out how full of shit this whole thing was?

I hate the people that pay them, and don't agree with the ones getting paid...

But I still even wouldn't change my vote.
I DO support the true Occupiers.

 

[UncleBuck]

They don't "claim" it.

It was "a ruling"

it became a ruling because they claimed it, and moved it forward in courts. such an undertaking takes LOTS of money.

as i understand from reading your craven ranting, you intend to do a similar thing with your charge from a "police break-in" as you call it. you intend to take your "claim", and turn it into a "ruling", one which will have every texan in the world kissing your hairy, pimpled dupah for re-legalizing possession on personal property in the entire state of texas, as i understand it.

one difference is that corporations have a lot of money for such an undertaking, whereas you have diddly-squat. in fact, you spam these boards for a measly $100 every 3 months, as your self-promoted threads lead me to believe.

add to this that you fled the state of texas because you failed a drug test while on probation, and i tend to believe that you don't understand how the "citizens united" ruling came to be.

 

[Finshaggy]

it became a ruling because they claimed it

Which now means it is, what now??

A ruling?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Oh I thought so

 

[NLXSK1]

i'm not sure what shinfaggy has going on up in that dome of his, but if i recall correctly, if you sue a corporation and win you can lay claim to certain assets of the corporation, but not to the car or house of the person/people running the organization.

so you may be able to hurt the entity, but not the people behind the entity who can still laugh all the way to the bank.

but it's been a while since i took my business courses in university, so this may be only half true.

You are correct. Unless you can prove criminal negligence against a member of a corporation the individuals assets are protected from lawsuits.

 

[Finshaggy]

You are correct. Unless you can prove criminal negligence against a member of a corporation the individuals assets are protected from lawsuits.

Which is what I said in the first place.


The corporation, as a person, must take responsibility for its own actions.

 

[NLXSK1]

Which is what I said in the first place.


The corporation, as a person, must take responsibility for its own actions.

Not exactly true. A corporation can be held accountable for it's actions while individual members are protected unless they break the law.

UB's and others bitch is that corporations are not individuals. Yes, this is true.

But, how can a union mandatorily confiscate dues from members and send them to a political party without the members permission and call that fair? At least a corporation donating to a campaign is doing it with profits from the business and not dues from it's members.

Again though people are focused on a symptom of the problem and not the solution. We need to remove power from the politicians in Washington and give it back to the states. When we do that the money will follow. Trying to do some sort of manipulation to campaign donating laws will just make the donators find another loophole to give the money.

You want fair? Stop forcing union members to pay dues to their union for backing candidates they do not support and we can talk about it UB.

 

[cerberus]

Explain how Haight Ashbury fits here please

you think ashbury was a movement? that WAS a bunch of whinny little bitches complaining about themselves. those ARE the greedy fucks that are on the top of the economic machine now, they puked out shit like free love and open mind but a mere 10-15 years later they were the 80's wallstreet thugs, and 30 years after that they ARE the baby boomer tea party dinks.. and you say the 99% movement is wrong, your so silly..

 

[Finshaggy]

Not exactly true. A corporation can be held accountable for it's actions while individual members are protected unless they break the law.

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

A corporation AS A PERSON, is help responsible for what it did.

Not the people that make it up, the corporation itself is a person now

 

[Finshaggy]

you think ashbury was a movement? that WAS a bunch of whinny little bitches complaining about themselves. those ARE the greedy fucks that are on the top of the economic machine now, they puked out shit like free love and open mind but a mere 10-15 years later they were the 80's wallstreet thugs, and 30 years after that they ARE the baby boomer tea party dinks.. and you say the 99% movement is wrong, your so silly..

No it wasn't

You misunderstood completely.
They weren't whining about themselves.
They cliqued up and GOT SHIT DONE, that's what HAPPENED in the 60's
Haight Ashbury was dangerous. Everyone had a gun, and shit got wild wild west in there.
They weren't FUNDED by a stable CORPORATION, with ideas and standards, goals, and BACKERS, people to keep happy.
They were funded by THEM, they were THEM.

And Occupy CAN do the same kinda thing, if it splits into two...
OR people that were run off by the police can start doing their own things separate from, but greater than Occupy

 

[Finshaggy]

Shit got real.

And shit ALWAYS has to get real, before it can get better again...

 

[cerberus]

most of those kids were trust funders. the reason it got violent is those little rich pricks moved into the getto's, and caused the price of everything in the ghetto to go up, angering the residents, and height used to be poor hispanic and black. I only mention that, to also point the finger at the little rich white kids, that dropped acid and talked about free love. but those ARE the same people that now run those Companies your raging against. bill gates is an old hippie..

I stand by my point, thos little rich winney fucks caused more problems than they did shit about, and they were no movement. they are the tea party goers now, look at the ages of the tea party people and do the math..

 

[sync0s]

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

A corporation AS A PERSON, is help responsible for what it did.

Not the people that make it up, the corporation itself is a person now

If they don't get rid of corporate personhood, then logically we need to get rid of limited liability... right?

 

[Sure Shot]

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney was right when he said, "Corporations Are People, My Friend.".
Why is he right? Well, if you have a Birth Certificate, then a corporation was started in your name upon your birth.
This corporation is given a monetary value, and traded on the Stock Market.
We went from backing the dollar with Gold, to backing the dollar with Blood!
[youtube]cfnJ1rOFK7o[/youtube]

 

[mccumcumber]

No it wasn't You misunderstood completely. They weren't whining about themselves. They cliqued up and GOT SHIT DONE, that's what HAPPENED in the 60's Haight Ashbury was dangerous. Everyone had a gun, and shit got wild wild west in there. They weren't FUNDED by a stable CORPORATION, with ideas and standards, goals, and BACKERS, people to keep happy. They were funded by THEM, they were THEM. And Occupy CAN do the same kinda thing, if it splits into two... OR people that were run off by the police can start doing their own things separate from, but greater than Occupy

You have no idea what you're talking about. That is not what the Haight movement was about at all. Thinking like that is what destroyed the haight movement and is what is going to destroy the occupy movement, and turn it into another "bunch of violent hippies on drugs that have no agenda." Take a step back and read the shit that you post.

 

[Kush70]

you think ashbury was a movement? that WAS a bunch of whinny little bitches complaining about themselves. those ARE the greedy fucks that are on the top of the economic machine now, they puked out shit like free love and open mind but a mere 10-15 years later they were the 80's wallstreet thugs, and 30 years after that they ARE the baby boomer tea party dinks.. and you say the 99% movement is wrong, your so silly..

not all of them.....

it's really hard to group everyone in one

as far as im concerned the majority of the 99% are a bunch of ( as you put it ) whinny little bitches

my conclusion regarding the 99% protesters :

1% truth

99% BullShit

 

[Finshaggy]

most of those kids were trust funders. the reason it got violent is those little rich pricks moved into the getto's, and caused the price of everything in the ghetto to go up, angering the residents, and height used to be poor hispanic and black. I only mention that, to also point the finger at the little rich white kids, that dropped acid and talked about free love. but those ARE the same people that now run those Companies your raging against. bill gates is an old hippie..

I stand by my point, thos little rich winney fucks caused more problems than they did shit about, and they were no movement. they are the tea party goers now, look at the ages of the tea party people and do the math..

But Bill Gates wasn't the only one out there.

Not the best example, but:Charles Manson was out there.
The Black Panthers were out there.
People like Timothy Leary were there.
And Ken Kesey, naybe not in person, but people LIKE him.
Maybe some confused trustfund babies were there. But so were the poor, downtrodden, homeless, and confused people.