Also, the corporate governance issue contradicts the constitution. It is yet another anomaly that stands in the way of realizing the progressive ideals of the constitution.
First, your reference to corporate governance issue makes no sense. Second, the consitution was designed to promote progressive ideals. It was designed to limit the power of the federal government over state interests while giving specific powers to the federal government to achieve a few goals that were difficult to obtain otherwise. One such goal was security.
Affirmative action does violate the 14th amendment.
You might as well say that legal remedies can't be imposed at all, since they violate a person's right to be deprived of property without compensation. It's nonsensical.
No I might as well not say that because it is stupid. The 14th amendment was designed to protect blacks from being mistreated by a certain element. It was never intended to give benefits to anyone. What do you think "equal protection" means? Somehow ignorant folks want the 14th amendment to say that we need to help people that have been oppressed in the past. It doesn't say that, it was not even intended to say that. If you knew anything about constitutional history you would know that.
Enron, IMclone, Bank of America, Citibank, Arthur Anderson, Merril Lynch, etc, etc, etc
ALL of the corporate corruption scandals have one element in common: a lack of, or a circumvention of, checks and balances in the power structure. But this is only the surface of the problem. A whole host of problems regarding legal and social justice are tied to the fact that powerful GOVERNMENT entitities have been allowed to operate without the checks and balances elucidated in our constitution.
Understand: Corporations AREN'T capitalist businesses. They are creations of the state governments. They are government entities, with ties to the state and federal government in the form of subsidies and other favors.
Corporations are government entities that are not structured as republican organizations. As such they operate outside of the explicit limitation placed upon states in the constitution: States aren't allowed to create unrepublican governments. I've barely scratched the surface of the issue, but you might want to examine what I've said so far.
It is possible to have a realistic view of human nature and also have a progressive ideal as an aspiration. The founders of the United States are as good example of this possibility, since they laid out a grand vision, while yet addressing, realistically, the conditions prevailing in their time.
My elucidation of vision is not a refutation of current reality.
In terms of the corporate governance issue, don't you think that corporate elites have a conflict of interest in resolving the issue if it means limiting their power?
Enron, IMclone, Bank of America, Citibank, Arthur Anderson, Merril Lynch, etc, etc, etc
I think Arthur Anderson paid a big penalty.
ALL of the corporate corruption scandals have one element in common: a lack of, or a circumvention of, checks and balances in the power structure. So you want government to stop this? Not just laws against such actions but proactive intervention in business? Talk about fascism!
Understand: Corporations AREN'T capitalist businesses. They are creations of the state governments. They are government entities, with ties to the state and federal government in the form of subsidies and other favors.
Corporations are not government entities.
Corporations are government entities that are not structured as republican organizations. Corporations are not government entities.As such they operate outside of the explicit limitation placed upon states in the constitution: States aren't allowed to create unrepublican governments. I've barely scratched the surface of the issue, but you might want to examine what I've said so far.
It is possible to have a realistic view of human nature and also have a progressive ideal as an aspiration. I disagree.The founders of the United States are as good example of this possibility, since they laid out a grand vision, while yet addressing, realistically, the conditions prevailing in their time.
Obviously, I can't speak for all liberals. I can only speak for myself. The fact that you make a statement about "all liberals" is something you ought to examine, in my opinion.
I don't demonize anyone with contrary views. I demonize those who advocate demonic ideologies, like fascism, and I think that's appropriate. I allow that there are people who are misguided and don't realize that they are being fooled into supporting a fascist agenda because they haven't examined the agenda that they support in historical or philosophical context. They may not understand the stakes in supporting a political ideology that has elements similar to historical ideologies with certain agendas that we know in hindsight.
In terms of the corporate governance issue, don't you think that corporate elites have a conflict of interest in resolving the issue if it means limiting their power?
Like I said you are all for ignoring certain interests based on a belief they aren't legitimate.
I allow that there are people who are misguided and don't realize that they are being fooled into supporting a fascist agenda because they haven't examined the agenda that they support in historical or philosophical context.
How much air-time is being given to a discussion of creating an energy structure devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies?
Little because very few are interested. So you want to make everyone discuss this issue? How you gonna do that?--jethro
Who decides that very few are interested? The corporate interests who control the media? Do you not see a conflict of interest between what may be best for most people and what is best for a few?
Make everone discuss? NO. Allow those who WOULD DISCUSS an equal voice in the debate.
