{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
7/10/2013 4:11:03 AM
8
[quote]Both seem to be run by top-notch corporations behind the scenes. It's just one reason why the two-party preferred system is absolute crap. [/quote]
Who could possibly be in charge, plotting everything from the shadows? Who I ask? Who?!
English
-
Oy Vey! The goyim know!
-
Edited by Fat Tony: 7/10/2013 5:44:23 AMGaara. OBVIOUSLY. Serous..er response: Didn't the supreme court pass a bill in the US which allows for corporate personhood, ultimately meaning that corporations are able to fund political campaigns? Goldman Sachs actually funded both Obama and McCain, IIRC during their campaign. I just made the premise between the funding and control. Look at it this way, if I'm wrong on my claim, then I have nothing to worry about.
-
Corporations as persons in the United States[edit] As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.[3][4] The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word "taxpayer" several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[6] Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood, [7] even though the Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment. [8] from wikipedia
-
oy vey, we have been discovered Chaim!
-
*Writes the name of each Fortune 500 company on a slip of paper.* *Puts all of them into a hat.* *Plot twist.* *It's all of them.*
-
<_< >_> ILLUMINATI!!!!
-
jesus christ, not this, this is almost as bad as the lag I was getting earlier in dotes.
-
If only we knew who could possibly be behind all the evil in the political world....
