Vermont Proposes Resolution To Ban ‘Corporate Personhood’

Post Reply New Topic

Uh and this includes Death Threats?

There have been plenty of death threats against pro-choice politicians. Representative Bart Stupak (D), who ironically has probably been more effective than any other single Congressman in advancing the pro-life cause, received untold numbers of death threats from right-wingers after one of his colleagues shouted "Baby killer!" at him. Previously obscure individuals who Glenn Beck listed as part of the "intelligent minority" that allegedly secretly controls the world have received death threats. President Obama receives more than 400% as many death threats as President Bush ever did.

More seriously than that, there have been a number of people who made good on their threats and killed (or attempted to kill) abortion providers. When was the last time someone was assassinated for their pro-life stance?

Yeah but all that is from liberal sources so they're obviously lying and the liberals are liars on top of being blood-thirsty killers who want to enslave humanity.

September 11, 2009

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-11/just ... s=PM:CRIME

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thre ... 68&posts=1

Apparently the pro-choice nut murdered two people.

Then we have incidents involving assault with a deadly weapon:

Fort Madison, Iowa – Pro-lifers with graphic signs were attacked by a man wielding a club during a protest at a Hillary Clinton campaign stop in Fort Madison, Iowa, on Friday, yet responding police threatened to arrest the pro-lifers if they did not immediately leave the public sidewalk. The incident was captured on video. (View video below.)

Police were parked across the street from where Dan Holman of Missionaries to the Pre-Born was standing on a public sidewalk on December 7, when a man in a pickup truck got out of his vehicle and approached Holman with a club, shouting at him to get off his property. Holman was attacked and struck with the club.

“The man continued to try and assault me in the presence of three Fort Madison police officers,” Holman told Operation Rescue. “Rather than arresting the attacker the police threatened to arrest me! The police acknowledged that I was on a public right of way but said our presence posed a traffic hazard.”

Police told Holman that if he wanted charges pressed against the man with the club, he would have to go to the police station and fill out a report. Holman complied with the order to leave under threat of arrest, and later filed a complaint against his attacker, identified as Jim Mitchell. Holman is considering legal action against the Fort Madison Police.

Holman’s group was protesting Clinton, a radical supporter of abortion, in advance of the Iowa Caucuses, which will be held on January 3, 2008. He has protested Clinton at 32 of her Iowa appearances.

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives ... n-protest/

The numbers don't match up; the overwhelming majority of the violence between pro-lifers and pro-choicers has gone in the other direction.

But in any case, your initial point has been disproved. Right-wingers issue death threats to their political opponents on a regular basis, significantly more frequently than left-wingers.

First you claim that Left wingers don't use violence and I debunk that, now you're claiming that you've proven me wrong. The fact that the MSM only chooses to report one side doesn't mean it isn't happening on the other side.

Or are you saying that it's okay for Pro-abortion parties to shoot people and/or beat people with clubs.

You really can't read. You claimed that the left would target corporations that contribute to the right, I pointed out that the right does so to the left, you denied that, I proved you wrong.


No. Please refrain from making false statements about my position. Violence is the wrong way to do things.

I never denied there are nuts that would make death threats. However the right doesn't have the Feds trying to get people's names to release to the public so they can be targetted either.



I should have used a question mark instead of period, that was a typo, I was asking a question Orwell.

Actually it makes more sense that pro-lifers would kill abortionists, after all from their point of view the abortionists are legal murderers. This of course would put them on par with terrorists. But it doesn't really prove that the right wing is more violent than the left wing.

Democracy, not demoncrazy topic

+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Inuyasha has to do is to declare the US a demoncrazy republic and then the corporation can be whatever he wants. And now he has derailed this thread with his antiabortion coalition trainwreck.

Poltics here is cheap.

@ sartresue

I haven't derailed anything, I was pointing out how the radical left will create laws to try to keep people and businesses from donating to Republicans, but will make exceptions for Unions.

That isn't derailing the topic, that is pointing out there may be a more self-serving interest in play (which is also the more likely explanation).

Personally I feel you are both right. Politics from any perspective is trading power as currency and by this very nature is self serving, left or right

I hope it passes. People should be held accountable as individuals.

If it passes it could probably end up before the US Supreme Court and ends up getting thrown out. Odds are Unions are exempt from this legislation, which is conveinent for Democrats.

Actually, that is exactly what the proposal is saying.

"An amendment to the United States Constitution ... which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States," would do precisely that. The moment that the Constitution says that, the Common Law and all state and federal law that includes the unqualified word, "person," will become invalid in so far as it applies to corporations.

So, if corporations need to retain the right to enter into contracts, how are you going to go about doing that? If corporations are going to retain the right to sue and be sued, how are you going to go about doing that?



Why shouldn't corporations have a right to privacy?

Typically a company minute book is divided in three sections: material that is available to the public (articles of incorporation, bylaws, register of directors, register of members, etc.); material that is available to members only (minutes of members' meetings, financial statements) and material that is available to directors only (minutes of directors meetings, leases and contracts, etc.)

If I incorporate a personal services corporation for my medical practice, it will be a corporation with share capital, operated for profit. Why should any person be eligible to walk in off the street and look at my financial records? Even if we restrict our case to publicly traded corporations, privacy still has an important role to play. We require certain levels of disclosure from publicly traded companies, in the form of audit reports, securities regulatory reporting and the like. If we are concerned about extracting more information for these entities, then there are plenty of legal avenues in which to do that.



Corporate liability is a legitimate area for public policy debate--but the principal that shareholders' liability is limited to their investments is a sound one that we would tamper with at our peril. (Remember, it's the shareholders' liability that is limited, not the company's.)