How are you gonna do that? Goes back to that corporate governance issue, doesn't it?
Not directly. There needs to be an acknowledgement that the internal organization of corporations allowed now doesn't include adequate checks and balances of corporate power.
What to do about it is another matter. I advocate a positive incentive to reorganize, rather than a heavy handed approach. But ignoring the need for change is where you get the social revolution scenarios.
BTW, the Constitution was a pretty progressive ideal at one time
Define progressive? I don't see the constitution as presenting what is generally meant as progressive. It is a document intended to limit power to a fundamentally insatiable power hungry entity. It seems it has failed.
In fact, they are. Corporations are "body politics" chartered by the states. Though the original intent in granting such chartered power was to achieve goals deemed in the common interest, corporations slowly morphed into organizations allowed to wield publicly granted political power for ANY reason, including the raw exercise of power in the service of greed, exploitation and outright subversion of republican government. The socialist relationships enjoyed by a large number of corporations butresses this view of them as political entities, as does their political activism in creating legislation, regulation, and legal precedents, particularly when fascist ideology is furthered by such efforts.
Not directly. There needs to be an acknowledgement that the internal organization of corporations allowed now doesn't include adequate checks and balances of corporate power.
and how is this going to be done? Big Brother will have to have a chair in the boardroom.
What to do about it is another matter. I advocate a positive incentive to reorganize, rather than a heavy handed approach. But ignoring the need for change is where you get the social revolution scenarios.
What you need is fundamentally honest people in positions of authority. It has nothing to do with corporate structure.
I was thinking of the language in the constitution limiting the slave trade by a certain date in the future, clearly a recognition of the reality of the times while advancing the grand vision of universal freedom for all people under the constitution.
Corporations are "body politics" chartered by the states. Though the original intent in granting such chartered power was to achieve goals deemed in the common interest, corporations slowly morphed into organizations allowed to wield publicly granted political power for ANY reason, including the raw exercise of power in the service of greed, exploitation and outright subversion of republican government. The socialist relationships enjoyed by a large number of corporations butresses this view of them as political entities, as does their political activism in creating legislation, regulation, and legal precedents, particularly when fascist ideology is furthered by such efforts.
I was thinking of the language in the constitution limiting the slave trade by a certain date in the future, clearly a recognition of the reality of the times while advancing the grand vision of universal freedom for all people under the constitution.
Some grand visison! That is just nonsense. It was pure political compromise, that is all.
when you disagreed that it's possible to have a realistic view of human nature and also have a progressive ideal as an aspiration, yes...you denied the existance of these progressive ideal that were achieved by humans and their nature.
Did the consitution in 1789 remedy these issue?
eventually, yes it did....because people had progressive ideals that the Constitution helped become a reality.
eventually, yes it did....because people had progressive ideals that the Constitution helped become a reality.
Eventually wasn't 1789. That is what I said. Now what happened is society changed and as a consequnce, society changed the Consitution. The Consitution did not cause the changes. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
The Consitution did not cause the changes. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
the Constitution was designed to be changed....it was that way in 1789...changable. It's one of the reasons why it's such a progressively idealistic document.
There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
except for those amendments. don't you consider the amendments to be a part of the Constitution?
When Bush's energy policy was being publicly debated, the views of the oil companies was overwhelmingly favored. Often, discussion panels included ONLY advocates of oil development, and the only thing being discussed was whether drilling in wildlife refuges and public lands was preferable to importing oil! I'm not making this up: The News Hour on public television actually had such a panel, underwritten by oil companies!
Despite this, the underground press and the scientific community succeeded in breaking into the mainstream by advocating hydrogen energy and other alternative power sources. At first the mainstream reacted by circulating stories about solar energy based on 1970's era technology (LAUGHABLY outdated).
The first reaction was to discredit alternative energy, ignore scientific advances and WORKING power sources that were expanding in use (Wind, for example). That backfired, because a swarm of alternative energy advocates clamored for a seat at the debate, wrote letters, published articles, etc.
After that happened, the mainstream began reporting THE REAL STORY about the promise of alternative energy. That's when Bush added his $1 billion initiative to develop hydrogen. No details. No vision. No guarantee that this money wasn't going to go to oil companies "for study." But the mainstream media promptly dropped alternative energy from the debate and went back to debating where to drill. It's a clear case of corporate conflict of interest influencing the debate in a negative way.
the Constitution was designed to be changed....it was that way in 1789...changable. It's one of the reasons why it's such a progressively idealistic document.
That wasn't what we were discussing. Are you capapble of keeping even close to the issue being discussed?
except for those amendments. don't you consider the amendments to be a part of the Constitution?
The changes to the constitution are a reflection of the people that changed it. the consitition itself did not cuase the change in the values contained therein.
Well it must take another lunatic to decipher it because it didn't make sense. Do you guys have some special super secret code that helps you understand each other?
it's called a brain.
you know, some of Einstein's theories are undecipherable nonsense to me.
but I'm not ignorant enough to think that means that they don't make sense or are undecipherable.
if you don't understand, ask questions.
what part of it couldn't you decipher? what part of it was nonsense?
The changes to the constitution are a reflection of the people that changed it. the consitition itself did not cuase the change in the values contained therein.
so, those changes happened without the Constituion?
really?
That wasn't what we were discussing
I was discussing your dismissal of progressive ideals.
because of progressive ideals that succeeded in the face of human nature.
I don't know if you can say that. Society changes but that doesn't mean it is because of progressive ideals. Would you say Germany of the 1930's and 1940's changed due to progressive ideals? I will consider whether Russia changed from 1917 until 1989 due to progressive ideals.
Already does. Are you unaware of the increasingly conflated status of the government official/corporate exec? It's part of the problem. More of the same isn't the solution.
What you need is fundamentally honest people in positions of authority. It has nothing to do with corporate structure.
That wasn't the view of the founders of our country. In their view, human nature was corruptible by power, and there wasn't much you could do about that. Instead, you needed a balance of power within a structure to offset the influence of corrupting power. I'm just arguing that the same problem exists in corporate governance, and that the same solution needs to be applied.
If I'm a lunatic, then what is the sane version of what corporations are, how they are organized, and what ideology they advocate?
Do you deny they are chartered by states? Do you deny they are political actors? Do you deny they are organized in hierachies that systematically disenfranchise workers, shareholders, and local governments from exercising checks upon the power of the hiearchy?
Maybe it's the historical analogy to fascist states that you disagree with? Well, read up on who funded, supported, and ruled along with Hitler and Mussolini and take a look at how they organized the state. Corporate leaders became part of the nazi and fascist hiearchies. I'm not making it up! LOL
In fact, they are. Corporations are "body politics" chartered by the states. What is "body politcs?"Though the original intent in granting such chartered power was to achieve goals deemed in the common interest, corporations slowly morphed into organizations allowed to wield publicly granted political power for ANY reason, including the raw exercise of power in the service of greed, exploitation and outright subversion of republican government. Now this is undecipherable gibberish. It has no support in fact and is all opinion.
The socialist relationships enjoyed by a large number of corporations butresses this view of them as political entities, as does their political activism in creating legislation, regulation, and legal precedents, particularly when fascist ideology is furthered by such efforts.
Again this is gibberish. Corporations are not generally understood to be political entities. As I said before they corporations should have some input on laws that affect them. The rest is just left wing opinion based apparently on irrational hatred and fear.
Also, the corporate governance issue contradicts
the constitution. It is yet another anomaly that
stands in the way of realizing the progressive
ideals of the constitution.
First, your reference to corporate governance issue makes no sense. Second, the consitution was designed to promote progressive ideals. It was designed to limit the power of the federal government over state interests while giving specific powers to the federal government to achieve a few goals that were difficult to obtain otherwise. One such goal was security.
Affirmative action does violate the 14th amendment.
You might as well say that legal remedies can't be imposed at all, since they violate a person's right to be deprived of property without compensation. It's nonsensical.
No I might as well not say that because it is stupid. The 14th amendment was designed to protect blacks from being mistreated by a certain element. It was never intended to give benefits to anyone. What do you think "equal protection" means? Somehow ignorant folks want the 14th amendment to say that we need to help people that have been oppressed in the past. It doesn't say that, it was not even intended to say that. If you knew anything about constitutional history you would know that.
What you learned in college most likely was left wing propaganda not constitutional history.
That is, unless I agree with your viewpoint, right?
No it is what is taught in many colleges and universities. It is taught that way because it is left wingers that hold those jobs.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:05am
Enron, IMclone, Bank of America, Citibank, Arthur Anderson,
Merril Lynch, etc, etc, etc
ALL of the corporate corruption scandals have one element
in common: a lack of, or a circumvention of, checks and
balances in the power structure. But this is only the surface
of the problem. A whole host of problems regarding legal
and social justice are tied to the fact that powerful
GOVERNMENT entitities have been allowed to operate
without the checks and balances elucidated in our constitution.
Understand: Corporations AREN'T capitalist businesses.
They are creations of the state governments. They are
government entities, with ties to the state and federal
government in the form of subsidies and other favors.
Corporations are government entities that are not structured
as republican organizations. As such they operate outside
of the explicit limitation placed upon states in the constitution:
States aren't allowed to create unrepublican governments.
I've barely scratched the surface of the issue, but you might
want to examine what I've said so far.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:05am
It is possible to have a realistic view of human nature
and also have a progressive ideal as an aspiration. The
founders of the United States are as good example of this
possibility, since they laid out a grand vision, while
yet addressing, realistically, the conditions prevailing
in their time.
My elucidation of vision is not a refutation of current reality.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:05am
In terms of the corporate governance issue, don't you think
that corporate elites have a conflict of interest in
resolving the issue if it means limiting their power?
Enron, IMclone, Bank of America, Citibank, Arthur Anderson,
Merril Lynch, etc, etc, etc
I think Arthur Anderson paid a big penalty.
ALL of the corporate corruption scandals have one element
in common: a lack of, or a circumvention of, checks and
balances in the power structure. So you want government to stop this? Not just laws against such actions but proactive intervention in business? Talk about fascism!
Understand: Corporations AREN'T capitalist businesses.
They are creations of the state governments. They are
government entities, with ties to the state and federal
government in the form of subsidies and other favors.
Corporations are not government entities.
Corporations are government entities that are not structured
as republican organizations. Corporations are not government entities.As such they operate outside
of the explicit limitation placed upon states in the constitution:
States aren't allowed to create unrepublican governments.
I've barely scratched the surface of the issue, but you might
want to examine what I've said so far.
What I have heard so far is absurd.
It is possible to have a realistic view of human nature
and also have a progressive ideal as an aspiration. I disagree.The founders of the United States are as good example of this
possibility, since they laid out a grand vision, while
yet addressing, realistically, the conditions prevailing
in their time.
What does "grand vision" mean?
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:05am
Obviously, I can't speak for all liberals. I can only
speak for myself. The fact that you make a statement
about "all liberals" is something you ought to
examine, in my opinion.
I don't demonize anyone with contrary views. I
demonize those who advocate demonic ideologies,
like fascism, and I think that's appropriate.
I allow that there are people who are misguided
and don't realize that they are being fooled
into supporting a fascist agenda because they
haven't examined the agenda that they support in
historical or philosophical context. They may not
understand the stakes in supporting a political
ideology that has elements similar to historical
ideologies with certain agendas that we know in
hindsight.
In terms of the corporate governance issue, don't you think
that corporate elites have a conflict of interest in
resolving the issue if it means limiting their power?
Like I said you are all for ignoring certain interests based on a belief they aren't legitimate.
I allow that there are people who are misguided
and don't realize that they are being fooled
into supporting a fascist agenda because they
haven't examined the agenda that they support in
historical or philosophical context.
Dude, you are utterly misguided!
How much air-time is being given
to a discussion of creating an energy structure
devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies?
Who decides that very few are interested?
The corporate interests who control the media?
Do you not see a conflict of interest between
what may be best for most people and what is
best for a few?
Make everone discuss? NO. Allow those who WOULD
DISCUSS an equal voice in the debate.
How are you gonna do that? Goes back to that
corporate governance issue, doesn't it?
so progress is not possible in your view?
BTW, the Constitution was a pretty progressive ideal at one time
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:34am
Not directly. There needs to be an acknowledgement
that the internal organization of corporations
allowed now doesn't include adequate checks and
balances of corporate power.
What to do about it is another matter. I advocate
a positive incentive to reorganize, rather than
a heavy handed approach. But ignoring the need
for change is where you get the social revolution
scenarios.
Make everone discuss? NO. Allow those who WOULD DISCUSS an equal voice in the debate.
Go ahead discuss creating an energy structure devoid of nuclear and fossil fuel technologies, see how many people will listen? Try it.
BTW, the Constitution was a pretty progressive ideal at one time
Define progressive? I don't see the constitution as presenting what is generally meant as progressive. It is a document intended to limit power to a fundamentally insatiable power hungry entity. It seems it has failed.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:34am
In fact, they are. Corporations are "body politics" chartered
by the states. Though the original intent in granting
such chartered power was to achieve goals deemed
in the common interest, corporations slowly morphed
into organizations allowed to wield publicly granted
political power for ANY reason, including the raw
exercise of power in the service of greed, exploitation
and outright subversion of republican government.
The socialist relationships enjoyed by a large
number of corporations butresses this view of them
as political entities, as does their political activism
in creating legislation, regulation, and legal precedents,
particularly when fascist ideology is furthered by such efforts.
it was at the time.
there was a time when women voting was a progresive ideal and the reality was that they couldn't.
there was a time when blacks being treated equally was a progressive idea and the reality was that they weren't
etc...
just how far back does your realistic view of human nature go?
Not directly. There needs to be an acknowledgement that the internal organization of corporations allowed now doesn't include adequate checks and balances of corporate power.
and how is this going to be done? Big Brother will have to have a chair in the boardroom.
What to do about it is another matter. I advocate a positive incentive to reorganize, rather than a heavy handed approach. But ignoring the need for change is where you get the social revolution
scenarios.
What you need is fundamentally honest people in positions of authority. It has nothing to do with corporate structure.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:37am
I was thinking of the language in the constitution
limiting the slave trade by a certain date in the future,
clearly a recognition of the reality of the times
while advancing the grand vision of universal
freedom for all people under the constitution.
now who is advocating progressive ideals in the face of human nature?
Corporations are "body politics" chartered
by the states. Though the original intent in granting
such chartered power was to achieve goals deemed
in the common interest, corporations slowly morphed
into organizations allowed to wield publicly granted
political power for ANY reason, including the raw
exercise of power in the service of greed, exploitation
and outright subversion of republican government.
The socialist relationships enjoyed by a large
number of corporations butresses this view of them
as political entities, as does their political activism
in creating legislation, regulation, and legal precedents,
particularly when fascist ideology is furthered by such efforts.
You are a lunatic.
there was a time when women voting was a progresive ideal and the reality was that they couldn't.
there was a time when blacks being treated equally was a progressive idea and the reality was that they weren't
etc...
Did I say these things didn't exist? Did the consitution in 1789 remedy these issue?
this is not an argument.
he may well be a lunatic, but what about what was said?
I was thinking of the language in the constitution
limiting the slave trade by a certain date in the future,
clearly a recognition of the reality of the times
while advancing the grand vision of universal
freedom for all people under the constitution.
Some grand visison! That is just nonsense. It was pure political compromise, that is all.
but what about what was said?
It is undecipherable nonsense.
now who is advocating progressive ideals in the face of human nature?
Basic fundamental human nature can be overcome. But it is generally not. Hence the problems we have.
when you disagreed that it's possible to have a realistic view of human nature and also have a progressive ideal as an aspiration, yes...you denied the existance of these progressive ideal that were achieved by humans and their nature.
eventually, yes it did....because people had progressive ideals that the Constitution helped become a reality.
no it wasn't.
it made sense and was completely decipherable.
but you just disagreed when it was suggested that it was possible to achieve progressive ideal.
which is it?
Did the consitution in 1789 remedy these issue?
eventually, yes it did....because people had progressive ideals that the Constitution helped become a reality.
Eventually wasn't 1789. That is what I said. Now what happened is society changed and as a consequnce, society changed the Consitution. The Consitution did not cause the changes. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
the Constitution was designed to be changed....it was that way in 1789...changable. It's one of the reasons why it's such a progressively idealistic document.
except for those amendments. don't you consider the amendments to be a part of the Constitution?
because of progressive ideals that succeeded in the face of human nature.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 10:55am
When Bush's energy policy was being publicly debated,
the views of the oil companies was overwhelmingly
favored. Often, discussion panels included ONLY
advocates of oil development, and the only thing
being discussed was whether drilling in wildlife refuges
and public lands was preferable to importing oil!
I'm not making this up: The News Hour on public
television actually had such a panel, underwritten by
oil companies!
Despite this, the underground press and the scientific
community succeeded in breaking into the mainstream
by advocating hydrogen energy and other alternative
power sources. At first the mainstream reacted by
circulating stories about solar energy based on
1970's era technology (LAUGHABLY outdated).
The first reaction was to discredit alternative
energy, ignore scientific advances and WORKING
power sources that were expanding in use (Wind, for
example). That backfired, because a swarm of alternative
energy advocates clamored for a seat at the debate,
wrote letters, published articles, etc.
After that happened, the mainstream began reporting
THE REAL STORY about the promise of alternative energy.
That's when Bush added his $1 billion initiative to
develop hydrogen. No details. No vision. No guarantee
that this money wasn't going to go to oil companies
"for study." But the mainstream media promptly dropped
alternative energy from the debate and went back to
debating where to drill. It's a clear case of corporate
conflict of interest influencing the debate in a negative
way.
the Constitution was designed to be changed....it was that way in 1789...changable. It's one of the reasons why it's such a progressively idealistic document.
That wasn't what we were discussing. Are you capapble of keeping even close to the issue being discussed?
except for those amendments. don't you consider the amendments to be a part of the Constitution?
The changes to the constitution are a reflection of the people that changed it. the consitition itself did not cuase the change in the values contained therein.
dude, i ain't reading post 4510. I ain't interested. very few others will be, either. you can write about it all you want. no one is stopping you.
it's called a brain.
you know, some of Einstein's theories are undecipherable nonsense to me.
but I'm not ignorant enough to think that means that they don't make sense or are undecipherable.
if you don't understand, ask questions.
what part of it couldn't you decipher? what part of it was nonsense?
I mean...it was in English, right?
we can agree on that, right?
you can read English.
so what is giving you problems?
so, those changes happened without the Constituion?
really?
I was discussing your dismissal of progressive ideals.
because of progressive ideals that succeeded in the face of human nature.
I don't know if you can say that. Society changes but that doesn't mean it is because of progressive ideals. Would you say Germany of the 1930's and 1940's changed due to progressive ideals? I will consider whether Russia changed from 1917 until 1989 due to progressive ideals.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 11:03am
Already does. Are you unaware of the increasingly
conflated status of the government official/corporate
exec? It's part of the problem. More of the same
isn't the solution.
That wasn't the view of the founders of our country. In their
view, human nature was corruptible by power, and there wasn't
much you could do about that. Instead, you needed a balance
of power within a structure to offset the influence of
corrupting power. I'm just arguing that the same problem
exists in corporate governance, and that the same solution
needs to be applied.
at the times in question, the ideal of women and/or blacks being equal was indeed a very progressive ideal.
so, those changes happened without the Constituion?
The social changes occured were not caused by the Consitituion, yes.
and vice versa
there you go taking things out of context again, crabs. you are waste of my time.
they were enabled by it.
which is why it's a progressive document.
it's allows progressive ideals to be achieved.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 11:06am
If I'm a lunatic, then what is the sane version of
what corporations are, how they are organized,
and what ideology they advocate?
Do you deny they are chartered by states?
Do you deny they are political actors?
Do you deny they are organized in hierachies
that systematically disenfranchise workers,
shareholders, and local governments from
exercising checks upon the power of the hiearchy?
Maybe it's the historical analogy to fascist states that
you disagree with? Well, read up on who funded,
supported, and ruled along with Hitler and Mussolini
and take a look at how they organized the state.
Corporate leaders became part of the nazi and fascist
hiearchies. I'm not making it up! LOL
In fact, they are. Corporations are "body politics" chartered
by the states. What is "body politcs?"Though the original intent in granting
such chartered power was to achieve goals deemed
in the common interest, corporations slowly morphed
into organizations allowed to wield publicly granted
political power for ANY reason, including the raw
exercise of power in the service of greed, exploitation
and outright subversion of republican government. Now this is undecipherable gibberish. It has no support in fact and is all opinion.
The socialist relationships enjoyed by a large
number of corporations butresses this view of them
as political entities, as does their political activism
in creating legislation, regulation, and legal precedents,
particularly when fascist ideology is furthered by such efforts.
Again this is gibberish. Corporations are not generally understood to be political entities. As I said before they corporations should have some input on laws that affect them. The rest is just left wing opinion based apparently on irrational hatred and fear.
jethro bodine 11/5/03 11:09am
Political compromise between those who had a grand vision
of universal freedom and those who acknowledged the
reality of the times.
I'm advocating something that is consonant
with such an approach.
they were enabled by it.
No the social changes were not enabled by the consitituion. the social changes in many circumstances occured in spite of the constitution.
it's allows progressive ideals to be achieved.
No, actually the social changes could have occured more readliy without the consitution. It certainly slowed down FDR in the early 1930's.
They are involved in our government and they should be.
then the amendments are meaningless?